Luskin: Humans did evolve

Common descent requires nested hierarchies, common design has no such requirements and thus the claim that ID can accomodate the evidence is an ad hoc argument. . . .

I think that at this stage it's all feathers and no bird with the Discovery Institute.

When their chief spokesman is the half-wit Luskin, failed scientist turned lawyer, I wouldn't be too concerned.

Sure, they just finished decoding the chimp genome but it actually lessened our knowledge of human/chimp similarities rather than upping it.

— Luskin

yeah Russell, my mouth fell open when i read that line. You can't make this stuff up.

But it turns out that similarities depend on how you measure them. One study which considered insertions and deletions realized that "our perceived sequence divergence of only 1% between these two species [humans and chimps] appears to be erroneous, because this work [...] puts both species much further apart." (see "Driving man and chimp apart" by Cathy Holding in The Scientist, June 26, 2003; "Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence" by T. Anzai et al. in PNAS 100:7708-7713 (June 24, 2003)). Those interested in an analysis of the many differences between humans and chimps from a pro-ID perspective should read Reflections on Human Origins by William Dembski. (PCID, Volume 4.1, July 2005)

yeah Russell, my mouth fell open when i read that line. You can't make this stuff up.

Whaddaya mean, "can't make this stuff up"?
Casey just did!! :)

I think that at this stage it's all feathers and no bird with the Discovery Institute. When their chief spokesman is the half-wit Luskin, failed scientist turned lawyer, I wouldn't be too concerned.

They would never lie at the DISCO institute. Luskin is an upstanding moral man as is Dembski (and all the others over their dancing in their little Disco-tech).

How could you possibly suggest that they would make things up. After all, didn't you know, they're in it for the money.

Besides, from what I can see in Luskin's little piece the 'designer' did it accounts for everything. So, who needs any good theory or science.

The more I read at PT the more I'm convinced that trying to convince any of the ID'ers of their folly is like yelling at a wall. You don't change the wall's opinion and you get p&&&ed off and frustrated because no matter what you say to the wall nothing changes. I guess arguing with a wall may be better, at least it (unless the intelligent deceiver intervenes) won't lie to you or the public about how biology works.

Back to lurking..

In conclusion, the evidence presented in this article supports microevolution---a process denied by no design theorist.

— Luskin

the evidence presented in this article supports microevolution---a process denied by no design theorist.

So what Luskin is saying is not that "man came from a monkey [sic]" but "man is a monkey!"

— Mark

...new body plans, novel biological functions, and real biological novelty

... known as FOXP2, that may help explain why we talk and chimps don't. An earlier study of a British family with an inherited, severe deficit in speech discovered the cause of the disorder --- an altered form of FOXP2. "It turns out chimps have the same (genetic) sequence as that family with the speech deficit," Waterston said. Comparing the human and chimp genomes, he said, shows that the speech-friendly form of FOXP2 really took hold in humans some 150,000 years ago.

That experiment has been done: Planet of the Apes.

Common descent requires nested hierarchies, common design has no such requirements and thus the claim that ID can accomodate the evidence is an ad hoc argument. Unless one has independent understanding of the "Designer's" this argument fails to be scientific.

This is like saying that irreducible complexity is required by ID

Qualiatative Of course, PT is not a forum for serious debate. Hence, you may now commence ad hominems and personal attacks...

Qualiatative,

The problem is that everything is "subsumed" by ID. No matter what is discovered or what scientific arguments are made, the response is, "That fits in ID."

Until you ID folks define what distinquishes designed from undesigned, there's no way you can claim it's falsifiable.

Here's your "Darwinist's vs IDist's" score card Qualiatative

This is like saying that irreducible complexity is required by ID while Darwinism has no such requirement.

Correct give yourself a banana.

The only difference is that ID is able to subsume common descent whereas blind evolution cannot subsume IC.

Correct give yourself a banana.

You [PvM] mislabel ID as "ad hoc" where it is merely parsimonious.

Sorry no Banana

Pray for the Grand Olde Designer to show up with his test tubes and blueprints, Darwin's Ghost Perhaps ? JAD,Dave Scott, Dembski, Luskin?

Score
"Darwinist's" 2 (both own goals by Qualiatative )
"IDist's" 0 (no score, appeals to the heavens don't register on the scoreboard)

...rather than common descent---where a designer wanted to design organisms on a similar blueprint and thus used similar genes in both organisms

I gotta admit, I have never before heard the "goddidit explanation subsumes everything" described as "parsimonious". But wait, wouldn't "magic" be more parsimonious than "goddidit"? After all, it has three fewer letters.

*poof* has even 1 fewer letters than magic!

where a designer wanted to design organisms on a similar blueprint and thus used similar genes in both organisms

Surley this has been asked before, but how does this "similar blueprint" idea jibe with "irreducible complexity?"

This is like saying that irreducible complexity is required by ID while Darwinism has no such requirement. The only difference is that ID is able to subsume common descent whereas blind evolution cannot subsume IC. You mislabel ID as "ad hoc" where it is merely parsimonious.

Of course, PT is not a forum for serious debate. Hence, you may now commence ad hominems and personal attacks...

Lenny, your comment #74973 is a gem! I've saved a copy for future reference.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

Charles Darwin

Can anyone say it better?

Luskin continues however to state that "Those interested in an analysis of the many differences between humans and chimps from a pro-ID perspective should read Reflections on Human Origins by William Dembski. (PCID, Volume 4.1, July 2005)"

There's no reason it can't be both - those possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

But seriously folks:

Dinosaurs had TWO EYES, TWO EARS, ONE NOSE, ONE MOUTH and a BIGGER BRAIN than the Blind Followers of mere words, therefore proving that BOTH evolution AND de-evolution exist.

The ''Intelligent Designers'' evolved somewhere in the vacuum of space. And he was intelligent enough to see what he dumped here, and not come back.

If the ''Intelligent Designer'' gave a damn, then would snap his finger and straighten out this debate.

Since the ''Intelligent Designer'' does not care that we are consuming the earth to build killing machines in our wars over invisible borders, barbaric beliefs, the MERE WORDS of flat earth neanderthals, therefore he does not deserve to be worshiped by the two legged worker ants serving the self serving rulers who pledged, allegianced and indoctrinated them into the servitude of LIES.

This is the atomic age. Only those who live in reality MIGHT live in reality. The mentally dis-functional become extinct.

Caledonian said:
There's no reason it can't be both - those possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

In reply to

Simply put, either Dembski has an appalling understanding of biology, or he is deliberately
misrepresenting evidence of common ancestry.

I agree with the further proviso

Dembski is deliberately misrepresenting biology, and has a [deliberate] 'appalling understanding' of common ancestry.

But as he says ...ID has been 'good' to him

And hucksterism and street theater will bring in the rubes and part them from their money quicker than a rat with a gold tooth.

Thomas
Right on !
I wish I could be more optimistic but I think those that are mentally dis-functional, given half a chance with their reality, might make US extinct.

Evolutionary critics often claim that evolution "makes no predictions" but here's a pretty bold one:

Now that we know the exact sequences for numerous genes for humans and chimpanzees, as soon as we have a suitable outgroup we can determine the exact DNA sequence for most of those genes in the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. In fact for ANY two related species, we can (in theory) reconstruct genes that once existed in a common ancestor that no longer exists. Moreover, we should be able to actually reconstruct those genes and test whether or not they are functional (i.e., produce functional enzymes or other proteins). Of course if evolution is true they WILL BE fully functional--because they DID exist in a common ancestor, and they WERE functional--but neither creationism nor ID makes such a prediction.

So... anybody working on this yet?

This is like saying that irreducible complexity is required by ID while Darwinism has no such requirement.

— anonymous

Sure, they just finished decoding the chimp genome but it actually lessened our knowledge of human/chimp similarities rather than upping it.

If additional information lessens our knowledge, what would Luskin suggest we do to increase it? Are we in danger of decreasing what we know to nothing if we continue on a path of finding things out?

This piece and the one by OSC are so close to self-parody one wonders if the big tent isn't candy-striped, with streamers flying from the top. Roll up, roll up...

R

I gotta admit, I have never before heard the "goddidit explanation subsumes everything" described as "parsimonious".

— Flint

I can see how more information could refute something we mistakenly accepted as part of our knowledge, or could decrease our certainty if our certainty had an oversimplistic basis.

— PaulC

Alas, RupertG, that is indeed what many religious people think. Truth (capital 'T', is their any other kind?) comes from a book, and any new knowledge that doesn't directly agree with that book causes Doubt (capital 'D'). And Doubt is the opposite of Faith, and is a sin. The only real knowledge comes from the Truth comes from the Bible, so, yes, to them, additional information can lessen knowledge.

I encourage our readers to explore Dembski's 'perspectives' as it furthers my claim that Intelligent Design is scientifically vacuous.

Design theorists have yet to reach a consensus on these matters. Nevertheless, they have reached a consensus about the indispensability of intelligence in human origins. In particular, they argue that an evolutionary process unguided by intelligence cannot adequately account for the remarkable intellectual gifts of a William James Sidis or the remarkable moral goodness of a Mother Teresa.

— PvM

And they still deny with a straight face that ID is not about religion?

Why are we altruistic? According to evolutionary ethics and evolutionary psychology (currently two of the hottest evolutionary subdisciplines), altruism is not a designer's gift to us and the apes; it does not reflect a designer's benevolence.

— Dembski

The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

— Dembski

Amongst the things said about the Designer are extreme Intelligence, unlimited Benevolence, boundless Generosity, and a Purposeful Creator of the Universe.

And an irrational hatred of palaeontologists

Amongst the things said about the Designer are extreme Intelligence, unlimited Benevolence, boundless Generosity, and a Purposeful Creator of the Universe.

And an irrational hatred of palaeontologists

Luskin wrote Love is hate, war is peace

Dembski wrote We have always been at war with Oceania

I wonder why we never see headlines such as "Discovery Institute Scientists Map Chimp Genome?"

Better yet, "blind evolution" is an equivocation on the term "blind." Evolution is "blind" in the sense of there being no agency which is directing it, and it is certainly "blind" in the sense that no great architect is determining which mutations happen when. But given the how natural selection tends to cull from the population those members of the population which are unfit, leaving only those which are fit to pass on their genes to their descendants, natural selection is not "blind" to the environment, but with mutation, results in descent with modification --- including adaptation, leading to organisms which are better-adapted to their environment over time. In this sense, it most certainly isn't "blind." Referring to evolution as "blind" is just a variation on the old creationist "evolution is just random mutation" argument --- where they keep "forgetting" the role of natural selection. But I guess they would prefer to argue against a straw man...

Luskin wrote:

Sure, they just finished decoding the chimp genome but it actually lessened our knowledge of human/chimp similarities rather than upping it.

Can anyone understand the above statement by Looserkin? The more we know the less we know....MMMMMMMMM this is the classic statement on accepting ignorance. Hey, not bad for a looser to admit it, finally.

Dembski as quoted earlier
Amongst the things said about the Designer are extreme Intelligence, unlimited Benevolence, boundless Generosity, and a Purposeful Creator of the Universe.

Man Dembski's got the full house there..... that would explain why the ID movement has been so good to him.

1.boundless Generosity ......as proved by enormous book sales

2.Purposeful Creator of the Universe...... as proved by his 'divine' mathematics

3.unlimited Benevolence ....ok that will take care of the conscience when the judgment comes....oh that 's right he got out Dover when he gathered up his skirts and vanished on a 'technicality'

3 extreme Intelligence.... well if he was THAT intelligent why have so many people proved him wrong

In fact if He was THAT intelligent why do we need to do science at all ? Lets just ask the smartest guy in the whole universe ! TaDA ....enter God....well I'm not THAT smart I'm English you know.

Evolutionary critics often claim that evolution "makes no predictions" but here's a pretty bold one: Now that we know the exact sequences for numerous genes for humans and chimpanzees, as soon as we have a suitable outgroup we can determine the exact DNA sequence for most of those genes in the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. In fact for ANY two related species, we can (in theory) reconstruct genes that once existed in a common ancestor that no longer exists. Moreover, we should be able to actually reconstruct those genes and test whether or not they are functional (i.e., produce functional enzymes or other proteins). Of course if evolution is true they WILL BE fully functional---because they DID exist in a common ancestor, and they WERE functional---but neither creationism nor ID makes such a prediction. So... anybody working on this yet?

Lenny posted,
There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses, whatever they are, should not be subjected to the very same testing process that everyone ELSE's hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go through. If they cannot put their "hypothesis" through the same scientific method that everyone ELSE has to, then they have no claim to be "science". Period.

Lenny, my hat is off to you. Well presented and articulated response.

Why similar blueprints?

Humans use blueprints. Oftentimes, it's cheaper and quicker to design a modified product starting with exiting blueprints. We have limits, and take shortcuts when possible in order to overcome those limits. The Intelligent Designer is not a human; the Intelligent Designer is supernatural (must be, having created the universe). It should be easy for the Intelligent Designer to start from scratch.

Another, important reason humans use blueprints is to communicate a design from one human to another. Does the Intelligent Designer engage in such communication with other Intelligent Designers? Humans give a copy of the blueprints to the mechanical engineer, and to the structural engineer, the contractor, the plumber, etc., and those other humans all cooperate to construct the product using forges, lathes, saws, welding torches, and so forth, making use of materials that are obtained by processing raw ores and substances (as specified by the blueprints). Are the Intelligent Designers also constrained by material and technological limitations? Are there Quality Control Intelligent Designers to make sure the fabrications meet specifications?

Why similar blueprints?

Humans use blueprints. Oftentimes, it's cheaper and quicker to design a modified product starting with exiting blueprints. We have limits, and take shortcuts when possible in order to overcome those limits. The Intelligent Designer is not a human; the Intelligent Designer is supernatural (must be, having created the universe). It should be easy for the Intelligent Designer to start from scratch.

Another, important reason humans use blueprints is to communicate a design from one human to another. Does the Intelligent Designer engage in such communication with other Intelligent Designers? Humans give a copy of the blueprints to the mechanical engineer, and to the structural engineer, the contractor, the plumber, etc., and those other humans all cooperate to construct the product using forges, lathes, saws, welding torches, and so forth, making use of materials that are obtained by processing raw ores and substances (as specified by the blueprints). Are the Intelligent Designers also constrained by material and technological limitations? Are there Quality Control Intelligent Designers to make sure the fabrications meet specifications?

And what kind of evidence have you found for these suppositions?

If you have evidence, you got a scientific controversy. If you don't have evidence, it ain't science.

As Lenny said,
There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses, whatever they are, should not be subjected to the very same testing process that everyone ELSE's hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go through. If they cannot put their "hypothesis" through the same scientific method that everyone ELSE has to, then they have no claim to be "science". Period.

Luskin has a point in that the more we know, the less we know can indeed occur. This is basically the ID argument namely that more evidence has uncovered much we do not know.
A good example is oceanography. In the first half of the 19's century it was believed that we understood most of what makes the oceans 'move' until better instruments showed a wealth of fine structure which opened up oceanography to a whole new era of discovery and scientific progress.
Same with the cell, once thought to be basically a blob of protoplasm, it now shows intricate complexities beyond our imaginations. ID activists seem to take this as a reason to conclude: thus designed. Scientists see it as an opportunity to do science.
Biochemistry opened up a whole new era of research and data, data which could have falsified much of evolutionary theory or the concept of common descent. Instead we find exquisite examples of evolution.
Same with the Cambrian explosion. Our ignorance led us to wild speculations but more and more data as well as a better understanding of body plans, has helped science understand much better what caused the Cambrian explosion. And where ID activists see problems, science is looking for and finding plausible answers.

Which is why I consider ID totally vacuous from a scientific perspective.

Poof... Parsimonous indeed...

Posted by k.e. on January 23, 2006 08:16 AM (e) Thomas Right on ! I wish I could be more optimistic but I think those that are mentally dis-functional, given half a chance with their reality, might make US extinct.

Luskin has a point in that the more we know, the less we know can indeed occur. This is basically the ID argument namely that more evidence has uncovered much we do not know.

JAllen:

No one expects the Discovery Inquisition!

gwangung: mark is not making suppositions, he's asking questions in this vein:

If we use the watch in the desert and Mt. Rushmore as analogies of Intelligent Design, do we then need to suppose that the Intelligent Designer works like human designers, with various Intelligent Drafters, Intelligent Engineers, Intelligent Tradespeople, etc. etc.?

Ah. I misunderstood (a common instance, I'm afraid).

However, you still need to continue the work to a point where you CAN work with evidence. You have to make assumptions on how all these other agents work and what...evidence...they will leave behind, before you get science. Until we get to that point, it's not science (and I leave my mind open that we COULD find evidence that such agents exist...but since we haven't, intelligent design ain't science yet).

Same with the cell, once thought to be basically a blob of protoplasm, it now shows intricate complexities beyond our imaginations.

Comment #75087 Posted by gwangung on January 23, 2006 01:08 PM (e) Why similar blueprints? Humans use blueprints. Oftentimes, it's cheaper and quicker to design a modified product starting with exiting blueprints. We have limits, and take shortcuts when possible in order to overcome those limits. The Intelligent Designer is not a human; the Intelligent Designer is supernatural (must be, having created the universe). It should be easy for the Intelligent Designer to start from scratch. Another, important reason humans use blueprints is to communicate a design from one human to another. Does the Intelligent Designer engage in such communication with other Intelligent Designers? Humans give a copy of the blueprints to the mechanical engineer, and to the structural engineer, the contractor, the plumber, etc., and those other humans all cooperate to construct the product using forges, lathes, saws, welding torches, and so forth, making use of materials that are obtained by processing raw ores and substances (as specified by the blueprints). Are the Intelligent Designers also constrained by material and technological limitations? Are there Quality Control Intelligent Designers to make sure the fabrications meet specifications?

you are wishing that god was real in the sense of a guy up there who metes out some kind of individual justice. Just think obout this one: How many people has you god killed? Now, how many people has your satn killed? No wonder people think christians are ignorant and dangerous.

Luskin makes about as much sense as the Achilles and the tortoise paradox. Think of it as filling in the gaps. As soon as a transitional fossil is found, that leaves two gaps. That way, evolution never wins!

Moreover, we should be able to actually reconstruct those genes and test whether or not they are functional (i.e., produce functional enzymes or other proteins). Of course if evolution is true they WILL BE fully functional---because they DID exist in a common ancestor, and they WERE functional---but neither creationism nor ID makes such a prediction.

Sorry, wrong tags.
Links: News story, PubMed paper citation

i'm still wondering (and i'm not sure if i mean this as a personal attack):

what does the name "qualiatative" mean? is it a pun that i don't get, or just an ignorant misspelling? i can't even try to take the first word of his posts seriously after reading his name, much less the "logic" in them.

the remarkable moral goodness of a Mother Teresa

What's next--The Girl Scouts: The Untold Story? How could anybody write a debunking book about Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity order? Well, in this little cruise missile of a book, Hitchens quickly establishes that the idea is not without point. After all, what is Mother Teresa doing hanging out with a dictator's wife in Haiti and accepting over a million dollars from Charles Keating? The most riveting material in the book is contained in two letters: one from Mother Teresa to Judge Lance Ito--then weighing what sentence to dole out to the convicted Keating--which cited all the work Keating has done "to help the poor," and another from a Los Angeles deputy D.A., Paul Turley, back to Mother Teresa that eloquently stated that rather than working to reduce Keating's sentence, she should return the money he gave her to its rightful owners, the defrauded bond-holders. (Significantly, Mother Teresa never replied.) And why do former missionary workers and visiting doctors consistently observe that the order's medical practices seem so inadequate, especially given all the money that comes in? (Hitchens acidly observes that on the other hand, Mother Teresa herself always manages to receive world-class medical care.) Hitchens's answer is that Mother Teresa is first and foremost interested not in providing medical treatment, but in furthering Catholic doctrine and--quite literally--becoming a saint.

— Publisher's Weekly

A terse summary of Chatterjee's primary concerns with Mother Teresa appear in the final chapter where he quotes his "Deposition Before the Committee for Beatification/Canonisation of Mother Teresa." Among Chatterjee's concerns are: * Mother Teresa often said that she picked people up from the streets of Calcutta, but she and her order of nuns did not do this. People requesting such service were told curtly to ring 102 (similar to 911). * While the order owns several ambulances, these are used primarily to transport nuns to and from places of prayer. * Mother Teresa said that her order fed 4000, 5000, 7000 or 9000 Caltuttans every day (the number varied). The two or three soup kitchens in Calcutta feed a maximum of only 300 people per day. The kitchens will provide food only to people with "food cards" that are distrubuted predominantly to the Catholic poor. * While Mother Teresa's order has some presence in many countries throughout the world, the majority of these are for training monks or nuns, not for aiding the poor. * Mother Teresa's shelters will usually only help children if the parents sign a form of renunciation which signs the rights to the children to her organization. * Mother Teresa often insists that her natural family clinics prevent unwanted pregnancies, but this number is without any basis in truth. * Mother Teresa insisted that suffering was beautiful as it evoked Christ's suffering, but when ill she visited exclusive, expensive hospitals. * The hospice in Calcutta through which Mother Teresa gained such wide recognition is very small (80 beds) and provides little medical care. Needles are reused, all patients are forced to have their heads shaven, visitors are forbidden and painkillers are rarely if ever used. The nurses do not speak the language of the people and are not usually involved in the care of the patients. This duty is assumed by volunteers. * Mother Teresa often accepted money from suspicious sources, the most notable of which is Charles Keating, America's most notorious thief.

Common descent requires nested hierarchies, common design has no such requirements and thus the claim that ID can accomodate the evidence is an ad hoc argument. Unless one has independent understanding of the "Designer's" this argument fails to be scientific.

The only difference is that ID is able to subsume common descent

whereas blind evolution cannot subsume IC.

You mislabel ID as "ad hoc" where it is merely parsimonious.

Of course, PT is not a forum for serious debate. Hence, you may now commence ad hominems and personal attacks...

Yes 'qualiatative' is based on a pun on the word Qualia
Probably means the poster objects to physicalist and materialist theories of mind.

I don't buy the DI line that recent scientific discoveries make their notion of an "intelligent designer" any more compelling than it was 50 years ago.

— Russell

Luskin makes about as much sense as the Achilles and the tortoise paradox. Think of it as filling in the gaps. As soon as a transitional fossil is found, that leaves two gaps. That way, evolution never wins!

— natural cynic

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_HumanOrigins_062204.pdf

In this POS, Dembski says that humans are the only primates that undergo menopause, but this is wrong. Gorillas have been documented to do this as well as captive orangutans. Chimps die before they ever hit menopause.

Moses wins the "why similar blueprints" prize for seeing that I find the blueprint analagy to have serious shortcomings. And yes, forcing the Intelligent Designer to use blueprints, even metaphorically, does not really constrain a supernatural designer, leading to the futility of posing any kind of testable hypotheses. Because it's such a loose methaphor, there is no way to figure out what kind of evidence to look for.

I am new here. I have a question and a comment.
Q: ID uses the human eye as an example of IC and of ID. It is my understanding that, in fact, the human eye is badly designed. Can we not offer that as rebuttal to their claim - or is that too simplistic?
C: Re Post #74973 by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank. He wrote a long statement about the scientific method. I thought it was excellent. It brought to mind something I read some years ago which I have now found. "The philosopher Ronald de Sousa once memorably described philosophical theology as 'intellectual tennis without a net,'...It's your serve. Whatever you serve, suppose I return service rudely as follows:'What you say implies that God is a ham sandwich...'. If you then volley back...how can I logically justify my claim that your serve has such a preposterous implication, I will reply 'Oh, do you want the net up for my returns, but not for your serves?"
and more.
From Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel C. Dennett Simon and Schuster, 1995

Re Post #74973 by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank. He wrote a long statement about the scientific method. I thought it was excellent.

Let's see what Luskin makes of the latest chimp-human news: watch out, Casey, they could be catching up to you!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10994885/.

Not that, in Casey's case, the chimps would have to evolve all that fast to overtake him.

And by revealing this through DNA analysis, scientists have provided support for a controversial hypothesis that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to other species of great apes with which they're currently classified.

Whenever I hear Behe's IC arguments, I always think of arches. An arch requires all of its elements to hold it together, including (most importantly) a keystone. However, the keystone is always the last element added in any arch. They sure seem irreducibly complex to me. Remove one piece and they crumble to the ground. All of this raises the question, how does any arch ever get built in the first place?

The builders used a scaffold to support the structure which is now missing, of course. So much for IC...

In this POS, Dembski says that humans are the only primates that undergo menopause, but this is wrong. Gorillas have been documented to do this as well as captive orangutans. Chimps die before they ever hit menopause.

— Jason

(3) Human females experience menopause; no other primates do (the only known mammal besides humans to experience menopause is the pilot whale).

These can be turned to advantage, and I've done so on numerous occasions. I'm not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics' objections. An additional advantage with this approach is that I can cite the website on which the objections appear, which typically gives me the last word in the exchange. And even if the critics choose to revise the objections on their website, books are far more permanent and influential than webpages.

— Dembski

Q: ID uses the human eye as an example of IC and of ID. It is my understanding that, in fact, the human eye is badly designed. Can we not offer that as rebuttal to their claim - or is that too simplistic?

Scientists test non-scientific theories using scientific method and when the non-scientific theory fails, they rejoice at their triumph in science?

The best the scientific community can possibly say is that ID is not "scientific," YET. A Unified Theory requires the dissolution of science. This process is already underway. It is only natural that "evolving science" will evolve towards a theory that unifies General scientific and General non-scientific theory. Whether this Unified theory will be named ID or not, only time will tell. What scientists defend today will not be what science defends tomorrow or the next day. Today's arguments against ID will be useless tomorrow as our knowledge expands where it is most ignorant, in the non-scientific realm, and science recognizes the irrelevancy of its constraints. Science will then recognize the futility of its rebelliousness. It will succumb to a Unified Theory and pass into oblivion. It has to or we shall remain ever ignorant of the true nature of the universe.

thordaddy
Bad news
Is that the Catholic "The Unified Theory"
The Buddhist "The Unified Theory"
The Islamic "The Unified Theory"
The Atheist "The Unified Theory"
The Brucist "The Unified Theory"
The Logical Positivists "The Unified Theory"
The Zoroastrian "The Unified Theory"
The Church of England "The Unified Theory"
The Gnostic "The Unified Theory"

Which one ? There are thousands to choose from.

k.e.

Why give 9 choices for a "Unified" Theory? The Unified Theory is "it." All those other theories are either irrelevant or mere pieces of the whole puzzle.

Science must become what is unknown or we shall ever remain ignorant of the origins. As long as science remains only that which is known we have no chance at a Unified Theory. We know that we have NO Unified Theory thus "science" must take us into the unknown or let the unknown into science. This depends upon the evolutions of science and ID.

thordaddy
Do you understand those 9 "Unified theories"
or any religion that supports the Theory of Evolution and their rational.

ID theoy ? No problems, provide the peer reviewed papers and the evidence and you have your 'Unified Theory'
Here is question
"Why will that never happen"?

The best the scientific community can possibly say is that ID is not "scientific," YET.

Comment #75287 Posted by thordaddy on January 24, 2006 07:28 AM (e) Scientists test non-scientific theories using scientific method and when the non-scientific theory fails, they rejoice at their triumph in science? The best the scientific community can possibly say is that ID is not "scientific," YET. A Unified Theory requires the dissolution of science. This process is already underway.

It is only natural that "evolving science" will evolve towards a theory that unifies General scientific and General non-scientific theory. Whether this Unified theory will be named ID or not, only time will tell.

What scientists defend today will not be what science defends tomorrow or the next day. Today's arguments against ID will be useless tomorrow as our knowledge expands where it is most ignorant, in the non-scientific realm, and science recognizes the irrelevancy of its constraints. Science will then recognize the futility of its rebelliousness. It will succumb to a Unified Theory and pass into oblivion. It has to or we shall remain ever ignorant of the true nature of the universe.

Hey Thordaddy - I have a Unified Theory for you: Thordaddy = Ignoramus.
I think this is pretty well all encompassing, and a good framework for your future development.

HTH

Science must become what is unknown or we shall ever remain ignorant of the origins. As long as science remains only that which is known we have no chance at a Unified Theory. We know that we have NO Unified Theory thus "science" must take us into the unknown or let the unknown into science. This depends upon the evolutions of science and ID.

Scientists test non-scientific theories using scientific method and when the non-scientific theory fails, they rejoice at their triumph in science?

— Thordaddy

The best the scientific community can possibly say is that ID is not "scientific," YET.

A Unified Theory requires the dissolution of science. This process is already underway. It is only natural that "evolving science" will evolve towards a theory that unifies General scientific and General non-scientific theory. Whether this Unified theory will be named ID or not, only time will tell. What scientists defend today will not be what science defends tomorrow or the next day. Today's arguments against ID will be useless tomorrow as our knowledge expands where it is most ignorant, in the non-scientific realm, and science recognizes the irrelevancy of its constraints. Science will then recognize the futility of its rebelliousness. It will succumb to a Unified Theory and pass into oblivion. It has to or we shall remain ever ignorant of the true nature of the universe.

From Steviepinhead's link: And by revealing this through DNA analysis, scientists have provided support for a controversial hypothesis that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to other species of great apes with which they're currently classified.

Whoa, am I amongst scientists or a bunch of school yard bullies?

A few questions for the scientists:

Doesn't all of science have an underlying smidgen of speculation?

When one says ID is not science does this automatically confer a religious nature to ID?

Does one need to be religious to speculate on the validity of ID?

When one says ID is not Science, what predictions are being made?

When one states that ID is "scientifically vacuous" does that mean ID is devoid of science?

Answers to these specific questions will no doubt enhance the debate. Will the scientists oblige?

Sorry, theonomo. By your logic, since I'm not a scientist, I must be a school yard bully.

So I'm afraid I can't help you out.

Now, if I were a mental health counselor, maybe.

Whoa, am I amongst scientists or a bunch of school yard bullies?

Both.

Having a weak ego isn't a virtue for a scientists...If you can't defend your ideas, you'll have a poor time of being a scientist (lots of people don't realize that).

gwangung,

Perhaps you might answers a few question and allow me to defend my "ideas?"

Anyway, I would love a link to the scientific equations that define the relative strength or weakness of an "ego."

Posted by thordaddy on January 24, 2006 06:00 PM (e) Whoa, am I amongst scientists or a bunch of school yard bullies? A few questions for the scientists: Doesn't all of science have an underlying smidgen of speculation? When one says ID is not science does this automatically confer a religious nature to ID? Does one need to be religious to speculate on the validity of ID? When one says ID is not Science, what predictions are being made? When one states that ID is "scientifically vacuous" does that mean ID is devoid of science? Answers to these specific questions will no doubt enhance the debate. Will the scientists oblige?

When one says ID is not science does this automatically confer a religious nature to ID?

When one says ID is not Science, what predictions are being made?

I still await the predictions. So if ID is the argument for God then science is logically the argument for no God? What we "know" is of No God (science) and what is "unknown" is God (religion). It could then be said that science is the theory of the "known" and ID is the theory of the "unknown." This presents quite the predicament for a scientist for he adds to the "known" (science) the previously "unknown" (religion) but still calls it science. Evidence of ID will continuously penetrate science because it is required that the "unknown" (God) become "known" (science). Who really cares what you call as long as we all understand its meaning. Called it Unified Science, an oxymoron, no doubt! LOL!

Steviepenhead,

Although you addressed "theonomo," I'm not sure by what logic one was precluded from being outside the two character profiles I presented. You could have certainly declared yourself a Darwinian evangelist and nothing in my QUESTION stopped you from doing so. I happened to be concerned with ONLY whether I am amongst scientists or school yard bullies at this time. So, am I?

You figure it out. It's the "unknown" and you're the wingnut.

So if ID is the argument for God then science is logically the argument for no God?

What we "know" is of No God (science) and what is "unknown" is God (religion). It could then be said that science is the theory of the "known" and ID is the theory of the "unknown." This presents quite the predicament for a scientist for he adds to the "known" (science) the previously "unknown" (religion) but still calls it science. Evidence of ID will continuously penetrate science because it is required that the "unknown" (God) become "known" (science). Who really cares what you call as long as we all understand its meaning. Called it Unified Science, an oxymoron, no doubt! LOL!

Jesus, PT is frigging infested with these creationist dimwits today! Ruins the enjoyment of being here. Are these all people DaveScot booted out of UD, and they're all looking for a new home? This is why I've been spending more time at After the Bar Closes, fewer idiots there. So far.

I think the troll infestation post-Dover is worse. But dang, in the first week after Dover, it was great, all the IDiots were all shocked into slience and there were no trolls here at all.

Hey, Steviepinhead, did you ever track down the Enrico article?

MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE 2006 Regular Session To: Education By: Representative Lott, Carlton, Moore, Staples, Wells-Smith House Bill 953 AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 37-7-301, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT SCHOOL BOARDS MAY AUTHORIZE THE TEACHING OF CREATIONISM OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI: (ww) To authorize the teaching of "creationism" or "intelligent design" in the public schools. If the school's curriculum requires the teaching of evolution, then the teaching of "creationism" or "intelligent design" shall be required. SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2006.

How about a couple of simple examples on why the scientific method, and specifically steps 3-5 as described by Lenny are so much more important than thordaddy's "General non-scientific theory" will ever be. How about London back in 1854, where many died from a cholera outbreak. How many fervent prayers were uttered by those stricken and their families? How sincere and pained were these prayers? What good did they do? Through a careful mapping of the locations of cholera deaths, and his belief in the germ theory of disease, the physician Dr. John Snow asked for the handle of a water pump in the area to be removed. New cases of cholera plummeted, and many lives were saved. Does science have to be complicated? At heart, a lot of it is just common sense and careful observation. Another famous, earlier example, is Edward Jenner's discovery of the principle of vaccination. How many prayers were futilely spoken in behalf of those suffering the horrible disease of smallpox? Were not these prayers deadly serious? Now in this case how many untold lives have been saved, how much suffering has been spared, through careful observation, an intelligent interpretation of the data, and application of steps 3-5? I am no expert in biology, but as anyone remotely acquainted with discoveries discussed, for instance, on this website are aware, the explosion of knowledge in this area over the past several decades has been breathtaking. All through application of the scientific method, and building on what has been learned before.

What can be learned about ANYTHING in the universe through "General non-scientific theory?" What has been learned? To what certainty in comparison to what has been learned applying careful observation, common sense, and experiment? Why are these nincompoops so determined to bang their heads again and again against the wall, and why do they think they have the right to do the same with our kids?

I am a PhD student in microbiology and have a working knowledge of molecular genetics, biochemistry, and genomics/bioinformatics. I have been debating Casey Luskin, as well as other ID supporters. These individuals wrongly infer the mystical workings of the "designer" based on our experience of human design and creation. For instance..

Luskin said: Here is how intelligent design theory works:
i.Observation: The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described.

I reply: Yes, this theory is perfect for determining who makes mouse traps, watches and nachos but it fails to predict the MECHANISM of how "irreducible complexity" arises [in biological structures].

The reason for this failure is because we can determine the MECHANISMS by which mouse traps are produced. We have no MECHANISM for how a "designer" supposedly created a flagellum. Modern science has provided the biochemical and genetic MECHANISMS to produce the variation that Darwin observed. ID theory argues from ignorance and unwarranted inference.

Later in the conversation, Luskin illustrates how we can all detect specified complexity.

Luskin said: "Now lets say you are walking in a field and find a TV set. You don't necessarily know anything about who or what designed that TV set, but you can tell it is designed because, at some fundamental level, it exhibits specified complexity."

I reply: No, I know it was designed, and by whom because it says SONY on it. We have prior knowledge of humans designing TV's, but no prior knowledge of anyone or any being designing a flagellum.

The IDists are going about this whole thing totally wrong. All they have to do is provide a mechanism by which irreducible complexity arises...it will be very difficult to observe supernatural creation unfortunately. With an upturned nose they tell me to provide plausible pathways to show how a flagellum evolved gradually(which cannot be shown). This is MY challenge to the DI: Provide the mechanism(s)used by a designing intelligence, which by definition of irreducible complexity is not subject to irreducible complexity, to produce any irreducibly complex biological structure, such as a flagellum. Behe has claimed the designer would not necessarily be subject to irreducible complexity. This is absurd. An organic being with the intelligence to produce the first cells would have to be multicellular and thus contain what Behe defines as IC. Assuming Behe is right and the designer could be an organic being,the question is where did the designer's cells come from....infinite regression. In the end, design must invoke creation. I'll use Behe's example of the mousetrap. Because a mousetrap exists outside the mind of the human designer, it had to be created by that human designer. Likewise, if ID claims a "designer" generated IC, ID must invoke supernatural creation.

Despite my simple request of a single observable mechanism for the generation of IC, which would take but a few seconds, Casey told me several weeks ago he is too busy to reply but he will try to respond. I am waiting.

Behe has claimed the designer would not necessarily be subject to irreducible complexity.

Poking holes in ID is so easy. They come at you with vigor until you point out some obvious and damning flaw in their hypothesis.....and they leave the phone off the hook.

Lenny,

If ID isn't science then on what basis do you ascribe "religious crusade" to it? How do you "know" (ID is a religious crusade) what you clearly claim isn't scientifically knowable (an argument for God). Is there something outside science that helps illuminate this crusade for you?

orrg1,

Some may argue that science has done nothing good, but that argument isn't going to suffice here. Of course naturalistic science has produced results. That's not the problem. The problem is that it can not answer the final question (original cause)and remain science as we currently define it.

You ask,

>>What can be learned about ANYTHING in the universe through "General non-scientific theory?

--We don't need to learn about ANYTHING using the GNT when scientific theory is just fine. It is the EVERYTHING minus ANYTHING that the GNT seeks to theorize about. Science claims it CANNOT do it because it is unknown. Science has no use for the unknown, but that doesn't mean the unknown is useless. In fact, science makes much use of the unknown and tries to pass it off as something (givens). The hypocrisy is part of scientific evolution. Some unknowns are more equal than others. Science can only fan the flames and will never put out the fire of the intelligent design argument.

JM Ridlon,

What are these "mechanisms?"

So if ID is the argument for God then science is logically the argument for no God? What we "know" is of No God (science) and what is "unknown" is God (religion). It could then be said that science is the theory of the "known" and ID is the theory of the "unknown." This presents quite the predicament for a scientist for he adds to the "known" (science) the previously "unknown" (religion) but still calls it science. Evidence of ID will continuously penetrate science because it is required that the "unknown" (God) become "known" (science). Who really cares what you call as long as we all understand its meaning. Called it Unified Science, an oxymoron, no doubt! LOL!

— thordaddy

Science has no use for the unknown

— thordaddy

Posted by thordaddy on January 24, 2006 10:17 PM (e) When one says .........

Odd Digit opines,

>>Classic example of the logical error (false dilemma) made by all the ID advocates, and shared by thordaddy.

There are more than two options available, not just science and religion. The third option is - we don't know.

How did life get started? We don't know. Could it have been a divine creator? Possibly. Could it have been through entirely natural means? Possibly. Can we tell either way? No. At least not yet.

ID is just a god of the gaps argument - there are gaps in science so we'll stick a 'supernatural designer' in there.

--How does the scientist define divine creator/God scientifically? He can't and he says he can't, but still engages in conversation that gives this intelligent designer existence and refuses to give it scientific credibility. You talk as if there is no empirical evidence of an intelligent designer as you simultaneously concede he may have created the universe. How could such a concession come from a complete lack of empirical evidence?

Then you say,

>>Very strange idea. Science exists to try to understand and explain the unknown.

--Science only explains what is already known by adding meaning. The question is this:

If ID is NOT Science, then what is it?

If you say it's religion, then define religion.

If you say it's "creationism" in disguise, define these disguises!

If you say its an argument for the existence of God, then state on what basis a scientist can argue against something he claims is scientifically "unknown."

If you argue for the possibility of knowing the One Cause and concede that an IDer may be the One Cause, then by what argument can one state that ID isn't science or evolved science won't observe an IDer?

Stephen,

Perhaps if you asked some questions or answered the ones I posed then I would have felt compelled to reply.

I don't care what others say. I want to hear Stephen Elliot's answers. Here's a question.

If ID is not science then on what basis can the scientist argue against something he claims is scientifically "unknown?"

Let's see if you really want to play?

on what basis can the scientist argue against something he claims is scientifically "unknown?"

Posted by thordaddy on January 25, 2006 07:19 AM (e) Stephen, Perhaps if you asked some questions or answered the ones I posed then I would have felt compelled to reply.

You talk as if there is no empirical evidence of an intelligent designer...

— thordaddy

...you simultaneously concede he may have created the universe. How could such a concession come from a complete lack of empirical evidence?

— thordaddy

If ID isn't science then on what basis do you ascribe "religious crusade" to it? How do you "know" (ID is a religious crusade) what you clearly claim isn't scientifically knowable (an argument for God). Is there something outside science that helps illuminate this crusade for you?

Stephen says,

>>ID is clearly a political movement to advance religion. They say so themselves. How can that ever be scientific?

--It's clearly a political movement for those you are quoting, but such a generalization does not apply to me. A scientist who generalizes isn't saying much.

Then you say,

>>On a personal basis only. Some atheists here claim God does not exist. But that is a personal argument not a scientific one. But on the other hand I argue that God exists, that is also a personal argument.

I take it that you have only come here to play word games.

--Words are important tools for conveying and debating science. To say I play word games is only significant if I am distorting the meaning of words. If I am distorting meaning then call me on it.

Lastly, you opine,

>>It is not science because it does no science. You might be able to state that it makes scientific arguments but that is all it does. What is more it makes those arguments for political/religious reasons (they say so themselves) so it is not a scientific endeavor.

I am willing to argue with you further. But only if you read the wedge document If you wish to claim ID as science read their own document and defend your position in light of that evidence.

After you have done that I will be asking what positive evidence there is for ID. You have now been forewarned so you can easily ensure you are forearmed. Right?

--I don't need to read the Wedge Document if I'm arguing for ID under entirely different motives that are removed from religion or specific reference to God.

How can ID make "scientific arguments," but have "no science?" If Falsibility is no longer a relevant demarcation then what demarcation will fail next?

You want positive evidence of ID? Your awareness of it would be good evidence to start with. You personally concede the possibility of an IDer yet you claim NO empirical evidence to justify such concession. On what basis have you made this concession, Mr. Scientist?

Lenny,

You are only talking about some proponents of ID, but you're not talking about me. You need to address those arguments that don't rely on religion or God instead of using a straw man to knock down ID.

A scientist who generalizes isn't saying much.

How can a scientist concede the possibility of an IDer while claiming no empirical evidence to justify that concession? On what basis can the scientist justify such a concession? Science does not allow this concession. What does, Lenny?

You want positive evidence of ID? Your awareness of it would be good evidence to start with.

— thordaddy

You want positive evidence of ID? Your awareness of it would be good evidence to start with

Odd Digit opines,

>>There is no empirical evidence of an intelligent designer. Unless you claim to have some? If so, I'd love to know what it is...

--Then it must be scientifically concluded that an IDer does not exist? But, science does NOT allow you to make such a claim. "Why not," you ask, "if I have no empirical evidence then is must allow it!" Because there is empirical evidence in the awareness you have for the possibility of an IDer. Without this awareness you can not engage in this conversation. With this conversation you convey the possibility of an IDer. How did you become aware of something non-existent?

Then you say,

>> I said I don't know either way. There is no empirical evidence that an intelligent designer created the universe. There is also no empirical evidence that shows shows the universe was created by natural forces without an intelligent designer. So either hypothesis is just as valid as the other at the moment.

The only logical concession that can come from a complete lack of empirical evidence is "we don't know".

--You don't know because Science is either faulty or incomplete and you won't make the concession. It cannot be anything else unless it has gleaned the One Cause. It hasn't done it. If it is faulty, as in the irrelevancy of falsifying a hypothesis, then it begs the question? Is anything else an impediment to scientific discovery? If it is incomplete then it is counter-intuitive to argue that ID is not science. The best that can be said is that ID is not science AGAIN. Remember, ID was considered science in an earlier manifestation. How did it lose its Scientific credibility unless the definition of science didn't radically change? What precludes the definition of science from radically changing again?

thordaady wrote: How can a scientist concede the possibility of an IDer while claiming no empirical evidence to justify that concession? On what basis can the scientist justify such a concession? Science does not allow this concession. What does, Lenny?

ben,

What's more moronic?

Claiming your awareness of an IDer is no proof of empirical evidence,

or

Claiming NO empirical evidence, but conceding the possible existence of an IDer?

You are only talking about some proponents of ID, but you're not talking about me. You need to address those arguments that don't rely on religion or God instead of using a straw man to knock down ID.

— Our newest troll, thordaddy

Renier,

If your are a scientist then nothing known exists outside of science. If something is "known" outside of science, what is it called? Everything outside science is then "unknown." This self-imposed boundary served to mitigate the hubris of scientists. It essentially said that the One Cause may never be completely defined by science because it may be the work of an IDer. ID lies outside of scientific constraint. It can assert its truthfulness and need not concede the possibility of an unintelligent cause. These transcendent truths are lost on most scientists because it is a realm they seldom seem to occupy?

Claiming NO empirical evidence, but conceding the possible existence of an IDer

— thordaddy

Then it must be scientifically concluded that an IDer does not exist? But, science does NOT allow you to make such a claim. "Why not," you ask, "if I have no empirical evidence then is must allow it!" Because there is empirical evidence in the awareness you have for the possibility of an IDer. Without this awareness you can not engage in this conversation. With this conversation you convey the possibility of an IDer. How did you become aware of something non-existent?

— thordaddy

You don't know because Science is either faulty or incomplete and you won't make the concession. It cannot be anything else unless it has gleaned the One Cause. It hasn't done it. If it is faulty, as in the irrelevancy of falsifying a hypothesis, then it begs the question? Is anything else an impediment to scientific discovery?

If it is incomplete then it is counter-intuitive to argue that ID is not science."

The best that can be said is that ID is not science AGAIN. Remember, ID was considered science in an earlier manifestation. How did it lose its Scientific credibility unless the definition of science didn't radically change? What precludes the definition of science from radically changing again?

Grey Wolf,

Here's a few questions to start a debate.

1. ID is not science. What predictions are being made?

2. Is awareness of an IDer proof of NO empirical evidence?

3. If ID has no empirical evidence then why must science concede the possibility in the existence of an IDer?

4. How can a scientist argue against the existence of something scientifically "unknown?"

5. Why do the constraints of science apply to ID when the existence of ID remains outside its constraints?

Go get'm, Mr. Wolf?

Remember, ID was considered science in an earlier manifestation. How did it lose its Scientific credibility unless the definition of science didn't radically change?

— The new IDiot, thordaddy

"Creationism lost scientific credibility"

I don't think 'creation science' HAD any scientific credibility to lose. Probably more accurate to say it never gained any scientific credibility to begin with.

Grey Wolf opines,

>>It is moronic to think that existence of believers equals empirical proof. Any number of children believe in Santa Claus. That doesn't magically create evidence for its existence. Just because you declare yourself an IDer it doesn't mean that there is evidence for ID.

--But you're not a believer and either are most scientists. The question is how those that don't believe in the existence of an IDer are still required to scientifically concede the possibility of that existence despite the complete lack of empirical evidence? That of which is paradoxically, required to legitimate science. If there is NO empirical evidence for an IDer then the constraints of science that doesn't allow you to make that declaration of Known Truth are faulty or incomplete.

questions by thordaddy:

1. ID is not science. What predictions are being made?

The question doesn't follow the statement, but I'll say this: I agree with the statement. As far as I am aware, ID makes no predictions whatsoever. You might want to bring some, though, if you disagree. I will not do your homework for you, though. Either bring evidence for ID and the predictions that is obtained from the evidence, or admit defeat and shut up.

2. Is awareness of an IDer proof of NO empirical evidence?

No. Lack of empirical evidence stands on its own. After 100 years creationism and ID have presented no empirical evidence for their position. Your existence doesn't provide proof for ID - see my Santa Claus example above. The fact that I can imagine Santa Claus doesn't make him real.

3. If ID has no empirical evidence then why must science concede the possibility in the existence of an IDer?

Science doesn't know if there is an all powerful being outside reality. Science doesn't know if there is a small band of aliens living in a planet called Rupert beyond Pluto. Science doesn't care, in fact, if they do until it has evidence.

4. How can a scientist argue against the existence of something scientifically "unknown?"

It doesn't. It argues that until we have evidence, it is not scientific to say it exists. And until evidence is provided, it will not be considered part of science and thus does not belong in, for example, science lessons.

5. Why do the constraints of science apply to ID when the existence of ID remains outside its constraints?

Because ID followers insist that it is science. And thus science must explain that it is not. Meanwhile, ID remains religion, and no-one except the ID followers themselves say otherwise.

I've answered your questions. I assume you will want to rebate my answers. However, fair is fair, I ask that if you answer, you also answer my own questions:

1. What is the theory of ID?

2. What evidence is there for the existence of the Intelligent Designer?

3. Is the Intelligent Designer the Christian God (or viceversa)?

4. Should we teach ID at schools?

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

---But you're not a believer and either are most scientists.

— thordaddy

Odd Digit opines,

>>The possibility of something existing is just a matter of exercising one's imagination. Exercising one's imagination is not considered empirical evidence that the thing one is imagining actually exists.

--An idea exists in the same manner as all other things in the universe. Science says so! It consists of little theoretical photons accelerating through space-time releasing information that then collides with other photons and so on and so forth. This process releases vast amounts of information from every direction. If this is the basis for our current understanding of the universe then the mere awareness of an IDer is empirical evidence as that awareness can only be a product of this bombardment of information.

>>I'm not the one postulating that a intelligent designer exists - the ID crowd are doing that. I'm taking their possibility and saying that we can't rule it out. However, given the absolute lack of evidence FOR an intelligent designer we can't show that one exists either.

--You're right, science can't rule it out. Why is that? You say it's because ID isn't science? Could it be that science is faulty? We know it's incomplete because it can give no definitive answer on ID.

>>The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. If you are claiming that an intelligent designer exists, then please provide your evidence to substantiate this claim.

--Sorry, but I'm not required to play by scientific rules because I'm not confined by the constraints of science. One must stay consistent.

Why do I need to provide my evidence when you are well aware of this evidence for yourself? Are you not bombarded by massive amounts of "information" according to current theoretical physics and is not this "information" empirical evidence? It's why you must concede the possibility of ID because the empirical evidence requires it.

Why do I need to provide my evidence

Stop playing games.

You make a claim, you provide evidence.

Don't want to do that? Then don't complain when you're treated like a troll---which I think you are.

An idea exists in the same manner as all other things in the universe. Science says so! It consists of little theoretical photons accelerating through space-time releasing information that then collides with other photons and so on and so forth. This process releases vast amounts of information from every direction. If this is the basis for our current understanding of the universe then the mere awareness of an IDer is empirical evidence as that awareness can only be a product of this bombardment of information.

— thordaddy the crank

Why do I need to provide my evidence when you are well aware of this evidence for yourself?

— thordaddy

The question is how those that don't believe in the existence of an IDer are still required to scientifically concede the possibility of that existence despite the complete lack of empirical evidence? That of which is paradoxically, required to legitimate science. If there is NO empirical evidence for an IDer then the constraints of science that doesn't allow you to make that declaration of Known Truth are faulty or incomplete.

The question is how those that don't believe in the existence of an IDer are still required to scientifically concede the possibility of that existence despite the complete lack of empirical evidence?

That of which is paradoxically, required to legitimate science.

If there is NO empirical evidence for an IDer then the constraints of science that doesn't allow you to make that declaration of Known Truth are faulty or incomplete.

Odd Digit continues,

>>I would concede that 'science' is incomplete rather than 'faulty'. We don't know everything yet. That's what makes it fun, by the way.

--It's incompleteness is self-evident. The very nature of science requires it, but the very nature of science is to glean the One Cause to all the effects and give it meaning. Science lives in paradox. Science is not just incomplete, but fundamentally faulty. Science must declare whether it can give us the One Cause or concede that it can't and recognize that other theories outside of science may exist.

>>What is the 'One Cause'?

--It is what created the effect of the universe and all that is contained within it.

>>I might just as well argue that is is counter-intuitive to argue that knitting is not science or philosophy is not science or sunbathing is not science. It's not what is NOT science that's important, it's what IS science.

--Why would these arguments suffice when they have no relations to the origins of the universe? Science is nothing more than giving meaning to what we "observe." But it is not the only game in town even if it acts like it is. By clinging to a "conservative" definition of science, scientist pretend they exist outside the realm of influence and change even though all their theories require such subjugation. How can scientists believe that the constraints that define science today will still be there tomorrow? It contradicts their own theories.

>>When was ID ever science?
The definition of science hasn't changed.

You'll have to explain yourself, because I don't know what you're talking about here.

--Creationism was at one time considered science. This was in the time before Darwin and the idea of an IDer has essentially existed since the beginning of time as the empirical evidence bombards intelligent life everyday with clues about the CAUSE of the Universe. How can science become non-science and why then CAN'T today's science become non-science tomorrow?

An idea exists in the same manner as all other things in the universe. Science says so! It consists of little theoretical photons accelerating through space-time releasing information that then collides with other photons and so on and so forth. This process releases vast amounts of information from every direction. If this is the basis for our current understanding of the universe then the mere awareness of an IDer is empirical evidence as that awareness can only be a product of this bombardment of information.

— thordaddy

You're right, science can't rule it out. Why is that? You say it's because ID isn't science? Could it be that science is faulty? We know it's incomplete because it can give no definitive answer on ID.

Sorry, but I'm not required to play by scientific rules because I'm not confined by the constraints of science. One must stay consistent.

Why do I need to provide my evidence when you are well aware of this evidence for yourself? Are you not bombarded by massive amounts of "information" according to current theoretical physics and is not this "information" empirical evidence? It's why you must concede the possibility of ID because the empirical evidence requires it.

Way Off-Topic. Take it to After the Bar Closes.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SF;f=14

(And while you're there, check out Official Uncommon Pissant Discussion Thread)

Science must declare whether it can give us the One Cause

— thordaddy

or concede that it can't and recognize that other theories outside of science may exist.

Why would these arguments suffice when they have no relations to the origins of the universe?

Science is nothing more than giving meaning to what we "observe." But it is not the only game in town even if it acts like it is. By clinging to a "conservative" definition of science, scientist pretend they exist outside the realm of influence and change even though all their theories require such subjugation. How can scientists believe that the constraints that define science today will still be there tomorrow? It contradicts their own theories.

Creationism was at one time considered science. This was in the time before Darwin and the idea of an IDer has essentially existed since the beginning of time as the empirical evidence bombards intelligent life everyday with clues about the CAUSE of the Universe. How can science become non-science and why then CAN'T today's science become non-science tomorrow?

I vote that Thordaddy be forcibly bounced to the bathroom wall. He deserves it at least as much as Mynym.

Grey Wolf opines,

>>questions by thordaddy:

(thordaddy)1. ID is not science. What predictions are being made?

The question doesn't follow the statement, but I'll say this: I agree with the statement. As far as I am aware, ID makes no predictions whatsoever. You might want to bring some, though, if you disagree. I will not do your homework for you, though. Either bring evidence for ID and the predictions that is obtained from the evidence, or admit defeat and shut up.

--Mr. Wolf, you are under the impression that I'm under some kind of rhetorical or scientific constraint? When one says ID is not science, what value is in the statement other than ID is not science... Ok... then quit acting as if ID must act within the restraints of science even though it clearly lies outside of them. Be consistent. It is the JOB of science to make a declaration to the One Cause. Can it do or NOT? That's the fundamental question.

>>(thordaddy)2. Is awareness of an IDer proof of NO empirical evidence?

No. Lack of empirical evidence stands on its own. After 100 years creationism and ID have presented no empirical evidence for their position. Your existence doesn't provide proof for ID - see my Santa Claus example above. The fact that I can imagine Santa Claus doesn't make him real.

--The very existence of ID as an idea for the origins is proof of empirical evidence. The fact that this awareness dates back to the beginning of man is even more accumulative empirical evidence. How did you become aware if not from the "natural" properties of the universe? Are you not subject to the bombardment of theoretical energy (information) and does not this "information" constitute empirical evidence?

>>(thordaddy)3. If ID has no empirical evidence then why must science concede the possibility in the existence of an IDer?

Science doesn't know if there is an all powerful being outside reality. Science doesn't know if there is a small band of aliens living in a planet called Rupert beyond Pluto. Science doesn't care, in fact, if they do until it has evidence.

--Science feigns ignorance? Is this temporary or permanent? Is it too much to ask of science to give meaning to the One Cause? If so, it must take a seat and recognize the futility of its constraints.

>>(thordaddy)4. How can a scientist argue against the existence of something scientifically "unknown?"

It doesn't. It argues that until we have evidence, it is not scientific to say it exists. And until evidence is provided, it will not be considered part of science and thus does not belong in, for example, science lessons.

--"Evidence" being the key word. If we are bombarded by "information" from all directions at all times according to theoretical physics, then science must except this empirical evidence.

If there is an historical awareness of ID and this awareness is subject to the "natural" laws then the "natural" laws gave this awareness to us via empirical evidence. If science is incomplete (no meaning for the One Cause) and faulty (can't declare the existence or non-existence of the One Cause) then it must make concessions to the existence of an IDer, but save face by claiming it's still not science.

>>(thordaddy)5. Why do the constraints of science apply to ID when the existence of ID remains outside its constraints?

Because ID followers insist that it is science. And thus science must explain that it is not. Meanwhile, ID remains religion, and no-one except the ID followers themselves say otherwise.

--But you say its religion and must comply with science? That means ID can claim scientific credibility AGAIN as science is radically redefined given greater insight. You must except this great possibility. Science cannot stay within the same constraints forever and leave the most important question lefted unanswered? ID is an outgrowth of the frustration with science to give any real meaning to life and the Universe. They will liberalize the meaning of empirical evidence to its logical extreme. New constraints will evolve. Old constraints will die (falsibility). Science will have to make a decision soon.

>>I've answered your questions. I assume you will want to rebate my answers. However, fair is fair, I ask that if you answer, you also answer my own questions:

1. What is the theory of ID?

--As I understand it in its most simple terms, only intelligence can produce intelligence. Intelligence cannot come from unintelligence. Therefore, the Universe was intelligently designed and the empirical evidence is in the interpretation of the continuous bombardment of "information" contained throughout the Universe.

>>2. What evidence is there for the existence of the Intelligent Designer?

--The intelligence that we see all around us. We only know our life and our intelligence. It's only through our intelligence does anything exist or have meaning. Our intelligence need not be constrained by science. Intelligence is a fundamental property of the Universe. Design is a manifestation of intelligence. It seems to have been there since the One Cause. The empirical evidence is strong and many feel it, but you are stuck being a scientist. You know you want to be liberated. LOL!

>>3. Is the Intelligent Designer the Christian God (or viceversa)?

--We're waiting for science to do its job.

>>4. Should we teach ID at schools?

--Of course, as the judge Jones said, it's the only reasonable "alternative theory."

Wolf opines,

>>Good grief, man. Creationism lost scientific credibility because, like you, never presented evidence for its position while the competing theories - evolution, physics, biology, astrophysics, geology, etc. - presented mounds of evidence. The definition of science (which can be boiled down to "follow the evidence") discarded creationism (which later evolved into ID) because it was empty of evidence.

--Then how was it "science" in the first place? Easy, the constraints of science changed and they will change again. It's already happening and will continue to happen.

Then you say,

>>Lets do a thought experiment: I will create one of those "theoretical photons": triangles have four sides.

According to you, that means that somewhere in the universe, a triangle with four sides exists?

--Is this your argument? The idea exist right above this sentence. Science says so. Its existence was a manifestation of your intelligence in both the appropriate use of posting technology and the "idea" of a triangle with four sides being communicated to me. I had never tried to conceptualize a triangle with four-sides. If this idea is non-existent then how did you bring it to my attention if not by the "natural" laws? Science isn't the only game in town.

Stephen Elliot opines,

>>The lack of evidence one way or the other is why it is not science. Also the same reason that science can't say yes or no to God's existence.

--What does that mean to have lack of evidence one way or another other than both theories are equally valid or invalid. Which is it?

>>No paradox. Science has its own standards. Religion has different ones. Poetry has its own rules as does literature, painting, sculpture, golf, football etc.

--And then how can science give us the answer for the One Cause when it can't give causes for those things outside science? How can mechanical laws explain religion or poetry in any meaningful sense? It can't... but it says that no answers can be found outside science. It must decide or science must change its constraints.

>>No empirical for or against a God=God is not scientifically validated or refuted.

--Then you are either left conceding the incompleteness of science or the faultiness of its constraints. A decision must be reached as our intelligence requires it. Science must do its job or get out of the way.

>>Why do you write in a way to make your meaning obscure?

--My words mean exactly what they say. If you are confused on something then please articulate this confusion so as to give me the opportunity to clarify.

Odd Digit opines,

>>I don't think 'creation science' HAD any scientific credibility to lose. Probably more accurate to say it never gained any scientific credibility to begin with.

--That doesn't make any historical sense. Creationism was science until science transformed into something else that excluded creationism. This process is happening again, but in the other direction. Science will embrace ID because ID will change the constraints of science.

I think it would be swell if thordaddy applied the scientific mathod to figuring out how KwickXML works so we don't have to be subjected to his impenetrable quoting style as well as his nonsensical argumentation.

So, the intelligent designer decided to make humans and chimps similar as part of common design? How strange of the designer to leave a series of fossils showing designed creatures that diverge from a common species and approach current human and chimp form over time. Odd how ID is not religion, but the designer might have just created things as they presently exist rather than allowing them to develop over time. Why can't scientists see that ID is not religion but a heterodox group of people who believe things were created by a higher power?

(end pathetic attempt get back on topic)

thordaddy,
I have made a thread over on AtBC dedicated to you.
From now on I will only respond to you on this thread.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=43d7558e8ec4ba98;act=ST;f=14;t=178

I hope others will do the same.
You seem to be deliberately trying to derail subjects on PT threads.

Thanks to his determination to derail this thread, there is now an official Thordaddy thread at After the Bar Closes. Please do not respond to him here anymore -- take it there.

Sorry, looks like our messages crossed!

What he said.

Odd Digit opines,

>>The fact that an idea exists doesn't make the thing the idea is about exist, does it! See Grey Wolf's four sided triangle example

--Who said anything about that magic trick other than Grey Wolf? Oh wait, don't particles pop out of thin air in the "natural" laws? If I conceptualize Odd Digit as a young impressionable liberal, does that mean Odd Digit will exist in such a state? Of course not, but Odd Digit still exists and I've never "observed" him outside of my own thoughts. Ideas are real, but science is unable to give it any real meaning because science contrains while ideas are uncontainable.

Then you say,

>>No, I say ID isn't science because it has no evidence.

--Then why must you concede its possible existence and how can you engage in intelligent conversation on the topic? How do you accomplish these incredible feats?

Next,

>>So you concede that the definition of science hasn't changed...

--What? The definition of science has changed and will change again. It is of this universe and subject to the "natural" laws, no?

Thordude
Are you aware of the term "begging the question".

No ?

Then why did you ask ?

Your One Truth ?

Isn't that what Molley Bloom was on about ?

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning." -- Max Planck

Hey, Steviepinhead, did you ever track down the Enrico article?

Please do not enable the troll.

Take it here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=43d76270949f6787;act=ST;f=14;t=178

I'll post a couple of thoughts over on the Panderichthys thread (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/18-w...), where it actually has some slight relevance regarding how we construct past relationships from present evidence.

Thordaddy, if you want to read your response you'll have to head over to after the bar closes.

This thread sounds looks a mission for Caledonian. Unless Thordaddy is Caledonian on a wind up...

There has been a steady and potentially potent assention of power trend towards the right. The madness and hysteria of the left both home and abroad necessarily leaves one to the conclusion that President Bush is putting something together for Republicans and conservatives that could have longterm benefits. Why you choose to be on the outside is unknown. From my vantage point and having read many of the opinions you have put forth concerning conservative thought and liberal rot, I would say that it seems President Bush is pushing back that liberal madness like no one else I've ever been concious of. Granted, I'm just a 30 year-old father of two that thinks it ridiculous to abandon the Republican Party. Gay marriage, abortion, prayer, shool vouchers, Supreme Court nominees, tax reform, Social Security reform and taking a fight to the enemy are all issues I see as manifestly positive for conservatives. I don't see the point in trying to point out facts that are techically true in order to sow doubt in the party that is the conservative's best and strongest ally? Posted by: thordaddy on November 4, 2004 06:07 PM