Discovery Institute Senior Fellow speaks out

'I'm not pushing to have [ID] taught as an 'alternative' to Darwin, and neither are they," he says in response to one question about Discovery's agenda. ''What's being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there's a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content."

Um, Michael Medved's appalling admission is, perhaps, the most shocking example of "open mouth: insert foot" I have seen in years.

I mean, if Intelligent Design is not supposed to be a "theory," or even an "explanation," then, how can it be a challenge to Evolution as a theory or an explanation? That's like demanding that motor oil be used as an alternative to ketchup while simultaneously acknowledging that motor oil has gross, pernicious effects on living organisms.

Stanton said: Um, Michael Medved's appalling admission is, perhaps, the most shocking example of "open mouth: insert foot" I have seen in years. I mean, if Intelligent Design is not supposed to be a "theory," or even an "explanation," then, how can it be a challenge to Evolution as a theory or an explanation? That's like demanding that motor oil be used as an alternative to ketchup while simultaneously acknowledging that motor oil has gross, pernicious effects on living organisms.

PvM said: Gilder, Paul Nelson, and even Philip Johnson all have come out to proclaim the vacuity of ID. Even Dembski seems to be moving to the position that "ID has contributed to science" as its best raison d'etre.

The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear

As much as I'd like to think this will be regarded as one of those, "Ah ha! Gotcha!" moments that rationalists can use to fight ID, I'm afraid it's really not all that explosive. Everybody knows ID is not a theory, and the fact that Medved says as much here isn't going to stop its proponents for a moment. They've already moved on. The threat now comes under the guise of "academic freedom," and their latest attacks on evolution aren't going to be quite as easy to combat. By eliminating the notions of pseudo-scientific "theories" such as ID, they're taking removing the target they had once propped up.

Medved's use of the term "intelligent design" is sort of a vestigial remain of the DI's propaganda mill. He may have not simply not received the memo that the rest of them have stopped using that term.

In the culture war, in which rhetoric is the chief weapon, it's a mistake for rationalists to continue to attack ID. The God camp has already realized i doesn't need to present an "alternate" theory, just to plant the seed of doubt about evolution.

The only way for rationalists to stay ahead of the game (and this is a game, though the stakes are serious), is to actively educate people about evolution.

Peter Vesuwalla,

While I agree that this "Gotcha!" is in itself not going to change anyone's mind (the ID crowd is pretty resistant to *any* information changing their minds), it is very useful when it comes to defending curricula against the intrusion of ID. If ID is not a theory or an explanation, then it has no place in a science curriculum. Again, the creationists who have angled themselves onto school boards won't care, but many of the laypeople sympathetic to telling both sides of the story may find themselves less sympathetic when they are exposed to the admission by IDists that they have no side to the story.

"which is something I think they need to make more clear"

maybe the DI could be convinced to create a Department of Making Things Clear

The next sentence reveals even more doubletalk

Q: Speaking of your desire for this kind of particularity, you are a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute that studies and believes in Intelligent Design. How do you, as an Orthodox Jew, reconcile with this kind of generality - with the view of their being a hierarchy with a chief "designer" - while believing in and praying to a very specific God?

A: The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else.

Q: The question is not whether it replaces evolution, but whether it replaces God.

A: No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn't tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true. It tells you that it cannot be that this whole process was random.

Aside from the fact that evolution is not a wholly random process, how can Intelligent design say evolution is not true when it can't explain anything?

Perhaps this "gotcha" won't change minds. However, this seems to be a pretty fundamental shift. If ID is acknowledged to be no theory or explanation, then where's the controversy? There's no competing idea to hold up as the alternative. If ID doesn't explain anything then it would seem to be pretty squarely in the belief category and not part of the discussion of academic freedom.

All in all, this seems to be an important shift that can be use against the ID'ers. If there is no controversy and it has nothing to do with academic freedom, then the battle will have to move elsewhere.

We here in Louisiana are waiting patiently for the ID minions to make their next move, though they have the "Academic Freedom" nonsense on the States books and as in my case on the local school boards also, they very well know that this is a waiting game and before any definitive action can be taken they are going to have to tip their hand in the classroom, which they very well know is going to get them blown out as happened at Dover. They are currently laying low trying to figure out how to maneuver around the separation clause and make use of what they consider an opening provided by the enactment of LA SB 733. Their problem is that even though the language provides for the introduction of competing theories to the science debate they don't have one which will pass the separation smell test. Their next move, I suspect, can only be toward a redefinition of the science paradigm, otherwise they've painted themselves into a corner here.

I'm going to begin by pointing out that I am an agnostic atheist and a strong defender of rationality and intellectual honesty, with great contempt for the special privilege given to those branches of irrationality that we refer to as "religion". However, I can't stand behind this statement:

"Aside from the fact that evolution is not a wholly random process, how can Intelligent design say evolution is not true when it can’t explain anything?"

Presumably most of the people here are agnostic atheists like myself (or pragmatic atheists, theoretical agnostics. Whatever). Everyday all of us say that religions X, Y and Z are unreasonable to believe in without being able to say with confidence the true origins and nature of things. We may have certain persuasive information, such as evolution and big bang, but we have no certainty with regard to how the universe began, for instance.

But regardless, ID is a travesty.

In the culture war, in which rhetoric is the chief weapon, it’s a mistake for rationalists to continue to attack ID. The God camp has already realized i doesn’t need to present an “alternate” theory, just to plant the seed of doubt about evolution. The only way for rationalists to stay ahead of the game (and this is a game, though the stakes are serious), is to actively educate people about evolution.

— Peter Vesuwalla

Their problem is that even though the language provides for the introduction of competing theories to the science debate they don’t have one which will pass the separation smell test.

However, I can’t stand behind this statement: “Aside from the fact that evolution is not a wholly random process, how can Intelligent design say evolution is not true when it can’t explain anything?”

— Ron Brown

Dear PvM,

Maybe Medved could "explain" this to my fellow Brunonian, Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer David Klinghoffer, who has told me in private e-mail correspondence that he regards ID as a viable scientific alternative to evolution. If ID is a viable scientific alternative, then it has to be a viable scientific theory. Medved can't have it both ways by asserting that ID is a "challenge" to evolution unless it is indeed a viable scientific alternative (which of course Ken Miller has demonstrated eloquently why it isn't in his book "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul").

Seems like Luskin, West and Chapman should have discussed "talking points" with Medved first.

Cheers,

John

If ID is a viable scientific alternative, then it has to be a viable scientific theory.

Perhaps we should demand that the DI make a definitive policy statement as to whether ID is a scientific theory or not. Of course, no matter what they claim, every real scientists already knows that it never was and never will be.

As far as bashing evolution without providing an alternative goes, it won't work scientifically. The current theory has such amazing explanatory and predictive power that any alternative would fall far short. You will have to come up with a better theory if you are going to replace evolutionary theory, at least for any real scientist.

So, what have they got left? Just sowing seeds of doubt among the ignorant and trying to convince politicians and lawyers. No one should be fooled by such duplicity however, since it should be immediately obvious that these people have not done any scientific research, nor do they ever intend to do any. So, no real scientist would ever be fooled by their rethoric.

If they were serious about criticizing evolutionary theory they would be out in the field and in the laboratory doing science. There is much still to be discovered and in some areas modern theory will no doubt turn out to be incorrect or at least incomplete. That would be the only chance they would have of ever convincing any real scientist of anything. So, why don't they do that? Obviously because they know deep down that they will find that the theory is basically correct and only relatively minor moidifications to the basic concept will be discovered.

... No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn't tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true.

So, what Intelligent Design tells us is not true. Couldn’t put it any more concisely for a million bucks.

— Pierce R. Butler

PvM said:

If ID is a viable scientific alternative, then it has to be a viable scientific theory.

Easy, Klinghoffer is wrong, and should take notice of Paul Nelson, Philip Johnson, and Medved as well as the many science organizations that have come to the self evident conclusion that ID has no scientific content and can thus not be a viable scientific alternative. It's simple really and if Klinghoffer believes otherwise then it is up to him to explain how.

David Stanton said: You will have to come up with a better theory if you are going to replace evolutionary theory ...

John Kwok said: Dear PvM, Maybe Medved could "explain" this to my fellow Brunonian, Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer David Klinghoffer, who has told me in private e-mail correspondence that he regards ID as a viable scientific alternative to evolution. If ID is a viable scientific alternative, then it has to be a viable scientific theory. Medved can't have it both ways by asserting that ID is a "challenge" to evolution unless it is indeed a viable scientific alternative (which of course Ken Miller has demonstrated eloquently why it isn't in his book "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul"). Seems like Luskin, West and Chapman should have discussed "talking points" with Medved first. Cheers, John

Well, so much for "ID is science."

If all they are saying is “somehow, somewhere, something might be wrong with evolutionary biology”, how can it be productive or even slightly interesting to discuss that?

— TomS

Steve Whisnant said: Perhaps this "gotcha" won't change minds. However, this seems to be a pretty fundamental shift. If ID is acknowledged to be no theory or explanation, then where's the controversy? There's no competing idea to hold up as the alternative. If ID doesn't explain anything then it would seem to be pretty squarely in the belief category and not part of the discussion of academic freedom. All in all, this seems to be an important shift that can be use against the ID'ers. If there is no controversy and it has nothing to do with academic freedom, then the battle will have to move elsewhere.

with the view of their [sic?] being a hierarchy with a chief "designer"

Chris Lawson said: While I agree that this "Gotcha!" is in itself not going to change anyone's mind (the ID crowd is pretty resistant to *any* information changing their minds), it is very useful when it comes to defending curricula against the intrusion of ID.

That’s what’s going to make “strengths and weaknesses” so annoying - it’ll boil down to anti-evolutionists throwing the whole Index of Creationist Claims at the wall to see what sticks.

— Shrike

The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It’s a challenge to evolution.

It does not replace evolution with something else.

Seems that the DI may be having some problem hiring qualified people.

— PvM

1. What is the theory of intelligent design? The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article "Not By Chance" from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS's "Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media). 2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution? It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas. ... 7. What about the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and its resolution against intelligent design? In 2002 the board of the AAAS issued a resolution attacking intelligent design theory as unscientific. In other words, AAAS board members apparently voted to brand intelligent design as unscientific without studying for themselves the academic books and articles by scientists proposing the theory. It should be noted that a number of the scientists supportive of intelligent design theory are members of the AAAS, so the AAAS board clearly does not speak for all members of that organization.

Abstract: For the scientific community intelligent design represents creationism's latest grasp at scientific legitimacy. Accordingly, intelligent design is viewed as yet another ill-conceived attempt by creationists to straightjacket science within a religious ideology. But in fact intelligent design can be formulated as a scientific theory having empirical consequences and devoid of religious commitments. Intelligent design can be unpacked as a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. In my paper I shall (1) show how information can be reliably detected and measured, and (2) formulate a conservation law that governs the origin and flow of information. My broad conclusion is that information is not reducible to natural causes, and that the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow.

They really need to fix this one:

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Does this mean that they’ll finally retract the Discovery Institute’s FAQ page?

— Wheels

Stanton said:

PvM said: Gilder, Paul Nelson, and even Philip Johnson all have come out to proclaim the vacuity of ID. Even Dembski seems to be moving to the position that "ID has contributed to science" as its best raison d'etre.

Rashes have made ten fold more positive contributions to science than Intelligent Design ever could.

So it's simultaneously a theory and a not-theory? An alternative and a not-alternative? Do we need to collapse the waveform or something?

James,

Please state the equation for determining the amount of CSI in a living thing. What units is it measured in? Also, please tell us what the cut-off is between CSI that can come about naturally and the amount of CSI that must be attributed to an intelligent agent. Also, please give estimates for the amount of CSI in several living organisms. Can a biological system be produced by unintelligent processes even if all of it's parts are required for it's current function?

If you can answer all of these questions, you might have a chance of convincing someone that ID is science. Of course, you will also have to demonstrate the existence of an intelligent agent and demonstrate the methods that it used to create living organisms. In addition, you will also have to expalin why no one has been able to do any research yet. Are you sure you want do disagree with a DI senior fellow?

Frank J said: Not sure what you mean by "God camp," but most mainstream religions accept evolution, and many of the top critics of ID/creationism are devout theists.

Certainly people need more evolution education, if only to counteract the media caricature that, for most people, quickly overwrites what little they learn in school.

Stanton,

James was simply quoting the intelligent design website referenced in his post. He was citing yet another contradiction to Medved's remark, not advocating its truth himself.

Cheers,
PP

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Dear PvM, Maybe Medved could "explain" this to my fellow Brunonian, Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer David Klinghoffer, who has told me in private e-mail correspondence that he regards ID as a viable scientific alternative to evolution. If ID is a viable scientific alternative, then it has to be a viable scientific theory. Medved can't have it both ways by asserting that ID is a "challenge" to evolution unless it is indeed a viable scientific alternative (which of course Ken Miller has demonstrated eloquently why it isn't in his book "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul"). Seems like Luskin, West and Chapman should have discussed "talking points" with Medved first. Cheers, John

To my Dearest John, Suddenly, I'm thinking that Mr Medved's confession of Intelligent Design theory not being a scientific theory or even a rudimentary alternative is a pathetic attempt at a loophole to circumvent fellow Intelligent Design proponobot Ben Stein's proclamation that "science leads to killing people." Also, has Mr. Klinghoffer ever attempted to explain how Intelligent Design theory is a viable scientific alternative? If he hasn't, might I recommend taking up a hobby while you're waiting for him, such as translating War and Peace into Klingon by inkquill, or perhaps knitting piano cozies or afghans for Clydesdales?

Dear Peter,

Ken Miller isn't the only devoutly religious scientist I know of. Others include eminent evolutionary geneticist Francisco Ayala, noted molecular biologist Francis Collins, and distinguished evolutionary ecologist Mike Rosenzweig. And they are just a few of many scientists who see no conflict between their religious beliefs and their desire to undertake excellent scientific research. The only ones with such a conflict are those from DI, ICR, and other creationist "research" organizations.

Regards,

John

Frank J said: but most mainstream religions accept evolution

So it’s simultaneously a theory and a not-theory? An alternative and a not-alternative? Do we need to collapse the waveform or something?

— Wheels

Wheels said: Do we need to collapse the waveform or something?

James,

Never mind. I guess you don't have to answer after all. But maybe somebody could. Anybody? Thought not.

Torbjörn says... (about most religions accepting evolution) Not quite. They may accept most or all directly observable facts

David Stanton said: James, Never mind. I guess you don't have to answer after all. But maybe somebody could. Anybody? Thought not.

OK. So now I understand the CSI index. The total value for CSI in the world is 4. Let's see, there's the original, CSI Las Vegas. Then there's CSI Miami and CSI New York, so that's three. Oh, and don't forget NCSI, that should count as well.

And of course, there is evidence that all four were intelligently designed for the same reason that ID was designed, to make money.

Hans Christian Andersen had a pertinent little tale to the same effect as the (lack of) explanation for ID, 'the idea that isn't there.'

'Intelligent' is usually a valid concept, so is 'design'. Why should then suddenly the combination of the two be a non-concept?
Bloody troglodytes, haven't yet found the opening of the cave!

David Stanton said: Oh, and don't forget NCSI, that should count as well.

Seems that the DI may be having some problem hiring qualified people.

Seems like being a creationist is a disqualifier.

— Rolf

Rolf said:

Seems that the DI may be having some problem hiring qualified people.

A most interesting question. What qualifications would be wanted? Seems like being a creationist is a disqualifier.

It has been my pleasure to have Discovery fellows on my show as guests, including Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, and David Klinghoffer.

— Medved

...Intelligent Design is ...not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear.

An observer said: Medved stated:

...Intelligent Design is ...not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear.

Just in case you missed that, he said it himself.

If someone states "evolution is not a theory", I could see some disagreements over that from within the ranks.

Background in science not needed...

— PvM

Any takers to my question of 8/10 @ 2:47? A little googling should nail it if you don't know already.

An observer said: Medved stated:

...Intelligent Design is ...not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear.

Just in case you missed that, he said it himself.

If someone states "evolution is not a theory", I could see some disagreements over that from within the ranks.

Stanton said: You fail to realize that if one does not have a desire to replace a particular scientific theory with a superior alternative, one can not legally, logically or scientifically challenge that particular scientific theory.

Observer said: If someone states "evolution is not a theory", I could see some disagreements over that from within the ranks.

stevaroni said:

Torbjörn says... (about most religions accepting evolution) Not quite. They may accept most or all directly observable facts

Well, that's some kind of progress. Don't forget, once upon a time, asserting "The earth moves" could get you killed.

The ID 'challenge is simply:

"We don't know yet" = "God The Designer did it".

They seem to think that's a reasonable argument.

Try convincing them otherwise, see how far you get.

The Dishonesty Institute is quick to pick up on anything in the news related to ID, especially when it has to do with their "Fellows". However, in this case I firmly suspect that they will not feature Medved's interview on their site, but instead allow it to die in left field without a comment. Medved's comments should be widely disseminated as well as any other contradictory comments these less than learned pseudo-scientists make that besmirch their cherished views. As for his father being a physicist, there is clearly no ruboff of intelligence on Michael.

CSI = Crime Scene Investigators

fnxtr said: The ID 'challenge is simply: "We don't know yet" = "God The Designer did it". They seem to think that's a reasonable argument. Try convincing them otherwise, see how far you get.

Frank J said: The senior Medved is one of those "Big Bang proves God and the Bible"

Eric said: I'd agree, I think the ID community is probably not intentionally putting out contradictory statements. The old adage "never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" springs to mind.

I just sent this e-mail to Michael Medved:

Dear Mr. Medved,

If Intelligent Design is a "challenge" to evolution, then shouldn't it be a viable scientific theory? As someone trained in both biology and geology, I recognize that if something is a 'challenge' to a well-established scientific theory, then it ought to a better job than that theory in providing a viable scientific alternative to it. Intelligent Design does neither and never will, despite the fact that your organization, the Discovery Institute, has been promoting it actively for more than a decade.

As I have noted in my recently posted rebuttal to bronx book nerd's inane Amazon.com review in praise of Michael Behe's mendacious intellectual pornography, 'The Edge of Evolution':

'Dear bronx book nerd,

For your sake I hope you are neither an alumnus of Bronx Science nor Stuyvesant, the premier New York City public high schools specializing in science, mathematics and technology. Why? Intelligent Design is banned as a subject for study at Stuyvesant - and probably at Bronx Science too - simply because it is not scientific. It is pseudoscientific religious nonsense masquerading as science, which eminent Columbia University philosopher of science Philip Kitcher has described charitably as 'dead science' while yours truly refers to it often here at Amazon.com and elsewhere as mendacious intellectual pornography.

Behe's main contention that he has 'discovered' 'the mathematical limits to Darwinism' has been demonstrated repeatedly to be quite false, as noted, for example, in superb reviews written by Ken Miller (June 28, 2007 issue of Nature) and Richard Dawkins (July 1, 2007 New York Times Book Review) respectively. Moreover, his example of the Plasmodium malarial parasite as an example of these 'limits' can be explained better as an example instead of a pharmaceutical coevolutionary arms race between Plasmodium and humanity. In plain English, the Red Queen hypothesis developed independently by Leigh Van Valen and Michael Rosenzweig is confirmed, not refuted, as Behe has contended foolishly in this book.

In private e-mail correspondence with Behe that has been posted here at Amazon, I have asked him how Intelligent Design offers a better, more viable, alternative explanation than contemporary evolutionary theory in explaining the structure and history of our planet's biodiversity. The only answer I've received from Behe is stony silence. So much for Intelligent Design as a better 'scientific' alternative to evolution, right?

I concur with both David's and Tim's comments. I also emphasize strongly David's suggestion that you read Ken Miller's latest book, 'Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul' since Ken does an admirable job discussing Intelligent Design's 'scientific' pretensions by taking them seriously at first, before demonstrating persuasively why Intelligent Design isn't scientific.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok'

Perhaps you can enlighten your colleague David Klinghoffer, who believes that Intelligent Design is indeed a 'viable alternative' to evolution that should be taught in American public schools, including preeminent ones such as Bronx Science and Stuyvesant (Unfortunately Klinghoffer is a fellow alumnus of our undergraduate alma mater, who has not taken seriously the harsh criticisms of ID made by yours truly and Ken Miller, who is also a fellow alumnus, as well as a professor of biology there.).

I have been a great admirer of your film criticism and encourage you to continue practicing your splendid craft. But I hope you will recognize the limits of your expertise with respect to science and refrain from supporting your colleagues like Klinghoffer who believe in the veracity of the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design.

Sincerely yours,

John Kwok

Venus Mousetrap said: Actually, the one I've been given is a little different... I alluded to it above; We don't know yet, but we DO know that intelligence makes complicated stuff, therefore ID is the better answer. Not a replacement, but a better answer, or a better explanation.

John Kwok said: I just sent this e-mail to Michael Medved: Dear Mr. Medved, (snip) Sincerely yours, John Kwok

Wheels said:

John Kwok said: I just sent this e-mail to Michael Medved: Dear Mr. Medved, (snip) Sincerely yours, John Kwok

I would've left out the references to Amazon.com stuff: it's severely off-topic and probably confrontational enough that it won't get read through. Instead, I would have asked him to explain what he means by "not a theory/alternative." I wouldn't even mention that the DI contradicts him in their public literature, or the other DI fellows' statements, just let him explain it in his own words without prompting. It's easier to get a man to trip over his own shoelaces if you don't point out that they're untied.

As much as I’d like to think this will be regarded as one of those, “Ah ha! Gotcha!” moments that rationalists can use to fight ID, I’m afraid it’s really not all that explosive.

But the saying can be applied to theories as well. If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished. Despite comparing sequences, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be. In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish. p. 186 of DBB

David Stanton said: Oh, and don't forget NCSI, that should count as well.

Robin said: Now, if you want to criticize a theory on shaky ground, you're welcome to start questioning gravity...

stevaroni said:

Torbjörn says... (about most religions accepting evolution) Not quite. They may accept most or all directly observable facts

Well, that's some kind of progress.

Venus Mousetrap said: The mathematics of natural selection and mutation are difficult - how does one show that a sequence of selected mutations will result in evolution?

Larry Boy said: I had an organic chemistry teacher who, when ever he wasn't talking about what a great teacher he was, talked about how non-locality proves God's existence. Apparently only by divine fiat can we get spooky action at a distance. I am ignorant enough of physics in general that I cannot offer a good reason to reject this notion (or the Big-bang Ergo God (BEG) argument.), though I suspect it wouldn't be particularly difficult, but I always wanted to asked my professor why he thought some unknown physical principle could never sufficiently explain spooky action at a distance.

The EPR paradox is a paradox in the following sense: if one takes quantum mechanics and adds some seemingly reasonable (but actually wrong, or questionable as a whole) conditions (referred to as locality, realism, counter factual definiteness, and completeness; see Bell inequality and Bell test experiments), then one obtains a contradiction. However, quantum mechanics by itself does not appear to be internally inconsistent, nor — as it turns out — does it contradict relativity.

Abandoning CFD allows one to claim that violation of Bell's inequalities does not necessarily imply a violation of the locality principle.

Stanton said: Um, Michael Medved's appalling admission is, perhaps, the most shocking example of "open mouth: insert foot" I have seen in years. I mean, if Intelligent Design is not supposed to be a "theory," or even an "explanation," then, how can it be a challenge to Evolution as a theory or an explanation?

Peter Vesuwalla said: As much as I'd like to think this will be regarded as one of those, "Ah ha! Gotcha!" moments that rationalists can use to fight ID, I'm afraid it's really not all that explosive. Everybody knows ID is not a theory, and the fact that Medved says as much here isn't going to stop its proponents for a moment.

386sx said: And, as he says, "It does not replace evolution with something else." Easy!

When Dembski said that the current science had a “pathetic level of detail of telling mechanistic stories”, nobody from the ID movement even batted an eyelash. Dembski made quite possibly the dumbest remark the history of mankind has ever known, and the ID people didn’t so much as take their noses out of their collective noses.

— 386sx

First off, let's be clear that design can accommodate all the results of Darwinism. Intelligent design does not repudiate the Darwinian mechanism. It merely assigns it a lower status than Darwinism does. The Darwinian mechanism does operate in nature and insofar as it does, design can live with its deliverances. Even if the Darwinian mechanism could be shown to do all the design work for which design theorists want to invoke design (say for the bacterial flagellum), a design-theoretic framework would not destroy any valid findings of science. To be sure, design would then become superfluous, but it would not become contradictory or self-refuting.

wow that's just ...weird

What flavor is the jello?

In other news, while he's not formally affiliated with the DI, Steve Fuller acknowledged that ID is a form of creationism, as Sahorta Sarkar points out in a scathing book review:

The third chapter turns to complexity, the emphasis on which is supposed to distinguish ID from "other versions of creationism" (p. 69). (I will happily follow Fuller in explicitly construing ID as a form of creationism but I doubt that most ID proponents will be quite as accommodating on this point.)

DOH!

Frank J said: Certainly IDers can say that "evolution is not true" (or falsified, or unfalsifiable, or both) without providing a potential alternative. But classic creationists have already provided several mutually contradictory alternatives. They can either say that one is more promising than evolution and all other creationist accounts, or that they are all just as "not true" as evolution. But IDers almost never say either, despite claiming that ID is not creationism. I disagree with most fellow "evolutionists" on what IDers (professionals, at least) are trying to hide (I think they privately know evolution is correct; most others think they honestly believe that their interpretation of scripture is correct), but there is almost complete agreement that they are trying to hide something in order to more effectively mislead the public.

3) ID is NOT the same as creationism in its approach.

Kevin Wirth said:

Frank J said: Certainly IDers can say that "evolution is not true" (or falsified, or unfalsifiable, or both) without providing a potential alternative. But classic creationists have already provided several mutually contradictory alternatives. They can either say that one is more promising than evolution and all other creationist accounts, or that they are all just as "not true" as evolution. But IDers almost never say either, despite claiming that ID is not creationism. I disagree with most fellow "evolutionists" on what IDers (professionals, at least) are trying to hide (I think they privately know evolution is correct; most others think they honestly believe that their interpretation of scripture is correct), but there is almost complete agreement that they are trying to hide something in order to more effectively mislead the public.

1) Thanks for being reasonable (seriously). Yes, IDers CAN say things like "evolution is not true" without being required to posit anything in its place.

I get so tired of hearing so many critics rebut creationist critiques of evolution with sneering schoolyard comments like "oh yeah? And I suppose YOUR idea is so much better!" Of course we think there is plenty of positive evidence for complexity in life that cannot be accounted for with the usual evolutionary explanations.

3) ID is NOT the same as creationism in its approach.

4) "I think they privately know evolution is correct; most others think they honestly believe that their interpretation of scripture is correct." No, we really DON'T 'privately' think evolution is correct. We ARE misunderstood (or more like ignored) when we say what we agree on with regard to evolution (ie, for example, IDers typically agree that natural selection works as a conservation agent of characteristics rather than an agent that produces new information).

5) "...there is almost complete agreement that they are trying to hide something in order to more effectively mislead the public." Um, we are not at all deliberately trying to hide anything, much less mislead the public, rather, we're trying to undo the harm brought to science through the perpetuation of an intractable refusal to admit what so many others see rather clearly - ie, that macro evolution has much more speculation on its biceps than compelling evidence.

Evolution feed on, in fact, is sustained by massive injections of speculation. It would be fair to say that evolution is "hooked" on speculation, just like the drug addict is addicted to his drugs. Speculation is to evolution what drugs are to the drug addict: can't live without it. Take it away and watch what happens. The speculation factor is so huge that evolution would pretty much fall apart without it.

You guys need to get out more and take a closer look at what IDers are up to these days and stop leaning on your rusty assumptions. IDers have more up their sleeves than you give them credit for.

Given what I've seen, your general attitude towards them is bit over the top. Sure, they might make comments like Medved and Dembski do, but so what? How is that any different that the Colin Patterson admission that he doesn't know one thing that is true about evolution?

You guys talk like IDers stumble with every step they take.

That's not any different than the stuff I read in almost every book on vertebrate evolution I pick up these days. Speculation reigns supreme in those books (oh, and no, they are written by evolutionists...)

Have you happened to read any of those PLoS articles recently - you know - the ones written by Intelligent Design scientists who don't do any real science research? Didn't think so.

sorry, forgot the link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

@Frank - Did anyone answer you yet? I think it's Dumbski

Kevin Wirth said: Have you happened to read any of those PLoS articles recently - you know - the ones written by Intelligent Design scientists who don't do any real science research? Didn't think so.

Kevin Wirth said: ...Yes, IDers CAN say things like "evolution is not true" without being required to posit anything in its place...

Of course we think there is plenty of positive evidence for complexity in life that cannot be accounted for with the usual evolutionary explanations.

...we're trying to undo the harm brought to science through the perpetuation of an intractable refusal to admit what so many others see rather clearly - ie, that macro evolution has much more speculation on its biceps than compelling evidence...

Have you happened to read any of those PLoS articles recently - you know - the ones written by Intelligent Design scientists who don't do any real science research?

Of course we think there is plenty of positive evidence for complexity in life that cannot be accounted for with the usual evolutionary explanations.

2) Mutually contradictory alternatives? Not sure what you mean by that, but, if you are referring to the differences among Design advocates, I would certainly not view those differences as less credible than the similar differences among evolutionists. Like the differences between those who argue for or against a cladistic approach, or among those who hold to a neo-Darwinian view rather than a punctuated equilibrium view. Just like evolution has a big tent with many differing views, so do the IDers.

IDers typically agree that natural selection works as a conservation agent of characteristics rather than an agent that produces new information

Um, we are not at all deliberately trying to hide anything, much less mislead the public, rather, we’re trying to undo the harm brought to science through the perpetuation of an intractable refusal to admit what so many others see rather clearly - ie, that macro evolution has much more speculation on its biceps than compelling evidence.

You guys need to get out more and take a closer look at what IDers are up to these days and stop leaning on your rusty assumptions.

Of course we think there is plenty of positive evidence for complexity in life that cannot be accounted for with the usual evolutionary explanations.

I'm feeding the trolls people, please forgive me.

Sup Kevin!

I'm a Christian and a graduate student studying evolutionary theory. As a Christian, I'm at least somewhat open to the idea that life evolves by divine fiat, however, the empirical evidence, IMHO, speaks very strongly that divine fiat is unneccisary to explain any portion of our evolutionary history.

I notice that you imply that natural selection is incapable of creating information. Adapting the terminology of the ID for a moment, I would argue that antigen recognition is a system containing CSI. Antibodies are highly specific. The vast majority of all possible Antibody sequences do not bind with a specific antigen. This specificity is used in medical diagnostics because antibodies are commonly used to diagnose disease, and without specificity false positives would be quite common. In addition to be specific for a particular antigen, antibodies contain fairly long variable sequences, around 100 amino-acids, which is 300 bp. So, using a common statistical fallacy, we might imagine that the chance an antibody would bind to a specific antigen is around 1/4^300, tough in reality it will be much much higher than that. Regardless, the mechanism which produces this CSI is very clearly random mutation combined with natural selection. Your individual B cells under go a process termed somatic hyper mutation, which increase the rate of copying errors in specific genes in order to increase the diversity of antibodies available for antigen binding. If CSI could not be produced by natural selection, then somatic hyper mutation would be strictly deleterious to organism, and our resistance to diseases would have to be divinely imbued. This is manifestly not the case.

Since Dembski argues that CSI cannot be produced by non-intelligent process, his design theory is clearly and unequivocally rejected by readily available empirical evidence.

From the perspective of irreducible complexity, an antibody which fails to recognize an pathogen due to a mutation in the antigen recognition sequence is entirely ineffective at combating that pathogen, so an antibody could be considered irreducibly complex, and a similar argument for the fallacy of the irreducibly complex concept follows.

It is the hesitance of other design believers to reject the intellectually barren arguments of Dembski et al. which clearly indicates the pseudo-scientific status of design arguments.

Kevin Wirth said: 1) Of course we think there is plenty of positive evidence for complexity in life that cannot be accounted for with the usual evolutionary explanations.

2) Mutually contradictory alternatives? Not sure what you mean by that, but, if you are referring to the differences among Design advocates, I would certainly not view those differences as less credible than the similar differences among evolutionists. Like the differences between those who argue for or against a cladistic approach, or among those who hold to a neo-Darwinian view rather than a punctuated equilibrium view.

3) ID is NOT the same as creationism in its approach.

4)No, we really DON'T 'privately' think evolution is correct. We ARE misunderstood (or more like ignored) when we say what we agree on with regard to evolution (ie, for example, IDers typically agree that natural selection works as a conservation agent of characteristics rather than an agent that produces new information).

5) Um, we are not at all deliberately trying to hide anything, much less mislead the public, rather, we're trying to undo the harm brought to science through the perpetuation of an intractable refusal to admit what so many others see rather clearly - ie, that macro evolution has much more speculation on its biceps than compelling evidence.

Evolution feed on, in fact, is sustained by massive injections of speculation. It would be fair to say that evolution is "hooked" on speculation, just like the drug addict is addicted to his drugs. Speculation is to evolution what drugs are to the drug addict: can't live without it. Take it away and watch what happens. The speculation factor is so huge that evolution would pretty much fall apart without it.

You guys need to get out more and take a closer look at what IDers are up to these days and stop leaning on your rusty assumptions. IDers have more up their sleeves than you give them credit for.

Sure, they might make comments like Medved and Dembski do, but so what? How is that any different that the Colin Patterson admission that he doesn't know one thing that is true about evolution?

One theory is that ID is not only creationism, but a particularly conservative branch of Christian creationism.

I would like to make a prediction to test this theory:

After several weeks, or perhaps months, of dodging, Kevin Wirth will admit he believes in ID Creation because the Bible is the inerrant word of the One True God. This would be true to the pattern of the theory, which also explains Mark Hausam and Keith Eaton.

I get so tired of hearing so many critics rebut creationist critiques of evolution with sneering schoolyard comments like “oh yeah? And I suppose YOUR idea is so much better!”

Of course we think there is plenty of positive evidence for complexity in life that cannot be accounted for with the usual evolutionary explanations.

If it’s OK for one group to have differences, but it’s not OK for another group to have those same types of differences, then I think something is amiss.

We ARE misunderstood (or more like ignored) when we say what we agree on with regard to evolution (ie, for example, IDers typically agree that natural selection works as a conservation agent of characteristics rather than an agent that produces new information).

Um, we are not at all deliberately trying to hide anything, much less mislead the public, rather, we’re trying to undo the harm brought to science through the perpetuation of an intractable refusal to admit what so many others see rather clearly - ie, that macro evolution has much more speculation on its biceps than compelling evidence.

Evolution feed on, in fact, is sustained by massive injections of speculation. It would be fair to say that evolution is “hooked” on speculation, just like the drug addict is addicted to his drugs.

You guys need to get out more and take a closer look at what IDers are up to these days and stop leaning on your rusty assumptions.

IDers have more up their sleeves than you give them credit for.

Given what I’ve seen, your general attitude towards them is bit over the top.

Kevin Wirth said: Yes, IDers CAN say things like "evolution is not true" without being required to posit anything in its place.

Mike Elzinga said: You want and example of your misconceptions and misconstruing of evolution? Well, there it is in one of your own quotes. Why don’t you take the time to figure out what is wrong with your concepts of evolution? Where is the barrier between “micro” and “macro” evolution? What do “macro” and “micro” mean in your understanding of evolution?

Ooh.. be still my racing heart!

Is this just a cruel troll or are we in the presence of The Kevin Worth?

(You know, the Kevin Worth, the author of such monumental peices of legal and scientific insight as "How the Kitzmiller decision resulted in legalized academic thuggery". http://www.kevs-korner.com/CREVO/)

The writing style is certainly consistent, as is the tenancy to attack, attack, attack, while offering noting substantive to back up his arguments, and never answering a direct question - sorta Gish light (if that concept makes any sense).

Eric said: I've never heard them discuss barriers for insects, plants, sponges, etc...but then again I didn't read Behe's "edge of evolution" book either.

One theory is that ID is not only creationism, but a particularly conservative branch of Christian creationism. I would like to make a prediction to test this theory: After several weeks, or perhaps months, of dodging, Kevin Wirth will admit he believes in ID Creation because the Bible is the inerrant word of the One True God. This would be true to the pattern of the theory, which also explains Mark Hausam and Keith Eaton.

— fnxtr

IDers identify an evolutionary barrier at the species level when it comes to humans and somewhere around the genus or family level for most (other) large animals, like cats, dogs etc… I’ve never heard them discuss barriers for insects, plants, sponges, etc…but then again I didn’t read Behe’s “edge of evolution” book either.

— Eric

stevaroni said: Ooh.. be still my racing heart! Is this just a cruel troll or are we in the presence of The Kevin Worth? (You know, the Kevin Worth, the author of such monumental peices of legal and scientific insight as "How the Kitzmiller decision resulted in legalized academic thuggery". http://www.kevs-korner.com/CREVO/) The writing style is certainly consistent, as is the tenancy to attack, attack, attack, while offering noting substantive to back up his arguments, and never answering a direct question - sorta Gish light (if that concept makes any sense).

Of course I could be wrong.

Kevin may not be a Bible-thumping ignoramus*.

He may be a 'cdesign proponentsist'.

*No disrespect meant to those who choose to believe in a higher power (whatever that is) while still living in the real world.

Hey Mike, we all know the ID answer to this one. IDers identify an evolutionary barrier at the species level when it comes to humans and somewhere around the genus or family level for most (other) large animals, like cats, dogs etc… I’ve never heard them discuss barriers for insects, plants, sponges, etc…but then again I didn’t read Behe’s “edge of evolution” book either. These barriers correspond nicely with earlier creationist attempts to explain how all animal life fit on the biblical ark, but I’m sure that’s just coincidence… ;)

Eric Wrote: IDers identify an evolutionary barrier at the species level when it comes to humans and somewhere around the genus or family level for most (other) large animals, like cats, dogs etc… I’ve never heard them discuss barriers for insects, plants, sponges, etc…but then again I didn’t read Behe’s “edge of evolution” book either.

Thanks guys for showing Kevin the 'door'. I guess he is not ready for prime time yet, and neither is Intelligent Design.

I found some blogs addressing our confused friend

Freedom Fighter Kevin Wirth Fights Freedom

How the Fallen Have Fallen. Jerry Bergman Stoops to Kevin Wirth.

And not to mention this funny website

Slaughter of the Dissidents: The shocking truth about killing the careers of Darwin doubters which argues that Jerry Bergman somehow fell victim of a Darwin conspiracy.

Wow... Enjoy...

Kevin seems to aspire to be a Salvador/Luskin combined.

Kevin seems to aspire to be a Salvador/Luskin combined.

Ah so. Let me guess: For humans it’s at the species/genus level.

— Henry J

OK, since there are no bites yet on my questions, here are the answers, just in case some of you don't know already.

The person who made Medved's "startling" admission rather moot by admitting in 2001 that "design" can accommodate all the results of "Darwinism" was none other than William Dembski.

And the clueless rube (as of 2002 at least) who admitted in his editorial that science education was not liberal enough for him was none other than former PA Senator Rick Santorum.

Mike writes.... Yeah; isn’t that interesting? The ID crowd doesn’t like being connected to creationism... (but)... we can never get an explanation of just what those barriers are and how they work. So we hear terms like “entropy barrier” from Philip Bruce Heywood. And “genetic entropy” from a number of sources, some of which attempt to argue from the laws of thermodynamics that degradation must occur unless some “intelligence” (shhh; we can’t use the G-word here) intervenes. Has anyone here ever heard an explanation of the so-called science behind these “sciency-sounding” words (I don’t think they rise to the level of concepts)? I sure haven’t. I claim it’s all pure crap.

Henry J said: Ergo, bacteria are all one "kind"!

Paul Burnett said:

Henry J said: Ergo, bacteria are all one "kind"!

For years I have been asking creationists how many syphilis spirochetes and tuberculosis mycobacteria and Ebola and Marburg virii and cholera and leprosy and gonorrhea bacteria (and so on...you get the picture) were on board Noah's Ark (and where they were living). But they are uniformly too ignorant to even understand why the question is meaningful.

Yep, the devil's in de tails. Or in their case, de flagella.

Kevin Wirth said: ... we're trying to undo the harm brought to science through the perpetuation of an intractable refusal to admit what so many others see rather clearly - ie, that macro evolution has much more speculation on its biceps than compelling evidence.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Compare that with the harm for public knowledge of science and education pure antiscientific efforts of creationists, especially ID creationism, has made.

Torbjörn Larsson, Oh, please! Evolution has become the funding theory of biology, and as such has been of immense value.

Henry:

No, I'm afraid I wasn't as pun as you. (LOL, btw.)

I just want to single out Larry Boy's comments as worth reading.

Thank you.