although we have a lot of converging lines of evidence that are crying out for an explanation.-Carl Sachs

Maybe, but what we don’t have is any data that demonstrates the range of change required (for universal common descent) is even possible.

(a) simply saying, “therefore a designer must have done it” is not an explanation at all, let alone a superior one,

And simply saying “it evolved” without even knowing if such a thing is genetically possible, is not an explanation.

on another note:

My wanting to show the video “The Privileged Planet”, is so no one can say that I was singling out the theory of evolution and to show that ID extends beyond biology.

However, I do understand the words “explanation” and “argument”. My issue is that Darwinists are claiming that only they have the right to provide explanations for the data they have assembled.

It would take a great deal of “faith” to simply buy their explanations, as no living person has ever observed a single species evolve into another, let alone all the species on the the Earth.

That said, I have no problems with anyone wanting to work on design theory. Far be it for me to block the way of inquiry!

You seem to have a charitable attitude toward design — something that is lacking among many skeptics. Your thoughtful comments are appreciated.

That said I think you mischaracterize design.

(a) simply saying, “therefore a designer must have done it” is not an explanation at all, let alone a superior one…

Design provides an inference to the best explanation, given all observable data.

If we take biological machines out of the equation for a moment: 1) there are no known stochastic and undirected phenomena that can produce complex machinery; 2) intelligence is capable of designing and manufacturing complex machinery.

Considering 1 and 2 above, when we take into account biological machines again, they fit very well with both 1 and 2, where NDE violates both. This puts the burden of proof very highly upon NDE proponents; design has met the burden by default. It fits with everything we know, evolution does not.

Since evolutionary theory is failing to meet the burden of proof, it would me more consistent for you to say,

simply saying, “therefore random undirected processes must have done it” is not an explanation at all…

The information content of DNA is another place where the design inference is warranted by default, and MET has failed to account for it. We know of one way, absolutely and unequivocally, in which information can be infused into arrangements of matter: as the product of a mind.

Until the arrangement of specification can be accounted for by chance plus necessity, the burden of proof logically needs to shift toward NDE.

But my attitude towards such a person is much like my attitude towards someone who says, “what do you mean, “electrons“? you can’t see them, can you?” He and I are simply operating on the bases of radically different epistemological assumptions.

The difference is, you can stick a paper clip into a light socket and witness first-hand the effects of electrons. We have yet to witness the spontaneous generation of specified complexity ex-nihilo.

But that aside, I also think that

(a) simply saying, “therefore a designer must have done it” is not an explanation at all, let alone a superior one, and

(b) problems with evolutionary theory aren’t by themselves signs of either its imminent demise or of design theory’s imminent victory.

That said, I have no problems with anyone wanting to work on design theory. Far be it for me to block the way of inquiry!

In general, I can respect someone who simply isn’t convinced that variation and selection are sufficient to explain observed biological diversity of the past and present. It is pretty remarkable! But my attitude towards such a person is much like my attitude towards someone who says, “what do you mean, “electrons“? you can’t see them, can you?” He and I are simply operating on the bases of radically different epistemological assumptions.

Along similar lines I would also want to distinguish between argument and explanation. Taking the textbook definitions, an argument attempts to show that something is the case; an explanation attempts to show how something is the case — how it works, how it came into existence.”

Aren’t you muddying the waters here a little bit? He is making the following argument:

1) He who defines the standards for debate has an unfair advange.

2) Darwinists have defined the standards for the scientific debate.

3) Darwinists cannot meet their own standard .

4) Since they established an arbitrary rule solely for the purpose of eliminating the competition, why should be give them any slack when they fail to meet their own standard?

Anyone with at least half a brain would know what you were trying to accomplish if they watched Privileged Planet.-Glarson

Fortunately I am counting on people with a full brain and IQ over 80 as they will understand “The Privileged Planet” is based on evidence, data and observation.

But it is true that people with 1/2 a brain- anti-IDists, for example- would try to twist TPP into something it isn’t.

But anyway Glarson, did you have a point?

Try addressing the following:

Guillermo Gonzalez, one of the authors of “The Privileged Planet” was a (Carl) Sagonite. However the book refutes Sagan.

It was Gonzalez’s paper “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20), that peaked the book’s co-author’s (Jay Richards) interest.

Gonzalez was part of a team of scientists working for NASA on a project trying to determine whether or not there is life “out there”.

At least one peer-reviewed paper (G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, Icarus 152 (2001):185-200) came from that scientific research.

The authors make predictions. For example if/ when we discover other complex life is found elsewhere in the universe, the many factors observed here will also be present there. And that life will be carbon based.

“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”

“The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”

“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”

>

>“The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.

This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.” Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez.

Other G. Gonzalez papers that were the basis of the book (just skimming through the references):
“Stars, Planets, and Metals”, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003)101-120
“Rummaging Through Earth’s Attic for Remains of Ancient Life”, Icarus 160 (2002) 183-196
“Is the Sun Anomalous?”, Astronomy and Geophysics 40, no. 5 (1999):5.25-5.29
“Are Stars with Planets Anomalous?”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 308 (1999): 447-458
“Impact Reseeding During the Late Heavy Bombardment”, Icarus 162 (2003):38-46
“Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets III: p Cancri Revisited”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 339 (1998): L29-L32
“Stellar Atmospheres of Nearby Young Solar Analogs”, New Astronomy 7 (2002): 211-226

IOW his inference is based on scientific evidence, data and observations. The only other explanation for the evidence, data, and observations is sheer dumb luck. And only people with 1/2 a brain think that scenario is scientific- and again that would be all anti-ID materialists.

Along similar lines I would also want to distinguish between argument and explanation. Taking the textbook definitions, an argument attempts to show that something is the case; an explanation attempts to show how something is the case — how it works, how it came into existence.

Taken in those terms, a good postulation should explain — it should present us with a model of the causes of the observed correlations.

So I think it’s disingenuous, to be frank, when one accuses evolutionists of not providing the evidence for speciation or macroevolutionary processes. Except in extremely rare cases, speciation or other events aren’t observed nor are they claimed to have been observed. They are postulations to explain what has been observed — namely, massive convergences of lines of evidence from many different fields of study.

Having said that, it’s worth pointing out that the very question “what is a scientific explanation” remains an open one among philosophers of science; see here.

LOL – I don’t think it would work! Anyone with at least half a brain would know what you were trying to accomplish if they watched Privileged Planet.

What do other scientists think of Ross’s “full-blown model?” I would think that anyone who has an explanatory model of that scope would want his critics to evaluate it and pass judgment on it one way or the other.

But anyway, one of the first things I would do as a school board member is to get the other members to watch “The Privileged Planet”, “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”, and “The Incorrigible Mr Berlinski”.

That way they could see that ID is NOT a religious concept.

Then we formulate a plan to get these videos presented in our school system. I would even suggest to have a “parent night” so that they could see the videos and see that ID is not a religious concept.

For reference books I will see if we can get “The Privileged Planet”, “The Design of Life” and “Darwinism, Design and Public Education”.

(I still think that someone should bribe a teacher in Dover to discuss ID in the classroom. That is how Scopes got into the fray. Then ID gets back into the courtroom, this time without any religiously motivated school board.)