|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 11:48:01 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Dembski is not a scientist. He has no science background. He has math and philosophy, neither of which are sciences. So mathematicians don't count as scientists anymore huh? You argument here is extremely lame.
Please define science and explain why you believe math is an example of such.
Crying "lame" is no argument at all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 12:04:14 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Hi Glu,
you sed: What is the basis for saying that Darwinism has run into intractable problems? And that there are no solutions in sight? These phrases are used as if they were commonly accepted as true, and I don't think that is the case.
Me: Statements like these by evolutionary biologists (with reference to Behe):
Tom Cavalier-Smith, U of British Columbia: For none of the case mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity."
Yale molecular biologist Robert Dorit: In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that we do not yet fully understand the evolution of the flagellar motor or the blood clotting cascade."
Jerry Coyne, U of Chicago: There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and evolution will be hard to unravel...[W}e may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways."
I don't see any of these people saying the problem is intractable or that no solution is in sight. Coyne seems to assume that the evolutionary pathway will be unravelled except for the very earliest proto-pathways. Dorit says Behe is correct only in a "narrow sense". All seem to assume that there is an evolutionary pathway and that our present ignorance of the details will not be permanent. This is not the attitude of someone confronted with an intractable problem. Just a very difficult one.
quote:
Behe argues that if there is not a smooth, gradually rising, easily found evolutionary pathway leading to a biological system within a reasonable time, Darwinian processes won't work.
And his conclusion is a non sequitor. Darwinian processes are not limited to "a smooth, gradually rising, easily found evolutionary pathway". That is the point of Kenneth Miller's critique. Behe is simply ignoring indirect evolutionary pathways.
quote:
Behe's work provides some pretty good empirical arguments that genetic mutation and natural selection are limited in their ability to produce complexity.
I wonder if Behe has looked into non-genetic mutation. Microbiologists have understandably focused on genes because it was relatively simple to match gene to protein and see how changes in genes changed proteins and their effects.
But there is a whole new area of mutation to explore now: the genetic switches which regulate where and how a gene is expressed. These are stretches of DNA, not in a gene, but upstream of a gene. They contain stretches of DNA which are recognized by proteins that bind to them and act as activators or repressors of the gene itself. Sean Carroll calls these recognizable bits of DNA "signatures". Mutations in this area of the genome would cause changes in the signatures and so control which proteins become part of the switch. This in turn determines whether, where and how the gene is expressed.
The use of switches in combination with other switches allows for a great variety in the use of a protein without actually changing the protein itself (and therefore not requiring a mutation in the gene which produces the protein).
I wonder if Behe has looked into this at all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 1:07:08 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 190
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
This should be self-evident but under a Darwinian fundamentalist paradigm and sufficient indoctrination it isn't.
So in your own view, when does a complex functional machine become too complex to have originated naturally without any guidance or intelligence? quote:
You show me the limit including the math needed to demonstrate it. No, I'm asking you when, if ever, does a system become too complex to have arisen w/o intelligence or guidance. Answer the question please.
quote:
Please show how these structures require an intelligent designer and include the mechanisms by which the designer implemented the designs and when it was done.
Shifting the burden of proof is not what a scientific theory should do. There is no shift, it already is upon you to demonstrate how a CCIS can arise w/o intelligence. You know you cannot so you badger around the obvious impediment with these shady debate tactics. It is already an empirically demonstrated fact the intelligent beings alone construct coded systems.
quote:
The only CCIS we know of are all based on intelligent designers
You are begging the question. If you claim that life contains CCIS then the origin of CCIS is unknown in a vast majority of cases. Absolutely not. It is well known and is demonstrated in language, computers, cyphers, codes, etc. They all require ID. Code implies mind. Bucking the dictionary will get you no where.
quote:
The burden of proof is also on those who claim that it came about through an intelligent designer. How did it happen? When did it happen? Do you have evidence for any of this? Again, when is irrelevant. How is seen in the biomolecules themselves. How does a house get built? Take it apart and see.
The evidence is in the coded information structures and 100's of irreducibly complex nano-machines working in coordinated fashion for protein production.
Once again, BY DEFINITION, code implies intelligence. Every definition says so. Why do you act so foolish in disputing and contradicting every dictionary in the world?
quote:
DNA is not made up of abstract characters. If DNA is a code then the Sun is a clock. So the sun is a clock. That's where you are wrong - and that over and over again. The characters are chemical, their meaning isn't. That's why it must be decoded. The chemical code contains the instructions for building protein.
quote:
Code implies intelligence by definition
Again, you are begging the question. You must show that it implies intelligence. I'm quoting the dictionaries. Sheeesh! You're working at fog displacement.
quote:
You tell me. Show through ID why these other systems do not exist. Easy, the genome has built-in limitations. That's what error correction is!! That's why hybrid plants tend to revert to a former state after several generations - there is back-up code in DNA.
quote:
The probability that such a system arose by chance = impossible
Prove it. Has already been done over and over.
See, for example Michael Denton's 'Nature's Destiny' or John C. Lennox, "God's undertaker..." - Lennox is an Oxford mathematician (3 Ph.D.'s) - oh I forgot, mathematicians don't know anything and are not scientists. How wrong can one get?!
See also F. Hoyle "Mathematics of Evolution", (1987) University College Cardiff Press, (1999) Acorn Enterprises,
See Kurt Godel's statements.
Of course, none of this matters to you. You are bucking the mathematically sound and verifiable statements of some of the world's great minds, (not to mention every dictionary out there). It would not matter if I quoted 1000 mathematicians - you have an a priori investment to protect in your materialism. Without it, your world-view sinks into the tars of oblivion and you are left to confront the only alternative - God.
quote:
"So many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our earth that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could exist in proper relationship by chance on any one earth at one time." - Dr. A. Cressy Morrison, past president of the New York Academy of Sciences.
"...science can establish, by the observed facts of Nature and intellectual argumentation, that a super-human Power exists." -John C. Monsma, in The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe.
"...contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach." -Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
-Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate
I'm a Darwinist because I believe the only alternatives are Lamarckism or God ... ,
- Richard Dawkins
quote:
Combinatorial dependencies ....
This isn't about evolution. This thread is about ID. Can it stand on it's own or not? cut the hand waving and brush offs please. Until you can explain how combinatorial denpendencies can be created in living machines purely by chance you have nothing to support Darwinism.
quote:
Again, this is about ID. How does the designer do it and when did the designer do it? Supply evidence.
Again, the how is in the design itself. Chemicals used to store and manipulate information. Deep intelligence beyong imagination, is required to have constructed such a vast domain of inter-operative, nano-machines building life systems in the cell factory out of chemicals.
The evidence is there in front of your nose in facts about code, information theory, statistical probabilities, linguistic algorithms, semantic biology, irreducible complexities, but you refuse to see it. Hardly honest. So why should anyone bother with you on the subject?
Is ID science? Of course it is. "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question..." Richard Dawkins, the God Delusion
Finally: quote:
"If the word 'God' were written upon every blowing leaf, embossed on every passing cloud, engraved on every granite rock, the inductive evidence of God in the world would be no stronger than it is."
-Dr. E.A. Maness. `The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe'
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 1:31:55 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1064
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
The characters are chemical, their meaning isn't. That's why it must be decoded. The chemical code contains the instructions for building protein.
Their meaning is chemical. These three nucleotides in a row gets turned into that one amino acid in a row.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 6:36:11 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
No, I'm asking you when, if ever, does a system become too complex to have arisen w/o intelligence or guidance. Answer the question please.
You are the one shifting the burden of proof. The burden has been on ID supporters from the very first post. Either you can show how and when this designing took place or you can't. Can you do it or not?
quote:
There is no shift, it already is upon you to demonstrate how a CCIS can arise w/o intelligence.
No, it isn't. This thread is about ID, not evolution. Either ID can show how this is done or it can't.
quote:
It is already an empirically demonstrated fact the intelligent beings alone construct coded systems.
Where has this been demonstrated?
quote:
Absolutely not. It is well known and is demonstrated in language, computers, cyphers, codes, etc. They all require ID. Code implies mind. Bucking the dictionary will get you no where.
Bucking the dictionary? Firstly, dictionaries only reflect how words are used by the general public. They are reactionary, not proscriptive. Secondly, at www.dictionary.com they list genetic code separately from all other codes. This would indicate that genetic code is not the same by your very source, would it not?
Also, you are trying to demonstrate that Code implies Mind. That is what you are trying to conclude. By inserting it into your premises you are committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Also, could you differentiate between a vital DNA sequence in an organism from a random sequence using your favorite mathematicians' equations?
quote:
Again, when is irrelevant.
Then you must not understand genetics and biology. The emergence of hox genes is a very hot area of research as is the emergence of majory body plans through time.
quote:
How is seen in the biomolecules themselves.
No, it's not. This seems to be similar to an argument for vitalism. Chemicals made by organisms and chemicals made in a lab are identical. You can not look at the molecules and determine how they were made without knowing where the reactants came from and how they were combined.
quote:
How does a house get built? Take it apart and see.
How does that work with organisms? They make themselves, do they not? Houses do not. That is a pretty big difference.
quote:
The evidence is in the coded information structures and 100's of irreducibly complex nano-machines working in coordinated fashion for protein production.
All of which come about without any designer around. Or do you think the designer is making billions of flagella every second and sticking them onto bacteria?
quote:
Once again, BY DEFINITION, code implies intelligence.
No, it doesn't.
genetic code: the biochemical instructions that translate the genetic information present as a linear sequence of nucleotide triplets in messenger RNA into the correct linear sequence of amino acids for the synthesis of a particular peptide chain or protein.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genetic%20code
Nowhere does it mention intelligence.
quote:
So the sun is a clock. That's where you are wrong - and that over and over again.
The comparison is very relevant. We, as humans, use the sun as a clock by changing it's physical meaning into an abstract meaning. We do the same with DNA when we describe it as A, T, C, and G. DNA does not contain any characters and it's meaning is entirely chemical and physical just as the Sun is to a clock.
quote:
The chemical code contains the instructions for building protein.
And those instructions are chemical and physical, not abstract as they are in human codes. The genetic code is very different from human code. Genetic code is more analogous to the gears in a clock than human alphabets.
quote:
Easy, the genome has built-in limitations. That's what error correction is!!
Errors get by this correction all of the time. If genomes are limited then why does all life share the same nucleotides, amino acids, and codon usage? The only limitations found so far include all life.
quote:
That's why hybrid plants tend to revert to a former state after several generations - there is back-up code in DNA.
There is no back up. They receive 50% of their DNA from both parents. Breeding back with the original parent stock dilutes out the stock from the other population. The only back up is the rest of the population.
quote:
quote:
The probability that such a system arose by chance = impossible
Prove it. Has already been done over and over.
Mathemiticians are not scientists, and are definitely not biologists. The solution to an equation need not refer to reality, it must only be self consistent. This differs from the natural sciences which require solutions to refer to reality. That is why mathemiticians are poorly equipped to comment on biology, they don't know how organisms work. If they start from the wrong assumption all of their subsequent math means nothing.
And that is exactly what your math equations have done, start from the wrong assumption.
quote:
See also F. Hoyle "Mathematics of Evolution", (1987) University College Cardiff Press, (1999) Acorn Enterprises,
See Kurt Godel's statements.
No, I want to see the math. Here. Where is it? What are the assumptions that they are based on?
quote:
You are bucking the mathematically sound and verifiable statements of some of the world's great minds, (not to mention every dictionary out there).
Is that the same Fred Hoyle who was so very wrong about the Big Bang model? Hmm, I believe it is (or was, RIP).
And you are also bucking the opinion of thousands of the world's greatest minds in biology who think that ID is wrong and who accept evolution. If you want to compare a list of names I have a way of making it somewhat easier. We can only use scientists from the biological sciences whose first name is Steve (or Stephen, Steven, etc.). I have over 800 Steves. How many do you have?
quote:
It would not matter if I quoted 1000 mathematicians
You are right. Quotes mean nothing to me. Evidence does. When will we see it?
quote:
cut the hand waving and brush offs please. Until you can explain how combinatorial denpendencies can be created in living machines purely by chance you have nothing to support Darwinism.
You are the one shifting the burden of proof. This thread is about ID. Either ID can answer these questions or not. It should at least give us ideas of what research to do in order to start answering these questions. Where is this research?
quote:
Again, the how is in the design itself. Chemicals used to store and manipulate information. Deep intelligence beyong imagination, is required to have constructed such a vast domain of inter-operative, nano-machines building life systems in the cell factory out of chemicals.
Why is an intelligence required? Where is the evidence for this intelligence?
quote:
The evidence is there in front of your nose in facts about code, information theory, statistical probabilities, linguistic algorithms, semantic biology, irreducible complexities, but you refuse to see it. Hardly honest. So why should anyone bother with you on the subject?
When are you going to actually present this evidence?
quote:
Is ID science? Of course it is. "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question..." Richard Dawkins, the God Delusion
And Dawkin's has stated that science has shown that the possibility of God existing are extremely low. Since you list Dawkins as an authority I can only guess that you accept his opinion on this as well.
quote:
Finally: quote:
"If the word 'God' were written upon every blowing leaf, embossed on every passing cloud, engraved on every granite rock, the inductive evidence of God in the world would be no stronger than it is."
-Dr. E.A. Maness. `The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe'
God coming down in a thundercloud would certainly be more impressive. Is God capable of doing this or not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 6:41:58 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Hey method:
According to Wikipedia, negative proof sez: "X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
ID doesn't argue that way. It argues that ID is true because Darwinism is limited in its ability to explain things and there are positive reasons to belief design is needed for a full explanation of biological phenomena.
Wiki lists this argument as negative proof:
"Scientists don't know for sure what natural forces caused the first single-cell life, so it must be intelligent design."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
Your ID argument is used as an example of a logical fallacy.
The other fallacious argument that you are using is called a false dichotomy, or excluded middle. You use it here:
quote:
Think about it. If there are only three ways to explain an object (chance, necessity and design), and chance and necessity fail to fully explain the object, then one must conclude that design is also in the mix.
There could also be another process that is not chance, necessity or design.
Take, for example, gravity. If Newton was wrong about gravity acting as an instantaneous force then it has to be supernatural, right? Well, it turns out that gravity does not act instantaneously, but it is not supernatural.
That is where the "evolution is wrong, therefore ID" argument completely fails. It leaves out the possibility that there is a non-ID mechanism that we have not discovered. ID needs to produce positive evidence. Without it ID is nothing more than one big whine against theories that mak IDers uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 9:55:26 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Design has to be brought back into the discussion becuase it is becoming increasingly clear that the data shows EB has limits to to its ability to explain stuff.
But is ID science? How does one apply ID in a scientific investigation? How does it point to specific experiments that one can do in order to learn something new about how nature works?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 10:07:28 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
1. I be spishus of EB because of how its practictioners have acted over the last 100 years or so. At times it has functioned more as an ideology than as a science. (Actually, this whole ID/EB controversy would make a very interesting study in the sociology of knowledge.)
The best way around ideology is asking the very questions I have been asking you. How does one apply ID? How does it help explain things? That is the difference between ideologies and science. Science can explain things in ways that can be demonstrated. Ideologies can not. From the near lack of research being done in ID it appears it is an ideology, not a science.
quote:
2. In terms of what is a proper subject for scientific inquiry, there is nothing in the philosophy of science which precludes investigating the possibility of design. Yet the leading EB'ers , gatekeepers of knowledge, don't even want the question asked, judging by their actions.
There is nothing wrong with investigating design. So why isn't it being done? Everytime I press for research being done in ID I am told about the weaknesses of evolution. Why is that? Can ID stand on it's own or not? Can it produce research? It would seem that even the IDers don't want this question asked given their reaction to my questions. What is stopping IDers from doing this research?
quote:
3. While I have questions about the theoretical justifications for ID laid out by Dembski (I have no idea whether he has given us a valid method to accurately calculate the improbabilities of this or that), I really doubt whether he has been given a fair hearing, given the vitriol directed at him.
Every new theory is met with vitriol. The guy who proposed that ulcers are caused by bacteria (Heliobacter pylori) was ridiculed for quite some time, but he won out in the end. Ridicule did not stop him from ploughing ahead. It appears that IDers should open a whinery instead of a laboratory.
quote:
4. EB's admit that they don't they don't "yet [have] a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity." They have ideas but no proof. In the mean time we are to take it on faith that some undirected natural process or other is responsible. Well, after 150 years, aren't we allowed to doubt their ability to produce the same, even a little bit?
We are to take no faith. We are supposed to plough forward in search for an answer. IDers aren't doing that. EB's are. That is because ID is not science while evolution is. Evolution produces avenues of research, produces interesting questions, produces answers. ID starts with the answer it wants and hopes no one will call them on it.
quote:
5. Behe's work provides some pretty good empirical arguments that genetic mutation and natural selection are limited in their ability to produce complexity.
Actually, no he doesn't. Behe is the expert at Texas Sharpshooting. According to Behe it is impossible for casinos to work because the probability of producing the specific hands in Blackjack in one night are so astronomical that it shouldn't happen.
And where can I read about this in the peer reviewed literature? At best there was the Behe and Snoke paper (2004) which was swiftly shown to be in error. They got the math and assumptions wrong. Multi-residue functions can arise at rates much higher than Behe and Snoke stated they could.
B&S paper: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15340163
And the inevitable depantsing: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16131652
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 10:31:48 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
So mathematicians don't count as scientists anymore huh? You argument here is extremely lame.
No, they don't count and they never did. Science is a pragmatic approach to explaining nature. Mathematics is an attempt to manipulate numbers irrespective of their application to reality.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 10:33:57 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Looking at the list of 'solutions', I think materialists better hope a miracle is possible.
Of course, IDists don't invoke miracles - materialists do.
Dishonesty much?
You have spent numerous posts bashing materialists for rejecting supernatural miracles. In this very post you claim that this is exactly what they are proposing. You need to make up your mind.
So what are the mechanisms of ID, btw. If not magic, what are they?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 8:31:15 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey Method
Regarding negative proof, wiki apparently uses this example thereof: "Scientists don't know for sure what natural forces caused the first single-cell life, so it must be intelligent design."
ID would actually argue it this way: Scientists don't know for sure what natural forces cause this instance jof specified complexity (SC). We know that intelligent agency has the causal power to produce systems that have SC. Therefore, bio systems that exhibit SC are likely to be designed.
Dembski claims that to attribute SC and design to a bio system is to engage in eliminative induction, somethin scientist do every day. Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competing props are false. This is in contrast to Popperian falsification where props are corroborated to the degree that they successfully withstand attempts to falsify them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 8:53:55 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Meth also sed:
quote:
The other fallacious argument that you are using is called a false dichotomy, or excluded middle. You use it here:
quote:
Think about it. If there are only three ways to explain an object (chance, necessity and design), and chance and necessity fail to fully explain the object, then one must conclude that design is also in the mix.
There could also be another process that is not chance, necessity or design.
Take, for example, gravity. If Newton was wrong about gravity acting as an instantaneous force then it has to be supernatural, right? Well, it turns out that gravity does not act instantaneously, but it is not supernatural.
That is where the "evolution is wrong, therefore ID" argument completely fails. It leaves out the possibility that there is a non-ID mechanism that we have not discovered. ID needs to produce positive evidence. Without it ID is nothing more than one big whine against theories that mak IDers uncomfortable.
To say "evo is wrong, therefore ID" would be fallacious cuz tis always possible to conceive of a modified evo theory which works as a better explanation or maybe something entirely different. The point is that no matter what theory of undirected natural mechanisms you propose, you are still arguing for a naturalistic theory which works only by the principles of chance and necessity.
Logically there is a third possible explanation, namely design. I know of no other explanatory principal. Do you? So, since there is no fourth alternative, if a theory of undirected forces acting according to chance and necessity can't explain SC, then it must be design.
But the daunting challenge facing ID is to sweep the field of all competing naturalistic explanations, and I admit I don't unnerstand how Dembski thinks this can be done. I ordered his other books to seek the details and will dutifully report them to y'all as I get them. (BTW, Glu, I also ordered Ken Miller's book.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 9:05:56 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Now proponents of EB and other naturalistic explanations of SC will argue that as long as there is some conceivable naturalistic explanation, the design inference can't be made. And that is an impossible burden of proof which would render EB and its ilk unfalsifiable and never let ID in the door. and dat's not very scientifick (or sportsmanlike, as Fezzik the Giant would say).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 9:56:30 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
How does one apply ID?
See prior discussion on research themes.
How does it help explain things?
By supplying an alternative to theories that operate soley by the principals of chance and necessity.
quote:
That is the difference between ideologies and science. Science can explain things in ways that can be demonstrated. Ideologies can not.
Which is why I am glad ID is being injected in discussions about EB. EB had become too complacent, ideological and dogmatic.
quote:
From the near lack of research being done in ID it appears it is an ideology, not a science.
This will take time. But first the EB establishment has to quit penalizing and punishing those who even entertain the idea of ID. If the whole idea is so laughable and weak, why not let it see the light of day so it can be exposed as the fraud it is?
Because I feel kind of in whiny mood, I will relate the story of Smithosonian scholar Richard Sternberg, who has PHD's in mo bio and theortical bio. He dared to publish an article by Stephen Meyer in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Meyer's article was peer-reviewed. While it wasn't clear whether Sternberg believed in ID, for merely permitting the publication about it he was adjudicated a witch and banished from the Smithsonian. The journal disavowed the article and Sternberg was warned not show his face there again.
The US Office of Special Counsel, which investigates retaliation against fed employees looked into the affair and issued a harsh report on the behavior of the "scientists" and the Smithsonian and Eugenie Scott's National Center of Science Eddication. Scott had led a campaign of vilification againsts Sternberg and worked closely with the Smithsonian in outlining a strategy to have Sternberg investigaged and discredited. Sternberg was accused of being a YEC, taking money under the table to publish the article, of being in training to be an Orthodox priest and of having no scientific credentials--all proved to be lies. No intelligence allowed!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 10:02:35 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
We are to take no faith. We are supposed to plough forward in search for an answer. IDers aren't doing that. EB's are. That is because ID is not science while evolution is. Evolution produces avenues of research, produces interesting questions, produces answers. ID starts with the answer it wants and hopes no one will call them on it.
Nope. tis quite the opposite. EB's are the ones who dogmatically start with the answer (it's all chance and necessity) and hope no one will call them on it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 10:39:02 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Hey Method
Regarding negative proof, wiki apparently uses this example thereof: "Scientists don't know for sure what natural forces caused the first single-cell life, so it must be intelligent design."
ID would actually argue it this way: Scientists don't know for sure what natural forces cause this instance jof specified complexity (SC). We know that intelligent agency has the causal power to produce systems that have SC. Therefore, bio systems that exhibit SC are likely to be designed.
We only know that humans produce these structures. Humans were not around 3.5 billion years ago. You lack a mechanism.
quote:
Dembski claims that to attribute SC and design to a bio system is to engage in eliminative induction, somethin scientist do every day. Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competing props are false. This is in contrast to Popperian falsification where props are corroborated to the degree that they successfully withstand attempts to falsify them.
That is not how science is done. Theories must make postive claims that are supported by positive evidence. No theory in science is solely supported by the failure of competing theories. If you don't believe me, name one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 10:44:23 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
To say "evo is wrong, therefore ID" would be fallacious cuz tis always possible to conceive of a modified evo theory which works as a better explanation or maybe something entirely different. The point is that no matter what theory of undirected natural mechanisms you propose, you are still arguing for a naturalistic theory which works only by the principles of chance and necessity.
So how do you rule out chance and necessity? Wouldn't you need an absolutely exhaustive historical account in order to do this? Using the bacterial flagellum as an example, wouldn't you need a whole lot of information in order to conclude that chance and necessity could not explain it? Here is a short list of things I would need in order to conclude that it was impossible:
--An exhaustive list of sequenced genomes from non-flagellated bacteria that lived just prior to the emergence of the bac flag.
--A complete description of the very first bac flag. Afterall, if the first bac flag was not irreducibly complex it is entirely possible that evolution removed proteins from the system until it could no longer do so without removing function.
Do you have these things? If not, how does one rule out chance and necessity?
quote:
Logically there is a third possible explanation, namely design. I know of no other explanatory principal. Do you? So, since there is no fourth alternative, if a theory of undirected forces acting according to chance and necessity can't explain SC, then it must be design.
Does falsifying evolution rule out chance and necessity?
quote:
But the daunting challenge facing ID is to sweep the field of all competing naturalistic explanations, and I admit I don't unnerstand how Dembski thinks this can be done. I ordered his other books to seek the details and will dutifully report them to y'all as I get them. (BTW, Glu, I also ordered Ken Miller's book.)
How does one falsify theories that have not been conceived?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 10:58:16 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
How does one apply ID?
See prior discussion on research themes.
I was hoping that you could actually list the real research. Is there any?
quote:
How does it help explain things?
By supplying an alternative to theories that operate soley by the principals of chance and necessity.
The alternative is not an explanation. It is a belief that does not give us any mechanisms or explanations. "The Designer Did It" is not an explanation.
quote:
Which is why I am glad ID is being injected in discussions about EB. EB had become too complacent, ideological and dogmatic.
Hardly. Go to www.pubmed.com and search for "evolution". Over 200,000 peer reviewed papers will be returned from the search. Start reading. You will find that EB has not been complacent. It has been very, very active.
quote:
This will take time. But first the EB establishment has to quit penalizing and punishing those who even entertain the idea of ID. If the whole idea is so laughable and weak, why not let it see the light of day so it can be exposed as the fraud it is?
I guess every ideology needs it's martyrs. The claims of persecution are false and quite laughable. You can read more at:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
The example I am most familiar with is Dr. Gonzalez. He was denied tenure because he was not doing research. However, he was not fired. He is still a professor at Iowa State University with access to their telescopes and research facility. So why isn't he doing research? My only conclusion is that ID is not science because it is incapable of producing research.
quote:
Because I feel kind of in whiny mood, I will relate the story of Smithosonian scholar Richard Sternberg, who has PHD's in mo bio and theortical bio. He dared to publish an article by Stephen Meyer in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Meyer's article was peer-reviewed. While it wasn't clear whether Sternberg believed in ID, for merely permitting the publication about it he was adjudicated a witch and banished from the Smithsonian. The journal disavowed the article and Sternberg was warned not show his face there again.
All of what you claim is false. You can get the real story here:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg
Sternberg and Meyer cooked up this scheme of printing the paper at an ID members-only meeting. Sternberg had already put in his resignation before the paper was printed, and the peer review was laughable. It is still unknown who reviewed the paper, but I think everyone can agree that it was reviewed by ID friendly cohorts. Sternberg did not work for the Smithsonian, and even then he still has the same access to the collections as he had before. The worst that Sternberg can claim is that people said some bad things about him.
quote:
The US Office of Special Counsel, which investigates retaliation against fed employees looked into the affair and issued a harsh report on the behavior of the "scientists" and the Smithsonian and Eugenie Scott's National Center of Science Eddication. Scott had led a campaign of vilification againsts Sternberg and worked closely with the Smithsonian in outlining a strategy to have Sternberg investigaged and discredited. Sternberg was accused of being a YEC, taking money under the table to publish the article, of being in training to be an Orthodox priest and of having no scientific credentials--all proved to be lies. No intelligence allowed!
The US Office of Special Counsel was headed by a fundie who was out for blood. Their findings were as biased as they get.
"As stated above, Sternberg did not lose his office or his access to collections, he did not lose his job, he was not “fired” from the (unpaid) editorship of the journal (he had resigned six months before the publication of the Meyer article), and from the e-mails in the appendix to the Souder report, it appears that his colleagues were civil in their communications with him. The Smithsonian renewed his Research Collaborator status for another three years in 2006. It seems, then, that the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things about him in private email to one another. Since the same can be said of almost every person, it’s hard to see how this could be construed as “life ruining”. There is no evidence of any material harm done to Sternberg as a result of the publication of the Meyer article. And any damage done to his reputation would seem to have been self-inflicted."
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg
Those are the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 11:13:43 AM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 190
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
Method : There is no possibility of debate with someone who's only argument is ignorance and denial of fact. You're only fooling yourself.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 11:16:25 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Thoughts:
1) Why are "chance and necessity" contrasted with "design?" What about these two terms are dialectically opposed to the third?
2) The design inference relies on a "theory of mind," concerning possible designers. It is not related to whether something is complex (in terms of number of parts??) (it could be utterly simple, e.g.: simple machines) but whether it is useful to a hypothetical consciousness.
2.1) Can we define complexity again in the context of this thread? I suggest that it is an array of objects or set of objects the order or arrangement of which cannot be generated by an algorithm shorter than the array itself. In order to remove ambiguity from such a reckoning, it would indeed be helpful if one could represent everything using a computer model representing the array of objects in which the criterion for length would be bytes of memory.
2.2) Wouldn't any randomly arrayed set of objects qualify? How, then, would this then support "design," which ought not to be thought of as random but a result of sufficient conditions, the criteria, however arbitrary they might be (flames on a Camaro), for their creation -- i.e.: they are a necessary result (due to sufficiency) of their creator's criteria (ignoring the question of "to be or not to be," which removes sufficiency.
Finally:
Ferd, thanks for "taking one for the team" and further reading Dembski. I can only wish you godspeed. I am heartened that you continue to ask seemingly reasonable questions of both science and him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 11:40:34 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1064
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
So how do you rule out chance and necessity?
I would be satisfied by an unambiguous 'signature'. I'm not sure how I'd define it or what form it might take, but I'd know it when I saw it. After all, it would be unambiguous.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 8/1/2008 11:50:15 AM
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
