Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Intelligent design requires evidence: Ah, but what can be considered evidence?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Recently, an ID-friendly scientist assured me that intelligent design would easily be accepted if only the ID guys would come up with evidence. To my mind, that shows the difficulty people have in understanding what is at stake: the very question of what may count as evidence. Here is how I replied:   
Bench science, like book editing, is independent of content under normal circumstances.

But as Thomas Kuhn points out in Structure of Scientific Revolutions, paradigms determine what counts as evidence.

Mark what follows:

If materialism is assumed to be true and Darwinism is the creation story of materialism, then Darwinism is the best available explanation for the history of life.

So Darwinism is treated as true.

I am NOT saying that that follows logically.

Materialism could be true but its orthodox creation story could be untrue at the same time. Some other materialist story could better account for the evidence, for example.

However, most people do not think that way. (I am describing a course of mental events here, not a logical argument.)

Because Darwinism is treated as true, questioning it is irrational or malign.

If you are a scientist, it is no defence to say that you have uncovered evidence against Darwinism. That makes you a heretic.

Don’t try claiming that you do science better without Darwinism. If you don’t believe it, you shouldn’t be doing science at all, right?

The purpose of science is to uncover the evidence for materialism, and you may as well deny Genesis in a God-fearing chapel as deny Darwinism at the Smithsonian.

You could outperform all your colleagues in research and accomplish nothing except get yourself denied tenure.

What if a theory that clashes with Darwinism better explains changes over time (and even makes verified predictions)?

Well, here’s where the importance of a materialist paradigm comes in: Any explanation that conforms to Darwinism will be preferred to any explanation that does not conform to it – irrespective of a difference in explanatory power that favours the latter.

In the research for the neuroscience book for which I am Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard’s co-author (The Spiritual Brain, Harper, March 2007), I found that really inane and unsatisfactory explanations for various mental states were preferred if they supported the materialist paradigm, over against better explanations that didn’t particularly support it. Sometimes it was ludicrous. But always it was deadly serious.

Kuhn’s Structure is a very useful book to read, for understanding how paradigms determine what can even be considered as evidence.

Thus, in my humble opinion, evidence that supports an ID perspective will be primarily useful to the ID scientists themselves in understanding their own view of the world.

It will be useless for making any general point against the materialist paradigm. ID-friendly evidence will merely be shelved as a problem to be solved or reinterpreted along materialist lines, no matter how flimsy.

So yes, by all means, ID guys, find evidence - but mainly to educate yourself and sketch out your own theory. The more evidence you find, the more unwelcome you will be elsewhere.

ID biochemist Mike Behe was compared to Osama bin Laden in Biology and Philosophy (2003), and that wasn’t because he was thought to be a crank. One doesn’t compare a crank to Osama bin Laden.

Note: bin laden? Yes … here’s the note from By Design or by Chance? “Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg explain in “Darwin’s nihilistic idea: evolution and the meaninglessless of life,” Biology and Philosophy 18: 653–668, 2003 http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0169-3867 that “Stalin or Osama bin Laden, or Michael Behe, or your favourite villain, is also “an utterly idiosyncratic structure …” The message of the article is that Darwinism requires nihilism. It’s not clear just how these folks understand the nihilism but the grouping of names is unsettling.”
  
After I posted this item to the Post-Darwinist, a commenter kindly noted the following:

At Saturday, October 28, 2006 6:57:24 PM, Jim Sherwood said…

It seems that Michael Behe has done excellent scientific research. He has been listed in American Men and Women of Science, the century-old biographical dictionary of “leaders” in American science, since the edition published in 1994: for 12 years. He is cited for research in the structure of DNA, among other things, in AMWS. He was first listed at the relatively young age of 42.

Since biologist Jerry Coyne has attacked Behe in The New Republic as somehow a “third-rate biologist,” it seems strange that Coyne has never been listed in AMWS. And Coyne published his Ph.D thesis in 1978, so he can’t be much younger than Behe, who is 54 and published his thesis in the same year.

Perhaps Coyne will get better “reviews” from his “peers” as a scientist if he writes enough articles in nonscientific magazines attacking intelligent design theory? Who knows?

Well, yes, Jim, but if I were a Darwinist just now, I would prefer to attack ID than defend Darwinism. Lots of chuckleheads would applaud me for attacking ID even if I wasn’t making any sense at all, but defending Darwinian evolution is currently hard work and slim pickings. You know the sort of thing: Black squirrels survive in Washington, D.C., just as they do in Toronto. Galapagos finches fatten their beaks, or else they thin them, depending on the season. The human race is supposedly dividing  into clever gods vs. moronic dwarfs, though this has never happened before for tens of thousands of years. 

All I ever say about any of this is, no wonder there is an intelligent design controversy and it does not go away! 

 

Comments
Just in case mjb2001 has trouble with dictionaries- as it appears most anti-IDists do: Main Entry: 1de·sign Pronunciation: di-'zIn Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, to outline, indicate, mean, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French designer to designate, from Medieval Latin designare, from Latin, to mark out, from de- + signare to mark -- more at SIGN transitive verb 1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : DEVISE, CONTRIVE 2 a : to conceive and plan out in the mind b : to have as a purpose : INTEND c : to devise for a specific function or end 3 archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name 4 a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b : to draw the plans for intransitive verb 1 : to conceive or execute a plan 2 : to draw, lay out, or prepare a design - de·sign·ed·ly /-'zI-n&d-lE/ adverb Main Entry: mech·a·nism Pronunciation: 'me-k&-"ni-z&m Function: noun 1 a : a piece of machinery b : a process, technique, or system for achieving a result 2 : mechanical operation or action : WORKING 2 3 : a doctrine that holds natural processes (as of life) to be mechanically determined and capable of complete explanation by the laws of physics and chemistry 4 : the fundamental processes involved in or responsible for an action, reaction, or other natural phenomenon -- compare DEFENSE MECHANISMJoseph
November 1, 2006
November
11
Nov
1
01
2006
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
DaveScot, Would intelligent agency not be the cause? Isn't the code itself the mechanism? Or is the code the intelligent agent?todd
November 1, 2006
November
11
Nov
1
01
2006
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
Todd If you rule out design as a possibility from the start, you do so not because it isn’t possible, but because it isn’t philosophically palatable. Well said!tribune7
November 1, 2006
November
11
Nov
1
01
2006
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
mjb2001 If intelligent agency isn't a mechanism then what is it?DaveScot
November 1, 2006
November
11
Nov
1
01
2006
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Jehu I think he implied that the solution contained all the appropriate nucleic acids. He then describes putting many strands of RNA in the solution, strands around the same size as a ribozyme but not a ribozyme, and nothing happens. But if instead he puts just a single strand of a ribozyme in it within 20 minutes it's teaming with copies of the ribozyme. Perhaps that's an incorrect reading. It may be teaming with copies of the other RNA strand. He might have worded it in a less ambiguous way. You might want to follow the Joyce link. There's less ambiguity. DaveScot
November 1, 2006
November
11
Nov
1
01
2006
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
And I would be willing to give evolutionism a chance if they could demonstrate what mutations were responsible for what changes. mjb2001: Ok. Here’s a little analogy. You call me up in the morning from your house and you tell me you’re coming over to mine right away. An hour later you arrive in a car. I’m not entirely sure what roads you took, but with a little investigative research I can probably figure out the most likely route. I also know about how fast you traveled so I can deduce your average speed. What I cannot tell you is, at any given point in your trip how fast you were at that exact moment, which lane of the highway you were in, or when and if you stopped for gas. But your 'analogy' is goal-oriented. Evolutionism is not. Therefore its use, as all of your "arguments", are un-informed and deceptive. mjb2001: When you say things like “As of today we don’t even know whether or not any amount of mutations coupled with any selection process can bring about the range of change required” you are basically saying we don’t even know whether or not you even took a car to my house. You might have flown. Or swam. Or teleported. No I am not basically saying anything close to that. What I am saying is exactly what was posted. We don't know. The best we can do is assume/ speculate that some mechanism did. And your continued reliance on your very flawed 'analogy' is very telling. THAT is the point- the double-standard is obvious and has been exposed in this post. mjb2001: No, it’s not a double-standard. All evidence to the contrary, of course. Here it is again- and ignoring it will not make reality go away: "It thus seems the Darwinist really does not have that much of advantage over the ID proponent when it comes to the mechanism complaint. Not all scientists are convinced that all biological history = microevolution + deep time. [3] And when it comes to outlining the specific mechanisms at play, Darwinists often have little more to offer than just-so stories which have yet to be told in glorious scientific detail. Thus, if we are to be satisfied with a vague appeal to the blind watchmaker as the cause behind some biotic feature, there is little room to complain that “ID is the mechanism” is too vague. And if we demand the specifics of the implementation of ID (the actual mechanism), then we should be willing to offer the specifics of the blind watchmaker’s ancient work. " mjb2001: Biology expects you to come up with mechanisms. Biology doesn't expect anything. People might have expectations, but as I have already stated and supported, they are misguided. mjb2001: That you aren’t convinced the mechanisms are valid is irrelevent. ID doesn’t even bother to try. Just as evolution and abiogenesis are made into separate questions, even though abiogenesis DIRECTLY impacts any subsequent theory of evolution, the designer and the process are separate from the detection of design and the subsequent study of it. Did you look up the words "design" and "mechanism"? Do you now understand that design is indeed a mechanism? And it is as valid of a mechanism as RM&NS. That said there have been at least a few specific mechanisms mentioned- front end loading; built-in responses to environmental cues (Dr Lee Spetner in "Not By Chance"); and a similar type of goal-oriented program put forth in a Feb 2003 SciAm artcle titled "Evolving Inventions".Joseph
November 1, 2006
November
11
Nov
1
01
2006
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
mjb, I believe Joseph's point is there are some things hard science does not or cannot tell us. We fill in the gaps inferentially. RM&NS+Time is just as inferential as ID. Since genetic code is the mechanism by which an individual organism unfolds from an initial single cell state, and individual organisms are required for populations, the mechanism for species must originate in the same place. ID doesn't disagree with the mechanism for cellular energy synthesis and darwinism didn't discover it. The rest is speculation informed by philosophy, which is ultimately have faith based premises. As Joseph as pointed out, what science has shown us via our own designed mutations and/or selection (breeding) - what we do see is a range of acceptable change, which has never crossed the form boundary. Finch beaks serve the same purpose for different environmental conditions. We infer design because life is wholly dependent upon information, which is a product of intelligence, and there is no empirical support information is produced by happenstance due to the properties of the physical universe. So ID has a mechanism - genetics and has a cause for the mechanism - intelligence. This makes room for prescribed evolution or designed models of individual classes of life. If you rule out design as a possibility from the start, you do so not because it isn't possible, but because it isn't philosophically palatable.todd
November 1, 2006
November
11
Nov
1
01
2006
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
And I would be willing to give evolutionism a chance if they could demonstrate what mutations were responsible for what changes. Ok. Here's a little analogy. You call me up in the morning from your house and you tell me you're coming over to mine right away. An hour later you arrive in a car. I'm not entirely sure what roads you took, but with a little investigative research I can probably figure out the most likely route. I also know about how fast you traveled so I can deduce your average speed. What I cannot tell you is, at any given point in your trip how fast you were at that exact moment, which lane of the highway you were in, or when and if you stopped for gas. When you say things like "As of today we don’t even know whether or not any amount of mutations coupled with any selection process can bring about the range of change required" you are basically saying we don't even know whether or not you even took a car to my house. You might have flown. Or swam. Or teleported. THAT is the point- the double-standard is obvious and has been exposed in this post. No, it's not a double-standard. Biology expects you to come up with mechanisms. That you aren't convinced the mechanisms are valid is irrelevent. ID doesn't even bother to try.mjb2001
November 1, 2006
November
11
Nov
1
01
2006
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
About mechanisms I should add that no one is preventing anyone from delving into possible/ plausible specific mechanisms of design. ID, being the detection and study of (the design) just makes the designer and the process a separate question. Which, as reality demonstrates is OK because one does not have to know either, the designer nor the process, before determining design and then studying it- perhaps in the hope of determining the answers to those questions.Joseph
November 1, 2006
November
11
Nov
1
01
2006
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
joseph: “Nice strawman. I do NOT and NEVER have denied experimental biology. I do say that has nothing to do with the ToE, which is obvious from the responses given.” great ape: I didn’t say you denied experimental biology; I said you denied an entire branch of experimental biology dealing with the generation of hypotheses based on ToE and their testing. Whatever you think of its merits, it exists. Consult the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, for instance–pretty much everything in there is testing some ToE-generated hypothesis. I’m having trouble deciding if you’re for real or if you’re just pulling folks’ chain here. I think someone pulled your chain, you bought it and now you are trying to sell it. However I'm not buying. Dr Skell and many others disagree with you. Therefore they must also be "pulling your chain". Now how about some ToE research that demonstrates a population of land mammals can "evolve" into a population of cetaceans? Or how about just the mutations required for upright, bipedal walking? Or even some data that tells us what makes an organism what it is, beyond the following: What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following : Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”
“Common descent is accepted on faith, not science. Those who accept common descent and won’t accept ID just expose their double-standards.” great ape: I don’t accept common descent on faith. I accept common descent because predictions predicated on common descent are continually confirmed. Common descent doesn't make any predictions. It just accomodates the data as its proponents see fit. great ape: While you can make limited arguments that shared features also indicate common design, that doesn’t work for DNA elements that can be shown and have been shown, via population genetics, to be evolving neutrally. When neutrally evolving "DNA elements" can be shown to provide the changes required you will have a point. great ape: Predictions about common descent hold for these loci as well (e.g. deletions in pseudogenes, viral sequences, retrotransposons, etc.) No contest, no question, case is closed and won’t be reopened. Common descent didn't even predict sexual reproduction. great ape: You can get open minded people to hear you out over design, but you’ll never be taken remotely seriously trying to deny something that has been so solidly established as common descent. Common descent is only "established" in the minds of those who don't know any better. No one, I repeat, NO ONE even knows whether or not any mutation/ selection process can bring about the changes required. And guess what? There isn't any way to scientifically test, repeat nor verify the premise. IOW common descent isn't science. The best one can hope for is to assume common descent and then set out to find what they think is confirming data. However reality demonstrates wobbling stability and sexual reproduction puts an end to "evolution" (that is on the grand scale you support).Joseph
November 1, 2006
November
11
Nov
1
01
2006
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
joseph: "Nice strawman. I do NOT and NEVER have denied experimental biology. I do say that has nothing to do with the ToE, which is obvious from the responses given." I didn't say you denied experimental biology; I said you denied an entire branch of experimental biology dealing with the generation of hypotheses based on ToE and their testing. Whatever you think of its merits, it exists. Consult the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, for instance--pretty much everything in there is testing some ToE-generated hypothesis. I'm having trouble deciding if you're for real or if you're just pulling folks' chain here. "Common descent is accepted on faith, not science. Those who accept common descent and won’t accept ID just expose their double-standards." I don't accept common descent on faith. I accept common descent because predictions predicated on common descent are continually confirmed. While you can make limited arguments that shared features also indicate common design, that doesn't work for DNA elements that can be shown and have been shown, via population genetics, to be evolving neutrally. Predictions about common descent hold for these loci as well (e.g. deletions in pseudogenes, viral sequences, retrotransposons, etc.) No contest, no question, case is closed and won't be reopened. You can get open minded people to hear you out over design, but you'll never be taken remotely seriously trying to deny something that has been so solidly established as common descent.great_ape
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
mjb2001: I’ll be honest, I think ID is a bunch of BS. Given the materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck, which is total BS, one must wonder what your position is. mjb2001: But I’m willing to give design inference a chance if ID proponents would start addressing mechanisms. And I would be willing to give evolutionism a chance if they could demonstrate what mutations were responsible for what changes. As of today we don't even know whether or not any amount of mutations coupled with any selection process can bring about the range of change required. And then there is genetic homeostasis, which the best you can do is hand-wave away. mjb2001: I do not think that “design” in and of itself is a mechanism. Unless you redefine "design" and "mechanism", design is definitely a mechanism under currently accepted definitions of both. mjb2001: But when I here people say that ID isn’t responsible for coming up with mechanistic alternatives to the modern theory of evolution, I again have serious doubts to the power of the theory. They say it for very good reasons: 1) The ONLY way to possibly determine a specific design mechanism or implementation process, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the object in question. 2) ID and mechanisms:
It thus seems the Darwinist really does not have that much of advantage over the ID proponent when it comes to the mechanism complaint. Not all scientists are convinced that all biological history = microevolution + deep time. [3] And when it comes to outlining the specific mechanisms at play, Darwinists often have little more to offer than just-so stories which have yet to be told in glorious scientific detail. Thus, if we are to be satisfied with a vague appeal to the blind watchmaker as the cause behind some biotic feature, there is little room to complain that "ID is the mechanism" is too vague. And if we demand the specifics of the implementation of ID (the actual mechanism), then we should be willing to offer the specifics of the blind watchmaker's ancient work.
mjb2001: I believe Dembski claims that he doesn’t need to get into the piddling little details of the mechanisms by which ID accounts for the diversity of life but I find that disingenuous when the main critique of RM+NS is that there is nothing but “story-telling” because there is no detailed evolutionary pathways worked out. THAT is the point- the double-standard is obvious and has been exposed in this post.Joseph
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
Because then it isn’t a theory or an explanation or anything really. It’s just a critique. But if the critique is on target, why would you want to continue to believe something that can't be?tribune7
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
DaveScott
How can a molecule have the same number of atoms and seems to be similar to an RNA molecule, and yet it doesn’t do anything biological?” You put a bunch of it in a solution and it just sits there and eventually decays. But if you put just a single strand of ribozyme in the solution, 20 minutes later the whole thing is teeming with copies of the molecule.
Correct me if I am wrong but in order for this thing to work don't you need free nucleotides, an RNA template, and a ribozyme? Or does the ribozyme just duplicate itself? Where do the nucleotides come from? What catalyzes the nucleotides to form RNA? Assuming you can get RNA and a ribozyme together in a solution that allows the ribozyme to catalyze and duplicate itself, then what? What is the next gradual step towards life that confers a selective advantage on the RNA?Jehu
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
If it is shown that a model fails, why is there a responsiblity to provide a replacement? Because then it isn't a theory or an explanation or anything really. It's just a critique. I'll be honest, I think ID is a bunch of BS. But I'm willing to give design inference a chance if ID proponents would start addressing mechanisms. I do not think that "design" in and of itself is a mechanism. The closest I've seen is the idea of "front-loading". I find that very interesting and I've seen it discussed very little by anyone other than DaveScot here. It's readily testable, sounds perfectly consistent with what is observed in the historical record of life, and I'm willing to give that one a shot. But when I here people say that ID isn't responsible for coming up with mechanistic alternatives to the modern theory of evolution, I again have serious doubts to the power of the theory. I believe Dembski claims that he doesn't need to get into the piddling little details of the mechanisms by which ID accounts for the diversity of life but I find that disingenuous when the main critique of RM+NS is that there is nothing but "story-telling" because there is no detailed evolutionary pathways worked out.mjb2001
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Not to kick a dead snowflake, but I think the difference is between self-ordering and self-organizing.todd
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
mjb And evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, pro or con. Evolution 101 I maintain the same with ID and common decent. I maintain otherwise. So there! It can’t constantly point out where “darwinian” mechanisms fail and in the same breath deny that it has the responsibility to come up with an alternative. If it is shown that a model fails, why is there a responsiblity to provide a replacement? The fact that you can be a YEC and be accepted into the ID fold indicates that ID is not serious about finding evidence. Are you aware that contemporary YECers have made valuable advances to the biological sciences -- far more more so than the best known Darwinistic polemicists? Because there is ample, ample evidence that the earth is billions of years old. There is. And can you understand why it is not unreasonable to discount it? If ID is constent with common descent and YEC, then it is not a valid theory because evolution and special creation (in that complex “kinds” are created de novo and do not evolve into other “kinds”) are in direct opposition. ID is neutral on it. And if ID is consistent with both of them, it says absolutely nothing useful about *how* life changes over time. It doesn't try, although by effectively rebutting bald materialism it does allow for other things to be considered by reasonable people than undirected forces as the source of biodiversity.tribune7
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Mattison Yes, but this paragraph really amounts to a heap of rubbish. Oh dear. I struck a nerve. I'm afraid the rubbish is all yours as I will show. There’s no such thing as a ’self-replicating polymer that evolves over time.’ It’s a fantasy in the absence of enzymes. Enzymes ARE polymers. Duh. But if your point was that nucleic acid based polymers can't self replicate absent amino acid polymers then you're way behind the 8-ball already. See ribozymes and autocatalysis and Rebek and Joyce. The project leader himself has this to say:
DS: That will be a good question to ask to each of the team members, because I’m sure you’ll get a different answer. To me, the big question is, “How can a molecule have the same number of atoms and seems to be similar to an RNA molecule, and yet it doesn’t do anything biological?” You put a bunch of it in a solution and it just sits there and eventually decays. But if you put just a single strand of ribozyme in the solution, 20 minutes later the whole thing is teeming with copies of the molecule. And not only that, you’ve left it in the sun, so it got hot, and it’s full of copies which are slightly different – they’ve evolved to degrade less under sunlight than the original molecule you put in. So what is the difference between the two molecules? The way it looks now, discovering the difference will be accomplished in the lab. I once asked Gerald Joyce, “Why do you spend all this time in the lab, when we can build the molecule in the computer, atom by atom, and then run this computer program to see what the different possibilities are?” He convinced me that there was no computer on Earth big enough to do this. The molecular reactions in the lab, in just one second, are about a million times faster than what a computer can do. There won’t be a computer capable of that for at least 50 years.
I’m not interested in ‘falsfication’ of ID. Oh, I didn't know that. Let's pack our bags and go home everyone. Mattison isn't interested in falsification of ID. I am interested in ID based research. Fine, leave falsification of ID up to Harvard and their gargantuan waste of money, pursuing an idea that not only isn’t supported by the evidence, but lacks even a semblance of parsimony. Mattison pooh-poohs a multidisciplinary list of distinguished scientists I'm informed just received $100 million in funding to pursue research into the molecular origins of life. I hope their program survives your devastating critique. They must all be shaking in their boots and looking for new jobs even as we speak. Dave, falsifying ID and building experimental support for ID are disparate functions. Yay! You got something right! The Harvard project intends to first demonstrate that intelligent agents in labcoats can cobble together the basic molecules of life from simple components. If and when they know how to do that they will then seek ways the same feat could be accomplished sans test tubes and air conditioning. One is distinctly the role of naturalistic-only science, and the other is the responsibility of the ID community. Who is responsible for assigning these responsibilities? I need to speak with them. By your malformed logic biologists can't reference experimental results obtained by geologists in support of biological hypothesis unless the geologists explicitely state their experiments are in support of biology. Sheesh. That's not how science works. Research results are available to everyone, even to those who have ideas that aren't aligned with the originators of the data. What turnip truck did you say you fell off of recently?DaveScot
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
mjb2001: And evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, pro or con. But IDers claim that evolution has to deal with the origin of life one way or another. The point being, of course, that if living organisms didn't arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process (non-goal oriented) then there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes (stochastic). IOW abiogenesis is directly linked to any theory of evolution. mjb2001: Regardless of what Dembski says about ID not being a mechanistic theory, it will never succeed unless it starts addressing mechanisms. It can’t constantly point out where “darwinian” mechanisms fail and in the same breath deny that it has the responsibility to come up with an alternative. Because it does. Design is a mechanism, albeit just as vague as RM&NS, but a mechanism non-the-less. mjb2001: The fact that you can be a YEC and be accepted into the ID fold indicates that ID is not serious about finding evidence. Because there is ample, ample evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Actually the evidence the Earth is billions of years old relies heavily on untestable assumptions. That is a fact. It is also a fact that determining the age of the Earth depends directly on HOW it, the solar system and the galaxy were formed. mjb2001: If ID is constent with common descent and YEC, then it is not a valid theory because evolution and special creation (in that complex “kinds” are created de novo and do not evolve into other “kinds”) are in direct opposition. And if ID is consistent with both of them, it says absolutely nothing useful about *how* life changes over time. ID isn't 'constent' with either. ID will accept what the data supports. And right now the ONLY data that supports common descent relies heavily on common descent being assumed. The data we do have points to wobbling stability. IOW if common descent is "true" you had better provide the evidence that gets us beyond the observed genetic homeostasis.Joseph
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Again, you’ve missed the point entirely. As was noted above, I have no problem with data fitting in with other models. That’s not the issue, if you’re willing to claim antibiotic resistance fits in with the creationist models, that it is it fits in with their predictions, you have to concede the same for ToE. It fits their model, it fits their predictions in a loose manner, and thus can be described as ‘evidence’ in support of the theory. Sorry, but the door swings both ways. If it swings BOTH ways it doesn't support either. Apparently you missed the point completely. Now how about that link to your ARN discussion board post. Mattison922: ARN has a search function. Use it. The ARN discussion board's search function requires membership to the discussion board. What about that experiment in support of the ToE? Dr Behe recommended one during the Dover trial but those ignorant evos just turned it around and the judge even used it as judgement against ID- that being that evos will not conduct an experiment that would substantiate their claims and at the same time refute an ID icon. Mattison922: So? How does this absolve ID of having to actually do some research? Whether or not the evidence that ‘evos’ claim is up to your standard is - for the dozenth time, not the issue. IDists do research. However that is not the issue. The issue is you ask of ID what the ToE has never produced. Mattison922: The issue is: ID needs an active research program wherein their hypotheses are tested. Because you don’t think ToE has this, doesn’t absolve ID of this responsibility. If ID wants to be recognized as science, then it needs to engage in science. If the ToE is recognized as science without what you ask of ID, THAT is a double-standard. Mattison922: In any case, PP isn’t ID based ‘research,’ at least not in the sense that we’ve been discussing research… wet bench lab research. Actually to a working scientists it most certainly would be. We can test the premise of DNA-only based complex living organisms and we can test the premise that complex living organisms require water. We cab also use TPP's findings to search for ETs seeing it gives us the factors to look for. Part of TPP's findings are based on the lab experiments that show the same laws that apply here on Earth also apply in any other part of this universe.Joseph
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
The foregoing discussion illustrates some of my confusion on the issue of ID being science. I think that science has to do with what the truth or facts are concerning the earth and the history of life. So, I am confused about how ID can be science but somehow have adherents who believe that the earth is old and others who believe that it is young. The earth can't be old and young at the same time. I am sure someone can explain it to their satisfaction, but I can't believe that ID will make much progress as science under the current conditions. Now, my previous thoughts relate to ID as science and I will, at least, adopt a wait and see attitude on that. But, my understanding of the essence of ID is that it is a metaphysical or worldview movement. That is it's primary strength. I think the movement will get a hearing from the general public from it's message against materialism and for purpose. The issue of design is interesting. The issue of purpose in life is ultimate. So, it seems to me that the future of the movement should morph fully into a kind of science-based apologetic with the purpose of demonstrating the inadequacies of materialism and advancing the cause of purpose. Really, isn't that what all of us proponents are interested in.bj
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
ID has nothing to do with common descent, pro or con. tribune, And evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, pro or con. But IDers claim that evolution has to deal with the origin of life one way or another. I maintain the same with ID and common decent. Regardless of what Dembski says about ID not being a mechanistic theory, it will never succeed unless it starts addressing mechanisms. It can't constantly point out where "darwinian" mechanisms fail and in the same breath deny that it has the responsibility to come up with an alternative. Because it does. The fact that you can be a YEC and be accepted into the ID fold indicates that ID is not serious about finding evidence. Because there is ample, ample evidence that the earth is billions of years old. If ID is constent with common descent and YEC, then it is not a valid theory because evolution and special creation (in that complex "kinds" are created de novo and do not evolve into other "kinds") are in direct opposition. And if ID is consistent with both of them, it says absolutely nothing useful about *how* life changes over time.mjb2001
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Joseph wrote:
You can believe whatever you want to. That any organism changes and adapts to its environment is perfectly fine with the Creation model and therefore has nothing to do with the ToE.
Again, you've missed the point entirely. As was noted above, I have no problem with data fitting in with other models. That's not the issue, if you're willing to claim antibiotic resistance fits in with the creationist models, that it is it fits in with their predictions, you have to concede the same for ToE. It fits their model, it fits their predictions in a loose manner, and thus can be described as 'evidence' in support of the theory. Sorry, but the door swings both ways.
Now how about that link to your ARN discussion board post.
ARN has a search function. Use it.
What about that experiment in support of the ToE? Dr Behe recommended one during the Dover trial but those ignorant evos just turned it around and the judge even used it as judgement against ID- that being that evos will not conduct an experiment that would substantiate their claims and at the same time refute an ID icon.
So? How does this absolve ID of having to actually do some research? Whether or not the evidence that 'evos' claim is up to your standard is - for the dozenth time, not the issue. The issue is: ID needs an active research program wherein their hypotheses are tested. Because you don't think ToE has this, doesn't absolve ID of this responsibility. If ID wants to be recognized as science, then it needs to engage in science.
That is the double-standard I speak of- asking one thing of ID all the while knowing evos will never provide the same level of data.
I've insisted on no level of data, I've merely pointed out that the ID community needs a reserach program. End of story. You can continue to whine about the inadequacies of evolutionary findings, and whatever else, but none of this absolves ID of the responsibility of actually doing science - if ID wants to be recognized as a scientific discipline that is. I think I see part of the problem:
As for ID based research start with “The Privileged Planet”- there is plenty there
I've read PP... actually finished about 2 months ago. In any case, PP isn't ID based 'research,' at least not in the sense that we've been discussing research... wet bench lab research. And of course I realize there is no 'wet' research in cosmology. In any case, PP is a summary of cosmological research findings that are relevant to ID. You might as well cite DBB as research for biological ID, which it's not; or cite The Panda's Thumb as evolutionary research. It's not. These are summaries of research findings molded into coherent ideas, but are not 'research' in the sense we've been discussing it. This isn't to discount the importance of these works, just to distinguish them from research.mattison0922
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
mattison922: I almost can’t believe what I’ve just read… but whatever. Why do I get the feeling that what you just read and what was posted are not the same thing? mattison922: Joseph, you’re certainly free to dismiss the years and years of “experimental biology” that scientists have conducted under ToE based assumptions, as ‘not an evolutionary research program,’ but you’re doing nothing for your own credibility. You should worry about your own credibility. Puffing out your just and thumping it does nothing to help your case. mattison922: In any case, while I appreciate the links, I am more than a little familiar with the major apologetics sites and their scientific content. Again you should worry about the 'scientific content' you present. We're still waiting. mattison922: And while I’m inclined to agree that antibiotic resistance is not evidence for macroevolutionary change, and further feel that such change in microorganisms is not directly applicable to large multicellular organism like human beings (due to selection cost and reproduction times), it was nonetheless ‘predicted’ by evolutionary theory. You can believe whatever you want to. That any organism changes and adapts to its environment is perfectly fine with the Creation model and therefore has nothing to do with the ToE. For someone who posts a lot you really don't say anything. Now how about that link to your ARN discussion board post. mattison922: What’s truly amazing is how you pretty much read only what you want to read. Your projection is duly noted. What about that experiment in support of the ToE? Dr Behe recommended one during the Dover trial but those ignorant evos just turned it around and the judge even used it as judgement against ID- that being that evos will not conduct an experiment that would substantiate their claims and at the same time refute an ID icon. That is the double-standard I speak of- asking one thing of ID all the while knowing evos will never provide the same level of data. As for ID based research start with "The Privileged Planet"- there is plenty thereJoseph
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
I almost can't believe what I've just read... but whatever. Joseph wrote:
I doubt the ToE has a ‘wet research program’ and you have done nada to refute that. Sure there is experimental biology, but that, along with anti-biotic resistance has nothing to do with the ToE.
Joseph, you're certainly free to dismiss the years and years of "experimental biology" that scientists have conducted under ToE based assumptions, as 'not an evolutionary research program,' but you're doing nothing for your own credibility. In any case, while I appreciate the links, I am more than a little familiar with the major apologetics sites and their scientific content. And while I'm inclined to agree that antibiotic resistance is not evidence for macroevolutionary change, and further feel that such change in microorganisms is not directly applicable to large multicellular organism like human beings (due to selection cost and reproduction times), it was nonetheless 'predicted' by evolutionary theory.
What bothers me is the obvious double-standards you employ, as well as your continued deception.
:lol: Now this is rich. Which double standards are those, Joseph? Like I said, the only point I've ever really tried to make is that ID needs a research program. Yes, we can plainly see that researchers assuming the ToE have at least tried to carry out a research program is extremely troubling to you. But that's the point, no matter how much you think their efforts may be misguided, their assumptions wrong, or their research not about evolution, in many cases, the researchers have at the very least tried to create a research program based on ToE. I'll ask again, very specifically, which double standards have I employed? And perhaps even more importantly, where, very specifically, is even a single act of "deception," much less "continued deception?" I did note however, that you posted this:
Common descent is accepted on faith, not science. Those who accept common descent and won’t accept ID just expose their double-standards.
in response to another poster. I can only assume that this is what you're referring to when you say "double standards." What's truly amazing is how you pretty much read only what you want to read. I'm actually on this forum as an ID supporter, which I've made clear at least a couple of times in this thread. On the other hand, I can at least maintain a semblance of objectivity... or perhaps reality, with respect to the status of ID and ToE as a research science. DaveScot wrote:
Keeping that in mind I would point out the Harvard Origin of Life in the Universe project. The project’s stated purpose is to discover and physically demonstrate possible natural mechanisms by which self-replicating polymers that evolve over time (polymers that demarcate life from non-life such as ribosomes). The project’s purpose is framed in such a way that it constitutes verification of abiogenesis - that life can begin by the interaction of natural, undirected forces with basic elements and compounds found in natural settings.
Yes, but this paragraph really amounts to a heap of rubbish. There's no such thing as a 'self-replicating polymer that evolves over time.' It's a fantasy in the absence of enzymes.
However, if we look at the hypothesis ID puts forward “intelligent agency is required to generate the basic machinery of life” then the Harvard ID project, if successful, is the falsification of the ID hypothesis.
I'm not interested in 'falsfication' of ID. I am interested in ID based research. Fine, leave falsification of ID up to Harvard and their gargantuan waste of money, pursuing an idea that not only isn't supported by the evidence, but lacks even a semblance of parsimony.
There’s your ID wet research program. Just because they don’t call it ID research doesn’t mean that isn’t what it is effectively doing.
Dave, falsifying ID and building experimental support for ID are disparate functions. One is distinctly the role of naturalistic-only science, and the other is the responsibility of the ID community.mattison0922
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
mattison922: In any case, I believe your question is asked with full knowledge of a thread on the ARN wherein I (using the same username) outlined a very rough idea of one such research project. I’m almost 100% sure you remember this thread, and I believe you commented on it in this forum. In any case, I would simply refer you there to save myself one whole heck of a lot of typing. What you posted must not have been very informative because I do not remember it. However I would appreciate a link.Joseph
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
great ape: Ok, here’s an example: evolution predicts that reproductive proteins should be among the fastest evolving due to issues like sperm competition, etc. When these genes are sequenced, they are indeed among the fastest. This, in turn, opens up an whole entire realm of research on sperm competition and the biology of sexual conflict, which are themselves the subject of numerous experimental studies. But the theory of evolution doesn't predict gametes. It doesn't even predict sexual reproduction. great ape: It is one thing to deny RM+NS as the explanation of evolution, it is quite another to be so out of touch with reality as to deny the existence of an entire branch of experimental biology. Nice strawman. I do NOT and NEVER have denied experimental biology. I do say that has nothing to do with the ToE, which is obvious from the responses given. Common descent is accepted on faith, not science. Those who accept common descent and won't accept ID just expose their double-standards. ------------------------------------------------------------ mattison922: 'For some reason, you’re continuing to obscure the only point I’ve made: ID has no active ‘wet’ research program, and ToE does. ID desperately needs an active research program if it wants to establish itself as a legitimate science. I’m sorry that this bothers you, and I’m sorry that you can’t face it. I doubt the ToE has a 'wet research program' and you have done nada to refute that. Sure there is experimental biology, but that, along with anti-biotic resistance has nothing to do with the ToE. What bothers me is the obvious double-standards you employ, as well as your continued deception. Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? and The “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” Myth: An Empirical Study and Evaluation Homology is usually assumed: Homology and HomoplasyJoseph
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
mattison re ID 'wet research' What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; Keeping that in mind I would point out the Harvard Origin of Life in the Universe project. The project's stated purpose is to discover and physically demonstrate possible natural mechanisms by which self-replicating polymers that evolve over time (polymers that demarcate life from non-life such as ribosomes). The project's purpose is framed in such a way that it constitutes verification of abiogenesis - that life can begin by the interaction of natural, undirected forces with basic elements and compounds found in natural settings. However, if we look at the hypothesis ID puts forward "intelligent agency is required to generate the basic machinery of life" then the Harvard ID project, if successful, is the falsification of the ID hypothesis. There's your ID wet research program. Just because they don't call it ID research doesn't mean that isn't what it is effectively doing.DaveScot
October 31, 2006
October
10
Oct
31
31
2006
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
joseph: "As in…? We have already been told that there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time, so exactly what predictions are you talking about?" Ok, here's an example: evolution predicts that reproductive proteins should be among the fastest evolving due to issues like sperm competition, etc. When these genes are sequenced, they are indeed among the fastest. This, in turn, opens up an whole entire realm of research on sperm competition and the biology of sexual conflict, which are themselves the subject of numerous experimental studies. Proof of darwinian evolution? No. Generated hypotheses with associated experimental evaluation? Yes. There are tons of hypotheses and auxillary hypotheses like these generated and tested. There are entire scientific journals dedicated to reported the results, not to mention many others (science,nature, pnas) that publish these findings as well. It is one thing to deny RM+NS as the explanation of evolution, it is quite another to be so out of touch with reality as to deny the existence of an entire branch of experimental biology. I know my vote doesn't count for beans since I'm a admitted ID skeptic, but, concerning the common descent deniers, I echo the sentiments made by others above...with friends like these, ID doesn't need enemies.great_ape
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
About the snowflakes. Dr. Dembski specifically addresses this in one of his books. I read the explaination -- for free :-) -- online yet have been unable to find it again. IIRC, snowflakes have no specificity in their structure hence have no information content hence should not be considered designed. If Dr. Dembski should happen to be lurking, he'd be the one one to correct any errors in the above description. Regardless, the structure of snowflakes is specifically addressed in the canon of ID.tribune7
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply