Intelligent Design is Neither

"I don't think I'm obligated to propose an alternate theory," Wells publicly stated. "I don't pretend to have an alternate theory that explains the history of life."

just a spin on the "pathetic level of detail" response of WD-40.

meh, it's always good to point it out though, as they say essentially the same thing every day.

So what was the question? Brian asked Wells what is alternative to the evidence for natural selection was

"I don't think I'm obligated to propose an alternate theory," Wells publicly stated. "I don't pretend to have an alternate theory that explains the history of life."

I personally am a big fan of string theory. I like it tremendously. But it's not yielding anything testable, and is thus more of philosophy.

Microevolution was once in doubt and now is accepted

even by Creationists. It's no longer possible to deny the effect of mutations in the rapid generations of microorganisms.

Fixed is to be his

I watched the video and the question was

"I am a science text book editor and writer, ... what is your alternate scientific theory of how life arose and how all these different species came to be here."

"what is your alternate scientific theory of how life arose and how all these different species came to be here."

it was he who asked it, not Shermer

RIP ID

1987-2007

"I don't pretend to have an alternate theory that explains the history of life."

RIP ID 1987-2007 "I don't pretend to have an alternate theory that explains the history of life."

AC and IM:

ID is specifically crafted such that the only way to avoid a response of "that's not what ID says; you 'Darwinists' misunderstand ID" is to unequivovally approve of ID. Or call it what it is - a word game. The minute a critic says that "ID claims X," or heaven forbid, makes X sound anything like a literal Genesis, the game is over and most fence-sitters are sucked into the ID camp.

How quickly we forget Dembski's 2001 assertion that ID can accommodate all the "results" of "Darwinism."

"I don't think I'm obligated to propose an alternate theory," Wells publicly stated. "I don't pretend to have an alternate theory that explains the history of life."

Arden:

Wells and Dembski know how pathetic their quotes are to scientists, and they don't care.

Dembski's 'pathetic level of detail' quip also contains the priceless 'I won't take the bait.' I can only wish that fellow critics of ID were as good as IDers at avoiding the bait.

O'Leary,(pro ID) said in "Uncommon descent"(Pro ID)

"I suggested to my friend that a useful place to begin is to point out the following: The many predictions of ID's demise, based on current theories, have been so completely and systematically falsified that it is time to look for explanations with better predictive value. Not only did ID not die out after various court cases in the United States, but it is now pretty much an international thing - contrary to many predictions."

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-the-predictions-of-ids-demise-are-false/

...and the word "falsified" was strong and big and black...

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" ---- but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.

"I don't think I'm obligated to propose an alternate theory," Wells publicly stated. "I don't pretend to have an alternate theory that explains the history of life."

(Rothschild)Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed? (Behe)A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions. Q. And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out those? A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful. Q. It would be a waste of time? A. It would not be fruitful.

Contact Information ISCID 66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 1800 Princeton, NJ 08542 609-924-4424 (general)

"What's being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there's a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content." George Gilder in the Boston Globe As reported in The Panda's Thumb

This isn't true; string theory has yielded testable claims, and some of those claims will be tested in a year or two after the Large Hadron Collider at CERN comes on line. In any case, string theory is not "more of philosophy".

So, string "theory" might or might not still have some strings attached (so to speak). Interesting.

Is it possible these expected tests might rule out some of the versions of string theory, even if they don't rule on the overall concept? (Or are there still multiple conflicting versions of it?)

Henry

I'm not so sure about testability

Is it possible these expected tests might rule out some of the versions of string theory

even if they don't rule on the overall concept?

Or are there still multiple conflicting versions of it?

It could also be like 'last time'. Initially, string theory started with Veneziano's formula 1968 for the hadronic scattering amplitude, which later got its string interpretation. But later QCD emerged as the basic theory for hadrons, which removed the 'string predictions' from consideration.

String theory is not precisely pinned down, to put it mildly. I don't think you can test 'string theory' (all of it). What may be tested with the next generation of accelerators is certain ideas that are part of string theory, such as extra dimensions of a certain size.

Popper's Ghost,

The claims that String Theory will be tested at the LHC are, in the opinion of many experts, greatly exaggerated press releases. What will be tested are general properties of unitarity, analyticity, and lorentz invariance-properties that are not unique to string theory. No positive prediction of string theory will be tested, as far as I know.

So in the case, Wells was more or less correct.

For interesting reading on the LHC and string theory testing, see this Peter Woit post.

Is it possible these expected tests might rule out some of the versions of string theory, even if they don't rule on the overall concept?

Lisa Randall says that she has produced testable claims;

Is it possible these expected tests might rule out some of the versions of string theory

Certain results from certain tests may show that certain predictions are false, falsifying certain aspects of certain theories. That's how science is generally done.

Since Randall's model predicts a specific strength of the gravitational force (which is the actual measured strength), it is already testable and falsifiable;

That QCD is a better theoretical framework doesn't make Veneziano's theory unfalsifiable or "more of philosophy".

There are lot of earlier results that string theory reproduces, and you may call it falsified if it didn't do that.

Or you may call it untested if it does, which is what the concerned scientists do. They seem to want a unique, distinguishing prediction to test against..

I'm not sure which of these are exclusive for string theory

and what all of the observations will consist of. How would "strings from string theory" show up?

Admittedly, the experimental evidence for new phenomena that the LHC will provide will be somewhat indirect. But that is true of almost all recent discoveries in physics. As physics evolved in the 20th century, it moved away from things that can be directly observed to things that can be "seen" only through measurements coupled with a train of theory.

Humans, and all animal species, are incredibly engineered machines; thousands of times more complex and better engineered than any device on the planet. We have servo-motors (muscles) that move rods (ligaments) that in turn move ball and socket joints (hip, mandible). We have an incredibly complex and efficient pump (heart), a pair of digital cameras that produce 3D (eyes), miniature sound speakers (ears); and on and on. The one thing that makes us different from an incredibly engineered robot is LIFE; that we are alive. Life separates us from robots. And, life is the one thing that separates evolutionists from being able to see intelligence in the universe. NOT religion, but intelligence; there is a big difference here. If we were functioning and not "alive", and were constructed of plastic and metal, and an "evolutionist" could observe us, he would have to admit that we are the result of an intelligence beyond imagination. And the amazing thing is that evolutionists have absolutely no idea how life formed, and they are completely unable to duplicate life in the laboratory. In truth, evolutionists are no closer to describing the origin of species than any religion is. Both are composed of fairy tales and figments of imagination.

Life. Looks. Designed.

— Steve Thomas

"I don't think I'm obligated to propose an alternate theory," Wells publicly stated. "I don't pretend to have an alternate theory that explains the history of life."

I am a Fellow of CRSC primarily because I am committed to challenging materialism by distinguishing it from empirical science ­ and especially to exposing the former when it masquerades as the latter. I also consider intelligent design theory (IDT) to be the best alternative to Darwinian evolution; but regardless of how IDT fares now or in the future, I remain committed to challenging materialism on scientific grounds. [bold added]

— Jonathan Wells

The one thing that makes us different from an incredibly engineered robot is LIFE; that we are alive.

— Steve Thomas

The one thing that makes us different from an incredibly engineered robot is LIFE

Oh, and also species, since you seem to think that "origin of species" refers somehow to the origin of life.

Well PG, the fundies answer the question of the origin of all species with the same explanation (if I may elevate it with that moniker), so naturally they assume everyone else must as well.

I think even Mr. Thomas is capable of grasping, once it is pointed out to him, that the questions of the origin of species and the origin of life are different questions, even if he thinks they have the same answer, in the same way that, say, the questions of the origin of dialects and the origin of language are different questions.

We are really gonna have to work on your sense of humor Pops.

We'll really have to work on your intelligence. A serious response to a comment made in jest doesn't mean that I didn't get the jest.

Not only may I, but it would be.

What scientists want doesn't determine whether a theory is falsifiable.

if it withstands the upcoming tests

The observation will consist of sensor measurements, mostly made by particle detectors.

The results of the LHC experiments, whatever they are, will be intensely analyzed and hotly debated for years to come.

A serious response to a comment made in jest doesn't mean that I didn't get the jest.

We'll really have to work on your intelligence. A serious response to a comment made in jest doesn't mean that I didn't get the jest.

Remember than Popper's Ghost is only a ghost and so lacks a sense of humor. ;-)

An insulting response to a comment made in jest (Mark P's) might, however, mean you're a jerk.

Remember than Popper's Ghost is only a ghost and so lacks a sense of humor. ;-)

A serious response to a comment made in jest means that we are really gonna have to work on your sense of humor, though. :-)

Ghosts are translucent. :-)

Good. I'm glad we're all clear on that, now!

I'm very inconsistent about falsifiability in this whole commentary.

As always, it will not be really impressive on string detractors if Randall postdicts results by tweaking her theories, and not at all if also QCD can explain the particle results.

The problem in the former case is that the freedom in having 10^500 vacua is considerable, even if Randall's theories probably constrain that somewhat.

Good. I'm glad we're all clear on that, now!

It's great that even in the least substantive exchanges here, we still manage to disprove IDer/creationist lies about supporters of sound science. Our eagerness to be critical of each other clearly contradicts the empty assertions that we are dogmatists walking in lock step. It's clear thinking, not dogma, that interests us, whether it's something as significant as the nature of gravity, or something as trivial as who got what joke and why.

I'd be willing to wager a single malt scotch with Dembski that any independent analysis of PT vs UD that measured the level of critical discussion (vs syncophantcy) would come out on our side. It wouldn't even be close.

That's not surprising, since a lack of intra-discipline criticism is a hallmark of crankery, as is the profound lack of interest, so often displayed by IDers/creationists, in squaring one's findings with the findings of other disciplines.

I'd be willing to wager a single malt scotch with Dembski that any independent analysis of PT vs UD that measured the level of critical discussion (vs syncophantcy) would come out on our side. It wouldn't even be close.

Say, what ever happened to Steve Thomas? Oh, wait, I know ...

And just how're you gonna do that, huh? Huh?

A parallel construction is a form of humor, though too subtle for many who only recognize it when it is accompanied by an icon.

I concur.

But it does put the lie to the view, that has reached the level of dogma in some quarters, that her theories aren't falsifiable.

But that's not really a flaw in the theory, because it can't be adjusted to fit any facts.

Though it seems you are trying your wings because of our prompting.

you're too dense to grasp the subtlety of my humor