Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University

The last time you made this point you used the word 'until'Its early days yet.We're discussing the possibilities of turning the "untils" into "has occurred"

quote:

---

You seem to be arguing that there cannot be two competing theories. The game is "the best theory wins" not "I hold all the best cards already so bugger off"

---

That really makes no sense at all. It certainly doesn't reflect the text you quoted from my post. In fact it seems to be closer your position than mine - you're the one arguing that the possiblity of evolution can be ignored.

I haven't argued that it should be ignored. I argue that it is unnecessary to take ToE into account until such time as there is a case to be made that attempts to compete with its "no necessity for design" viewpointIOW: Ignore ToE until such the time comes to compete with it. When that time comes then the hand is played. If ToE provides 'better' explanation/prediction blah blah at that time, it wins. If not it loses.

Well my question is, why would you want to set up inaccurate criteria for identifying design ? You still haven't given a good reason for doing so.

With the SETI programme someone has presumably analysed what the fundimentals would be of a recognisable intelligence (ours) and publishes these into space. I presume they don't pick inaccurate criteria for recognisable intelligence. That the programme presumably attracts funding might imply that the funders are happy that this criteria setting is satisfactorily scientific.So it would be with setting criteria for design markers.There is no reason to suppose one would go about setting up inaccurate criteria. One couldn't hope to attract funding from the scientific community for one. And one could expect ones findings to be laughed out of the court of Scientific Method.

Whilst the basis for your line of questioning might appear reasonable to you, I am inclined to think that it is the result of a certain (understandable) misapprehension born of playing for too long a time on the winning team.ToE sits in the court of Scientific Method. It is a defendent in that court, not a prosecutor. That it's case is currently a good one should give it no reason to rest on its laurels - for a defendant it will remain for the rest of its days. Scientific Method says so.If and when ID enters the court it is the Judge called Scientific Method to whom ID will address itself. It is a defendant. Just like ToE.And it is the Judge who will decide on the evidence, not a co- defendant.

Notice the actual "negativity" of Cornell scientists. That is why the problem remains as intractable today with religious arguments and information added, as to when the same "hostility" came through to me in the 80s, while I was asking for purely scientific things to be considered, {How do you count organisms?, Do biological trasmutations exist as they are believed to in Paris, Can microwaves alter the enzymes of electric fish?, Are you sure what you are writing is coming from the northerhemisphere given the perspective of Croizat?}.My feeling is is that Will is trying to marginalize IDEA just as he tried and did with me. He still has not responded to the SCIENCE of Gladyshev(in Moscow) but back in the 80s COMMUNISM was the external vantage whereas today it is religion, for sure.For me personally I am stuck with the "..." on STOVE(pviii)

quote:

---

"Where does the truth lie? Are the main doctrines of Darwinian teaching as impregnable and well established as proponents claim? One good place to start for an answer is with this book, Darwinian Fairytales It was the last work of the Australian philosopher David Stove. By the time of his death in 1994, Stove had earned a distinguished place for himself in the pantheon of intellectual demolition experts. His targets, one admirer wrote are many: "the Enlightenment, feminism, Freud, the idea of progress, leftish views of all kinds, Marx,...metaphyiscs"

---

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-26-2006 12:21 PM

And where else will we find these "markers" aside FROM on the end product? Based on what? There is no scientific reason to suggest our own experience has any validity here. SETI makes the assumption that given our OWN existence other civilistions MAY exist in the universe. It has, on the other hand, yet to be demonstrated that a creator actually exists. Surely it would be best if this fact was established before we began to postulate about his/her/its designs? As long as you have no God, you have no theory. Where? These would be the same "markers" that you haven't yet defined and that we need not even observe on any end product, yes?Sorry, but this reply amounts to little more than a dodge.I'll say this very slowly and clearly:Show. Me. Some. Evidence. Of. I.D.And then we can talk about your "competing theory".This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-26-2006 12:40 PM

By "end product" do you mean AFTER a given "core Dawinism" as Gould intended in "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory"??

The markers don't define the product any more than the reasons a bolt might be used as a method of fixing two items (instead of welding them or rivetting them or sticking them) together defines a motorcycle. If the discussion had been focused on presenting evidence of ID or even the theory of ID then I would be more than happy to oblige. However it is not about that. It is about how one might go about assembling a theory aimed at supporting ID. Its about what design markers a theory might have. Not the product (theory) itself.As a SETI-like project, my broadcasts are either using poorly conceived criteria for seeking out intelligence. Or else there is no intelligent life out there Curious. There is no evidence of ET life yet a scientific project is set up to search for ET life. Maybe we should ask them for evidence of ET life before they go looking for it.This message has been edited by iano, 26-Apr-2006 05:38 PM

I'd be very interested to see this... fancy starting another thread? What they are doing is searching for evidence. If you could propose a way of searching for evidence of an intelligent designer, I'm sure quite a few people would be interested in doing the searching...as it is, we assume that we maybe able to pick up a radio or electromagnetic (and more recently laser) signatures that may indicate civilisation.

But a bolt is itself a designed object! It also carries clues to its method of construction (a rotating lathe) and its use (its threading). Your "markers", however, remain a riddle wrapped inside an enigma! Hahaha! I'm a newbie here but I've read though this forum very extensively and you don't want to know how many times I've read exactly the same response. A link will do nicely thank you very much. As I said before, the fact of our OWN existence combined with the discovery of planets in other star systems enables them to make a working assumption. They are currently searching for more positive evidence (in the form of a signal) to bolster this claim. The existence of a creator of any sort, however, has not been established, nor has any experimental means for us to find him/her/it.This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-26-2006 02:22 PM

Will's whole problem with ID is that it is "boring," that it gives the same answer to every inquiry (maybe that is just his "atheism" comeing out)about proteins. When Will asked Behe, in person, if that bothered him Behe was heard to have responded, "nO!". Now, I see no reason to not agree with Provine if indeed unlike a bolt every protein inspected spectrally turns out to only return the name of "irreducibly complex" but if indeed like a bolt the symmetry itself of the organized strucutre suggests hierarchical naming systems desigend for instance around a central electron action and a periferal photon motion, then the entire scholarship of Gould walks away to another day, but the student is left with a determined linguist deep structuring in thought able to be told again the next day. In other words, if proteins can be named by design principles irrespective of evolutionary speculation such that the class of the individual supramolecular structures retain through communication information otherwise dissiapted by the transmission medium not only will the secondary qualities retain positive value but the "boring" science will be the only thing that does not survive to the next generation of students. As Iano said this is about ID@CU so I do not want to get beyond what WIll might have said that was involved with this summer class, as I have ideas about REVERSE fundamental series that theoretically enable me to respond as I did.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-26-2006 01:14 PM

SIcne you claim SETI is doing something comparable, then it follows that SETI also excludes some natural means of producing radio signals on the grounds that they don't need to consider alternative sources.Please provide evidence that SETI actually does this.7

So basically your argument for using faulty criteria is that you might fool the (metaphorical) court. That pretty much closes down the possibiity of ID ever being real science.D