Intelligent Design in Universities

quote:

---

sigh. ID may be difficult to understand, but you are not making it any easier.

---

I will, but you have to ask the right questions. I'm honestly trying to lead you to them, answering your other questions along the way as best I can.

quote:

---

Okay. I ask you to tell me what ID is. Please bear in mind that I am a research biologist, so I also need to know why I should care.

---

Glad you asked. Intelligent Design: a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts.That's it, man. Regardless of how you have seen this stuff portrayed by our detractors and media activists, Eugenie Scott or other pseudo-scientific politicos, this is all there is to it.Paleontologists, archeologists, cryptographers and SETI scientists ALL use methodologies to detect design in their finds or systems they are studying and when they use those techniques, it is science. When we do it, it suddenly becomes RELIGION... Egads.So why should you care? I don't know you, so the truth is you may not care at all. You are a research biologist and we also have research biologists that are IDists. So what is the difference in the way you guys do biology? There is not a lick of difference!The only difference is in how you might view the origin of those systems you are studying. Just as did Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Diogenes, IDist see design in those systems. Look at how the non-religionist Socrates (he held no beliefs of a personal god) worded it:"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"We go with Socrates on this in that the human eye and like structures are the work of "wisdom and contrivance," not chance mutation and natural selection. And some have held this view historically from the great debates in ancient Greece 300 years before there ever was a Christ.Now, if you do not care, tell me why, knowing that we teach and do biology exactly alike, you would have a problem with me teaching biology along with evolution, but also from the aspect of ID, allowing the students to consider the entire story and decide for themselves.Where is truth in science anymore as an investigative body of thought?

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Where is truth in science anymore as an investigative body of thought?

---

Well said.Your posts are well constructed and thought provoking. Thank you Jerry.

quote:

---

Anyhow, I assume you have a point here and that point is that just because I am an IDist I am no longer capable of doing science because of a religious belief.

---

No, not at all.You previously said:

quote:

---

Is Newton's science now out the window because he was a creationist in your opinion?

---

To which I replied: People advocating for ID have not been using MN.ID proponents have not proposed any testable predictions of real world natural systems, and ID is based upon a lack of a naturalistic explanation for certain mechanisms rather than upon positive evidence for it's claims.

quote:

---

What religious belief would I hold that would prevent me from doing science using the philosophy of MN?

---

I don't know.Show me any ID science that contains a testable prediction of some real world phenomena."If ID were true, then we would predict that observed mechanism X would have the following characteristics; A, B, C, and D."What positive evidence, if found, would falsify this prediction?

quote:

---

And if this is a systemic problem, why is the science of Faraday, Newton, Lord Kelvin, blah...blah....viewed as valid science?

---

Because they do follow MN.

quote:

---

I mean these guys were strong creationist type critters.

---

But they never used the supernatural in their work.ID inserts a "designer" into the molecular places that science hasn't yet (or perhaps never will) discovered a naturalistic explanation.

quote:

---

I did not mention all the biologists in HERE, now did I.

---

Well, yes, you did include all Darwinists, including the ones here, in the following statement:

quote:

---

(it seems that no two Darwinists can agree on much of anything)

---

quote:

---

Darwin was a non-scientist college drop out

---

There were no "scientists" back in Victorian England in the way we know it today. Science as a professional field had not yet been formalized and consisted mainly of a loose "society" of gentleman naturalists, many of them clergy.Also, where on Earth did you get the idea that he dropped out of college? Everything I have been able to find says that Darwin passed his final exams at Cambridge and was ranked 10th out of the 178 students who passed that year.

quote:

---

that could not handle the math even with the help of tutors his father hired for him. There was not a single mathematical formula anywhere in OoS.

---

Where on Earth did you get the idea that science had to have math in it to be of good quality?

quote:

---

And funny, I have a BS with a biology minor, and I don't recall even discussing Darwin in most of those classes. If all modern biology is based on the musings of Darwin, no one seems to know this.

---

All modern Biology is based upon Darwin's Theory of common decent with modification.Just is.

quote:

---

Finally, there is no such thing as a scientific mechanism in Darwinism. Even stochastic mechanisms must have some degree of predictability via probability. So, unless you think you can mathematically determine what evolves from what, you need to drop the term mechanism from your vocabulary concerning this subject or note that you are defining the term differently than does most of science.

---

Tell me, what does the field of population genetics study, what theoretical basis do they use, and how do they express their findings?Tell me, why do both homo sapiens and our closest primate relatives both have an identical broken vitamin C producing gene, yet more distant relatives do not?

quote:

---

Because an environmental change occurred. When C came into the diet,

---

What? When did vitamin C "come into the diet"? What does this have to do with a broken gene caused by a retrovirus?

quote:

---

logic dictates that similar organisms would mutate via that environmental stimuli.

---

But where is your evidence to show that vitamin c was "introduced" at a certain time into the environment, and why should a mutation by a retrovirus be connected to the appearance of a particular food source?

quote:

---

The huge is my little tidbit and quite subjective, but you have never seen a huge wolf?

---

I would never describe a wolf as "huge" in the context of whale evolution, no.

quote:

---

My personal incredulity has little to do with the fact that you guys deduce this stuff without empirical evidence to support those deductions, IMHO.

​

You (they?? not really trying to get personal with you) have not a single piece of evidence that suggests whales morphed from a land mammal called pakicetus, no matter if they dress it all up in a pretty package with flowing ribbons. Where are the breeding experiments that could deduce speciation in these transitions. Where is the DNA to draw genetic conclusions? Surely they have something other than few rocks that "look funny."

---

So, what specific issues do you have with the Gingerich's research?You keep hand waving it away and expressing lots of personal incredulity, but why won't you actually discuss it?

quote:

---

Tell me how, 1) what you have is testable in a laboratory considering this particular transition.

---

Why do you require laboratory testing instead of field evidence?Here are some references for whale evolution:* Gingerich, P. D. et al., 1983. Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: New evidence from the Early Eocene of Pakistan. Science 220: 403-406.
* Gingerich, P. D., B. H. Smith, and E. L. Simons, 1990. Hind limb of Eocene Basilosaurus: Evidence of feet in whales. Science 249: 154-157.
* Gingerich, P. D. et al., 1993. Partial skeletons of Indocetus ramani [Mammalia, Cetacea] from the Lower Middle Eocene Domanda Shale in the Sulaiman Range of Punjab [Pakistan]. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology of the University of Michigan 28: 393-416.
* Gingerich, P. D. et al., 1994. New whale from the Eocene of Pakistan and the origin of cetacean swimming. Nature 368: 844-847.
* Thewissen, J. G. M. and S. T. Hussain, 1993. Origin of underwater hearing in whales. Nature 361: 444-445.
* Thewissen, J. G. M., S. T. Hussain and M. Arif, 1994. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263: 210-212. See also Berta, A., 1994. What is a whale? Science 263: 180-181.Tell me, what laboratory or field evidence of ANY ID can you provide?

quote:

---

2) How could this transition be falsified?

---

Well, if we never found any whales or whale fossils with vestigial pelvises or hind legs, this idea that whales evolved from 4-legged land-dwelling mammals would be falsified.

quote:

---

3) Can you now predict what will evolve out of the whale as this transition continues into the future?

---

Not unless you can describe exactly and preciesely every environmental pressure and condition each species of whale is going to experience in the future.In paleontology, we make "retrodictions" of what kinds of features we should find in the various lineages based upon what we see in current populations and also related extinct lineages represented in the fossil record.

quote:

---

You didn't produce any evidence in that posting. You produced someone's opinion. Does opinion now count as a theory of science that must be taken experimentally through the scientific method? Think about it!

---

Do you trust the "opinions" of the scientists who research and test vaccines, antibiotics, and all other drugs and medical therapies and procedures? What about geneticists who study the origins and spread of genetic disorders?Why or why not?

quote:

---

There are now no odds involved at all because a pattern MUST occur every time you turn the cards over.

---

You said:

quote:

---

and that larger mammals such as horses and elephants slowly evolved from tiny, less complex ameboids in violation of some of the most well proven laws of science.

---

You clearly think that somehow, horses and elephants MUST be the end product of evolution, which would make the odds of this occurring from single-celled organisms very unlikely indeed.However, this is not at all how evolution works, so your incredulity is unwarranted because you have created a false argument.Like I explained, Do you now understand that you were presenting a incorrect characterization of how evolution happens?

quote:

---

Yet, you have no evidence to show this, you just accept it seemingly by faith.

---

I can't show evidence of a negative.If you are making the positive claim that the environment has, in fact, a "desire" or "goal" to eventually produce a specific outcome WRT evolution of species, then it is up to you yo produce this positive evidence.

quote:

---

You seem to follow the natural philosophy which you are quite welcome to do, thus you see no purpose in this process. I however, espouse teleology and thus DO see a trend of purpose had this process occurred.

---

What specific observation would you predict to see for a given species if there was some goal of a Designer for that species?

Problem for IDists is, this isn't ancient Greece. And that's a good thing. The Greeks probably failed to reach the industrial age because they were wed to their deductive approach to science, and never developed modern empiricism and the ability to follow the evidence wherever it leads. And you'd have us go back to that. How misguided.In 2005 A.D., we have evidence that stochastic processes can indeed generate designs. In fact, humans use them. Genetic algorithms are used in the layout of elements on VLSI circuits, among other things.You'll no doubt say something along the lines of "yes, but someone has to design the algorithm or cost function". There is evidence however, that that is not the case with respect to biological structures. It's certainly not the case in condensed matter physics. Nature itself seems to generate the algorithms and cost functions for biological evolution or crystal structure, among other things.If you want to learn some real thermodynamics, instead of the sham version you seem to have picked up, you might look for information on simulated annealing. This is an optimization algorithm that was developed in the modern scientific era not by teleological analogies, but by the quite opposite idea of modeling the stochastic thermodynamic process of annealing in metals.The argument that the human eye, or bacterial flagellum, or biostructures in general, cannot arise from stochastic processes, is just specious argument from incredulity. The biologists have plausible scenarios, supported by evidence, that say otherwise.Unless and until ID can generate testable scientific hypotheses, it's not going to get much respect from those who do science for a living.And you really should consider checking your hubris about your scientific knowledge at the door of the forum. There are several Ph.Ds in physical sciences that participate on this forum. To paraphrase Pauli, your assertions about the 2LOT are so bad, they're not even wrong.You come across as the type who would step into an operating room after reading an undergraduate anatomy textbook, and tell the surgeon "Stand aside, I'm taking over !" Certainly not in ID. With your "wedge strategy", you reveal a postmodern view of scientific knowledge as something socially and politically constructed to conform to a particular ideology, right down there on all fours with Lysenko or the leftist postmodernists that Allan Sokol so thoroughly exposed.

Wow. Your entire tedious post contains basically nothing, expressing no science at all, just your opinion. You don't even seem to know that oranges contain V-C. Our conversation is over. Thank you for your contributions and go ahead and have the last word.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Problem for IDists is, this isn't ancient Greece. And that's a good thing. The Greeks probably failed to reach the industrial age because they were wed to their deductive approach to science, and never developed modern empiricism and the ability to follow the evidence wherever it leads. And you'd have us go back to that. How misguided.

​

In 2005 A.D., we have evidence that stochastic processes can indeed generate designs. In fact, humans use them. Genetic algorithms are used in the layout of elements on VLSI circuits, among other things.

---

What? I made that point to show how rich in history ID is. Not to recommend that we recede science back to the B.C. era. Sheeze....How did you ever read that into what I posted? You might want to expound on your VLSI circuit deally-whacker as I doubt anyone understands what you mean here. Surely you are not suggesting that genes had a role in the motherboards of computers. Expansion, please?

quote:

---

You'll no doubt say something along the lines of "yes, but someone has to design the algorithm or cost function".

---

No. since I haven't any idea what the heck you are talking about and highly doubt anyone reading this does, there is little chance I will say that.

quote:

---

If you want to learn some real thermodynamics, instead of the sham version you seem to have picked up, you might look for information on simulated annealing. This is an optimization algorithm that was developed in the modern scientific era not by teleological analogies, but by the quite opposite idea of modeling the stochastic thermodynamic process of annealing in metals.

---

I'll go anywhere with you in thermodynamics you wish to go, Mr. Physicist. I'll change hats and get right back to you like....um...now? BLINK! Ok, I'm in physics mode now. Want to do some physics?Are you familiar with the work of Ludvig Boltzmann? Do you agree that he formulated the formula S = K log W, where S is the entropy of a given system, K is Boltzmann’s constant, 1.38 x 10^-23, and W is the total number of possible microstates in a given system?Do you also agree with the stipulation that with any chemically spontaneous event or reaction, entropy will tend to increase as stated here? Let me know and we'll boogie down in thermo, I'm well versed and formally trained in that subject. One of my faves.

quote:

---

The argument that the human eye, or bacterial flagellum, or biostructures in general, cannot arise from stochastic processes, is just specious argument from incredulity. The biologists have plausible scenarios, supported by evidence, that say otherwise.

---

Like what? Please don't throw this stuff out there without the specifics. Biologists have all kinds of plausible scenarios, you just don't what they are?

quote:

---

Unless and until ID can generate testable scientific hypotheses, it's not going to get much respect from those who do science for a living.

---

We have tons of testable hypotheses. I'll match you one for one with those in Darwinism. What say you? The molecular biologist seems to have got the heck out of Dodge on the first round of this issue.

quote:

---

And you really should consider checking your hubris about your scientific knowledge at the door of the forum. There are several Ph.Ds in physical sciences that participate on this forum. To paraphrase Pauli, your assertions about the 2LOT are so bad, they're not even wrong.

---

I like my hubris, thank you. It fills my puddle.

quote:

---

You come across as the type who would step into an operating room after reading an undergraduate anatomy textbook, and tell the surgeon "Stand aside, I'm taking over !"

---

LOL...Well thank you. Please get this rant out of your system. I am here for you.

quote:

---

Certainly not in ID. With your "wedge strategy", you reveal a postmodern view of scientific knowledge as something socially and politically constructed to conform to a particular ideology, right down there on all fours with Lysenko or the leftist postmodernists that Allan Sokol so thoroughly exposed.

---

*burp*

---

Design Dynamics

No science at all? Schrafinator mentioned six scientific papers on the evolution of whales and you call that "no science a all"? But then again, we've seen you shy away before, when real scientific papers were presented to you, using the pathetic excuse that there's no direct link to the papers, so you have to go looking for their content yourself. Poor you, having to do some actual research...You also conspicuously dodge Schrafinators question about the broken vitamin C gene. Is it perhaps because you don't know what a retrovirus is? Is that the usual modus operandi for ID-ists, when faced with some real opposition? Just run away? Aren't your fellow ID-ists ashamed of you?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Speak for yourself. Again, speak for yourself. If there is any way of demonstrating directly that intelligence is not a prerequisite for design to arise, it is by making use of genetic algorithms. The fact that you've never even heard of genetic algorithms doesn't mean nobody has, but it does put your hubris in a new light. It's pathetic.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-May-2005 10:25 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

The fact that you've never even heard of genetic algorithms doesn't mean nobody has, but it does put your hubris in a new light. It's pathetic.

---

LOL....Does this forum have any way of dealing with trolls, or do I just have to put up with you periodically in every thread I participate in? Please don't post further to me. Thank you.

---

Design Dynamics

Can you show some of the science and mathematics?

No he'd just say the bible was true and you shall not cut on living bodies. (Dederonemety20,2)

quote:

---

Wow. Your entire tedious post contains basically nothing, expressing no science at all, just your opinion.

---

Well, if my mere opinion is contradicted by some evidence that you have, why not present it?I mean, I repeatedly asked you to show me very reasonable evidence, and also asked you to address current evidence that didn't seem to jibe with your ideas.Apparently, you are not able to, and all people reading this can certainly see that this is the case.

quote:

---

You don't even seem to know that oranges contain V-C.

---

And you can't seem to explain what the vitamin content of oranges has to do with the common ancestor of modern apes and modern humans having the retrovirus-caused mutated/broken gene responsible for the sysnthesis of vitamin C.

quote:

---

Our conversation is over. Thank you for your contributions and go ahead and have the last word.

---

You know, there seems to be a never-ending supply of creationists who keep trying the exact same arguments, decade after decade!

Don't you mean 'century after century'?TTFN,WK

Well, sort of.100 years ago, the Creationists were much more honest.

Hey Jerry,I've been so busy responding to my critics, I forgot to say, "hi" to one of my good friends.I hope the Nature article has encouraged you that our efforts are not in vain. There are at least 20 bio majors in our Virginia IDEA chapters that I know, the number of ID friendly bio majors at the universities in our chapter's sphere is probably upwards of 80 and growing. We're slowly making inroads on the campuses. I believe that is a long term trend.In case I forgot to mention it, see:
Thoughts on "Intelligent design: Who has designs on your students' minds?" take care,
Salvador