#the similar nature of the
#information is many human
#artifacts”

So humans designed life?

#it is (functionally) specified;
#it cannot be the product of
#known laws of necessity

Irreducible Compexity (AKA God of the Gaps/Argument From Ignorance)? How do you know that it cannot?

#These are the facts: simple,
#incontrovertible. I have never
#found any serious refutation
#of these things.

But those are not facts at all. They are mere assertions with no supporting evidence or argument.

#unguided mechanisms
#(typically RV + NS)

Natural Selection is not unguided.

#Because RV can never
#produce CSI.

If by “RV” you mean “random variation”, you are basically setting up a straw man here. Why do you insist on ignoring NS when it’s convenient for your argument?

Furthermore, you have not demonstrated CSI. All you have is a number of assertions.

#it is complex (probability
#of the functional target
#vs the whole search
#space < 1:10^150)

This is another straw man which makes the assumption that everything happened in one single huge step.

#NS could succeed (scarcely)
#only if every single step of
#bitlike variation (or at least
#the vast majority of them)
#could bear a selectable
#advantage and be fixed.

This is yet another false assertions. Most mutations are neutral, some are advantageous. Those that are detrimental are likely do disappear because it puts the life form at a disadvantage.

#Complex information is not
#the accumulation of sigle
#step increases of information.

Yet another false assertion. Gene duplication and mutation to the duplicated gene will lead to the genes being different over time.

#Is darwinian evoloution a
#scientific theory? Yes, it is.
#Why? Because it is falsifiable.
#Has ID falsified it? You bet.

As I have demonstrated, you have not falsified. At best, you have falsified a straw man.

#So, do you agree that the
#negative part of ID “is”
#definitely science?

No, as it is apparently based on false claims and groundless assertions.

#But you cannot say that a
#theory which falsifies anothe
#theory is beyond the
#boundaries of science.

There is no “theory of ID”. Even the DI admits and leading ID proponents admit that.

#We have already noticed
#the “fact” that the same
#kind of information is
#observable in biological
#information, in human
#designed artifacts (or at
#least in part of them),
#and nowhere else.

Another groundless assertion. And are you saying that there is human design in life forms? Really?

#So, the final hypothesis
#of ID

I thought you said it was a theory?

#But not more than believing
#in the existence of laws of
#nature, or in the existence
#of matter and energy, or in
#the value of nathemathics
#or inference or statistics.
#All those positions have a
#bit of philosophy in them.
#But nobody has ever
#considered those
#assumptions “beyond the
#boundaries of science”.

Another false assertion. The laws of nature are not assumptions. They are testable models.

#please explain how a design
#can come out without a
#conscious designer

You have yet to show design in life. Apparently you claim human design, but I doubt that you think humans created all life on earth.

#Billions of examples of CSI,
#of intricated design,
#without any possible
#explanation.

Appeal to Ignorance/God of the Gaps, or argument from personal incredulity again. You may not know about the explanations, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, and that no one else knows.

#I have not even started
#to address the problem of
#abiogenesis.

I somehow doubt that you know anything about it, since you don’t even seem to know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis

#the immense quantity of
#things with the properties
#of design in pre-human
#eras (biological beings)

In other words, humans designed life? Or God is human?

#Let’s say that I have not
#used the concept of IC
#until now.

That’s because IC has already been refuted. And IC is a fallacy anyway. More appeal to ignorance/God of the gaps.

I certainly go on, even if I would have appreciated at least some comment on my previous answer to you (#19). Anyway:

You would like new arguments, but I have to remind you that your arguments are a stereotyped repetition of old things, so it is maybe unavoidable that some of my counter-argument are not completely unknown. But I will try to be as clear and detaile as possible.

You say:
“What is the point? I’ve done this a thousand times before and it is a futile discussion. You refuse to accept the boundaries of science, and continually assert that ID is within those boundaries, when the most superficial analysis shows that it is not, and can never be considered a scientific theory. ID, at best, is an idea.”

I am afraid we are not beginning well. I would like to seriously answer, but where is your argument here? I just see a list of undetailed assertions. I can agree only with one thing: your analysis is most superficial.
A discussion is certainly futile if there are no arguments to discuss. So I will try to imagine your arguments for you.
You say that I (or we at ID) refuse to accept the boundaries of science, but are not telling us what those boundaries are, least of all who has decided them. My answer is of two kinds:

a) The most important, is that there are not fixed boundaries of science, least of all conventional boundaries decided by men. The nature of science, its definition, its meaning, its boundaries, its methods, its natural history, and many other related things are certainly important issues, but as many other issues of the same kind they are objects of the discipline called: “phulosophy of science”. And if you have even a minimun awareness of the contents of that discipline, and of its history, you have to aknowledge that there is no consensus about those issues. But even if there were some consensus, that would not mean that the problems are solved. Phylosophy is a constantly changing discipline, and no living (or past) authority has the right to set forever any philosophical issue, least of all those of the phylosophy of science.

b) But let’s say that we methodologically accept some definition of science, and therefore some boundaries. I can well do that. I can even accept the most common models of science, from Popper on. What I can’t accept is that science define itself in terms of what it should find, in other words in terms of its expected achievements. That’s circular reasoning, and very bad methodology. It’s the surest way to find “only” what you expect, which is exactly what science shouldn’t do.

But, if we stick top a conventional definition of science (classic scientific method, Popperian falsifiability, and so on), then my argument is that ID is completely within those boundaries. That’s why.

- ID starts from the observation of facts, as any scientific theory should do. And for facts, I really mean facts, that is observables.

1) The first fact is the special nature of the information contained in biological structures (genomes, proteins, etc.).

2) The second fact is the similar nature of the information is many human artifacts, that is in designed products.

The formal properties of those two kinds of information are the same. Dembski has formalized them as CSI (complex specified information), or if you prefer FSCI (functionally specified complex information). CSI is characterized, very brifly by three properites: it is complex (probability of the functional target vs the whole search space < 1:10^150); it is (functionally) specified; it cannot be the product of known laws of necessity.

3) The third fact is that no CSI has ever been observed which is not in one of the two mentioned classes: biological information and human artifacts.

These are the facts: simple, incontrovertible. I have never found any serious refutation of these things.

And here comes the theory, ID theory. Always in brief, it has two parts:

1) A negative part. Actual theories which try to explain biological information as the product of unguided mechanisms (typically RV + NS) are not acceptable. They are flawed in theis fundamental logic structure. In other words, they are not good theories. (They are also unsupported by facts, but that’s another story).

Why? Because RV can never produce CSI. It can never have the necessary probabilistic resources, even if the universe were older than it is, and if all its resources had been dedicated to that specific search. That’s the meaning of the UPB (1:10^150) in the definition otself of CSI.
And NS? Nothimg to do even with its help. NS could succeed (scarcely) only if every single step of bitlike variation (or at least the vast majority of them) could bear a selectable advantage and be fixed. That’s impossible, not true, unimaginable. It simply is not that way. You can show that with any kind of CSI: computer programs, spoken or written language, proteins, and so on. Complex information is not the accumulation of sigle step increases of information.

So, RV + NS simply cannot do it. That’s the negative part of ID. Refutation of any possible theory of generation of biological information by unguided forces?

Is that science? You can bet it is. The most important pronciple from Popper is, as even babies know, falsifiability. Is darwinian evoloution a scientific theory? Yes, it is. Why? Because it is falsifiable. Has ID falsified it? You bet.
And, as you can see, I have not even cited the concept of IC…
So, do you agree that the negative part of ID “is” definitely science? You can stick to the point that you don’t believe it is true, that such a falsification is wrong. That’s all another issue. But you cannot say that a theory which falsifies anothe theory is beyond the boundaries of science.

2) And finally, the positive part of ID. We have already noticed the “fact” that the same kind of information is observable in biological information, in human designed artifacts (or at least in part of them), and nowhere else. A scientific theory should try to explain that. The simplest, and most parsimonious, hypothesis is that a similar causal process is shared by the two things.

Please, note that we really don’t know the nature of that causal process. In the case of human artifacts, for instance, we don’t know why humans are able to generate CSI so easily. That is not a simple question at all. It probably has deep implications in the theory of the mind and of consciousness. But, in the end, the truth is that we don’t know.

But even if we don’t know the real nature of the process, we have givem it a name: we call it design. After all, we observe it happening daily, so a name was certainly useful.

So, what is the positive part of the ID theory? Very simple. We have facts, we have similar properties exclusive to two classes of things, we have a mysterious process which can generate one of the two classes (human design), we just hypothesize that the second class of things is generated by a similar process which we similarly call design.

We could stop there. And we are completely within the boundaries of science.

But there is another facet of the issue. The process is descign, but we usually call “designer” the originator of the process, which, in the case of human artifacts, is a conscious being. We usually associate design with a conscious designer, because that’s the absolute rule in the class of human artifacts. We even see that in our personal experience: when we design something, when we speak or write or generate computer programs, we do that consciously, and through intermediate conscious processes. There is no other way.

So, the final hypothesis of ID is that the design we observe in nature is the product of an intelligent, conscious designer. Is that philosophy. Perhaps a bit. But not more than believing in the existence of laws of nature, or in the existence of matter and energy, or in the value of nathemathics or inference or statistics. All those positions have a bit of philosophy in them. But nobody has ever considered those assumptions “beyond the boundaries of science”.

Ah, but you are obstinate. You still want to argue that this last part, that there is an intelligent designer, is beyond the boundaries of science…
Well’ I’ll humaour you for a moment. Then, please explain how a design can come out without a conscious designer, and don’t repeat the same old lies abou unguided principles and blind watchmakers: ID has already falsified all that in its negative part, which is completely within the boundaries of science for any sentient (and maybe intelligent) being.

So, what are you left with? Billions of examples of CSI, of intricated design, without any possible explanation. In other words, magic. Or sheer mysticism. The failure of science. The failure of the desire to understand.

So, I will stick to the designer hypothesis. It is simple, it is parsimonious, it is a natural explanation of observed facts, and it really opens the way to serious research and reflections: who is the designer(s)? how did he implement design in the biological world? when? with which modalities? what is the exclusive property of consciousness which allows the generation of new CSI? And so on.

You say:

““Irreducible complexity” is not a scientific idea. It can never be.”

I can’t understand why you say that. But frankly, after the long previous discourse, I am tired. Let’s say that I have not used the concept of IC until now. If you want, we can discuss it later.

You say:
“There ID can never be a scientific concept. It’s that simple.”

I have tried to show that it’s not that simple at all.

“ToE does not address abiogenesis, admitedly, but to invoke a designer is not parsimouious.”

I have not even started to address the problem of abiogenesis. I have been generous. And anything is more parsimoniuos than giving false explanations.

“It requires a concept for which we have no evidence. Thus, it is not a rational answer.”

Here, frankly, I believe you are precipitating in an epistemological abyss.
Evidence for concepts? Evidence is sought for theories, not for concepts. And if theories explain facts, then they are supported by them.
Not a rational answer? Because (you say) there is no evidence? Do you think all rational answers are based on evidence? What about logics and mathenathics?
Let’s pretend you have only said something with a meaning, like:

“ID requires an assumption (the existence of designers in pre-human times) for which at present we have no evidence. Therefore, it is a scientific theory unsupported by facts.”

Well, that sentence has meaning, at least. But it is wrong.

As we have seen, the assumption, however bold it may seem, “is” supported by a lot of evidence: the immense quantity of things with the properties of design in pre-human eras (biological beings).

In other words, ID, even in its strongest form (hypothesis of an intelligent designer) “is” a scientific theory, and it “is” supported by evidence.

You are still free to reject it on scientific grounds. But you have never tried to do that.

“Irreducible complexity” is not a scientific idea.

I sort of agree with you there. It’s basic engineering concepts applied to biology. Although there are others who extend the concept. The discovery of irreducibly complex features within the Universe (e.g. flagella) might be called the Weak Irreducible Complexity Principle and the belief that the Universe itself is irreducibly complex as the Strong Irreducible Complexity Principle.

And there’s no doubt that IC is a reality in biology since direct stepwise pathways cannot produce the majority of the machines we see. The point of dispute is whether or not indirect stepwise genetic pathways are feasible with ONLY none-foresighted variation (I say “only” because Intelligent Evolution has NFV acting to a certain extent).

So asserting that IC does not exist at all only makes you sound foolish. In order to falsify our claim, a thorough stepwise indirect genetic pathway must be extrapolated from the data. Why foolish? Even if Darwinian mechanisms are discovered to be capable of producing core IC systems with 500+ informational bits the concept of IC will still be valid since it would still be in reference to direct pathways.

There’s also Weak IC and Strong IC. Weak IC is a system composed of 2-4 components, many of which should be reachable by indirect pathways. Strong IC is systems with tens and hundreds of components which is the real barrier.

There’s also core IC, meaning that you could have an overall system that can still function if some components are stripped away. Like a bike if it’s seat was removed. The “core” refers to the components that must exist in order for the system to function at all. Although some of these non-core components may be responsible for increasing efficiency levels to the point that the survivability of the organism is affected.

Then of course this system with a core function must be complex enough.

It looks like you sacred him off with logic and evidence.

It’s kind of a shame.