Answering Diepenbrock's Challenge

Instead opponents should come up with a good argument on why teaching only the evolution theory does not violate the state education science mission statement to make all students lifelong learners who can use science to make reasoned decisions. Presenting only one life science theory in classes without alternatives breeds ignorance and violates the mission statement.

The guy's name links to editor@swdtimes.com; why not send it there? But fix that misspelling of his name: "Diepnbrock". Also, a mention of what "theory" means is warranted, and it might be nice to contrast the number of peer reviewed articles on ID with the number on evolution published in the last ... 50 years? Year? Week? Day?

OT: Powerline -vs- Pharyngula (in a show with everything but Yul Brenner):

here and here.

I like you piece Jason, but only wish it could be shorter. I'm prone to such prolixity and so I often wrestle with trying to cut my prose, usually believing that every word is critical. But given the tenor of Mr. Diepenbrock's article and the prospect that it might make it into his paper, brevity might give your response more power. It now runs to more than 1200 words; no more than half of that would give it much more punch.

I think that Jason and company may be missing the point here.

Like Darwinism, Intelligent Design is an interpretation of biological data, and as such, it has as much right to be in science classrooms as Darwinism. In fact, it has approximately twice as much right to be there as Darwinism, because it is confirmed at approximately twice the rate.

Here's why. We can reduce the basic Darwinian hypothesis to the following pair of assertions:

1. Although adaptive mutations are independent of fitness, they may be taken for granted (no further explanation required).

2. Due to natural selection, these mutations accumulate exclusively along certain lines of inheritance characterized by "fitness" (i.e., along those lines consisting of organisms which survive long enough to successfully reproduce).

Any instance of evolution confirming the Darwinian hypothesis does so through 2 alone. That is, because 1 posits no relationship between mutation and fitness, but merely takes something for granted, it is not a substantive part of the hypothesis.

On the other hand, the ID hypothesis asserts that:

1'. The occurrence of beneficial mutations is related to fitness (in a hypothetical design process).

2'. Identical to 2 above; since natural selection is trivial, ID is allowed to incorporate it as well.

Any instance of evolution confirms the ID hypothesis through both 1' and 2'. That is, because 1' posits a relationship between mutation and fitness rather than merely taking something for granted, and since this relationship accounts for the observed fact that some mutations are adaptive, it has substantive hypothetical content. Since the ID hypothesis makes twice as many relevant explanatory assertions as the Darwinian hypothesis (including natural selection), and since the data confirm both of these assertions, the ID hypothesis is confirmed at a correspondingly higher rate. [QED]

Of course, it would be fine to confine the classroom treatment of long-term biological change to just the data. But if the Darwinian interpretation of these data is to be included in the lessons, then ID needs to be included with approximately twice the urgency.

The problem is not merely that many high school teachers fail to understand the actual differences between these competing hypotheses; more generally, they fail to understand the logic of scientific confirmation. This is fair neither to the students they are paid to educate, nor to the taxpaying citizens who pay them to do so.

Unfortunately, their counterparts in the university system, including Jason here, have not been helping them fill the gaps in their knowledge. Instead, Jason and others have been making matters worse by openly displaying the same kinds of ignorance and prejudice.

Obviously, Jason and his fellow pundits need to behave more responsibly in this regard.

Any instance of evolution confirms the ID hypothesis through both 1' and 2'.

they fail to understand the logic of scientific confirmation

"...there are millions of potentially disconfirming tests for the theory of evolution that have been observationally negated."

Humor indeed.

I like you piece Jason, but only wish it could be shorter.

Another problem may be that the theory of evolution is so trivial that virtually any other "life science theory" properly contains it (unless, unlike ID theory, it denies long-term biological change of any kind). Thus, even were it true to say that "millions of potentially disconfirming tests for the theory of evolution have been observationally negated," disconfirming tests for these other theories would be negated in the bargain.

Fact or Fiction?

Fact: There is a lot of evidence for evolution as stated by Darwin.

Fiction: Evolution has never been disproved or discredited. Survival of the fittest looks to NOT be the mechanism that filters out the longer surviving species which are often the least fit at the bottom of the food chain. The concept of a single ancestor is unnecessarily restrictive and no serious effort has been made to preserve it as it would involve holding on to the amino acid to cell step which modern biology has been totally unable to duplicate . The evolution of the first lifeform from amino acid has been dropped from the evolution bandwagon (Darwin mentioned a common ancestor but most evolutionists believe in evolution from amino acids) because it has no proof and cannot be duplicated despite numerous efforts.

Fact: There is very good evidence for descent from common ancestor in DNA because similiar species have similiar DNA and even similiar junk dna.

Fiction: Evolution is the only possible explaination for that. The fact that similiar DNA produces similiar appearance is not an astounding discovery. When put that way it is obvious that similar appearance and similar DNA would go hand in hand. The assertion that the cause of this similiarity is descent from species to species is consistent with the evidence but that is not sufficient to show that other explainations are inconsistent. Just as the theif was 6 feet tall does not mean that a man is a theif by virtue of being 6 feet tall.

Fact: Most scientists believe in evolution.

Fiction: The number of scientists who believe something makes it more true. Science is not a democracy. Theories strength is based only on their ability to explain NEW data. If you picked 1 million points on a graph at random I could make an unlimited number of functions that would interscect each and every point, as you add more points my infinite list would shrink but would still remain infinite. That is why science requires theories to be able to objectively predict the future or at least make predictions about things that are not currently known. It is after all predicting and altering the future that is of interest to us when we study science.

Fact: Evolution has proven micro-evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Fiction: Evolution has proven macro-evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is a staggering amount of data that is consistent with macro-evolution, but consistent with and proof of are two different thigns.
Example: for a long time 99.99% of scientists though women were born with a set number of eggs to be fertilized and that at a certain age they used the last one, this theory was consistent with the evidence, however it is wrong, women make eggs using stem cells and lose the ability to do so as they age.

Fact: Science is very powerful and describes pretty much everything we know about our world.

Fiction: Science is usually right. In fact science is usually wrong. In fact each topic in science even the winning ones are mostly wrong. Most of the detailed assertions from the field of evolution have been wrong. It is only because after correcting for these errors evolution remains very similiar to its origional form that we call it a powerful theory. Most of the assertions of evolution from what type of environment the first cell evolved in to the planet that the first cell likley evolved on to if it was RNA or DNA have been proven wrong (if only by virtue of two or more incompadible theories existing). This is largly because for any event there are multiple theories each with a set of assumptions about unknown facts, as those facts become known we quickly forget the incorrect theories and marvel at how smart the one lucky guy who was correct was.

Fact: Teaching religion in school is against the American seperation of church and state.

Fiction: It is ok to teach an reproducible theory of creation that is inconsistent with many peoples religious beliefs withotu pointing out that it is the weakest scientific theory taught in High School level courses. The fact that you CANNOT evolve a human from a monkey shows that you DO NOT understand evolution in the same way that you understand gravity or light or any of the other science mainstays (except large scale science which is also mostly guesses like evolution). Had we taught that women have a set number of eggs and it was against others religious beliefs we would have been guilty of teaching an anti-religion that turned out to be false dispite having every bit as much support from the science community as evolution currently enjoys.

Wow, now that couldn't have been anymore confusing if you tried. I'm still not sure whether the fiction part is meant to be sarcastic, sincere, or switches midstream. What?

I'll just point out one problem with your account, which is that similarity of DNA throughout life is only one part of the story. The rest of the story is that DNA isn't always similar, and these differences are arranged in a very particular way: in a way that just so happens to fit with the general arrangemnt of common descent. That is, we'll find some feature, say, blood clotting in all animals AFTER a certain common ancestor, but none that split off before. It's a lot more complicated than that, but the reality is that we can pick almost any feature or gene and then triangulate back, looking through modern animals, to where a common ancestor would have been. Surprise surprise, but all these different, indepedant triangulations happen to match up not only with each other, but with the fossil record, and also with the geographic distribution of species, and so on.

So many DIFFERENT lines of confirmatory evidence giving the same detailed picture: that would be an utterly astounding coincidence if the arguments for each of these lines of evidence were in error. If they were all in error, we would expect them to give DIFFERENT wrong answers. Instead, the answers they give are coordinated. And truth is far more likely to explain coordination than several errors just happening to come out wrong the SAME way.

Fact: There is a lot of evidence for evolution as stated by Darwin. Fiction: Evolution has never been disproved or discredited. Survival of the fittest looks to NOT be the mechanism that filters out the longer surviving species which are often the least fit at the bottom of the food chain.

— DonkeyTroll

Neurode,

in contrast to the preceeding compliation of mostly discredited anti- evolutionist assertions, which have no bearing on the discussion at hand whatsoever, you have at least stated the problem well. If ID wanted to be a scientific theory instead of a religious-cultural movement, it would have to define what its explanations, models and predictions are. The simplest model of course would be: 'Under ID everything is like under evolution, just more directed.' (summing up your two points).
Having done this, there are three possibilites:
- A process or being doing and implementing the design could be postulated and tested for. As evolution has no room for design, ID would become the accepted theory for instances in which the test had been positive and a possible alternative hypothesis for occurrences of similar nature, and should be treated as such in the science curriculum.
- In the absence of an ID process, some cases could be found under which our bare bone ID hypothesis seems to have some merits. E.g. a conspicious lack of sub-optimal structures which seem unavoidable given previous homologous morphologies, or an extreme accumulation of beneficial mutations within very few generations, would make the phylogeny appear directed. If these cases were sufficiently common and well tested (the latter excludes all of Behe's and Dembski's hobby-horses), a mention, that completely undirected evolution does not explain these occurrences well, would be in order, both on high school and college level, but always with the caveat, that no model for this apparent direction exists, and any identification based on philosophical or cultural preferences would probably be misleading.
- As long as nothing of the above happens, ID falls under Occam's razor, as it needs an additional unknown factor to explain exactly the same processes that evolution can explain without. Hypotheses like this have no place in a science class, as they can add nothing to knowledge or skill.

Here's why. We can reduce the basic Darwinian hypothesis to the following pair of assertions: 1. Although adaptive mutations are independent of fitness, they may be taken for granted (no further explanation required). 2. Due to natural selection, these mutations accumulate exclusively along certain lines of inheritance characterized by "fitness" (i.e., along those lines consisting of organisms which survive long enough to successfully reproduce).

This claim is wrong as a simple matter of logic. The fact that every part is necessary for the system to operate in its present environment does not imply that every part was necessary in every stage of the system's evolution. It is possible that initially a particular part was beneficial, but not necessary, for the system to function. Later changes might then have rendered the new part essential. Another possibility is that irreducible complexity could arise by the elimination of redundancy.

Like Darwinism, Intelligent Design is an interpretation of biological data, and as such, it has as much right to be in science classrooms as Darwinism.

Jonas writes:

1. "A process or being doing and implementing the design could be postulated and tested for."

A generic design process and agency have indeed been postulated, and as explained, have been "tested for" with approximately twice the success of the Darwinian hypothesis.

2. "...no model for this apparent direction exists, and any identification based on philosophical or cultural preferences would probably be misleading."

The absence of a culture-fair ID model (of evolutionary causation) is not entirely clear. What is clear is that (1) the Darwinian hypothesis not only offers no causative model whatsoever for adaptive mutations, but merely takes them for granted; and (2) the ID hypothesis acknowledges the existence of a cause-effect relationship between fitness criteria and adaptive adaptations, thus taking the necessary first step toward an explanatory theory and model.

3. "...ID falls under Occam's razor, as it needs an additional unknown factor to explain exactly the same processes that evolution can explain without."

Evolution does not explain, or even attempt to explain, adaptive mutations. In science, (previously unknown) causal factors must be introduced to explain observed effects.

4. "Hypotheses like this have no place in a science class, as they can add nothing to knowledge or skill."

In science, causes are inferred from effects. As a case in point, ID infers a generic design process from observed adaptive mutations. The design inference is science in action, and any science class which omits it is cheating students out of the knowledge and skill to properly evaluate the cause-and-effect relationships addressed by various scientific hypotheses.

A generic design process and agency have indeed been postulated, and as explained, have been "tested for" with approximately twice the success of the Darwinian hypothesis.

Don T. Know writes:

1. "What 'interpretation?' That something looks like 'God did it?' Is there a definition of 'intelligently designed' that is universally and objectively understood among scientists?"

Obviously, "intelligently designed" means that something can be described as the outcome of a process which occurs prior to realization under the guidance of something which can be described as "intelligent", i.e., which is capable of recognition and purposive adaptation. This is quite clear. Since this is precisely the kind of process required for a causal explanation of adaptive biological mutations, it is scientifically warranted.

2. "From what I can tell, ID is one man's (or one religion's) subjective evaluation as to whether something is 'designed' or not. One religionist's design is a scientist's unsolved puzzle."

No, ID is a generic hypothesis addressing the massive scientific evidence for the occurrence of adaptive biological mutations. This hypothesis has been around for millennia, but was only recently invoked in the context of modern biological science.

3. "BTW, my "interpretation" of the data is that aliens were involved in seeding the first cell. This also "explains" the data. So, may I put that into a scientific curriculum as well?"

Your hypothesis offers only an intermediate explanation of the data; to offer a real explanation (involving aliens), one would need to explain the aliens themselves. Moreover, although there is ample evidence of biological adaptation in nature, there is very little evidence that aliens are responsible. Therefore, your alien hypothesis merits only cursory mention in a science class.

David Heddle:
I think the difference is that Behe is using definitive language ("This cannot evolve") when he should rather state possibilities ("This has probably not evolved"). You are right, the usual scientist knows about the tentative nature of science and even if a theory is well tested there might be a small possibility that new data leads to a fundamental change. This leads to the careful choice of words which is not convincing to the public but perfectly understood by fellow scientists.
Perhaps the scientist should resort to a more effective, PR-like style, by simply stating that "there was initially a particular part that was beneficial, but not necessary, for the system to function." This would not be true in an absolute sense, because you normally do not have those parts in hand, but true as the only possible explanation, unless you want to invoke God as deus ex machina.

And finally, as Behe states that an IC system cannot have evolved (my passive leaves me here), then even a possibility makes that statement null and void unless Behe can prove that this possibility is not viable in that context.

Scientific Method:

1. Look at all of the available data, and from the data create a hypothesis or theory that is supported by the data.

2. Test hypothesis.

3. If test fails, then rework theory and repeat. If test succeeds, then it becomes "Scientific Law."

Anything that does not work via the above scientific method is NOT science and should not be taught in a SCIENCE classroom.

Since ID cannot in any way be tested, it is not science. It can in no way be made "scientific." It is just coloring in the unknown areas with "magic." No respectable scientist would ever say, "We don't know how this works, it must be some all powerful and knowing force that did it." This is the realm of pseudo-science and superstition.

Further, ID cannot be used for any further scientific purpose. It is a dead end. The mechanisms for "Darwinism"??? can be used in a myriad of ways. For example evolution can be use to predict why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. It is a useful tool for further scientific study. ID isn't.

Your hypothesis offers only an intermediate explanation of the data; to offer a real explanation (involving aliens), one would need to explain the aliens themselves. Moreover, although there is ample evidence of biological adaptation in nature, there is very little evidence that aliens are responsible.

Monty Zoom:

No respectable scientist would ever say, "We don't know how this works, it must be some all powerful and knowing force that did it."

Your hypothesis offers only an intermediate explanation of the data; to offer a real explanation (involving aliens), one would need to explain the aliens themselves. Moreover, although there is ample evidence of biological adaptation in nature, there is very little evidence that aliens are responsible.

Monty Zoom recites the scientific method as follows:

"1. Look at all of the available data, and from the data create a hypothesis or theory that is supported by the data.

2. Test hypothesis.

3. If test fails, then rework theory and repeat. If test succeeds, then it becomes 'Scientific Law'."

Fortunately for the ID hypothesis, it has passed these tests. (By the way, are you aware of the logical intricacy of this definition? It's really about model theory, an extremely involved branch of mathematics - not empirical science - to which every science student needs a much more thorough introduction than is ordinarily provided.)

MZ: "Since ID cannot in any way be tested, it is not science."

As previously explained, the ID hypothesis has already been extensively tested, and the continuing occurrence of adaptive biological mutations in nature continues to confirm it. Therefore, it is scientifically warranted.

MZ: "It can in no way be made "scientific." It is just coloring in the unknown areas with "magic." No respectable scientist would ever say, "We don't know how this works, it must be some all powerful and knowing force that did it." This is the realm of pseudo-science and superstition."

ID is scientific, even by the (seriously flawed) falsifiability criterion. Specifically, the ID hypothesis can be falsified simply by demonstrating that adaptive mutations have ceased to occur in nature. (By the way, what about soi-disant "respectable scientists" who say "We don't know how this works, but since we haven't managed to figure it out, we're damned if anybody else is going to get the chance!"?)

MZ: "Further, ID cannot be used for any further scientific purpose. It is a dead end."

If that were true (and it isn't), then the Darwinian hypothesis, which excludes any explanation whatsoever for adaptive biological mutations, would be a veritable long walk off a short pier.

MZ: "The mechanisms for "Darwinism"??? can be used in a myriad of ways."

While Darwinism (the Darwinian hypothesis and its associated philosophy) has managed, a bit too easily, to assimilate mutation mechanisms discovered by scientists in various core disciplines, it offers no explanation for their consistent adaptive potential. A lack of explanation can scarcely be called useful. On the other hand, while natural selection can be a useful concept, Darwinism does not have a lock on it (just as it does not have a lock on ordinary mutation mechanisms, to which ID merely adjoins such additional causal influences as are required to construct an explanation of observed biological phenomena).

MZ: "For example evolution can be use to predict why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics."

No, it can't. The appearance of resistant strains, as opposed to their subsequent selection, is not explained or even addressed by the Darwinian hypothesis.

Instead opponents should come up with a good argument on why teaching only the evolution theory does not violate the state education science mission statement to make all students lifelong learners who can use science to make reasoned decisions.

— Diepenbrock

Neurode,
You keep making statements that the ID hypothesis has already been extensively tested, but so far I haven't see you post a shred of evidence to back it up. I want studies, reputable journal articles etc. It's time to put up or shut-up.

He has posted "evidence". He's comically stupid and misinformed, but he's still posted what he believes backs up ID. He claims mutations are the act of a designer, and that's his evidence for ID. There's certainly enough published work documenting gene mutations, so kudos Neurode, you've debunked over 150 years of work. Go collect your Nobel prize.

E says: "Neurode, you keep making statements that the ID hypothesis has already been extensively tested, but so far I haven't see you post a shred of evidence to back it up. I want studies, reputable journal articles etc. It's time to put up or shut-up."

I think you know what I've been saying here, E; the evidence for the basic Darwinian hypothesis, whatever you may consider that evidence to be, can be reinterpreted as evidence for the design hypothesis with double the confirmation. As far as concerns what studies get funded and what articles get published in "reputable" scientific journals, that's both irrelevant and a political can of worms in its own right. So if it's not too much to ask, let's keep it simple and stick to the issue being addressed.

It always strikes me, as a scientist but non-expert, that Behe's arguments are much more persuasive than the popular-science level responses.

On the other hand, the ID hypothesis asserts that: 1'. The occurrence of beneficial mutations is related to fitness (in a hypothetical design process).

— Neurode

Another problem may be that the theory of evolution is so trivial that virtually any other "life science theory" properly contains it (unless, unlike ID theory, it denies long-term biological change of any kind).

Like Darwinism, Intelligent Design is an interpretation of biological data, and as such, it has as much right to be in science classrooms as Darwinism.

— Consummate Sophist Neurode

In fact, it has approximately twice as much right to be there as Darwinism, because it is confirmed at approximately twice the rate.

We can reduce the basic Darwinian hypothesis to the following pair of assertions: 1. Although adaptive mutations are independent of fitness, they may be taken for granted (no further explanation required). 2. Due to natural selection, these mutations accumulate exclusively along certain lines of inheritance characterized by "fitness" (i.e., along those lines consisting of organisms which survive long enough to successfully reproduce).

On the other hand, the ID hypothesis asserts that: 1'. The occurrence of beneficial mutations is related to fitness (in a hypothetical design process). 2'. Identical to 2 above; since natural selection is trivial, ID is allowed to incorporate it as well.

Any instance of evolution confirms the ID hypothesis through both 1' and 2'. That is, because 1' posits a relationship between mutation and fitness rather than merely taking something for granted, and since this relationship accounts for the observed fact that some mutations are adaptive, it has substantive hypothetical content. Since the ID hypothesis makes twice as many relevant explanatory assertions as the Darwinian hypothesis (including natural selection), and since the data confirm both of these assertions, the ID hypothesis is confirmed at a correspondingly higher rate. [QED]

The problem is not merely that many high school teachers fail to understand the actual differences between these competing hypotheses; more generally, they fail to understand the logic of scientific confirmation.

Obviously, Jason and his fellow pundits need to behave more responsibly in this regard.

I think you know what I've been saying here, E; the evidence for the basic Darwinian hypothesis, whatever you may consider that evidence to be, can be reinterpreted as evidence for the design hypothesis with double the confirmation.

— Neurode

Steve writes:

1. "No, the ID hypothesis says absolutely nothing about mutation. All the ID hypothesis says is that some aspect of living things was "designed", and all the details, including mutation, are left for people to puzzle over. Leading ID advocates explicitly state that the method of design is not what ID is about."

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself: the ID hypothesis says that certain biological adaptations can be described as the outcome of a process which occurs prior to realization under the guidance of something which can be described as "intelligent", i.e., which is capable of recognition and purposive adaptation. If you want to add extra baggage, you'll need to lug it yourself.

2. "This is just plain silly. Creationist life science "theories" explicitly denounce common ancestry, and that's what the majority of ID advocates adhere to. If it's so trivial, why is it that the vast majority of IDCs reject it?"

What "the majority of ID advocates adhere to" is beside the point. If you want to criticize the specific beliefs of a specific subset of ID advocates, you need to address them specifically rather than over-generalizing.

3. "Even if some variant of ID incorporates common ancestry, natural selection, and everything else, this does not make it at least as good as evolutionary theory. The ways in which it differs from standard theory must themselves be evidenced, or else it's worse than standard theory."

This is not true, as we see from the confirmation argument presented above. Although the ways in which such a theory differs from the standard theory must now be carefully explicated, the first crucial tests have already been passed.

Well, I asked neurode to specify a test ID could fail, and so far he has carefully ignored this basic notion. Lots and lots of doubletalk, but no method.

Apparently, the ONLY test for design is whether or not something is believed to exist. Life? Believed to exist, so it passes the design test. Hell? Believed to exist, so it passes the design test.

On the other hand, we rarely get someone who can say nothing in so many big words. When you can't explicate, obfuscate!

I'd advise Neurode NOT to post a test ID can fail. That path leads to weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I'd advise Neurode NOT to post a test ID can fail.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself: the ID hypothesis says that certain biological adaptations can be described as the outcome of a process which occurs prior to realization under the guidance of something which can be described as "intelligent", i.e., which is capable of recognition and purposive adaptation.

— Neurode

What "the majority of ID advocates adhere to" is beside the point. If you want to criticize the specific beliefs of a specific subset of ID advocates, you need to address them specifically rather than over-generalizing.  You're the one who said that evolution was so "trivial" that "virtually any other" so-called life science theory could incorporate it. Well, apparently not what the vast majority of ID advocates believe in! It's clear that you were the one who was overgeneralizing. The successes of evolutionary theory cannot be merely dismissed as being easily subsumed by any other theory, because in fact no other theory makes the same predictions. This is not true, as we see from the confirmation argument presented above. Although the ways in which such a theory differs from the standard theory must now be carefully explicated, the first crucial tests have already been passed.

As previously explained, the ID hypothesis has already been extensively tested, and the continuing occurrence of adaptive biological mutations in nature continues to confirm it. Therefore, it is scientifically warranted.

What "the majority of ID advocates adhere to" is beside the point. If you want to criticize the specific beliefs of a specific subset of ID advocates, you need to address them specifically rather than over-generalizing.

The difference between evolutionists

"Scientific Method:

1. Look at all of the available data, and from the data create a hypothesis or theory that is supported by the data.

2. Test hypothesis.

3. If test fails, then rework theory and repeat. If test succeeds, then it becomes "Scientific Law.""

And real Science

Scientific Method:

1. Look at all of the available data, and from the data create a hypothesis or theory that is supported by the data and detailed enough to predict non-trivial results.

2. Test hypothesis with NEW previously unknown results preferrably in a controlled setting that can eliminate all potential causes that are not part of the theory. To gain real weight your hypothesis must be stated in detail enough that non-believers can test your framework with tests that you do not control and did not anticipate.

3. If test fails, then rework theory and repeat? If test fails then your theory loses favor. If test succeeds hundreds of times with opponents unable to come up with tests that tend to discredit it, then it becomes "the accepted THEORY"

A clear example of where the evolutionists scientific theory is inferior is when you go to vegas to see a "magic" show. A magic show pulling a bunny out of a hat is much more acceptable using the rules you outlined. The fact that followers of evolution use similiar logic and rarely predict things BEFORE then occur greatly weakens their claim to science.

Here's an idea: let's - just arbitrarily -restrict ourselves to stuff that actually gets published, and is part of the ongoing dialog, in respected scientific journals.

— Russel

Re "All interpretations have equal right to be considered on equal footing in science?"

It's turtles all the way down!

A clear example of where the evolutionists scientific theory is inferior is when you go to vegas to see a "magic" show. A magic show pulling a bunny out of a hat is much more acceptable using the rules you outlined. The fact that followers of evolution use similiar logic and rarely predict things BEFORE then occur greatly weakens their claim to science.

If you can't be right, be wrong at the top of your voice.

I'd advise Neurode NOT to post a test ID can fail. That path leads to weeping and gnashing of teeth.

— David Heddle

Your hypothesis offers only an intermediate explanation of the data; to offer a real explanation (involving aliens), one would need to explain the aliens themselves. Moreover, although there is ample evidence of biological adaptation in nature, there is very little evidence that aliens are responsible. Therefore, your alien hypothesis merits only cursory mention in a science class.

— Neurode

To my statement that

"The ID hypothesis says that certain biological adaptations can be described as the outcome of a process which occurs prior to realization under the guidance of something which can be described as "intelligent", i.e., which is capable of recognition and purposive adaptation,"

Steve Reuland responds

"...Which says absolutely nothing about mutation, so my point stands."

Somehow, Steve has divined that biological adaptations of evolutionary significance can occur without adaptive genetic mutations! One can only observe that this is consistent with Steve's sad admission that he finds the above statement to be "gobbledygook".

Apparently on a roll, Steve continues:

"What confirmation are you talking about?"

I've already explained that to my personal satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of anyone else who understands that a "relationship" between two phenomena, e.g. a causal relationship between fitness and mutation, is confirmed by data which exhibit the relationship, e.g., by the widespread occurrence of biological mutations which have positive adaptive value. So it seems that Steve is the one who's trying to lead us around in circles. But just to avoid any unnecessary confusion, let me elaborate a bit.

If the function "mutation" were independent of the property "fitness", then there would be no reason to expect beneficial adaptations to arise from mere genetic copying errors. That would be a bit like expecting the random scribbles of a palsy victim to result in acceptable modifications to a complex engineering or architectural blueprint in a highly significant percentage of cases, even where the blueprint is constantly subject to new and unpredictable environmental constraints. Therefore, to confirm that fitness figures as a causal parameter in the mutation function, one need merely look for a significantly high ratio of adaptive mutations to deleterious mutations of like extent. And what do you know? The world is entirely populated by organisms which have accumulated vast numbers of highly adaptive (and/or non-harmful) mutations!

Apparently, Steve and perhaps a few others here feel that this alone is insufficient, perhaps because for reasons known only to them, they expect this ratio to be "sufficiently high" under what they consider to be "ordinary" causal circumstances. After all, why can't we just take all of these adaptive mutations for granted, especially when this would allow certain sectors of the scientific community to pursue business as usual? Why shouldn't we simply decide that in some strange, causally inexplicable way, the "laws of nature" (whatever those are) somehow convert the "randomness" (whatever that is) of DNA copying errors to the "probability" of beneficial phenotypic changes, thus obviating any need for a deeper explanation?

Here's why: no matter how you cut it, the theory of long-term biological change embraced by Steve and company has a ragged, gaping hole in it where an explanation needs to be. And until they can verifiably fill this hole, the explanation is "in play", scientifically speaking, under the terms outlined above. The ID hypothesis qualifies as "scientific" on those terms.

I hope that Steve doesn't find this too confusing.

Neurode

The "Theory of ID" has never been presented in a scientifically valid format.

IDers are all over the place when it comes to agreeing how much evolutionary theory (if any) they are wiling to accept before ID "kicks in." The irreducible complexity (IC) formulation, which is to provide an "objective" measure supporting their propositions, contains an "R" factor, or "rejection region" which allows for the dismissal of signs of complexity which are "obviously" a result of natural causes, not ID. And who determines what falls into this rejection region? Why it's the ID investigator himself! As more natural causes fill in these "gaps," and enter the rejection region, ID "theory" eventually evaporates into thin air.

From: here, choose "Criteria for Scientific Theories" from the right side bar. (I can't put in the direct link because the "censor" wouldn't allow dashes.)

When a beneficial mutation occurs, you give ID credit. When all the neutral and harmful mutations occur, I guess D'oh does it. Whatever the low odds for beneficial mutations, they can all be accounted for by random processes. Nothing supernatural is required. Or do you believe that God picks the Power Ball winners?

Here's why: no matter how you cut it, the theory of long-term biological change embraced by Steve and company has a ragged, gaping hole in it where an explanation needs to be. And until they can verifiably fill this hole, the explanation is "in play", scientifically speaking, under the terms outlined above. The ID hypothesis qualifies as "scientific" on those terms.

— Neurode

Neurode wrote: If the function "mutation" were independent of the property "fitness", then there would be no reason to expect beneficial adaptations to arise from mere genetic copying errors. That would be a bit like expecting the random scribbles of a palsy victim to result in acceptable modifications to a complex engineering or architectural blueprint in a highly significant percentage of cases, even where the blueprint is constantly subject to new and unpredictable environmental constraints. Therefore, to confirm that fitness figures as a causal parameter in the mutation function, one need merely look for a significantly high ratio of adaptive mutations to deleterious mutations of like extent. And what do you know? The world is entirely populated by organisms which have accumulated vast numbers of highly adaptive (and/or non-harmful) mutations

Therefore, to confirm that fitness figures as a causal parameter in the mutation function, one need merely look for a significantly high ratio of adaptive mutations to deleterious mutations of like extent. And what do you know? The world is entirely populated by organisms which have accumulated vast numbers of highly adaptive (and/or non-harmful) mutations!

Les Lane, whose mother apparently neglected to wash out his mouth with a sufficiently harsh grade of shop detergent, says:

"Total horeshit ... A good example of what you step into by relying on propositional logic."

Alright then. Let's get away from the logic and have a look at the universal ontogenic map you apparently have in mind, complete with a thorough statistical analysis. Many people would like to see the ironclad calculations proving that random genetic deterioration automatically engenders a remarkable assortment of beneficial adaptations, thus making gibbering fools of the enemies of Darwin (and Las Vegas to boot). Or perhaps you have other evolutionary mechanism(s) in mind...

[Russell - I should think that it might be better, for scientific purposes, to make some effort to count the deleterious mutations before nature kills them off and sweeps them under the carpet. That way, you can avoid confounding the target effect with the effects of natural selection. But I'll bet you already thought of that...]

Neurode is rejecting the notion that there is a selection process in operation, on the grounds that the selection process works. So we look around, see only the tiny percentage of mutations that survived the filter of selection, and conclude that because selection is so selective, it can't be selective after all! How wonderfully simple. It must have been designed.

Sometimes you have to read this stuff several times. Did he actually say that? Yes, he did! I can picture Neurode at the roulette table, noting only the (small percentage of) winners, noting that they are ALL winners, pretending the losers simply don't exist, and concluding that the winners must have caused the roulette wheel!

This is a LONG way from honest confusion or even coherent argument. It explains why parody is impossible.

To my statement that "The ID hypothesis says that certain biological adaptations can be described as the outcome of a process which occurs prior to realization under the guidance of something which can be described as "intelligent", i.e., which is capable of recognition and purposive adaptation," Steve Reuland responds " . . . Which says absolutely nothing about mutation, so my point stands." Somehow, Steve has divined that biological adaptations of evolutionary significance can occur without adaptive genetic mutations!

— Neurode

"What confirmation are you talking about?" I've already explained that to my personal satisfaction...

If the function "mutation" were independent of the property "fitness", then there would be no reason to expect beneficial adaptations to arise from mere genetic copying errors.

That would be a bit like expecting the random scribbles of a palsy victim to result in acceptable modifications to a complex engineering or architectural blueprint in a highly significant percentage of cases, even where the blueprint is constantly subject to new and unpredictable environmental constraints.

Therefore, to confirm that fitness figures as a causal parameter in the mutation function, one need merely look for a significantly high ratio of adaptive mutations to deleterious mutations of like extent.

And what do you know? The world is entirely populated by organisms which have accumulated vast numbers of highly adaptive (and/or non-harmful) mutations!

Apparently, Steve and perhaps a few others here feel that this alone is insufficient, perhaps because for reasons known only to them, they expect this ratio to be "sufficiently high" under what they consider to be "ordinary" causal circumstances.

Why shouldn't we simply decide that in some strange, causally inexplicable way, the "laws of nature" (whatever those are) somehow convert the "randomness" (whatever that is) of DNA copying errors to the "probability" of beneficial phenotypic changes, thus obviating any need for a deeper explanation?

What tests has it passed? You haven't named a single one.

the evidence for the basic Darwinian hypothesis, whatever you may consider that evidence to be, can be reinterpreted as evidence for the design hypothesis with double the confirmation. As far as concerns what studies get funded and what articles get published in "reputable" scientific journals, that's both irrelevant and a political can of worms in its own right.

— neurode

Regarding Neurode:
At first I thought that my command of English is not so good as to understand what he means. But slowly it transpires that he really just dresses the usual misconceptions about evolution in fancy speak. I have seen "tornado in a junkyard", "randomness as cause of beneficial mutations" (forgetting selection by the way), "random mutations are always harmful" so far. Had he been clearer in his statements, this discussion would have been shorter, I guess.

Now, if I understand you correctly, you're saying a testable prediction of ID is that the number of "useful" mutations that occur will greatly outnumber the number of harmful mutations.

— Russel

DaveScot, do you have a crayon lodged in your brain? You've had everything in your post painfully explained you multiple times, or debunked, and yet you continue to repeat the same crap. Are you just copying random things off of answeringenesis and posting them here? What's wrong with you? Stop cluttering threads with your useless tripe.

Heck, anyone that's bothered to read "The Origin of Species" knows that Darwin made spectacular mistakes (heritable acquired traits is a beauty) galore which, in and of itself, means that the trite "150 years of confirmation" is a lie.

— davescot

Heck, anyone that's bothered to read "The Origin of Species" knows that Darwin made spectacular mistakes (heritable acquired traits is a beauty) galore which, in and of itself, means that the trite "150 years of confirmation" is a lie.

— davescot

Neurode wrote: Alright then. Let's get away from the logic and have a look at the universal ontogenic map you apparently have in mind, complete with a thorough statistical analysis. Many people would like to see the ironclad calculations proving that random genetic deterioration automatically engenders a remarkable assortment of beneficial adaptations, thus making gibbering fools of the enemies of Darwin (and Las Vegas to boot). Or perhaps you have other evolutionary mechanism(s) in mind . . .

Flint

Falsifiability is not a requirement if there's verifiability.

The nature of negative evidence makes it practically impossible to falsify some explanations. However, if the explanation can be confirmed by positive evidence there's no need to be falsifiable. That should be evident to even the casual observer.

Mutation/selection appears to be non-verifiable and evidence which any objective person would view as falsifying it is rejected out of hand because nobody can come up with an alternative to mutation/selection which adheres to the materialism dogma.

ID may not be falsifiable but it is verifiable. I'm not convinced it's been verfied but the evidence certainly supports it a lot better than the mutation/selection hypothesis which has failed so many predictions yet trundles along like everything lined right up for it it's gone from hypothesis to faith-based dogma.

[Russell - I should think that it might be better, for scientific purposes, to make some effort to count the deleterious mutations before nature kills them off and sweeps them under the carpet. That way, you can avoid confounding the target effect with the effects of natural selection. But I'll bet you already thought of that . . . ]

— Neurode, who I'm becoming convinced is, just for laughs, pretending to be an IDist to see how ridiculous an argument will get a response,

The world is entirely populated by organisms which have accumulated vast numbers of highly adaptive (and/or non-harmful) mutations!

The problem is obvious. Any bright individual that's bothered to look at the evidence in light of both mutation/selection and design can see which is a better fit.

Therefore atheists like Dawkins and his band of merry men can't let even a whisper of criticism of the modern synthesis into a classroom lest more bright people start to dig deeper and reach the inevitable conclusion that his peer and former world renowned atheist Antony Flew arrived at recently.

If they can continue the fraud of saying Darwinian evolution is confirmed without a doubt by 150 years of testing no one bothers to question it. Heck, anyone that's bothered to read "The Origin of Species" knows that Darwin made spectacular mistakes (heritable acquired traits is a beauty) galore which, in and of itself, means that the trite "150 years of confirmation" is a lie.

bcpmoon

The only thing of Darwin's original work still standing is common ancestry and descent with modification. And he wasn't the first to propose either of those as anyone involved in animal husbandry over the last umpteen thousand years knew of heritable traits and descent with modification. The most important thing, the mechanism by which phylogenesis operates, Darwin posited to be the primary result of inheritance of acquired characters... which is totally wrong. Mutation/selection, the all powerful patch applied to Darwin's spectacular failure, remains to this day a huge extrapolation from a: [observed but limited powers to modify] to b: [all encompassing unobserved power to modify]. All this time and it still remains just an extrapolation with no confirmation. I don't believe it CAN be confirmed because you can't confirm something that isn't true. And it too has failed miserably because it predicted that novel new species would arise from selection acting on a plethora of closely related populations. Instead of bottom-up evolution working from a large body of small acccumulated beneficial mutations the fossil record reveals top-down evolution where new forms arise in eyeblinks of geologic time with little if any evidence of gradual mutation preceding it. Thus comes in the latest kludge on the failed hypothesis - punctuated equilibrium by Eldredge and Gould a mere 30 years ago. So the vaunted 150 years of confirmation is really 130 years of failed predictions and a 30-year new hypothesis that has not been confirmed and probably won't be confirmed because it just didn't happen that way. Spare me.

Mutation/selection is a failed hypothesis for explaining the diversity of life. There are only two kinds of explanations for macro-evolution and origins - failed hypotheses and unconfirmed hypotheses. The modern synthesis is in the former group. ID is in the latter.

And all the above doesn't even touch on the origins problem which is so problematic no one has made a bit of progress on it since finding out that Urey-Miller's precipitating amino acids in the 1950's was based on a seriously flawed model of the young earth environment. The mutation/selection extrapolation and punctuated equilibrium kludge are small leaps compared to the leap any materialist abiogenesis hypothesis is forced to make. Most evolutionists, just as Darwin did, would rather just ignore abiogenesis and focus on a plausible explantion for evolution after the first cell miraculously showed up out of nowhere.

"What the hell is a "world renowned" atheist?"

Antony Flew.

"Funny thing though, Flew admitted that he wasn't aware of the evidence and has since recanted that portion of his "conversion"."

No, he did not. That's simply false. Flew said he hadn't read the interviewer's latest book not that he had read nothing. He recanted nothing and confirmed that ID is the closest thing to what he now believes to be true.

"So basically he did what everybody else does: toyed with ID out of ignorance (note that he never actually accepted it)."

He has accepted that recent discoveries in the details of cellular machinery have become impossible for him to accept as anything other than design by some agency. He still rejects religious dogma purporting to the be revealed word of God. In other words, he's moved from atheist to deist, which is move even I haven't made. I remain agnostic.

"What about all those theistic evolutionists who both outnumber and agree with those atheists? Christ you're dishonest. Shouldn't you be against bearing false witness?

If you're allowed to point to the leading lights of ID as being conspiratorial Christians with agendas then I reserve the right to point to the leading lights of neo-Darwinism as atheists. I don't think anyone's faith should be scrutinized but you force me to play by those rules so I point out that Dawkins and Gould and most of the other big names in evolution are atheists.

And no, I shouldn't be against bearing false witness. Your lame little poke at the ten commandments is nothing to me. The bible is a nothing more than collection of bedtime stories as far as I know. If you're careful to avoid the ambiguities in it you can pull out some decent moral codes but it's like finding a pony buried in a mountain of manure. Knowing right from wrong doesn't require a bible for guidance - at least not for me.

If you're allowed to point to the leading lights of ID as being conspiratorial Christians with agendas then I reserve the right to point to the leading lights of neo-Darwinism as atheists.

DaveScot, you're hillarious. Do you have this stuff on flashcards next to your keyboard? Either that, or you have become adroit at copy and paste. It's sickly entertaining to watch you disappear shortly after your arguments are disemboweled, only to reappear with the same arguments in another thread.

So now you know why I'm here. How about you? What do you get out of this little game? Obviously you enjoy ruffling feathers and being the object of disdain. May I suggest you expand your set of flashcards (surely the DI has a new set available on their website by now) because these are rapidly becoming stale.

If the function "mutation" were independent of the property "fitness", then there would be no reason to expect beneficial adaptations to arise from mere genetic copying errors. That would be a bit like expecting the random scribbles of a palsy victim to result in acceptable modifications to a complex engineering or architectural blueprint in a highly significant percentage of cases, even where the blueprint is constantly subject to new and unpredictable environmental constraints.

Therefore, to confirm that fitness figures as a causal parameter in the mutation function, one need merely look for a significantly high ratio of adaptive mutations to deleterious mutations of like extent. And what do you know? The world is entirely populated by organisms which have accumulated vast numbers of highly adaptive (and/or non-harmful) mutations!

The only thing of Darwin's original work still standing is common ancestry and descent with modification. And he wasn't the first to propose either of those as anyone involved in animal husbandry over the last umpteen thousand years knew of heritable traits and descent with modification.

— DaveIQ153Scot

The most important thing, the mechanism by which phylogenesis operates, Darwin posited to be the primary result of inheritance of acquired characters . . .

...Darwin's spectacular failure

the fossil record reveals top-down evolution where new forms arise in eyeblinks of geologic time

Mutation/selection is a failed hypothesis for explaining the diversity of life.

And all the above doesn't even touch on the origins problem

Therefore, to confirm that fitness figures as a causal parameter in the mutation function, one need merely look for a significantly high ratio of adaptive mutations to deleterious mutations of like extent. And what do you know? The world is entirely populated by organisms which have accumulated vast numbers of highly adaptive (and/or non-harmful) mutations!

Flew said he hadn't read the interviewer's latest book not that he had read nothing. He recanted nothing and confirmed that ID is the closest thing to what he now believes to be true.

— DaveScot

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.

— Anthony Flew

"I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." --letter to Richard Carrier, Jan 29th

— Anthony Flew

He has accepted that recent discoveries in the details of cellular machinery have become impossible for him to accept as anything other than design by some agency.

If you're allowed to point to the leading lights of ID as being conspiratorial Christians with agendas then I reserve the right to point to the leading lights of neo-Darwinism as atheists. I don't think anyone's faith should be scrutinized but you force me to play by those rules so I point out that Dawkins and Gould and most of the other big names in evolution are atheists.

And no, I shouldn't be against bearing false witness. Your lame little ... Knowing right from wrong doesn't require a bible for guidance - at least not for me.

DaveIQ153Scot wrote: The only thing of Darwin's original work still standing is common ancestry and descent with modification. And he wasn't the first to propose either of those as anyone involved in animal husbandry over the last umpteen thousand years knew of heritable traits and descent with modification.

My congratulations (and sympathy) to all of you who've taken the time and effort to decipher what Neurode thinks he's saying. Fortunately, he has no real argument, and is thus reduced to repeating the same assertions over and over again. As a result, he does over time achieve something resembling clarity, despite his suffocatingly turgid prose. God of the gaps + "It's obvious!" + tornado in a junkyard = Neurode. That's really all there is to it.

Hey, I think teaching ID does indeed "make all students lifelong learners." Think about it--it leaves them ignorant about one of the most important and basic scientific concepts in human history, and since it leaves them ignorant, they have to spend years after graduation learning what they should have been taught in school. Thus, they are lifelong learners. Hmm?

Falsifiability is not a requirement if there's verifiability. The nature of negative evidence makes it practically impossible to falsify some explanations. However, if the explanation can be confirmed by positive evidence there's no need to be falsifiable. That should be evident to even the casual observer.

I would be pretty darn happy to come up with an idea that is still around 150 years later. But our buddy DaveIQ153 is again arguing from ignorance. Darwin also extended Malthus' ideas about how the rate of reproduction limits the number of young that can reproduce from human to the non-human populations, another pretty darn good insight that has stood the test of time.

Posted by DaveScot on February 25, 2005 03:06 PM The nature of negative evidence makes it practically impossible to falsify some explanations. However, if the explanation can be confirmed by positive evidence there's no need to be falsifiable. That should be evident to even the casual observer.

This is in response to the many bloggers here who keep remarking that Intelligent Design should not be taught in a science class because it is not discovered by scientific method of discovery and therefore does not belong. Having been in many science classrooms and having studied the subject with some depth I find this logic to be faulty. Certainly it is agreed that a teacher should teach students to utilize the scientific method of discovery and utilize it as well. Consider, however,
the following: Science is taught as a field of knowledge. The utilization of the scientific method should include quantitative methods in the treatment of data and be free from prejudice or emotional bias. The teaching of science includes teaching the known and well accepted principles, practices, and procedures used in scientific study including terminology, and such mundane practices as labeling, organizing, sketching, reading of history etc. A science teacher teaches research methods, statistics, standardized measuring techniques, documentation, logic, inductive and deductive thinking, along with many other skills. In the many fields of science, evolution is one area of study that would be taught in a biology and/or origins class. Along with evolution, should be taught other theories of the origin and creation of life and matter. I am amazed that there is even one true scientist who wishes to shut out the possibilities that exist in the origin of matter and the species, since so little is actually known.
Certainly much is known concerning DNA, mutations,
etc. There is much data that has been accumulated. Now it is up to those who interpret data to allow all ideas to be put forth as to the interpretation of this data. When evolution is the best explanation, truth seekers will have no trouble recognizing this. On the other hand, when evidence of Intelligent Design is present, the same can be said of those who are seeking truth. There should be no desire to force one or the other out of a discussion, but rather a desire to keep the statistics and records accurately kept. Science students learn from observing, studying and evaluating data as well as from their own experiments using the scientific method of discovery.

Questions addressed to creationists in this thread alone, and never responded to:

Comment #18002
Neurode,
You keep making statements that the ID hypothesis has already been extensively tested, but so far I haven't see you post a shred of evidence to back it up. I want studies, reputable journal articles etc. It's time to put up or shut-up.
#18006
"Another problem may be that the theory of evolution is so trivial that virtually any other "life science theory" properly contains it (unless, unlike ID theory, it denies long-term biological change of any kind)."
This is just plain silly. Creationist life science "theories" explicitly denounce common ancestry, and that's what the majority of ID advocates adhere to. If it's so trivial, why is it that the vast majority of IDCs reject it?

#18008
Really? All interpretations have equal right to be considered on equal footing in science?

" The occurrence of beneficial mutations is related to fitness (in a hypothetical design process)."

"Is related to"? What do you suppose that means? Maybe "Is (somehow) caused by"? Hard to know. But how this competes with the massively documented mechanisms of nucleic acid copying infidelity, only IDers seem to know.
#18012
Well, I asked neurode to specify a test ID could fail, and so far he has carefully ignored this basic notion. Lots and lots of doubletalk, but no method.

#18016
What confirmation are you talking about? What crucial tests? You've posted nothing about these, and have instead argued that your "reinterpretation" is valid all by itself without any additional evidence. I'm beginning to think I'm wasting my time here, since you seem to enjoy dragging people around in circles. Post some evidence, or admit that you have none.

#18028
A couple things spring to mind here.
1. Do you really think we should spend time on the alien theory, even in only a cursory mention?
2. You still have not explained who the "intelligent designer" is. If you require that of the alien explanation, then it's only fair that you pony up about who/what your designer is as well. So, let's hear it.

#18036
Now, if I understand you correctly, you're saying a testable prediction of ID is that the number of "useful" mutations that occur will greatly outnumber the number of harmful mutations. And your test for that is to look at nature and ask what genetic variations (i.e. mutations) are there to be seen. But of course all the significantly deleterious mutations will have been culled by natural selection, so you're not asking what is the ratio of fortunate to unfortunate mutation events, you're asking: does nature select for fortunate over unfortunate mutation events. Guess what ToE predicts?

#18042
Putting your massive confusion about mutation aside, the whole problem we're having here is that a deeper explanation has not been forthcoming from you, despite people having asked you for one. That was the whole point of me having asked for evidence when you asserted that ID had passed "crucial tests". What tests has it passed? You haven't named a single one.

#18049
DaveScot, do you have a crayon lodged in your brain? [OK. That's a rhetorical question. But you do have to wonder]

#18054
Are you clear on propositional logic and why it's a disaster in science?

#18068
Of course, Darwin discussed the experience of animal breeders in OoS, as part of the evidence backing his theory. But I was not aware that the notion of common descent of, say, humans and sharks, was much appreciated before Darwin. Do you have any references to share with us?

The most important thing, the mechanism by which phylogenesis operates, Darwin posited to be the primary result of inheritance of acquired characters . . .

I don't have my OoS right here, but that was not the impression I got from reading it. Would you be so kind as to cite the relevant passage? Thanx in advance.

" . . . Darwin's spectacular failure" which was what, exactly?

"the fossil record reveals top-down evolution where new forms arise in eyeblinks of geologic time"Can we get specific here? How many generations of the creatures in question does this "eyeblink" encompass?

"Mutation/selection is a failed hypothesis for explaining the diversity of life."

Your constant repetition of this slogan does not make it any truer. What do we have beyond "DaveIQ153Scot doesn't think so"? Point to some actual evidence, considered and taken seriously by actual biologists.

"And all the above doesn't even touch on the origins problem"
You're right, that abiogenesis problem is a real poser. But what would you consider "progress" in this field? The synthesis of a live bacterium from inorganic starting materials? Is everything short of that a failure? Most folks in the field believe the chemical processes - whatever they were - involved millions of years, and there's no way it's going to be replicated in a human lifetime. So as far as mechanisms, we have chemical scenarios - plausible in a general sort of way but nowhere near specific - versus . . . what? It's no good to say "it had to be designed". That's not a mechanism. How was it assembled?

Neurode wrote: Russell - I should think that it might be better, for scientific purposes, to make some effort to count the deleterious mutations before nature kills them off and sweeps them under the carpet. That way, you can avoid confounding the target effect with the effects of natural selection. But I'll bet you already thought of that . . . ]

I've just finished a page on a form of reasoning seen in this thread. If you're not a professional biologist check out the link and remember to avoid this sort of reasoning in your posts.

Nematode wrote: If the function "mutation" were independent of the property "fitness", then there would be no reason to expect beneficial adaptations to arise from mere genetic copying errors.

The messenger wrote: Certainly much is known concerning DNA, mutations, etc. There is much data that has been accumulated. Now it is up to those who interpret data to allow all ideas to be put forth as to the interpretation of this data. When evolution is the best explanation, truth seekers will have no trouble recognizing this. On the other hand, when evidence of Intelligent Design is present, the same can be said of those who are seeking truth. There should be no desire to force one or the other out of a discussion, but rather a desire to keep the statistics and records accurately kept. Science students learn from observing, studying and evaluating data as well as from their own experiments using the scientific method of discovery.

I think you know what I've been saying here, E; the evidence for the basic Darwinian hypothesis, whatever you may consider that evidence to be, can be reinterpreted as evidence for the design hypothesis with double the confirmation.

I'd advise Neurode NOT to post a test ID can fail. That path leads to weeping and gnashing of teeth.

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 Antony Flew has retracted one of his recent assertions. In a letter to me dated 29 December 2004, Flew concedes: "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." He blames his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins because Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter," even though this is false (e.g., Richard Dawkins and L. D. Hurst, "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube," Nature 357: pp. 198-199, 21 May 1992) and hardly relevant: it was Flew's responsibility to check the state of the field (there are several books by actual protobiologists published in just the last five years), rather than wait for the chance possibility that one particular evolutionist would write on the subject. Now that he has done what he was supposed to do in the first place, he has retracted his false statement about the current state of protobiological science. Flew also makes another admission: "I have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder." He says "it was precisely because he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not) that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics." Apart from his unreasonable plan of trusting a physicist on the subject of biochemistry (after all, the relevant field is biochemistry, not physics--yet it would seem Flew does not recognize the difference), this attitude seems to pervade Flew's method of truthseeking, of looking to a single author for authoritative information and never checking their claims (or, as in the case of Dawkins, presumed lack of claims). As Flew admitted to me, and to Stuart Wavell of the London Times, and Duncan Crary of the Humanist Network News, he has not made any effort to check up on the current state of things in any relevant field (see "No Longer Atheist, Flew Stands by 'Presumption of Atheism'" and "In the Beginning There Was Something"). Flew has thus abandoned the very standards of inquiry that led the rest of us to atheism. It would seem the only way to God is to jettison responsible scholarship.

Despite all this, Flew has not retracted his belief in God, as far as I can tell. But in response to theists citing him in their favor, Flew strangely calls his "recent very modest defection from my previous unbelief" a "more radical form of unbelief," and implies that the concept of God might actually be self-refuting, for "surely there is material here for a new and more fundamental challenge to the very conception of God as an omnipotent spirit," but, Flew says, "I am just too old at the age of nearly 82 to initiate and conduct a major and super radical controversy about the conceivability of the putative concept of God as a spirit." This would appear to be his excuse for everything: he won't investigate the evidence because it's too hard. Yet he will declare beliefs in the absence of proper inquiry. Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship can only help to make belief look ridiculous.

ts,

Is "Richard Dawkins and L. D. Hurst, "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube," Nature 357: pp. 198-199, 21 May 1992" available anywhere online?

Do you ask me this because you're lazy, or you figure that I'm competent to type google searches into my browser while you're not, or what?

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v357/n6375/full/357198a0.html&filetype=pdf

Mmm...it seems that we have a runaway misunderstanding here, complete with gratuitous regurgitations of some peoples' HS bio notes.

First, I didn't say that Darwinism, aka natural selection, is "wrong", or that any particular strain of ID is definitely "right"; I merely pointed out that examples of evolutionary adaptation confirm the ID hypothesis at a higher rate than the basic Darwinian hypothesis. That's a fact; whereas ID can make free use of natural selection, the basic Darwinian hypothesis is committed to indifference regarding mutational causation and therefore cannot benefit from modern findings regarding natural mechanisms thereof. That is, there is a point beyond which modern evolutionary biology is powerless to confirm the basic Darwinian hypothesis.

Of course, there's a hidden advantage to that; under the ground rules set by the original proponents of the Darwinian hypothesis, its modern proponents need not prove that any particular set of natural genetic mechanisms accounts for evolution in general. That's a good thing (for them), because they lack the data and the arguments required for that purpose. On the other hand, the Darwinian focus on natural selection saddles them with another obligation that cannot be avoided: to establish that little adaptations add up to large ones, and that natural mechanisms studied in microevolutionary contexts add up to macroevolution solely under the guidance of natural selection.

It may come as a surprise to some of you that evolutionary biology has not yet accomplished this feat, and that there is some amount of doubt as to whether it can. Some say that this doubt is illegitimate, that "science" must always take the causal sufficiency of natural mechanisms for granted. But if science merely works from this assumption to its implications, then it is ultimately just a form of circular reasoning in which the definition of "natural" is tied to the outcome of "naturalistic" inquiry and vice versa. Unfortunately, this is not entirely adequate for explanatory purposes, and under close analysis, conventional formulations of the scientific method fail to clarify matters. In addition, one must explain up front precisely how a "natural" system differs from other types of system. This is something else that evolutionary biology has not accomplished, even with help from the ad hoc discipline of complexity theory.

Although a good deal of heavy baggage has been attached to the "ID" label, the ID hypothesis can ultimately be viewed, on semantic and historic grounds, as the nucleus of a "supertheory" of evolution. That is, whereas the basic Darwinian hypothesis has solely to do with the deterministic effects of natural selection, ID also has to do with the causation of adaptive mutations (small and aggregate, with the non-exclusive involvement of NS in aggregation). When construed in this way, ID is simply an extension of Darwinism which expands its scope with respect to observed phenomena and admits a full range of possible causal influences, no assumptions required. In this light, ID is scientific by definition. (Incidentally, I'm not interested in objections based on special restrictive definitions of ID; my remarks apply only to the generalized form of ID spelled out above.)

With regard to the objection that any form of ID is necessarily committed to "supernatural" causation, one need merely observe that there is nothing about the terms "intelligent" and "design" that would necessarily prevent their integration into a naturalistic worldview. After all, intelligence exists in nature and qualifies as a natural phenomenon; in fact, as I've already (perhaps too subtly) pointed out, "intelligent" is to some extent synonymous with "adaptive". This is why ID, construed in the most general possible way, can be confirmed by arbitrary instances of biological adaptation, and why it can be confirmed or falsified by tests involving adaptivity (as I've already observed).

On a final note - and I apologize in advance to the innocent - this list obviously has a number of serious problems, not the least of which is the tedious regularity with which so many of its participants shoot off their mouths in ways that can only be described as boorish, bigoted, insulting, and in the final analysis, asinine. I see nothing here that would justify that sort of arrogance. The miscreants are shielded by their numbers; when many of them all begin ranting at once, responding to each of them in detail becomes prohibitive, and they can delude themselves that they've carried the day. But they really fool no one but themselves, and possibly a few others who lack the wit to see through their nonsense. A little self-restraint would markedly upgrade the quality of discourse around here.

I merely pointed out that examples of evolutionary adaptation confirm the ID hypothesis at a higher rate than the basic Darwinian hypothesis. That's a fact

ID is simply an extension of Darwinism which expands its scope with respect to observed phenomena and admits a full range of possible causal influences, no assumptions required.

On a final note - and I apologize in advance to the innocent - this list obviously has a number of serious problems, not the least of which is the tedious regularity with which so many of its participants shoot off their mouths in ways that can only be described as boorish, bigoted, insulting, and in the final analysis, asinine.

Nematode wrote: On a final note - and I apologize in advance to the innocent - this list obviously has a number of serious problems, not the least of which is the tedious regularity with which so many of its participants shoot off their mouths in ways that can only be described as boorish, bigoted, insulting, and in the final analysis, asinine. I see nothing here that would justify that sort of arrogance. The miscreants are shielded by their numbers; when many of them all begin ranting at once, responding to each of them in detail becomes prohibitive, and they can delude themselves that they've carried the day. But they really fool no one but themselves, and possibly a few others who lack the wit to see through their nonsense. A little self-restraint would markedly upgrade the quality of discourse around here.

When construed in this way, ID is simply an extension of Darwinism which expands its scope with respect to observed phenomena and admits a full range of possible causal influences, no assumptions required. In this light, ID is scientific by definition. (Incidentally, I'm not interested in objections based on special restrictive definitions of ID; my remarks apply only to the generalized form of ID spelled out above.) With regard to the objection that any form of ID is necessarily committed to "supernatural" causation, one need merely observe that there is nothing about the terms "intelligent" and "design" that would necessarily prevent their integration into a naturalistic worldview. After all, intelligence exists in nature and qualifies as a natural phenomenon; in fact, as I've already (perhaps too subtly) pointed out, "intelligent" is to some extent synonymous with "adaptive". This is why ID, construed in the most general possible way, can be confirmed by arbitrary instances of biological adaptation, and why it can be confirmed or falsified by tests involving adaptivity (as I've already observed).

— Neurode

I merely pointed out that examples of evolutionary adaptation confirm the ID hypothesis at a higher rate than the basic Darwinian hypothesis.

Neurode, I will try to say this as politely as I can. All your comments in this thread betray a near total ignorance of what evolutionary theory is really about. Several people here (I don't know if they all count as miscreants in your book) have done their best to explain it to you, and to show why your arguments are fallacious, but in response you disregard what they've said and keep repeating the same non sequiturs and tautologies.

It seems to me that your opponents in this thread have accurately characterized your argument -- that the occurence of adaptive mutations confirms the ID hypothesis -- but you have not returned the favor. The whole point of evolution is that it shows how you have can organisms that are wonderfully adapted to their environment without the need for any designer, so your repeated claim that adaptation implies design absolutely begs the question.

So try this. Leave aside ID for the moment. Write up a brief description of evolutionary theory as you understand it and submit it to an evolutionary biologist (they're not hard to find around here) for review. Allow the biologist to correct your errors, and pay careful attention to his or her comments. You may have to go through a few drafts, but eventually you should be able to come up with a reasonably accurate statement. If you want to criticize evolutionary theory, or weigh it against Intelligent Design, that should be your starting point.

Lastly, if I might be slightly less polite for a moment, I'd like to address your complaint about the boorish, bigoted, insulting and asinine tone of some of the comments here. As long as we're talking about tone, let me just point out that the smug and supercilious tone you adopt throughout this thread really doesn't befit the vacuity of your arguments.

Steven Stralka: You say that "the whole point of evolution is that it shows how you have can organisms that are wonderfully adapted to their environment without the need for any designer." In what kind of system? And can you prove that the world is that kind of system? These are questions to which you have clearly failed to devote sufficient thought.

Ed Darrell: I really don't know what to say to somebody who can't tell the difference between ID and a dog show. ID might not be to your liking, but if you don't recognize the importance of the issues that it attempts to address, you might as well not even try to debate it. You'll only end up going around in circles.

GCT: I have not been "arguing that evolution proves ID and that ID disproves evolution." I have been arguing that the causal scope of evolutionary theory is limited and therefore amenable to extension, and that it is possible to view a general version of the ID hypothesis as the nucleus of that extension. I have not "tried to co-opt natural selection to be a part of ID and not of evolution." In fact, I have no idea where you got that. And my comments regarding adaptivity were designed to address the distinction between adaptation (within an evolutionary system) and the property of adaptivity, which requires a higher (systemic) level of explanation than the events to which it is applied.

Lois Lane: This may be hard for you to believe, but discussions of this kind are not mere pissing contests for you to show everybody the dangers of messing with a "professional biologist". Nobody cares on this side of the screen (that is, I don't care). Your enzyme example misses the point; while valid within its scope, its scope is far too limited to be relevant to the issue at hand (evolution cannot be reduced to enzyme mutations). And although you talk about propositional logic as though you know it well, I see no sign that you know it well enough to be lecturing on it. In fact, my point has to do more with predicate logic, as should have been evident to you in my emphasis on the definitions of such terms as "nature", "naturalistic","intelligent" and "design". Science depends critically on language; it has been used poorly and thoughtlessly by people on both sides of this controversy, including you.

Ts: It's not your place to set the "burden of rebuttal". Why not? Because you're an airhead, and worse than that, you're a rude one. Take my advice: evolve a little. Then maybe you can haul your sorry rebuttal on over to Kansas and do something you haven't managed to do here: give those anti-evolutionists something worthy of thinking about.

You know, all this rudeness really pisses Me off. As punishment, I condemn Neurode and ts to spend eternity locked up alone in a 6' x 6' cell.

Impersonating God is a prosecutable offense. Laugh now, pay later.

First, I didn't say that Darwinism, aka natural selection, is "wrong", or that any particular strain of ID is definitely "right"; I merely pointed out that examples of evolutionary adaptation confirm the ID hypothesis at a higher rate than the basic Darwinian hypothesis. That's a fact; whereas ID can make free use of natural selection, the basic Darwinian hypothesis is committed to indifference regarding mutational causation and therefore cannot benefit from modern findings regarding natural mechanisms thereof. That is, there is a point beyond which modern evolutionary biology is powerless to confirm the basic Darwinian hypothesis.

On the other hand, the Darwinian focus on natural selection saddles them with another obligation that cannot be avoided: to establish that little adaptations add up to large ones, and that natural mechanisms studied in microevolutionary contexts add up to macroevolution solely under the guidance of natural selection.

Frank.

Please study your Nostrodamas.

He predicted many things that his followers believe. He claims visions of higher powers.

Because some of his vague statements turn out to loosely fit how history unfolded do you now believe in God?

Or do you have a higher standard of proof for the religious wackos than for the evolution wackos?

Please make some predictions for evolution...

I predict that gravity within the Earth will be attracted to the earth at roughly 9.8 m/s^2. This applies to all interactions of gravity and you are free to test for yourself.

I understand Gravity do you understand evolution? By the way I expect numbers in your reply as I am talking about science not BS. Please provide at least 1 preferrably 2 significant figures in your reply.

I understand Gravity do you understand evolution?

— DonkeyKong

I have not been "arguing that evolution proves ID and that ID disproves evolution." I have been arguing that the causal scope of evolutionary theory is limited and therefore amenable to extension, and that it is possible to view a general version of the ID hypothesis as the nucleus of that extension. I have not "tried to co-opt natural selection to be a part of ID and not of evolution." In fact, I have no idea where you got that. And my comments regarding adaptivity were designed to address the distinction between adaptation (within an evolutionary system) and the property of adaptivity, which requires a higher (systemic) level of explanation than the events to which it is applied.

— Neurode

Impersonating God is a prosecutable offense. Laugh now, pay later.

— Neurode

First, I didn't say that Darwinism, aka natural selection, is "wrong", or that any particular strain of ID is definitely "right"; I merely pointed out that examples of evolutionary adaptation confirm the ID hypothesis at a higher rate than the basic Darwinian hypothesis. That's a fact; whereas ID can make free use of natural selection, the basic Darwinian hypothesis is committed to indifference regarding mutational causation and therefore cannot benefit from modern findings regarding natural mechanisms thereof.

— Neurode

I predict that gravity within the Earth will be attracted to the earth at roughly 9.8 m/s^2. This applies to all interactions of gravity and you are free to test for yourself.

I predict that gravity within the Earth will be attracted to the earth at roughly 9.8 m/s^2. ... I understand Gravity

Jonathon Abbey: "You seem to be claiming that because evolutionary theory does not explain where the mutations come from, it can't explain as much as ID. Do I have that right?"

No, you don't. The basic Darwinian hypothesis is merely one aspect of "evolutionary theory". You seem to understand this when you refer to the "extraordinarily rich body of knowledge that has been accumulated 'below' evolutionary theory ... about the various ways in which enzymatic copying of DNA and RNA gives rise to mutation"; however, you seem not to understand it when you intimate that that this body of knowledge is sufficient, despite "gaps that haven't been photographed/pickled/pinned to a butterfly board", to characterize the modes of causation required by nature. It is not sufficient, as the very existence of complexity theory demonstrates.

You go on: "If the rate of adaptive mutations was one in ten million, I wouldn't find that miraculous enough to necessitate the presence of an Intelligent Designer. If it was one in five, I might. Where do you draw the line to consider mutations miraculously successful enough to give you confidence to point to an Intelligent Designer?"

Where indeed? Unless you can answer this question for yourself with a high degree of precision and reliability (and you can't), you cannot draw the line beyond which possible causal extensions should be summarily excluded from evolutionary theory.

You continue: "If I do have either or both of those two points right, I'd appreciate it if you could explain how ID coheres with the fact that we know that the vast majority of possible mutations are harmful ones, and that the majority of living creatures conceived on this planet die without ever leaving offspring, just as the vast majority of species that have ever lived have gone extinct."

You're aware, I hope, that you've already been contradicted on that - somebody else has already observed that the vast majority of (elementary) mutations are neutral. However, you do appear to understand that there is a question as to whether the ratio of survivable mutations to deleterious mutations - and now we're talking about combinations of elementary mutations, which are far more likely to be deleterious than elementary mutations themselves - is sufficiently high, despite the culling influence of natural selection, to sustain life on earth without other modes of causation than the one you currently think you understand.

You then ask "Where do you draw the line to consider mutations miraculously successful enough to give you confidence to point to an Intelligent Designer?"

That's a very good question. But let me ask another: Given that an intelligent designer can be defined consistently with natural selection and available evolutionary data, how do you know enough to exclude that hypothesis? [Clue: you don't.]

Finally, you ask "Or, again, are you giving the Intelligent Designer the basic credit for the miraculous existence of the world's physics, chemistry, etc.?"

You appear to be talking about what evolutionary cosmologists might call the "cosmic mutation" that gave rise to the universe and its laws. In which case, the standard scientific supposition of causal self-containment implies that the ontological adaptivity of this mutation is intrinsic in origin. And in that case, when intelligence is defined on adaptivity, the universe bears description as "intelligent", having "designed itself" for internal self-adaptation.

But now we're in the realm of theology. This is what happens when you start asking deep questions. So the question now becomes, is science merely a shallow skimming-over-the-surface of nature and causality, or is it prepared to go after the answers to deep questions? [Clue: science has already gone after those answers in fields like physics and cosmology, leaving evolutionary biology in the dust.]

GCT writes: "Just in case you wanted to try and say that you never tried to co-opt natural selection for ID, I thought I would include this quote by you earlier: 'whereas ID can make free use of natural selection, the basic Darwinian hypothesis is committed to indifference regarding mutational causation and therefore cannot benefit from modern findings regarding natural mechanisms thereof.'"

I was objecting to part B of your assertion that "(A) You've tried to co-opt natural selection to be a part of ID (B) and not of evolution." You need to keep better track of your assertions.

Dear Scott Davidson, Has your Dragon pounced on the writer of this yet? :~)

Methodological Naturalism http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm[/url}

A Christian therefore has a certain freedom denied her naturalist counterpart: she can follow the evidence where it leads...

— Plantinga

... modern evolutionary thought has shown or given us reason to believe that human beings are, in an important way, merely accidental; there wasn't any plan, any foresight, any mind, any mind's eye involved in their coming into being. But of course no Christian theist could take that seriously for a moment.

Neurode sayeth: That's a very good question. But let me ask another: Given that an intelligent designer can be defined consistently with natural selection and available evolutionary data, how do you know enough to exclude that hypothesis? [Clue: you don't.]

Russell,
You are taking something out of context and that is what is giving you the trouble. Drop it into to context and the meaning becomes much more obvious. First you need to know that he quotes Gould, Simpson, and Dawkins. Then he writes:

"These writers, therefore, unite in declaring that modern evolutionary thought has shown or given us reason to believe that human beings are, in an important way, merely accidental; there wasn't any plan, any foresight, any mind, any mind's eye involved in their coming into being. But of course no Christian theist could take that seriously for a moment. Human beings have been created, and created in the image of God. No doubt God could have created us via evolutionary processes; if he did it that way, however, then he must have guided, orchestrated, directed the processes by which he brought about his designs.
Now again (as with Simon) we might say that strictly speaking, when these people make such declarations, they are neither speaking as scientists nor doing science."

Now doesn't that help 'reconcile' the quotes?

Now doesn't that help 'reconcile' the quotes?

Jonathan Abbey says:

"In the absence of positive direct evidence for an Intelligent Designer, the onus is on your side to make the case."

You don't quite seem to be getting the point about different ways of interpreting the same evidence. You look at the universe (with the naked eye, through a microscope, through a telescope) and say:

1. "I see no evidence of divine causation; I see only ordinary causation."

A theist looks at the same universe and says:

2. "I see only divine causation, the simpler modes being the most accessible and thus mistaken for 'ordinary'."

To exclude ID from science classrooms, you need to demonstrate conclusively that 1 is correct, but that 2 is not.

In order to do this, you will need to show that ID lacks any possible logically consistent model for the sort of causation it posits. This would require you to spell out the model of causation on which your version of "science" relies, demonstrate its sufficiency to explain all observable phenomena (including the universe as a whole), and show that it contains no room for ID.

I guarantee that if you attempt to do this, you will fail. First, you will fail to spell out a logically consistent model of "ordinary causation" (that's mainly the job of the physical sciences, and physics is currently torn between several inconsistent notions of causation). Then, after trying unsuccessfully to fudge a causational model, you will fail to demonstrate its explanatory sufficiency. Lastly, you will fail to show that it precludes divine causation.

If you'd like to seriously try to meet this challenge, just let me know where to find your attempt. I'll make sure to point out all of your errors as politely and instructively as possible...that is, unless you make no errors, in which case I'll gladly admit that you're a very smart person, not least for having bothered to educate yourself beyond your current level of understanding.

That being said, your "invisible, immaterial leprechauns" comment is just the kind I'd expect from someone without the ghost of a chance of pulling it off. In conjunction with what seems to be your general incomprehension regarding certain key issues, it implies an inability or unwillingness to make the fine logical distinctions you'd be required to make. (But feel free to try anyway.)

Lastly, you seem to have a problem locating the burden of proof. Where one group is pursuing an exclusory policy at the expense of another, they must justify that policy by proving that it leads to a better result than if it were not pursued. In this case, the burden is on those who exclusively endorse a restrictive "naturalistic" form of causation to prove that no other form of causation is scientifically relevant, and thus that the views of those endorsing a less restrictive view of causation should be excluded from science classrooms.

But since that takes us back to my challenge, perhaps you'd better get busy.

You look at the universe (with the naked eye, through a microscope, through a telescope) and say:

1. "I see no evidence of divine causation; I see only ordinary causation."

A leprechaunist looks at the same universe and says:

2. "I see only leprechaunal causation, the simpler modes being the most accessible and thus mistaken for 'ordinary'."

To exclude leprechauns from science classrooms, you need to demonstrate conclusively that 1 is correct, but that 2 is not.

Great insight, Mike!

But let's do this right. In order for your theory of "leprechaunal causation" to succeed, you must distinguish leprechaunal causation from ordinary causation in some coherent way.

You can begin by naming the events for which it is responsible, taking care that they have not already been adequately explained in terms of ordinary causation.

You may find this example useful: ID proponents point to the origin of life, speciation, and sometimes the origin of the cosmos as events for which its characteristic mode of causation is responsible. (They are able to do this because ordinary causation can be proven insufficient, or at any rate cannot be proven sufficient, to cause those events.)

By the way, take care not to define "leprechaunal causation" in such a way that it overlaps with "ID causation". ID got there first, and already "owns" the events on which it is defined.

If you can do what the ID people have done, you can then remove the putty from your nose, give your theory a more dignified name, and go mainstream!

Let us know how it goes.

I think Neurode is more lost in his (her?) own sophistry than its intended targets. What exactly would this "ID" consist of in high school science classes? What is the curriculum? What is the text?

Lastly, you seem to have a problem locating the burden of proof. Where one group is pursuing an exclusory policy at the expense of another, they must justify that policy by proving that it leads to a better result than if it were not pursued. In this case, the burden is on those who exclusively endorse a restrictive "naturalistic" form of causation to prove that no other form of causation is scientifically relevant, and thus that the views of those endorsing a less restrictive view of causation should be excluded from science classrooms.

Neurode? Got a couple questions for you. Given that ID pretty much boils down to "Somewhere, somewhen, somehow, somebody intelligent did something", how can ID be tested? And if ID can't be tested, why should any scientist bother to take ID seriously?

Now, you might choose to respond that my seven-word summary misrepresents ID -- but if you do that, I'll thank you to explain how I've misrepresented ID. As best I can tell from my reading of ID material, ID doesn't say anything about the Designer other than that It was intelligent (therefore, "somebody intelligent" isn't a misrepresentation); as well, ID doesn't say anything about what the Designer actually did (therefore, "did something" isn't a misrepresentation), how the Designer did whatever It did (therefore, "somehow" isn't a misrepresentation), where the Designer did whatever It did (therefore, "somewhere" isn't a misrepresentation), or when the Designer did whatever It did (therefore, "somewhen" isn't a misrepresentation)...

The best evidence for Intelligent design stems from the time honored method of the elimination of alternative explanations. Since both Lamarckian and Darwinian hypotheses have proven to be dismal failures, what are we left with as conceivable possibilities? I say a prescribed, front loaded, autogenerated, goal directed and self- terminating evolution. In other words a process exactly like ontogeny which is also prescribed, front loaded, autogenerated, goal directed and self-terminating.

Another way of looking at it it is as follows. Nature was obviously created some how. Just when in the creative process did the Creator hand over the reins to Nature to complete the creative sequence? I say never. So much for Natural Selection. The only role for Natural Selection was to maintain for limited periods of time the status quo. That is why species appear and disappear in the fossil record with virtually no alterations in their morphology during their tenure. The only exceptions I know to this involve increases in size which typically end in extinction. Without extinction there could never have been any evolution.

Thus Natural Selection was anti-evolutionary in the short run but essential for evolution in the long run, when it was no longer able to resist the ravages of the accumulation of deleterious genes. Schindewolf recognized this view of evolution when he coined the terms "Typogenesis," Typostasis," and "Typolysis" to describe evolutionary history as revealed by the fossil record, a record that cannot be ignored by any evolutionary hypothesis.

John A. Davison

Mr Davison- if Lamarckian and Darwinian hypotheses are such dismal failures, perhaps you can tell us how? Who has shown them to be such failures? In what way have they been shown to be failures?

"I say a prescribed, front loaded, autogenerated, goal directed and self- terminating evolution."

That sounds interesting. What are the traces of it around today that are so convincing to us that we should think it correct?

Jonathan Abbey: "How can any form of causation be scientifically relevant if no evidence can be adduced and no mechanism explained for it?"

Regarding evidence, you're still not getting the picture. Plenty of evidence has been adduced for the ID hypothesis: the origin of the cosmos. The origin of life. Every instance of speciation.

The Darwinian hypothesis, which represents mainstream evolutionary theory in this context, claims the last of these bodies of evidence (speciation) for itself. However, it falls victim to your "no mechanism" clause. That is, although Darwinists claim that naturalistic, gradualistic mechanisms are capable of causing speciation - or as you put it, they "predict" speciation - they have spectacularly failed to achieve direct confirmation. Darwinism thus remains an article of faith, and this places it on the same footing on which it accuses ID of being.

And then, of course, we have the fact that ID claims two other bodies of evidence confirmationally unavailable to the basic Darwinian hypothesis: the origin of the cosmos, and the origin of life. Ordinary causality cannot possibly have been responsible for the origin of the cosmos; yet cosmologists agree that the cosmos did indeed have an origin. This constitutes an existential proof of the existence of the ID mode of causation. Although the origin of life is also claimed by the larger body of naturalistic evolutionary theory, there are problems which devolve to the essential nature of "life", and in any case, Darwinism per se is prohibited from taking advantage of this evidence (as already explained).

What does this mean? It means that if Darwinism gets to stay in the classroom (in any but a microevolutionary context), then ID gets to be in the classroom. It's very simple, very fair, and very scientific. The only requirements that can be imposed on ID are that it be formulated in a logically consistent way which ties into the cosmological evidence for the existence of ID causation, and that it favor no specific body of religious belief.

Regarding a mechanism, it is widely assumed that no ID proponent has proposed a mechanism for ID causation. This is false; I've read at least two papers, both by the same author, proposing such a mechanism and explaining how it fits into an ID-consistent cosmology. These ideas are still on the back burner, but have been published in the ID literature and on ID sites. Unfortunately, although the mechanism and cosmology seem logically consistent, they are too complex to explain here. I will say, however, that this advanced version of (the general form of) ID seems to have been developed with sufficient logical rigor to appear in virtually any science textbook, particularly given that much of what now passes for mainstream cosmological theorization has far less to do with logic.

What it comes down to is this: if ID is to be excluded from science textbooks as an explanation for macroevolution, Darwinism must be excluded as well. Its proponents have now had a century and a half to deliver direct confirmation of their hypothesis, have failed to do so, and as a result, no longer have the scientific credibility to keep other hypotheses out of the limelight.

it is widely assumed that no ID proponent has proposed a mechanism for ID causation. This is false; I've read at least two papers, both by the same author, proposing such a mechanism and explaining how it fits into an ID-consistent cosmology

if ID is to be excluded from science textbooks as an explanation for macroevolution, Darwinism must be excluded as well. Its proponents have now had a century and a half to deliver direct confirmation of their hypothesis, have failed to do so, and as a result, no longer have the scientific credibility to keep other hypotheses out of the limelight.

"I know it when I see it" isn't even the standard used to judge dogs at the Westminster Dog Show.

— Ed Darrel

Fascinating thread.

At least two world views are expressed here. The naturalistic, which maintains that it's alright to say, "we don't know, at least not yet", in response to some questions; and the supernaturalistic (is that a word?), with adherents who are comfortable inserting their god into every available gap. The only way they can prevent their god from playing an ever-dimenishing role in the world is to deny science.

It seems a strange and sad choice.

re Antony Flew

I hadn't read the January 2005 update on secweb. My mistake. Please forgive me for missing it at this late date of February 2005. I try to read everything new on the internet within a day of its appearance but sometimes my reading list is backed up a month or two. LOL!

Congratulations to all who caught me in a mistake. Cherish it as you would the rarest of treasures.

BTW, my "interpretation" of the data is that aliens were involved in seeding the first cell. This also "explains" the data. So, may I put that into a scientific curriculum as well?

— Don T. Know

Rossell writes: "Please share with us these references."

Read chapter 13 of the book "Uncommon Dissent". Then read the author's source paper referenced therein.

Russell goes on: "Here you come tantalizingly close to that pot at the end of the rainbow we're all so curious about: the actual scientific content of ID (mechanisms, predictions, tests, measurements . . . ) - only to let us down again."

As a theory of speciation and/or a causal theory of adaptive mutation, Darwinism has no relevant tests or measurements to call its own. While its proponents have long been furiously waving their hands at purported naturalistic mechanisms, ID is free to incorporate the very same mechanisms, plus an additional class of mechanisms justified by their causal inadequacy. As far as predictions are concerned, Darwinism makes no predictions relevant to these explananda, and even if it did, ID could successfully predict that the Darwinian predictions won't pan out on the required level of explanation. Thus far, it has in fact done this with 100% accuracy.

Russell continues: "What would constitute 'direct' confirmation of the 'Darwinian' hypothesis?"

As a valid beginning, most people would accept a verifiable detailed account of the evolutionary history of any complex multicellular organism, including the relevant sequence of mutations (to confirm the micromutational sufficiency of ordinary causality) and phylogenetic divergences (to confirm macromutational sufficiency).

In contrast, the ID hypothesis would be directly confirmed by any event requiring a mode of causation above and beyond the known class of "naturalistic" causal mechanisms. Specific examples: the origin of the cosmos (observed). The origin of life (observed). Speciation (observed).

By any reasonable standards, this stage of the game is over.

Russell: "What mechanism does 'ID' propose?"

If you actually care, you can read the source material.

Russell: "How has the ID mechanism been tested?"

See above responses. An existential proof of the ID mode of causation has been given, and it has been tested by attempts to explain certain widely-observed events in terms of ordinary causation. These attempts have failed, thus confirming the involvement of ID causation (by exclusion, as Prof. Davison observes).

Russell: "Please don't bother high school students with your sophistry until you can give cogent answers to these questions. They have enough to deal with as it is."

As you probably know by current personal experience. Right?

Heddle at http://helives.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_helives_archive.html#110934859492712020

Good work. But there's an even easier way to falsify ID for me. Just verify mutation/selection is the mechanism that took bacteria to buffalo in 4 billion years and that'll do it for me. Is that too much to ask? Evidently it is.

Ya know why it's too much to ask and why mutation/selection has not been verified as the mechanism that turned bacteria into buffalo? Because you can't verify something that didn't happen. Ouch.

DaveScot -
Are you saying that if/when SETI finds evidence of ETs, it will automatically prove that ETs were responsible for seeding the first cell?

Neurode -
Are you saying that you'd be convinced that evolution is correct when we manage to fill in all the gaps in the fossil record and correspond that with direct genetic evidence of corresponding mutations? (I'm guessing I already know the answer to that.) Filling in every single missing link in the chain (branch in the bush) is nearly impossible for any scientific finding. Do you know every single biochemical pathway affected when you pop a Tylenol? Nope, no one does, but I but you still reach for the pill bottle when you have a headache (i.e. you acknowledge that it works without possibly knowing every single excrutiating detail about how it works).

I could care less about the theistic inclinations of Evolution's supporters. This has no bearing on the fact that most evolutionary biologists are not atheists. 40% are Christian, the rest are a mixture of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostic, Atheists, Deists, etc. So again, you do them injustice and I would go so far as to say you insult them. And we're not talking about chump change here either. We're talking about people like . . . . Darwin. Wallace. Asa Gray. Maybe we should curse Christians for coming up with Evolution. ... I could give a crap one way or another. The point is that 1. we should be honest in this discussion and 2. you haven't been.

— prince vegata

Atheism is common in Western Europe, in former or present communist states, and in the United States and Canada. It is particularly prevalent among natural scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the twentieth century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God". The same study, repeated in 1996, resulted in 93% expressing such disbelief or doubt. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%.

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

Flint

The all-powerful falsifiability is mid-20th century invention by Sir Karl Popper. He was an atheist that adored Karl Marx, by the way.

So who died and made Popper's view of falsifiability the final word on what is and is not science? I must have missed that bit of news.

Are you saying that if/when SETI finds evidence of ETs, it will automatically prove that ETs were responsible for seeding the first cell?

— e

I was about to rebut Neurode point by point, yet again, then decided life is too short. Tell you what, Neurode: if your case is so strong, convince Bush's science advisor that ID is science. Or anyone else, for that matter, to whom I - or more to the point, a school board - might accord at least a shred of respect. Why are you wasting your time here where, in case you hadn't noticed, your vacuous sophistry is convincing no one?

Read chapter 13 of the book "Uncommon Dissent". Then read the author's source paper referenced therein.

The Darwinian hypothesis, which represents mainstream evolutionary theory in this context, claims the last of these bodies of evidence (speciation) for itself. However, it falls victim to your "no mechanism" clause. That is, although Darwinists claim that naturalistic, gradualistic mechanisms are capable of causing speciation - or as you put it, they "predict" speciation - they have spectacularly failed to achieve direct confirmation. Darwinism thus remains an article of faith, and this places it on the same footing on which it accuses ID of being.

E writes: "Neurode - Are you saying that you'd be convinced that evolution is correct when we manage to fill in all the gaps in the fossil record and correspond that with direct genetic evidence of corresponding mutations? (I'm guessing I already know the answer to that.) Filling in every single missing link in the chain (branch in the bush) is nearly impossible for any scientific finding. Do you know every single biochemical pathway affected when you pop a Tylenol? Nope, no one does, but I but you still reach for the pill bottle when you have a headache (i.e. you acknowledge that it works without possibly knowing every single excrutiating detail about how it works)."

Congratulations, E! It almost looks as though you're beginning to wake up and smell the latte.

Over the years, it has evaded the notice of many evolutionary biologists that due to the exclusory nature of their "naturalistic" agenda with regard to the causation of the certain phenomena, i.e., the evolution of complex organisms, they need to establish the exclusivity (or at least the sufficiency) of naturalistic mechanisms with respect to those phenomena. Unfortunately, these phenomena are vastly more complex and hard to study than the phenomena addressed in other fields of scientific inquiry, and this makes the confirmation of certain hypotheses vastly more difficult. Evidently, some evolutionary biologists were so blind to the extent of this difficulty that they bit off far more than they or their successors could chew, confirmationally speaking.

Due to the complexity of macroevolutionary phenomena, their causation spans long and complex sequences of events. Unfortunately, the confirmation of causal hypotheses becomes vastly more difficult as complexity rises, because many more causal trajectories must be considered. Worse yet, when the actual causal trajectories have been lost in the mists of time, the task of verifying any one of them, or any class of them, becomes nearly impossible, and the task of proving their exclusivity becomes impossible, full stop. This distances evolutionary biology from other fields of scientific inquiry, placing its naturalistic agenda in extremely inhospitable confirmational territory. Given this fact, it is safe to say that mainstream evolutionary theorists have been entirely too ambitious for their own good, and that they really should have known better.

Of course, I sympathize with their plight. But since their impossible explanatory burdens were assumed voluntarily, they have only themselves to blame, and have thus relinquished any right to point accusatory fingers at competing hypotheses. It's the nature of the game they voluntarily decided to play.

Incidentally, the makers of Tylenol have no such problem, for their pharmacological hypothesis was neither exclusory nor paleontological; only one path of efficacy had to be established, and the relevant biochemical pathways could be tracked and directly studied in the lab.

As I'm sure you'll agree, giving an experimental drug to a complex organism is quite different from pointing at a complex organism and screaming "Evolve!" or "De-evolve!"

Gosh, those bacteria that evolved resistance to antibiotics and then killed the grandfather of one of my friends must be really simple organism.

Russel

Plenty of people are convinced. The problem is that anytime anyone actually tries to suggest in a classroom that the neo-Darwinian story might not be correct they get sued by the ACLU for violation of the so-called doctrine of separation of church and state which is in itself another one of those mid-20th century inventions by atheist intellectuals.

You can bet your bottom dollar if your precious fairy tale wasn't being defended by the federal courts it would be long gone.

Congratulations are due to Neurode and his/her accomplices on a spectacularly successful feat of intelligently designed ideational mutation. The explicit goal of this thread was to focus on the challenge presented in the Southwestern Times newspaper by George Diepenbrock and the response offered by Jason Rosenhouse in EvolutionBlog - but of the 121 postings displayed at this writing, 10% at the very most deal with this topic.

Approximately from the first "Neurode" entry, _all_ of the subsequent dialog is essentially Neurodocentric; Diepenbrock & Rosenhouse fail to persist even in fossil form. Students of memetics could use this page as a classic case of viral hijacking, in that considerable resources have been expended in ways hardly even tangential to thematic initial conditions.

It's questionable whether this conceptual structure can in any way be salvaged for the original goal of assisting Diepenbrock & Rosenhouse with their inquiry: the latter is very probably aware of this page, and the former possibly so, but neither could be held at fault for not participating.

Neurode's participation, on this level, could be considered faultless: by injecting a few standard antigens, she/he seems to have quickly and efficiently diverted all others involved to a predictable sequence of reflexive exchanges which absorbs all available substance. Whether this result was intentional or opportunistic is unclear from the evidence (a prototypical issue in questions of randomness vs. design).

Just as an allergy or fever can be said to handicap or disable an organism by the disproportionate response of an otherwise healthy immune system to a minor toxin, so has the Neurodic infection turned this purported discussion of educational standards into an overheated and unproductive body with a dubious prognosis.

Perhaps the only hope remaining is that members of the evolutionary camp may eventually develop better memetic defenses against the fallacious reaction of too-easily-triggered reflexes, and learn to design more intelligently their contributions to discourse on a given conception so as to honor and affirm its creator's (or creators') teleology.

Not that anyone is particularly interested, but I am very definitely an anthropocentric throwback to the dark ages and believe, for very good reasons, that the earth is very definitely the center of the universe and the only place where life ever existed. Until evidence surfaces to the contrary I shall continue with my heretical views.

John A. Davison

I... guess there's nothing to say after that. Thanks, Pierce. ;-)

Guthrie says: "Gosh, those bacteria that evolved resistance to antibiotics and then killed the grandfather of one of my friends must be really simple organism."

We all have relatives that were killed by bacteria. However, that doesn't make bacteria complex multicellular organisms. Nor does it explain why antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria exist prior to selection.

Jonathan Abbey says: "Thanks for being brave enough to identify yourself, Christopher. I hope you'll forgive the inference, but your previous comments on the Philosophy of Biology blog, in combination with the extraordinarily high self esteem shown in the biography for the author of chapter 13 of Uncommon Dissent could only point to one conclusion."

Your hypothesis is impolite and not subject to verification. For obvious reasons, many of them exemplified above, most of those who post on boards like this one have adopted pseudonyms for a reason, and are not interested in revealing their birth names. I certainly know that I won't be revealing mine, and that I won't be contributing to your guessing games by denying or confirming any irrelevant conjectures. So I'd appreciate it if you'd simply give it up, as Internet etiquette demands. People request and provide citations all the time; you requested a citation, I considerately gave you one, and I suggest that you take it for what it is.

Your other questions were addressed in my last response to E.

DaveScott wrote: No. But if they [ETs] include a schematic of the first cell and it checks out I'd probably be swayed.

Genetic engineers exist on earth today. You might even know one as they tend to be found in university genetic research laboratories wearing lab coats. The Copernican Principle of Medicrity, the basis of enlightened thought, says that the earth and life on the earth is not "special" in any way. Therefore, to be good enlightened Copernican thinkers we must assume, until proven otherwise, that genetic engineers are not unique to the earth.

Plenty of people are convinced.

Pierce R. Butler says: "Congratulations are due to Neurode and his/her accomplices on a spectacularly successful feat of intelligently designed ideational mutation. The explicit goal of this thread was to focus on the challenge presented in the Southwestern Times newspaper by George Diepenbrock and the response offered by Jason Rosenhouse in EvolutionBlog - but of the 121 postings displayed at this writing, 10% at the very most deal with this topic."

I'm afraid I'll have to differ with you on that, Pierce. All of my contributions have dealt with the question of whether or not ID belongs in the classroom. Jason Rosenhouse has a long, droning history of sounding off on this issue, his current post at evolutionblog is a case in point, and many people are entirely dissatisfied with his arguments. We think they're lousy and poorly stated. (Of course, you're entitled to think otherwise, but I'm afraid that when all is said and done, Jason must answer for his own opinions.)

DaveScot,

You frequently invoke Popper in your arguments and you always get him wrong. Why, why, why.

Here's what Popper says, in Open Society, about Marx:

"Why, then, attack Marx? In spite of his merits, Marx was, I believe, a false prophet. He was a prophet of the course of history, and his prophecies did not come true; but this is not my main accusation. It is much more important that he misled scores of intelligent people into believing that historical prophecy is the scientific way of approaching social problems. Marx is responsible for the devastating influence of the historicist method of thought within the ranks of those who wish to advance the cause of the open society" (p. 82).

You also fail to understand the point of falsification -- it's a demarcation criterion. For Popper, falsification and verification are asymmetrical. He devised the falsification principle precisely to refute the verification principle of the logical positivists. In simple terms, it is not possible to prove that scientific theories are true (the principle of verification) but it is possible to prove that they are false (the principle of falsification). The latter is what demarcates science from non-science according to Popper. If there's no way to falsify a scientific theory, it's not scientific. And that's why he devoted a whole book on historicism -- to show that Marx's (and Hegel's) historicist schema was not scientific.

Strains of bacteria exist prior to selection for several reasons, the most obvious of which is that antibiotics were in their environment long before people showed up. Many soil microbes produce antibiotics. Indeed, most commercially produced antibiotics are still produced in fermentation tanks. The molds and bacteria have been fighting it out for millions of years.

In any case, if an organism puts out a large number of proteins and other chemicals for various purposes anyhow, it is very likely that some of these products will have activity against a random new agent just by chance and ordinary natural selection can rapidly improve the fit between enzyme and substrate. One should also note that the effective number of enzymes and other chemicals available to microbes is much larger than one would estimate on the basis of the genome size of any given kind of bacteria. Since bacteria routinely swap genes, all the microbes in the environment are possible sources of biochemical defenses to antibiotics. Resistance to antibiotics is catching.

If not a supernatural entity, then who?

An intelligent organism from another planet? And if so, what is your evidence that such an organism exists?

Plenty of people are convinced

Why are you wasting your time here where, in case you hadn't noticed, your vacuous sophistry is convincing no one?

Russell

"Why don't you quit casting your pearls before us swine, and win over Dr. Marburger?"

The war, as always, is being waged in federal court. The battle for public opinion has never even been a contest. It's ALWAYS been a court battle. Darwinism can't stand up to criticism on its own merits. It's purely a matter of fun for me to rub atheists noses in their own piddle here. I'd rub young earth creationists noses in their own piddle too but that would be too easy. You boys present more of a challenge.

"Strains of bacteria exist prior to selection for several reasons"

And after selection they remain bacteria. We coming back to that thorny little issue. Antibiotic resistent bacteria are still bacteria.

DOH!

atheist/marxist Sir Karl Popper's

— DaveScot

1919 was in many respects the most important formative year of his intellectual life. In that year he became heavily involved in left-wing politics, joined the Association of Socialist School Students, and became for a time a Marxist. However, he was quickly disillusioned with the doctrinaire character of the latter, and soon abandoned it entirely. ... For Marxism, Popper believed, had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were not in fact borne out, the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means, Popper asserted, a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma. ... For Popper, however, to assert that a theory is unscientific, is not necessarily to hold that it is unenlightening, still less that it is meaningless, for it sometimes happens that a theory which is unscientific (because it is unfalsifiable) at a given time may become falsifiable, and thus scientific, with the development of technology, or with the further articulation and refinement of the theory.

— http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

"Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores of the Western World."
William Golding

John A. Davison

"We all have relatives that were killed by bacteria. However, that doesn't make bacteria complex multicellular organisms. Nor does it explain why antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria exist prior to selection."

But the point, my little toy, is that bacteria can and do evolve. Perhaps we need a new definition of complexity:
"Anything multicelled is too complex to have evolved."

As for the bacteria, their genes change, allelic frequencey etc etc (I'm not a biologist). So, do things evolve or not? You said:
"complex organism and screaming "Evolve!" or "De-evolve!""

So, is a bacteria complex or not? Do you ahve a "scientific" definition of complexity? If you do, we'd like to hear it.

So, Mr Davison is arguing from the authority of an author? Personally I have found reading the Bible quite boring, does that mean it is wrong?

Actually, I dont see why DaveScot is arguing abotu Marx, Freud and Darwin being the pillars of Western modernism, when we're already past Post-Modernism. Do keep up, theres a good chap!

The war, as always, is being waged in federal court. The battle for public opinion has never even been a contest. It's ALWAYS been a court battle.

So there.

"Popper criticized Marx's methodology, not necessarily Marx's conclusions." "he WAS a Marxist, although he repented.""He admired Marx for generating a genuinely scientific hypothesis. He loathed the failure to reject it when its predictions didn't come true.""It's unclear whether he ever rejected philosophical socialism on a personal basis but irrelevant either way."

— DaveScot

"The Marxist account of history too, Popper held, is not scientific, although it differs in certain crucial respects from psychoanalysis. For Marxism, Popper believed, had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were not in fact borne out, the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means, Popper asserted, a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma."

— The full quote from the Stanford site

Bacteria are not models for evolution. They are dead ends just like all the other products of a past phenomenon. Get used to it folks. Evolution beyond the production of subspecies or varieties is a thing of the past. Darwinism is an intellectual disgrace and a deliberate hoax perpetuated by a highly organized bunch of politically liberal muddleheaded atheists who are stone deaf to what Einstein called the "music of the spheres."

Phylogeny (evolution) and ontogeny (embryogenesis) are part of the same organic continuum and both have proceeded on the basis of preformed front-loaded information. Furthermore, just as ontogeny involves the derepression of that preformed information, so has evolution proceeded in exactly the same way. Both processes are self -limiting and self-terminating and both have involved the gradual loss of potentiality with time. Today we see nothing but the products of a past evolution not evolution in progress as the Darwinians blindly continue to maintain.

John A. Davison

Fair enough, Christopher. We'll keep it between us, then.

And, actually, I didn't request any citation from you, you're confusing me with another poster. All I wanted was for you to be clear and precise about the basis for your arguments, rather than making people chase after you in your abstraction.

Dr. Davison, after having the pleasure of reading your thesis on the "prescribed theory" I'm not surprised that you believe the Earth is the center of the universe nor that you believe that life is unique to the Earth. These ideas are well in line with your thoughts on evolution.

I am a bit lost though in your hypothesis that evolution used to operate, but no longer does. That's a bit like a geologist saying that volcanism occurred pre-Pleistocene, but no long does. Someone with less kindness than I might point out Mt St Helens to that geologist, just as someone might point out the Drosophila complex to you.

Populations evolve and accumulate genetic changes. When those genetic changes result in reproductive isolation, a new species has emerged. The process occurred in the past, it is operating now. None of this precludes a god or an intelligent designer, but also none of this requires such a being. Believe as you wish, but don't be surprised if your beliefs aren't accepted as science.

Regarding evidence, you're still not getting the picture. Plenty of evidence has been adduced for the ID hypothesis: the origin of the cosmos. The origin of life. Every instance of speciation. The Darwinian hypothesis, which represents mainstream evolutionary theory in this context, claims the last of these bodies of evidence (speciation) for itself. However, it falls victim to your "no mechanism" clause. That is, although Darwinists claim that naturalistic, gradualistic mechanisms are capable of causing speciation - or as you put it, they "predict" speciation - they have spectacularly failed to achieve direct confirmation. Darwinism thus remains an article of faith, and this places it on the same footing on which it accuses ID of being. And then, of course, we have the fact that ID claims two other bodies of evidence confirmationally unavailable to the basic Darwinian hypothesis: the origin of the cosmos, and the origin of life. Ordinary causality cannot possibly have been responsible for the origin of the cosmos; yet cosmologists agree that the cosmos did indeed have an origin. This constitutes an existential proof of the existence of the ID mode of causation. Although the origin of life is also claimed by the larger body of naturalistic evolutionary theory, there are problems which devolve to the essential nature of "life", and in any case, Darwinism per se is prohibited from taking advantage of this evidence (as already explained). What does this mean? It means that if Darwinism gets to stay in the classroom (in any but a microevolutionary context), then ID gets to be in the classroom. It's very simple, very fair, and very scientific. The only requirements that can be imposed on ID are that it be formulated in a logically consistent way which ties into the cosmological evidence for the existence of ID causation, and that it favor no specific body of religious belief.

— Neurode

I wish I could say that GCT has made a valuable contribution to the discussion. Unfortunately, I can't.

Like so many others who consider themselves authorities in this controversy, GCT simply adopts an indefensibly narrow view of "science", throws in the obligatory circular reference to a model-free philosophical position that he calls "naturalism", defines "God" in as stilted and naive a way as possible (so as to conveniently exclude the term from his "naturalistic" view of reality, whatever that may be), construes "ID" as devolving inevitably to this narrow definition of God, and leaps to the grand conclusion that ID cannot possibly be science. If I've seen this pathetic string of misconceptions once, I've seen it a thousand times. As everyone knows who looks at it for longer than it takes to say "Rah, Rah, NCSE!", it's a mere jumble of definitional assumptions permitting victims of mental gridlock to shoehorn the entire intricate controversy into the little brown box of their liking and tape it shut.

Now on to GCT's confusion regarding the Establishment Clause. Establishment and Entanglement are the two Constitutional principles which militate against religion in the classroom. According to these criteria, the state will neither sanction (establish or maintain) an official religion, nor will it permit the entanglement of religion and government through the Jeffersonian "wall" separating church and state. Entanglement is a looser criterion than Establishment; it can be interpreted in such a way as to outlaw state sponsorship of not only religion per se, but anything so closely connected with religion that it could lead to a breach in the wall of separation.

Entanglement clearly entails the assumption that that the actual relationship between religion and science is such as to permit a wall of separation to be erected between them. From this, it follows that the Entanglement criterion and its legal assays cannot be applied to any matter of fact, or to anything whose logical implications may be essential to responsible governance. Since this potentially includes logical, mathematical and scientific facts in general (which may have practical bearing on the responsible conduct of government), such facts are not subject to arguments from Entanglement. It is therefore required not only that something be shown to penetrate the "wall of separation", but that it be shown to have no basis in actual (logical, mathematical or scientific) fact.

GCT and his confederates have no chance whatsoever of proving such a thing, particularly using the cookie-cutter arguments with which we have now learned to identify their thought processes. GCT's first problem will be that the ID hypothesis explicitly excludes religious content, and that ID therefore cannot be described as a religion. (This neutralizes Establishment.) GCT's next problem will be that some ID proponents (me included) are not promoting religion, do not view ID as a "religious" hypothesis, and do not apply the hypothesis in that way. (The mere possibility of such applications neutralizes circumstantial arguments "entangling" ID with religion.) GCT's last and most difficult problem will be to prove that ID has no factual basis, even when literally interpreted as described above. As I say, he has no chance of doing this before any court worthy of the name.

Of course, lawyers and judges are only human. They make mistakes all the time. With enough fools signing petitions and spouting GCT-style nonsense, and defense attorneys too slow on their feet to properly argue the case, the courts may be hoodwinked into deciding that ID fails the relevant Constitutional tests. But in that case, the problem could be solved by raising the jurisdiction and switching to a better brand of attorney.

Please, GCT - if you're going to engage me in dialogue, don't waste my time. Try to say something intelligent instead.

The opinion that evolution is finsihed is hardly mine alone. Minds superior to mine reached that conclusion long ago. Among them. Robert Broom and Pierre Grasse and, believe it or not, Julian Huxley, the primary spokesperson for the Darwinian myth and the author of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis."
In a single paragraph, seven pages from the end of that book, Huxley destroyed the Darwinian fairy tale which is why, even today, the Darwinians choose to ignore one of their own, just as they have always ignored every critic of the biggest hoax in the history of science. They have no choice as they are genetically compelled to that position, a condition recognized by Einstein long ago.

"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."
Statement to The Spinoza Society of America, September 22, 1932

Darwinism, like closely linked political liberalism and atheism constitutes a veritable genetic syndrome, innate and apparently irreversible, like evolution itself and, like evolution, totally immune to environmmntal influences.

John A. Davison

I've learned that it is possible to get a Ph.D. in biology at the University of Kansas without having a course in evolutionary biology.

So much for the central place Darwinism has in science. :-)

you are reveling in this national ignorance.

you are reveling in this national ignorance.

Of course, it is assumed that someone setting out to get a Ph.D. in Biology has already taken at least an introductory biology class as an undergraduate (probably when they were a freshman). Any introductory biology class at any college or university will include a section on evolutionary biology.

The consensus among biologists that evolution is central to the field is shown in the fact that everyone getting a Bachelor's in the biological sciences will have spent some time studying evolution, and the earlier the better.

Neurode,
If you want to dismiss my claims, please bring some substance with you. All you gave is, "ID doesn't violate the Constitutional separation of church and state, and it is science because I say it's not religion." You have not stated that the designer is supernatural, but you have alluded to it. If the designer is not supernatural, then say so outright and tell us who the designer is. Be warned, however, that a designer who is bound by the physical laws of our universe could not have made the physical laws of our universe. If you try to argue that, it will show that you have no grasp of causality, among other things.

So, which is it? Did the designer create the universe as you said, or is the designer non-supernatural as you want to say he/she/it is?

Once you invoke the supernatural, it is no longer in the realm of science. This is not an "indefensibly narrow view" as you called it. On the contrary, there is no other way to define science. Once you leave the realm of the natural world, you are in the territory of philosophy and religion. The fact that you don't understand that shows that you don't even know what science is, which makes me wonder why anyone would even entertain the idea that ID is science when you say it.

Since ID moves into the supernatural, it is now in the domain of religion (since it can, by definition not be in the realm of science) and therefore violates the EC. If you can come up with a way to allow supernatural forces in science, let's hear it, but you will have to come up with some falsifiable tests. The problem is, and I will paraphrase David Heddle of all people when I say this, no one can prove or disprove god. People have tried for thousands of years, and no one has done either one yet. Your test for falsifiability doesn't look forthcoming. Let that serve as an answer to your assertion that truth can not be withheld by the EC. When you can prove that god is a truth, then it can be taught in school. Otherwise, it violates the separation of church and state.

GCT's first problem will be that the ID hypothesis explicitly excludes religious content, and that ID therefore cannot be described as a religion. (This neutralizes Establishment.) GCT's next problem will be that some ID proponents (me included) are not promoting religion, do not view ID as a "religious" hypothesis, and do not apply the hypothesis in that way. (The mere possibility of such applications neutralizes circumstantial arguments "entangling" ID with religion.) GCT's last and most difficult problem will be to prove that ID has no factual basis, even when literally interpreted as described above. As I say, he has no chance of doing this before any court worthy of the name.

— Neurode

Please, GCT - if you're going to engage me in dialogue, don't waste my time. Try to say something intelligent instead.

— Neurode

I wish I could say that GCT has made a valuable contribution to the discussion. Unfortunately, I can't.

— Neurode

Now on to GCT's confusion regarding the Establishment Clause. Establishment and Entanglement are the two Constitutional principles which militate against religion in the classroom. According to these criteria, the state will neither sanction (establish or maintain) an official religion, nor will it permit the entanglement of religion and government through the Jeffersonian "wall" separating church and state. Entanglement is a looser criterion than Establishment; it can be interpreted in such a way as to outlaw state sponsorship of not only religion per se, but anything so closely connected with religion that it could lead to a breach in the wall of separation.

— Neurode

GCT complains: "If you want to dismiss my claims, please bring some substance with you. All you gave is, "ID doesn't violate the Constitutional separation of church and state, and it is science because I say it's not religion."

...and because it has been explicitly defined to exclude articles of religious faith. (By the way, if you want to take others to task for "lack of substance", I suggest that you consider filling your little baggies of wisdom with something besides stale air.)

GCT: "You have not stated that the designer is supernatural, but you have alluded to it."

Not good enough, I'm afraid. The burden of proving that ID implies a "supernatural" designer rests on those who make that claim, which is not made by the ID hypothesis itself. The ID hypothesis merely refers to "intelligence" and "design". Intelligence is a fully scientific concept; it exists in nature, it is routinely measured, engineers attempt to construct physical machinery which possesses it, and as I've already pointed out, it can be generically equated to recognition and adaptation.

Similarly, "design" is implicit in the definitions of certain fundamental, scientifically necessary physical constructs. For example, consider a "potential" (associated with a field of force). In a potential, physical possibilities are defined prior to realization, i.e. in a "pre-real" way; thus, pre-reality is a perfectly scientific concept. In short, "design" is defined on two scientific and therefore naturalistic attributes, intelligence and pre-reality.

Because "Intelligent Design" is merely a literal combination of two scientific and therefore naturalistic concepts, it is scientific and naturalistic in essence...unless, that is, you can somehow demonstrate that combining these two naturalistic concepts necessarily invokes "the supernatural" and an accompanying swarm of religious rituals and strictures.

Before arguing with me again, please make sure that you have not unwittingly attached any unnecessary baggage to any of these terms, as you've previously done with other terms including "God", "science" and "naturalistic". I don't have time for any more of your sophomoric semantic preconceptions.

"In short, "design" is defined on two scientific and therefore naturalistic attributes, intelligence and pre-reality."

ID requires something else from its designer, that He/She/It put that design into play; i.e., is the Creator. Only a fool believes that the designer in Intelligent Design is anything other than God.

Colin pontificates: "The two constitutional clauses aren't Establishment and "Entanglement," they're Establishment and Free Exercise. Entanglement is merely one prong of the test used to sound out Establishment Clause violations. As for your stilted analysis of the test, I would simply point out so far courts have rightly held that the injection of creationism into public schools is a constitutional violation. Calling it "Intelligent Design" is merely a dishonest way to duck that jurisprudence, and so far, thankfully, it has failed miserably."

You're unnecessarily complexifying the issue. Either you know what "entanglement" is, or you don't. You seem to be claiming that you do; but if that were the case, you'd be explaining how ID violates it. However, you probably can't do that, because you probably lack the required levels of skill, understanding, and probity. This is confirmed by (1) your endorsement of GCT's vapid arguments; (2) your dishonest conflation of ID and Creationism, which permits you to apply legal precedents which do not actually apply in this case.

Again, please don't waste my time.

Neurode wrote: Because "Intelligent Design" is merely a literal combination of two scientific and therefore naturalistic concepts, it is scientific and naturalistic in essence . . . unless, that is, you can somehow demonstrate that combining these two naturalistic concepts necessarily invokes "the supernatural" and an accompanying swarm of religious rituals and strictures.

In contrast, the ID hypothesis would be directly confirmed by any event requiring a mode of causation above and beyond the known class of "naturalistic" causal mechanisms. Specific examples: the origin of the cosmos (observed). The origin of life (observed). Speciation (observed).

Due to the complexity of macroevolutionary phenomena, their causation spans long and complex sequences of events. Unfortunately, the confirmation of causal hypotheses becomes vastly more difficult as complexity rises, because many more causal trajectories must be considered. Worse yet, when the actual causal trajectories have been lost in the mists of time, the task of verifying any one of them, or any class of them, becomes nearly impossible, and the task of proving their exclusivity becomes impossible, full stop. This distances evolutionary biology from other fields of scientific inquiry, placing its naturalistic agenda in extremely inhospitable confirmational territory. Given this fact, it is safe to say that mainstream evolutionary theorists have been entirely too ambitious for their own good, and that they really should have known better.

GCT: "ID requires something else from its designer, that He/She/It put that design into play; i.e., is the Creator. Only a fool believes that the designer in Intelligent Design is anything other than God."

Apparently, there are a few holes in your understanding of theology. You seem to be concentrating only on certain strains of Western monotheism, which hold God apart from the universe and thus render Him "supernatural". In any case, you need to specify which version of God you're railing against.

Some definitions of "God", particularly those associated with pantheism and panentheism, equate God to the universe. To invalidate these definitions in the ID context, you would need to prove that the universe involves neither potentials, thus flying in the face of modern physics, nor an "intelligent" combination of self-recognition and self-adaptation, thus arguably flying in the face of evolution itself. But I've already explained this to you.

Were you a real attorney, it would be foolish and embarrassing of you to traipse into court with a lopsided understanding of the concepts on which your arguments rely. You could be shot down in a minute by anyone who knows what he's doing.

Neurode -
Isn't God going to be mad at you for denying his role in creation (if, as you say, He doesn't have anything to do with the Intelligence that designed this whole mess)?

i think all you people who don'tbelieve the bible will go to hell

Mr Davison:
"Bacteria are not models for evolution. They are dead ends just like all the other products of a past phenomenon."

How do you know this? What is your evidence for it?

"Darwinism is an intellectual disgrace and a deliberate hoax perpetuated by a highly organized bunch of politically liberal muddleheaded atheists who are stone deaf to what Einstein called the "music of the spheres.""

Given that its not called Darwinism and is not exactly the same as what DArwin wrote about, your point is moot. But its not an argument that you are putting forwards, simply a statement of belief.

"Phylogeny (evolution) and ontogeny (embryogenesis) are part of the same organic continuum and both have proceeded on the basis of preformed front-loaded information."

And your evidence for this is?

"Furthermore, just as ontogeny involves the derepression of that preformed information,"

And you know this how?

Sorry to keep banging on at this, but some answers would be nice.

GCT: "ID requires something else from its designer, that He/She/It put that design into play; i.e., is the Creator. Only a fool believes that the designer in Intelligent Design is anything other than God." Apparently, there are a few holes in your understanding of theology. You seem to be concentrating only on certain strains of Western monotheism, which hold God apart from the universe and thus render Him "supernatural". In any case, you need to specify which version of God you're railing against. Some definitions of "God", particularly those associated with pantheism and panentheism, equate God to the universe. To invalidate these definitions in the ID context, you would need to prove that the universe involves neither potentials, thus flying in the face of modern physics, nor an "intelligent" combination of self-recognition and self-adaptation, thus arguably flying in the face of evolution itself. But I've already explained this to you. Were you a real attorney, it would be foolish and embarrassing of you to traipse into court with a lopsided understanding of the concepts on which your arguments rely. You could be shot down in a minute by anyone who knows what he's doing.

— Neurode

Mr Davison:
"Bacteria are not models for evolution. They are dead ends just like all the other products of a past phenomenon."

How do you know this? What is your evidence for it?

"Darwinism is an intellectual disgrace and a deliberate hoax perpetuated by a highly organized bunch of politically liberal muddleheaded atheists who are stone deaf to what Einstein called the "music of the spheres.""

Given that its not called Darwinism and is not exactly the same as what DArwin wrote about, your point is moot. But its not an argument that you are putting forwards, simply a statement of belief.

"Phylogeny (evolution) and ontogeny (embryogenesis) are part of the same organic continuum and both have proceeded on the basis of preformed front-loaded information."

And your evidence for this is?

"Furthermore, just as ontogeny involves the derepression of that preformed information,"

And you know this how?

Sorry to keep banging on at this, but some answers would be nice.

GCT complains: "If you want to dismiss my claims, please bring some substance with you. All you gave is, "ID doesn't violate the Constitutional separation of church and state, and it is science because I say it's not religion." . . . and because it has been explicitly defined to exclude articles of religious faith. (By the way, if you want to take others to task for "lack of substance", I suggest that you consider filling your little baggies of wisdom with something besides stale air.)

— Neurode

GCT: "You have not stated that the designer is supernatural, but you have alluded to it." Not good enough, I'm afraid. The burden of proving that ID implies a "supernatural" designer rests on those who make that claim, which is not made by the ID hypothesis itself. The ID hypothesis merely refers to "intelligence" and "design". Intelligence is a fully scientific concept; it exists in nature, it is routinely measured, engineers attempt to construct physical machinery which possesses it, and as I've already pointed out, it can be generically equated to recognition and adaptation.

— Neurode

"...you need to specify which version of God you're railing against."

I'm not railing against any god. I do become irritated when someone's god is posited as a scientific theory. That's bad science and worse theology.

Apparently, there are a few holes in your understanding of theology. You seem to be concentrating only on certain strains of Western monotheism, which hold God apart from the universe and thus render Him "supernatural". In any case, you need to specify which version of God you're railing against.

You're unnecessarily complexifying the issue. Either you know what "entanglement" is, or you don't. You seem to be claiming that you do; but if that were the case, you'd be explaining how ID violates it. However, you probably can't do that, because you probably lack the required levels of skill, understanding, and probity. This is confirmed by (1) your endorsement of GCT's vapid arguments; (2) your dishonest conflation of ID and Creationism, which permits you to apply legal precedents which do not actually apply in this case. Again, please don't waste my time.

— Neurode

GCT: "First of all Neurode, make sure you know who you are talking to, since you've attributed a quote to me that I didn't make."

Pardon me then, GCT. But your intials and your arguments are pretty run-of-the-mill, and there are too many of you to keep track of.

GCT: "You seem to say that the Xtian god is supernatural, and therefore not a part of ID theory. Would you go so far as to say that if ID did rely on the Xtian god, that it would be unscientific and would violate the EC?"

There is a distinction to be made between the Christian God, and the entire set of attributes which have been interpretatively fastened to Him over the centuries. If the Bible is metaphorically interpreted (as its own internal reliance on metaphor suggests), and if certain commonly-assumed divine attributes are reasonably qualified to ensure logical consistency, the Christian Diety is fully consistent with science. However, if all of the inessential attributes remain attached, this statement would be considerably harder to defend. In any case, I won't be arguing Christianty with you today.

GCT: "In the example of the god that is the universe, are you arguing that the universe is really one large living organism that self-directs its own evolution and adaptation? If so, where did it come from? Eventually you will have to rely on the supernatural."

The origin of the universe cannot be discussed without resorting to a metaphysical level of logical discourse which some people would incorrectly describe as "supernatural" in the conventional (anti-scientific) sense. But in any case, the burden of proving that the origin and existence of the universe can be adequately explained without "supernatural" causation, and only in a way precluding ID, rests entirely on those who make that claim, and likewise for any claim that the origin of the universe must be supernatural and should thus be excluded from scientific discourse. Clearly, only the lamest kind of "science" could summarily exclude a logical consideration of cosmic origins.

Pardon me then, GCT. But your intials and your arguments are pretty run-of-the-mill, and there are too many of you to keep track of.

— Neurode

There is a distinction to be made between the Christian God, and the entire set of attributes which have been interpretatively fastened to Him over the centuries. If the Bible is metaphorically interpreted (as its own internal reliance on metaphor suggests), and if certain commonly-assumed divine attributes are reasonably qualified to ensure logical consistency, the Christian Diety is fully consistent with science.

— Neurode

The origin of the universe cannot be discussed without resorting to a metaphysical level of logical discourse which some people would incorrectly describe as "supernatural" in the conventional (anti-scientific) sense.

— Neurode

Guthrie

All I can do is suggest that you read my published papers. They are now on library shelves world wide and it is a little late for me to consider retracting them which I wouldn't do anyway. Journals are the place to produce evidence, not forums. That I have already done. This sort of activity I do only for fun.

John A. Davison

Guthrie
The answers which you seek from me are in my published papers. That is where they belong. You obviously have not read them. Forums I do only for fun.

John A. Davison

GCT: "So, you think omnipotent beings are fully consonant with science?"

No problem, provided there's just one "omnipotent being" with the power to limit itself. But then again, if it were really omnipotent, it would have that power. Indeed, one might argue that the universe has that power.

GCT: "What you are saying here though is that absent any proof of a divine being, it is up to us to prove that this divine being does not exist, otherwise we should all bow down to him and subvert our science to him ... You are still ducking and dodging."

If you insist on attaching a divine being to the ID hypothesis in order to attack it from that angle, then yes, you obviously own the burden of proof. But why do that to yourself? As I've already pointed out, the ID hypothesis is a scientifically-consistent causal hypothesis confirmed by certain classes of event which neither you, nor anyone else, has succeeded in explaining in terms of ordinary causation. So all you need do to exclude it is carry out your naturalistic agenda and deliver the required explanations.

Colin: "It's only a waste of your time if you refuse to learn from your mistakes."

But you see, Colin, that's where we differ. I say it's you who's making the mistakes. For example, I set out to make the distinction between Establishment and Entanglement; you then jumped in and accused me of forgetting Free Exercise, apropos of your support for someone else's lame arguments. But this isn't an essay test, and you're not my law instructor. So you don't get to deduct any points when I choose to leave something out of my "answers", particularly when you've already displayed every sign of total cluelessness yourself.

Neurode, your hostility is inappropriate and ill-founded. You made a simple flatly incorrect assertion: "Establishment and Entanglement are the two Constitutional principles which militate against religion in the classroom." That is not true. Establishment is one of the Constitutional principles, and 'entanglement' is one of the tools used to test for a violation of that principle. I'm not "deducting points" because you "[chose] to leave something out;" I am pointing out a serious and fundamental error in your understanding of issue.

Again, I suggest that you spend less time insulting people who point out your mistakes and more time studying the issues which you would like to discuss. Again, I recommend that you (at least) google Lemon, Agostini, and the Cobb County decision which applies them in context. It is, for instance, important to note that 'entanglement' may have been more or less subsumed by the other prongs of the Lemon test.

(I'm unpersuaded as to that, myself, despite the solid arguments made by the Cobb County judge and commentators like Timothy Sandefur. I think entanglement is a useful criterion, and I don't think the Court is ready to dispose of it just yet.)

I wouldn't expect anyone, even an attorney, to necessarily be familiar with these issues. I've only recently become aware of many of them myself. I would expect that you respond by learning something rather than accusing me of "total cluelessness." Naked hostility is crass and inappropriate - this is the internet, not a biker bar. You could at least aspire to cutting sarcasm or witty aphorisms.

I highly recommend, so that we're all on the same wavelength, that Neurode go get Is It Science Yet? and download (AND READ!) the document, available at the download buttons at the end of this link. Hopefully, after he educates himself, he won't be blurting howlers like "the ID hypothesis is a scientifically-consistent causal hypothesis confirmed by certain classes of event which neither you, nor anyone else, has succeeded in explaining in terms of ordinary causation."

Mr Davison- I would like to have a look at your papers, but you never seem to give any references to them, and me not being at university any more, I find it hard to look up papers. Given that, and your apparent desire to spread your arguments far and wide, are there any websites that summarise or explain your positions?

After all, these dang evolutionists manage to link to a whole variety of places.

Guthrie

If you just plug in the words "davison" and "evolution" into Google you will find my home page, my papers including the Manifesto and the most recent "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" and several other papers as well, seven in all I believe. Every one of my papers except the first one published in 1984 in the Journal of Theoretical Biology are available as on line versions. Also if you this method to find my work you will also have the advantage of hearing from others what a pitiful delusionary I am. Read, enjoy and draw your own conclusions.

That is what science is all about.

John A. Davison

GCT: "So, you think omnipotent beings are fully consonant with science?" No problem, provided there's just one "omnipotent being" with the power to limit itself. But then again, if it were really omnipotent, it would have that power. Indeed, one might argue that the universe has that power.

— Neurode

If you insist on attaching a divine being to the ID hypothesis in order to attack it from that angle, then yes, you obviously own the burden of proof. But why do that to yourself? As I've already pointed out, the ID hypothesis is a scientifically-consistent causal hypothesis confirmed by certain classes of event which neither you, nor anyone else, has succeeded in explaining in terms of ordinary causation. So all you need do to exclude it is carry out your naturalistic agenda and deliver the required explanations.

— Neurode

GCT rambles: "Neurode, you got owned on the Constitution by Colin. You better bow down. ... Ha ha ha. Dude, do you really believe that invoking the omnipotent god is science?"

I believe it was you who invoked an "omnipotent god"; I was just being a good sport. (Regarding your premature end-zone boogaloo on Colin's behalf, maybe you should keep reading.)

GCT boogies on down like an animal: "You clearly have trouble with the neo-reverse paradigm of the modern materialist vis-a-vis metaphysical shift of philo-religio-sophistic thought processes. What you need to consider is the paradox of the what-is versus the what-was-never-until-it-was conundrum. I know, it is not facile for a tyro such as yourself, but if you pontificate on it for sufficient time, I'm sure that even you can learn the paradigmatic neo-reversism of the materio-modern world. Until then, however, you will be stuck in the classico-passe modus, which is so yesterday."

Try not to lose hope, kid. There's help out there somewhere.

Flint quips: "I highly recommend, so that we're all on the same wavelength, that Neurode go get Is It Science Yet? and download (AND READ!) the document, available at the download buttons at the end of this link. Hopefully, after he educates himself, he won't be blurting howlers like 'the ID hypothesis is a scientifically-consistent causal hypothesis confirmed by certain classes of event which neither you, nor anyone else, has succeeded in explaining in terms of ordinary causation.'"

Thanks for the link. It didn't take me long to get through the Table of Contents, at which point I understood the gist without further reading (the included headings can't be coherently argued). I did, however, save it in a folder for possible future reference.

Colin harps: "Neurode, ... you made a simple flatly incorrect assertion: 'Establishment and Entanglement are the two Constitutional principles which militate against religion in the classroom.' That is not true. Establishment is one of the Constitutional principles, and 'entanglement' is one of the tools used to test for a violation of that principle."

I'm afraid this isn't as clear as you seem to think it is. I didn't say "clauses", I said "principles", and I was talking about principles that might be construed to militate against ID ("religion", to some) in the classroom. That effectively limited my reference to the Establishment Clause, and specifically to the wording which prohibits the making of "laws respecting an establishment of religion". In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court held that a certain public program fostered "excessive entanglement" between government and religion; as part of the "Lemon Test", the entanglement criterion became a standard ingredient of Constitutional law. However, entanglement is distinct from that which is literally prohibited by the Establishment Clause. Therefore, I distinguished "establishment" and "entanglement" as separate but related principles of Constitutional law. It's too bad that you found this confusing, but I didn't mean to refer to the Free Exercise Clause, and I don't like being told what I mean (especially by people who clearly don't know what I mean).

As an aspiring legal eagle like you should know, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, one restricting religious interference with government and the other warranting the individual's freedom of worship, are complementary aspects of the same basic issue: the tension between temporal and religious authority. Concisely, the Establishment Clause is designed to prevent religion from violating the peoples' right to self-governance and Free Exercise, but when pushed too far, can result in the very kinds of interference it is intended to prevent.

The ID-Darwinism controversy can naturally be viewed through either of these lenses. But no matter where you start, you'll come around to the Establishment Clause. Why? Because it's the primary issue on the legal side of this controversy, in which certain litigious atheist-materialists and their philosophically conflicted quasitheistic sympathizers have decided to engage in restrictive maneuvers designed, so they say, to keep "religion" out of the public schools. If you want to frame the controversy in terms of Free Exercise, then suit yourself, but that really isn't the right way to view it. In fact, if you read the Abstract at the front of the .pdf propaganda leaflet recommended above by Flint, you'll see that the Establishment Clause has been explicitly identified as the central issue.

It may be true that somewhere, atheists are trying to portray themselves as "victims" whose personal freedom of religious expression has been violated, thus putting the initial focus on Free Exercise. But if so, the worm will turn. You see, nobody really gives a hoot about the right of a handful of disgruntled atheists and terminally confused theists to avoid any intimation of God's possible existence, or evolutionary influence, by educational exposure to an explanatory hypothesis which might somehow imply the existence of an all-powerful diety who has promised to boot their bacon into hell (where it may in fact belong). The real issue is the interference of these selfsame mewling, puking whiners with the right of American citizens to have their children properly educated without asinine restrictions on how evolutionary causation is to be explained. Under cover of the Establishment Clause, these miscreants are trying to use the legal system to force the education system to interfere, by omitting crucial information from science curricula, with the ability of future United States citizens to understand the nature of science and its true place in a democratic society.

I hope that my tone in this post has been collegial enough for you, Colin. If my last response to you was excessively harsh, it was only because I don't appreciate attempts to divert attention from the real issues in this controversy to the unembroidered scam artistry of ACLU shysters and their badly-motivated clients.

Thanks for understanding.

But no matter where you start, you'll come around to the Establishment Clause. Why? Because it's the primary issue on the legal side of this controversy, in which certain litigious atheist-materialists and their philosophically conflicted quasitheistic sympathizers have decided to engage in restrictive maneuvers designed, so they say, to keep "religion" out of the public schools.

Incidentally, I have to admire your labeling technique. If you don’t like someone’s logic, you label them atheists (which you seem to consider a pejorative, for some reason!). If you don’t like what the law SAYS, you label it propaganda. If you wish a religious doctrine preached as Truth in a science class, you label those who wish science to be taught “philosophically conflicted quasitheistic sympathizers.” I wonder whether argument-by-label actually works where you come from?

— Flint

It’s too bad that you found this confusing, but I didn’t mean to refer to the Free Exercise Clause, and I don’t like being told what I mean (especially by people who clearly don’t know what I mean).

— Neurode

The real issue is the interference of these selfsame mewling, puking whiners with the right of American citizens to have their children properly educated without asinine restrictions on how evolutionary causation is to be explained . . . I hope that my tone in this post has been collegial enough for you, Colin. If my last response to you was excessively harsh, it was only because I don’t appreciate attempts to divert attention from the real issues in this controversy to the unembroidered scam artistry of ACLU shysters and their badly-motivated clients.

— Neurode

Neurode,
The burden of proving that ID implies a "supernatural" designer rests on those who make that claim, which is not made by the ID hypothesis itself.

Allow me a simple bit of logical deduction:
1)ID claims that complex systems could not have come about without the intervention of an intelligence
2)If #1, then life on Earth was created/modified by some intelligence. But, as you say, that intellgence does not need to be divine. It could be aliens, or some other natural intelligent agent.
3)But, if it's aliens (ie not supernatural agents), then they themselves cannot have come into being with the agency of some intelligence.
4)Ergo, at the root of the chain, there must be some non-natural intelligence. Non-natural, because it is a complex entity not created by natural means (which require a pre-existing intelligence).

5)Ergo, ID implies a supernatural agent.

Please, by all means, point out the flaw in this reasoning. Or accept that ID does, in fact, imply a supernatural prime mover.

Flint: "The 'certain ligigious atheist-materialists' are actually people who recognize that science is based on evidence and tests..."

We've already been through this several times. The Darwinian hypothesis is not entitled to monopolize the data. It's not the only explanatory hypothesis confirmed by the evidence.

Flint: "Nobody is trying to "keep religion out of public schoos" (and in fact, comparative religion classes are valuable at the high school level)."

How reasonable. When you see a causal hypothesis you don't like in a science class, just run it out the door and chase it down the hall to "comparative religion". Yeah, that's the ticket.

Flint: "What people who respect what science IS, are trying to do, is NOT have a religious doctrine taught as science, in science classes."

That they respect science does not imply that they can tell the difference between scientific and theological hypotheses. (I wonder - were you aware that even scientists themselves are not trained to make this kind of distinction? You seem to think it's very simple, very cut-and-dried. But you're very much mistaken about that.)

Flint: "And ID is not scientific in any way, and cannot honestly be represented as such. The desire to restrict science classes to science is widely regarded as rational."

Are you trying to convince me, or yourself? Because if its me, you'll need to justify your assertions.

Flint: "The legal question is, is ID science? The paper I linked to and you didn't feel worth reading spends nearly 200 pages establishing that it is religion, by every definition or concept of religion ever devised, and that it is nothing else."

I'm sorry, but I've read other papers and essays by at least two of these authors, and no longer have much respect for their objectivity. In fact, I don't understand how anyone could.

Flint: "Incidentally, I have to admire your labeling technique. If you don't like someone's logic, you label them atheists (which you seem to consider a pejorative, for some reason!)."

No, someone's ability with logic has nothing to do with whether I regard him or her as an atheist. Professions of atheism are quite another matter.

Flint: "If you don't like what the law SAYS, you label it propaganda."

Just as evidence and religious scripture are subject to different interpretations, so is the law. But I don't remember having called it "propaganda".

Flint: "If you wish a religious doctrine preached as Truth in a science class, you label those who wish science to be taught 'philosophically conflicted quasitheistic sympathizers.'"

No, those are people who think they believe in God, but are unable to abide the possibility of inferring that God remains active in the world.

Flint: "You are free to raise your own children according to whatever faith you find congenial. This right is extended to you, but it is ALSO extended to every other citizen. And that means religious doctrine simply cannot legally be represented as absolute truth by government."

I've already explained why ID is not mere "religious doctrine".

Flint: "And I hope you aren't going to claim that a "theory" that cannot in principle be either tested or falsified is being presented as anything OTHER than absolute Truth."

As I believe I've made clear, I don't agree that ID can be neither tested nor falsified using some combination of empirical and mathematical inference.

Colin (finding a bit of space between his ad hominem remarks): "Intelligent Design is made from whole cloth as a device to redefine science that doesn't fit a particular religious perspective by re-defining the terms and goals of science."

Nonsense. It is painfully obvious to everyone who knows anything about ID that you lack the vaguest conception of what it is. Nobody is under any illusions about that, so kindly dispense with these platitudes that you've clearly picked up from other (equally ignorant) people.

Colin beats his pet drum some more: "I did not find your statement confusing. I find that you are confused. I understand that you give FE short shrift in this context, and I don't object. I do object to you stating that "Establishment and Entanglement are the two Constitutional principles which militate against religion in the classroom," since it is an untrue statement."

Then we find each other confused. My point was that there are other ways of breaching the wall between church and state than "making laws which respect an establishment of religion," and that Free Exercise is not one of them. That's all.

Colin: "In other words, my point wasn't that you meant to say Free Exercise, my point is that you shouldn't put entanglement on a pedestal when there are several other issues bound up in the same test. Once again, I strongly recommend reading these cases before you make sweeping pronouncements."

Aside from the fact that your point has apparently migrated a bit, here's my point: the fact that entanglement is a generalization of "the making of laws respecting an establishment of religion" means that it must be distinguished from establishment per se, and that it has the effect of broadening the impact of the original Establishment Clause. First came the clause itself; then came the broadening. The secular purpose and non-advancement-inhibition "prongs" of the Lemon Test don't necessarily add anything; if a (governmentally-sanctioned) action is nonsecular, it entails entanglement; if it advances or inhibits religion, it entails entanglement. So the Lemon Test boils down to entanglement. If you don't like that, why don't you go suck a lemon?

Colin: "Your tone is as crass and infantile as ever."

I really don't know what to make of that, coming from someone who's been stamping his foot and holding his breath over the outrage of my having omitted two whole prongs of the Lemon Test.

Colin: "You have utterly failed to persuade me of your point, the soundness of your logic, the depth of your education, or the quality of your sarcasm. You have brilliantly succeeded, however, in reinforcing my stereotype of creationists. I don't know whether or not to thank you."

That's not all you don't know, Colin. For example, I'm not a Creationist...but I believe I mentioned that already. However, you really are quite an insufferable, hair-splitting little pedant. And for that piece of information, you needn't thank me at all.

DaveScot,
The nature of negative evidence makes it practically impossible to falsify some explanations. However, if the explanation can be confirmed by positive evidence there's no need to be falsifiable.

This is nonsensical. Say your theory is A. And there is some event B, that is currently unknown, but will eventually be known as either true or false.
If a theory is falsifiable, then one of those results will tend to falsify it. Say, if B is false, then that would tend to disprove A. Contrawise, if B is true, then that will tend to support A, as it was subject to being falsified but was not.
You claim that a theory can be somehow confirmed by event B being true, but it cannot be falsified. That is, no outcome of any event could possibly be inconsistent with the theory. Then, as a logical consequence, no outcome can possibly provide any support to the theory.

The Copernican Principle of Medicrity, the basis of enlightened thought, says that the earth and life on the earth is not "special" in any way. Therefore, to be good enlightened Copernican thinkers we must assume, until proven otherwise, that genetic engineers are not unique to the earth.

You've made this mistake before, and I've pointed it out before. The Principle of Mediocrity says that we can assume that genetic engineers might not be unique to the earth. Not that they are to be found elsewhere. This principle provides absolutely no support for your position without your rather bizarre misinterpretation of it.

Neurode,
We've already been through this several times. The Darwinian hypothesis is not entitled to monopolize the data. It's not the only explanatory hypothesis confirmed by the evidence.

Schweet! Please provide some positive predictions of your ID theory, please.

Wu

Sorry. You're full of it. If one posits the existence of black holes, and predicts what observational metrics to look for, that hypothesis cannot in principle be falsified because there is no way to distinguish between not finding a black hole because you haven't searched enough or not finding one because they do not exist. However, the hypothesis can be verfied by finding one.

Is the black hole hypothesis "scientific"? Of course it is.

Unfalsifiable but verifiable hypothesis such as that abound. You and everyone that pulls the old "but can you falsify it" crap is either ignorant of basic rules of logic and a plethora of unfalsifiable scientific theories, or is just being dishonest.

Write that down.

And apologize to Karl Popper IMMEDIATELY for abusing his work in such a horrible manner.

Wu

You are wrong again on the Copernican Principle of Mediocrity.

At least you're consistent. You haven't been right about anything yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

Here ya go. And you don't even own me any tuition. How's that for generous?

Actually, if you observe long enough and don't see the predicted observations in support of a black hole, you can take the black hole hypothesis as falsified, in conflict with observations. That doesn't mean that somewhere there's not some special black hole hiding in an unobservable state, it means that your theory has to account for why the observations were as they were, and explain why anyone should continue to think there might be black holes given that predicted observations have not come about.

If such a hypothesis fails to be confirmed, it is up to the theorists to come up with another explanation that fits the contrary observations, in addition to suiting whatever theoretical or observational motivation that the black hole hypothesis was meant to satisfy.

DaveScot,
Your idiot interpretation of Mediocrity would say that there must be other Shakespeares out in the Universe writing other Hamlets. If it happened here, according to you, it must have happened elsewhere.
Whereas, in reality, the principle merely says that other Shakespeares could exist, not that they must, or that we can assume that they do until proven otherwise.
So, the principle does not support your position at all. No scientist claims that there cannot be other genetic engineers in the universe. They merely point out that, lacking any evidence, we ought to assume that there are any.

Let me clarify/amend my statement. Dave Scot is correct in that failing to observe a black hole doesn't mean that there are no black holes, but it does mean that the theory that led to the predicted observations is in error. The broader assertion ("black holes exist") may in fact still be true, but the theory that predicted the observations to find it was not, at least not without correction and amendment.

Neurode

Dude! Way to go! Pure genius. I fear it is lost on your lessers, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

DaveScot,
Your idiot interpretation of Mediocrity would say that there must be other Shakespeares out in the Universe writing other Hamlets. If it happened here, according to you, it must have happened elsewhere.
Whereas, in reality, the principle merely says that other Shakespeares could exist, not that they must, or that we can assume that they do until proven otherwise.
So, the principle does not support your position at all. No scientist claims that there cannot be other genetic engineers in the universe. They merely point out that, lacking any evidence, we ought not to assume that there are any.That princple we call Occam's Razor. And that's free for you, my ignorant non-friend.

As for your poorly-thought out black hole theory...
If the hypothesis is "black holes exist and we ought to find them in such-and-such type places", then yes, it could be falsified. By looking in enough of those places and failing to find them, you'd soon have a high-confidence failure to reject the null hypothesis.
Your failure to compherend my argument is based in your failure to understand the basic processes of science. Scientific knowledge of this nature are frequently probabilistic, not absolute.
That is, scientists can, and do, "distinguish between not finding a black hole because you haven't searched enough or not finding one because they do not exist." Constantly. Daily. In virtually every issue of every scientific journal.

You ought to know this, as I've seen it explained to you at least half-a-dozen times on these boards. You're failing the Turing test, methinks.

That was free too; too bad you never update your talking points.

Wu says "Your idiot interpretation of Mediocrity would say that there must be other Shakespeares out in the Universe"

No, it does not. Is says that we should ASSUME there are other Shakespeares in the universe until there is reason to believe there are not other Shakespeares in the universe. That is the principle of mediocrity. It's a guiding principle, not a law.

Either your reading comprehension is severely wanting or perhaps english is not your first language?

Jonathan,
True. The theory "black holes exist" without any additional information about their formation, activity, etc wouldn't be very useful... but taken as a gedankenexperiment, it is theoretically falsifiable, by observing everything in the universe. Taint likely, but since the 'theory' itself exists only to test the meaning of falsifiable, I can live with that.
Whereas "some supernatural force created us" is untestable even in theory, and (as I pointed out) can therefore not be confirmed by test either.

Abbey

Black holes were a prediction of special relativity and were hypothetical until confirmed. The hypothesis that led to the observation of black holes was certainly not in error.

Maybe you should refrain from commenting on things you evidently know nothing about.

Falsifiability is a red-herring when applied to any hypothesis which is verifiable. Due to the nature of negative evidence many perfectly valid, perfectly scientific, and later CONFIRMED hypothesis are not falsifiable.

Write that down.

Then tell me how it can be verified that mutation/selection changed inanimate chemicals into dinosaurs. Absent any method of verifiability it is nothing more than a guess which may eventually be falsified but never confirmed.

Correction - black holes were predicted by general, not special, relativity.

DaveScot,
Neither. Were you born with a mental defect, or dropped on your head as a baby repeatedly?

Let's see if I have this correct: you personally hold that there are other New Yorks in the universe, with other New York Knicks and Yankees.
Not that there could be. You are such a moron that you feel it necessary to assume that this is actually the case. You believe that the principle of mediocrity compels us to act as if those New Yorks existed until it can be proven that they do not.

I cannot imagine a less plausible interpretation of the principle. I cannot imagine one more strained. Or, bluntly, more stupid.

Whereas in reality, all that it says is that they could exist. We are not compelled to assume that they do, or do not. The principle rules out the argument "it couldn't happen elsewhere". It does not create the necessity of believing that it must have happened elsewhere.

The principle grew out of the idea that the Earth was not special in the universe. Not from the bizarre idea that the Earth was necessarily replicated out there someplace in the universe.
Quoting from the article which you cited, but apparently could not read: In short, the Copernican Mediocrity is the series of ideas and discoveries demonstrating that Earth is a relatively common planet orbiting a relatively common star going around a relatively common galaxy which is one of countless others in a giant, perhaps infinite, universe.
Funny, Im not seeing any imperatives to believe in alternate Shakespeares there.

DaveScot,
Black holes were a prediction of special relativity and were hypothetical until confirmed. The hypothesis that led to the observation of black holes was certainly not in error.

Dumbfuck, no one said that theories such as "black holes exist" (which are, in fact, falsifiable) cannot be shown to be true. Since you've forgotten, Ill refresh your memory- you were arguing that theories which are not falsifiable are capable of being shown to be true.

Due to the nature of negative evidence many perfectly valid, perfectly scientific, and later CONFIRMED hypothesis are not falsifiable.

Name one or cease your inane drivel.

Carleton and Jonathan,

I think you're on the right track, but it might be better to consider the existance of black holes is a prediction of general relativity not a seperate hypothesis. GR would be falsified in this regard if we would observe a normal 1,000 solar mass star (for example) where GR would predict a black hole. So GR is falsifiable in the Popper sense for this question since it makes clear predictions of what would be observed and what would not be observed.

A seperate issue is whether the conditions needed to produce a black hole actually exist somewhere in the universe. GR is silent on this issue so it would be wrong to say that GR predicts back holes to actually exist. Rather, GR tells us that IF a 1,000 solar mass compact object exists, THEN it exists as a black hole and not a normal star (or white dwarf or neutron star).

Fortunately for GR, we have found such high mass compact objects and they look like black holes.

Wu

Then by your logic God is falsifiable by searching everywhere and failing to find him.

Your grades must SUCK.

Goodbye, Mr. Carlton Wu. The pottiness of your mouth is exceeded only by the dullness of your wit. You shall henceforth not be undeservedly dignified by a response from me.

DaveScot,
Naturally, any theory falsifying the existence of an object by searching everywhere would have to include the theory that your search is perfect, and that if the object is searched for in a given place it will necessarily be found.
Since a supernatural, omnipotent being cannot be constrained in such a way (ie an omnipotent being could evade any search if it desired), your conclusion is incorrect. As usual.
Typically, you wish to use scientific methods to prove/disprove supernatural phenomena, disregarding that by definition the nature of those phenomena is to be beyond the constraint of natural laws. Because you understand neither logic nor the nature of the scientific processes which you claim to be able to critique.

My grades? This all makes sense now- your sophomoric self-importance, your sophomoric attempts at wit, your sophomoric belief that you understand a great deal more than you actually do... you're a sophomore! Take heart, lad- someday your testicles will drop and your voice will change, and you'll lose that chip on your shoulder.

As for your promise to stop yammering on nonsensically, nothing could make me happier. Since you couldn't be bothered to produce a scientific theory that isn't falsifiable (despite claiming that several existed), one can only assume that you've decided to stop talking out of your ass and abandon the field.
Typical for a coward, you do that while proclaiming victory. Sad. (or, if you're not to be labeled a coward- produce your true, yet unfalsifiable scientific theories!)

Abbey Black holes were a prediction of special relativity and were hypothetical until confirmed. The hypothesis that led to the observation of black holes was certainly not in error.

Maybe you should refrain from commenting on things you evidently know nothing about.

Then tell me how it can be verified that mutation/selection changed inanimate chemicals into dinosaurs. Absent any method of verifiability it is nothing more than a guess which may eventually be falsified but never confirmed.

If one posits the existence of black holes, and predicts what observational metrics to look for, that hypothesis cannot in principle be falsified because there is no way to distinguish between not finding a black hole because you haven't searched enough or not finding one because they do not exist. However, the hypothesis can be verfied by finding one. Is the black hole hypothesis "scientific"? Of course it is.

— DaveScot

Allow me a simple bit of logical deduction: 1)ID claims that complex systems could not have come about without the intervention of an intelligence 2)If #1, then life on Earth was created/modified by some intelligence. But, as you say, that intellgence does not need to be divine. It could be aliens, or some other natural intelligent agent. 3)But, if it's aliens (ie not supernatural agents), then they themselves cannot have come into being with the agency of some intelligence. 4)Ergo, at the root of the chain, there must be some non-natural intelligence. Non-natural, because it is a complex entity not created by natural means (which require a pre-existing intelligence). 5)Ergo, ID implies a supernatural agent. Please, by all means, point out the flaw in this reasoning. Or accept that ID does, in fact, imply a supernatural prime mover.

— Carleton Wu

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

Governing Goals To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. ... Twenty Year Goals To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

5. Spiritual & cultural renewal: Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism. Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God.

I am flabbergasted at the waste of cyberspace this thread is consuming daily. Since I presented my perspexctive in post # 18458, there is no further reason for my participation on this thread.

Go right on with your autogratification. I have another paper to write. This one is titled " There is no evolutionary theory."

John A. Davison

The Darwinian hypothesis is not entitled to monopolize the data. It's not the only explanatory hypothesis confirmed by the evidence.

— Neurode

Allow me a simple bit of logical deduction: 1)ID claims that complex systems could not have come about without the intervention of an intelligence 2)If #1, then life on Earth was created/modified by some intelligence. But, as you say, that intellgence does not need to be divine. It could be aliens, or some other natural intelligent agent. 3)But, if it's aliens (ie not supernatural agents), then they themselves cannot have come into being with the agency of some intelligence. 4)Ergo, at the root of the chain, there must be some non-natural intelligence. Non-natural, because it is a complex entity not created by natural means (which require a pre-existing intelligence). 5)Ergo, ID implies a supernatural agent. Please, by all means, point out the flaw in this reasoning. Or accept that ID does, in fact, imply a supernatural prime mover.

— Carleton Wu

The space aliens might be a consequence of a random event, or might have evolved, or might have come about through some mechanism totally unknown to us.

— ts

When Einstein constructed his General Theory of Relativity, which is a theory of gravity, it contained the Newton's gravitational law as a low energy approximation. All the available data were explained by both theories at that time.

The first two breakthrough tests were the difference in predictions for the rotation of Mercury's perihelium

ts, I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

The first is thrown out by the IDist.

The second would either confirm the hypothesis that design is needed for the aliens

or else their evolution was random, which is also thrown out by the IDist.

The third seems to be where we are now, and IDists attribute all unknowns to design.

The deduction made by Carleton Wu is based on the rules put forth by the IDists, not by us "Darwinists."

You seem to be willing to give them an out, but you do so by allowing them to play by our rules.

If the IDists want to say things have to be designed, then they have to follow their own rules to the end and are not permitted to then adopt our rules when theirs fail just so that they can claim victory in the name of their rules.

ts, I should have been more specific. I should have noted that we were talking specifically about Neurode's views, not IDists in general.

You are right that they specifically avoid talking about aliens as much as they specifically avoid using the G-word. And, you are right that they do specifically talk about life on Earth. I believe it would still be logically inconsistent or would at least be shaky ground for them to stand on, but they could do it none-the-less. Anyway, I get where you are coming from now.

That means that Neurode is sort-of off the hook for that part of my legal argument, provided of course that he/she/it (Neurode) is willing to use ts's argument. Of course, he/she/it (Neurode) must still answer for the other legal arguments I have put forth, and has yet to posit anything about who/what the designer is, as well as a host of other questions that have been posed and have gone unanswered. I suspect more ducking and dodging to come.

Of course it's "shaky" to offer up a "theory" that consists of "some structures couldn't have evolved but we have no positive theory of how they DID come about" -- that's the whole point of the rejection of ID as science. But Carleton's "proof" is useless because one can simply respond that it might be that people from the future went into the past, designed life, and it evolved into us, who evolved into them. It doesn't matter to the IDists what the explanation is, as long as they can get their foot in the door and insert "there was design in there somewhere" into the science classroom.

There's still one thing bothering me about it though.

The IDist might specify "complex biological systems on Earth" but what bothers me about turning around and allowing it elsewhere is that that elsewhere is still subject to the same laws of the universe. I would think that if Neurode would like to use ts's argument, then it would be in order that Neurode offer up some valid (falsifiable) reason why it would be possible on another world, but not possible here on Earth. In fact, that's another question for you Neurode. You can add it to the list.

GCT: "You also criticized my 'premature end-zone boogaloo on Colin's behalf,' yet you still got owned. That's gotta hurt."

But it's not me who should be hurting; it's you and your friend Colin. Here's why, in 12 easy-to-follow steps.

1. Regarding the issue of ID in the classroom, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is widely acknowledged to be the controlling clause; the Free Exercise Clause is not directly applicable.

2. The Establishment Clause prohibits a single kind of government action, the making of laws respecting an establishment of religion. As such, it is obviously a principle of Constitutional law.

3. The entanglement criterion began as a "test" for violation of establishment. However, entanglement is not just a test; it prohibits more than the specific government action prohibited by the Establishment Clause, and is therefore a broadening of that Clause (based on a judicial interpretation of the Clause and its implied purpose). It may therefore be regarded as an extensional principle in its own right.

4. The entanglement principle means "total mutual independence of government and religion", i.e., no breach of any kind in Jefferson's "wall of separation" between church and state. [As some have noted, this is a paradoxical requirement.]

5. Since the two other prongs of the test to which entanglement belongs (secular purpose and non-advancement) logically imply non-independence of church and state, they amount to mere tests of entanglement which lack its generality.

6. It follows that establishment and entanglement, the latter a generalization of the former, are the two main principes of Constitutional law which control the issue of ID in the classroom. [QED]

7. Colin argued with this, saying that Free Exercise is such a principle; therefore, Colin is wrong.

8. Colin denies that entanglement is a principle in its own right, insisting that it is a mere "test"; therefore, Colin is doubly wrong. (The only way it could be a mere test for compliance with the Establishment Clause is if it were perfectly synonymous with "the making of laws respecting an establishment of religion"; but of course, it is not.)

9. Colin pretends that he is not wrong; therefore, he is doubly wrong, squared: (2 x wrong)^2. Colin didn't see any of this coming; he just engaged in a frenzy of superficial reasoning as though he were looking for a gold star on his forehead to reward his very first day in a bottom-tier law school.

10. GCT pretends that Colin is not wrong even after this has all been established; therefore, he is wrong, cubed.

11. GCT goes on to pull down his pants and wag his soundly-kicked booty in his opponents' faces.

12. This is typical of GCT's style of argumentation. Therefore, GCT is not a worthy debate opponent.

I think that should just about wrap it up.

Establishment and Entanglement are the two Constitutional principles which militate against religion in the classroom.

— Neurode first

My point was that there are other ways of breaching the wall between church and state than "making laws which respect an establishment of religion," and that Free Exercise is not one of them. That's all.

— Neurode then

ere's my point: the fact that entanglement is a generalization of "the making of laws respecting an establishment of religion" means that it must be distinguished from establishment per se, and that it has the effect of broadening the impact of the original Establishment Clause. First came the clause itself; then came the broadening. The secular purpose and non-advancement-inhibition "prongs" of the Lemon Test don't necessarily add anything; if a (governmentally-sanctioned) action is nonsecular, it entails entanglement; if it advances or inhibits religion, it entails entanglement. So the Lemon Test boils down to entanglement. If you don't like that, why don't you go suck a lemon?

— Neurode

That's not all you don't know, Colin. For example, I'm not a Creationist . . . but I believe I mentioned that already. However, you really are quite an insufferable, hair-splitting little pedant. And for that piece of information, you needn't thank me at all.

— Neurode

Mmm. Somehow, this all seems a bit...anticlimactic.

Please address points 1-12 if you want to argue this further (if you're as smart as you seem to think you are, you'll know better).

Regard falsifying black holes, I'd think that if one detected a very massive but very small object that should by theory be a black hole but isn't (maybe it's just a really massive neutron star instead), that would be sufficient to disprove that theory.

Henry

Neurode actually has a rather more complicated model in mind when he uses the term "Intelligent Design", though he seems reluctant to share it here. If you read http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/CTMUnet/CTMU.html, by one of his favorite authors, I think you'll get some feel for where he's coming from.

And may I say that that paper actually has a lot of good stuff in it, though the use of 'Intelligent Design' in it has almost nothing in common with ID as it is otherwhere understood.

Re "When Einstein constructed his General Theory of Relativity, which is a theory of gravity, it contained the Newton's gravitational law as a low energy approximation. All the available data were explained by both theories at that time."

Re "That's not true, else there would have been no reason for Einstein to propose GTR."

I would've thought the motive for proposing GTR was to reconcile Special Relativity with gravity (described up to then by Newton's laws).

Henry

In response to Neurode's 12 steps:

1. Regarding the issue of ID in the classroom, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is widely acknowledged to be the controlling clause; the Free Exercise Clause is not directly applicable.

There are solid arguments to be made in favor of the applicability of Free Exercise to religion in the classroom in general, but I agree that the EC is what the debate over ID-style creationism is really about.

2. The Establishment Clause prohibits a single kind of government action, the making of laws respecting an establishment of religion. As such, it is obviously a principle of Constitutional law.

This, also, is mostly correct. You should realize, however, that this is much more broad than simply prohibiting the government from establishing the "U.S. Dept. of Baptism." Many, many actions could implicate the EC by 'establishing' religion. The courts look to precedent to see how to interpret the clause and apply it to novel situations. The Lemon test is the most famous precedent, but it's been modified and is often questioned.

3. The entanglement criterion began as a "test" for violation of establishment. However, entanglement is not just a test; it prohibits more than the specific government action prohibited by the Establishment Clause, and is therefore a broadening of that Clause (based on a judicial interpretation of the Clause and its implied purpose). It may therefore be regarded as an extensional principle in its own right.

This is incorrect. Entanglement is probably no longer even a valid test for an EC violation; it's applicability, at least, is in doubt. I refer you once again to the case law. I wonder also if the incorporation discussion would be useful. If I remember correctly, it's appended to Mr. Sandefur's post about the Texas Tech law review article. In any event, entanglement is not and never was a principle on the same level as the Establishment Clause. It is not an "extensional principle." If you're looking for the principle that took the EC beyond the original textual meaning, then you're looking for incorporation.

4. The entanglement principle means "total mutual independence of government and religion", i.e., no breach of any kind in Jefferson's "wall of separation" between church and state. [As some have noted, this is a paradoxical requirement.]

Arguable, but irrelevant. As Justice O'Connor points out, some entanglements don't have the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and so would not be EC violations. Where does the quote come from?

5. Since the two other prongs of the test to which entanglement belongs (secular purpose and non-advancement) logically imply non-independence of church and state, they amount to mere tests of entanglement which lack its generality.

Incorrect. This is clearly against the controlling precedent.

6. It follows that establishment and entanglement, the latter a generalization of the former, are the two main principes of Constitutional law which control the issue of ID in the classroom. [QED]

Incorrect. Entanglement was never more than a test for the modern meaning of establishment, and at no point did entanglement encompass all of the meaning of establishment. Whether you are talking about Lemon pre- or post-Agostini, you are wrong. The 'main principle' controlling ID in the classroom is the Establishment Clause, which we test (as in Cobb County) through secular purpose and primary effect. Entanglement is at most a third prong, and possibly no more than an afterthought.

7. Colin argued with this, saying that Free Exercise is such a principle; therefore, Colin is wrong.

Did I? I don't recall ever saying that. I said both FE and EC have relevance to keeping religion out of the classroom, and that it was wrong to elevate entanglement to the level of a "Constitutional principle" like the EC. Perhaps you disagree with the application of FE; it's a different argument than we've been having, but I'll throw out a hypothetical. Mandating that teachers present Genesis in a science class would be both a FE and an EC violation. Would mandating ID be a FE violation? It's an interesting thought, but it's not what you originally said: "Establishment and Entanglement are the two Constitutional principles which militate against religion in the classroom." Free Exercise is relevant to keeping generic religion out of the classroom. ID may be a special case because of its 'stealth' approach to religious dogma. Again, a potentially interesting discussion.

8. Colin denies that entanglement is a principle in its own right, insisting that it is a mere "test"; therefore, Colin is doubly wrong. (The only way it could be a mere test for compliance with the Establishment Clause is if it were perfectly synonymous with "the making of laws respecting an establishment of religion"; but of course, it is not.)

Entanglement is part of the Lemon Test. It is a mere test. It is not a principle on the same level as the Establishment Clause - it is how we test for a violation of that clause. Once again, please read these cases. The points you are making are ridiculous. Lemon stands for the proposition that one way you test to see if Congress (or a body acting with legislative authority) has 'established' a religion is to see if the act in question entangled the state and the religion. Entanglement is a subset of the EC analysis, and no longer a very important one.

9. Colin pretends that he is not wrong; therefore, he is doubly wrong, squared: (2 x wrong)^2. Colin didn't see any of this coming; he just engaged in a frenzy of superficial reasoning as though he were looking for a gold star on his forehead to reward his very first day in a bottom-tier law school.

They don't give out gold stars in law school; the pejorative comment you're looking for is "gunner." Whether it's actually an insulting term depends on who you're talking to, I guess. Otherwise, this isn't much of a point.

10. GCT pretends that Colin is not wrong even after this has all been established; therefore, he is wrong, cubed.

Brilliant rhetoric.

11. GCT goes on to pull down his pants and wag his soundly-kicked booty in his opponents' faces.

Perhaps you're reading a different thread? In the one I've been reading, GCT took the time to present a variety of materials to prove his point.

12. This is typical of GCT's style of argumentation. Therefore, GCT is not a worthy debate opponent.

GCT pulled and cited a number of relevant passages from the Wedge document to support his position. He clearly stated his thesis - that ID is a religious doctrine. He argued it, and presented evidence to back up his argument. Your petulant whining is a poor rebuttal.

I think that should just about wrap it up.

Unfortunately I doubt it. Creationists are nothing if not tenacious, and for my part, I enjoy the warm glow I get from these discussions. It's something of a guilty pleasure. Perhaps we should take this to the Bathroom Wall, however? We've gotten pretty off-topic.

ts,
Sorry, but this argument is not valid. The space aliens might be a consequence of a random event, or might have evolved, or might have come about through some mechanism totally unknown to us.

Not by the precepts of ID as I understand them. Consider Dembski's "No Free Lunch":

The upshot of these theorems is that evolutionary algorithms, far from being universal problem solvers, are in fact quite limited problem solvers that depend crucially on additional information not inherent in the algorithms before they are able to solve any interesting problems. This additional information needs to be carefully specified and fine-tuned, and such specification and fine-tuning is always thoroughly teleological. Consequently, evolutionary algorithms are incapable of providing a computational justification for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation as the primary creative force in biology.[\i]

He dismisses evolution via natural selection as lacking the power to produce complexity PERIOD. Not just here and now. So, no aliens via evolution, according to him.
And since evolution is "a random event" (or, a series of them), that would also preclude random events. At least, I actually agree with Dembski and his ilk that the likelihood of some random assemblage of atoms suddenly combining into a whole macroscopic organism via a single random event is so unlikely as to be outside the bounds of contemplation. The only way I can see randomness producing aliens is via a selective process- if you see another way, please let us know.

As for "some mechanism unknown to us"- well, it's either the result of natural laws and events, or it isn't. If it is, them let's hear them- and, more specifically, let's hear why these same events could not have occurred on the earth. If it isn't, then my point is demonstrated.

Your position may differ from Dembski's. If that's the case, could you explain it a little more clearly? IDers tend to think that natural selection could not explain the diversity of life. This is a critical point for their position, because their general 'theory' cannot be falsified- ergo, the only hope they have is to have the 'last theory standing' by falsifying natural selection as the cause.
If you don't think that natural selection has been ruled out, and you merely want to point out that evolved aliens might have designed us, I would agree completely that that's a possibility. A possibility that violates Occam's Razor, but OR is not a natural law. A possibility which cannot be falsified. Ergo, a non-scientific possibility...

Again, if that's the case, I think it enters into an area where scientists rarely make the explicit statement: it is entirely possible that ID occurred in the diversification of life on Earth. It is entirely possible that the story of Genesis is literally correct. It's just unknown, and unknownable, and unnecessary as an adjunct to the investigation of the natural phenomena of the universe that is science. I don't intend to disrespect those sorts of articles of religious faith, but I don't intend to follow them either.