Meyer's Hopeless Monster

I agree with your assessment, especially...

Surely having recognised that the paper would be controversial it would have been wise of Sternberg to consult further than his one anonymous colleague who now appears to have decided not to put his head above the parapet.

I don't understand how any managing editor of a low key taxonomic journal would figure he has been given the "go ahead" to run something he knows WILL BE controversial... with the only okay being Meyers (apparently they talked about doing this the first time they met) and some "other guy".

In his list of how this wasn't outside the scope of the journal, he never really mentioned any "groundbreaking controversies". Nor if there were any, that it went forward without the understanding of the people actually running the journal.

A similar thing happened to an organization I worked for (though it was outside of science). The person who decided to go it alone to push through material they wanted to see was, whether any other terms can be used, a jerk for being inconsiderate to the rest of the people involved. No matter his excuses, I think he certainly retains that criticism.

This message has been edited by holmes, 09-17-2004 05:40 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Is talk design a peer-reviewed journal? Is N.J. Matzke a biologist?

What detail is offered on how the bac flag arose?

Biology in the Subjunctive Mood:A Response to Nicholas Matzke

The double-standards are obvious. Reality shows they exist.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Percy:
The underlying assumption of ID is the insufficiency of natural causes to account for biological structures and processes.

---

That is false. The underlying assertion is that it takes an intelligent agency to account for IC and CSI.

But please if you have ANY evidence that nature acting alone can bring about the biological structures with alleged IC then present it. Otherwise all you have is a belief system. Belief systems are not science.

quote:

---

Percy:
The ID terms complexity, contingency, specified, and specified complexity are all just invented, pulled out of thin air.

---

And that is pure assertion. Is assertion the best you have?

quote:

---

Percy:
And ID simply assumes an agent that has never been observed performing an action that has also never been observed, let alone defined.

---

There is the double-standard again. When has nature acting alone been observed to bring life from non-life? Why does an agent have to be defined before we can infer that an object is a product of design? Since when did the actual observance of an event make it necessary to infer something about that event?

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

The underlying assumption of ID is the insufficiency of natural causes to account for biological structures and processes. That is false. The underlying assertion is that it takes an intelligent agency to account for IC and CSI.

That's why I love these design guys. You tell them what they believe, and they tell you "that's false" and tell you what they think they believe, which, as it turns out, was exactly what you said in the first place.

When has nature acting alone been observed to bring life from non-life?

So, what you're saying is, the Fallacy of the False Dilemma is the best support you have for your argument?

Since when did the actual observance of an event make it necessary to infer something about that event?

Not the event; the mechanism.

Darwin couldn't propose natural selection as a mechanism of evolution until he had seen selection in action. Similarly, intelligence can't be proposed as the source of biological systems until we see an intelligence create a biological system.

quote:

---

holmes:
Maybe, maybe not. However we do have evidence that YOU are a creationist.

---

I am sure that you think you do.

quote:

---

holmes:
You stated that a person who does NOT believe in common descent would be in the creationist camp.

---

I don't believe that is what I said. IDists don't have to believe in common descent. IDists CAN believe in common descent, Creationists don't. That is the difference. IDists follow the evidence. IF that evidence leads us to the conclusions of Creationists- that there were many different types of organisms that first populated the Earth- so be it.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

The underlying assumption of ID is the insufficiency of natural causes to account for biological structures and processes. That is false. The underlying assertion is that it takes an intelligent agency to account for IC and CSI.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
That's why I love these design guys. You tell them what they believe, and they tell you "that's false" and tell you what they think they believe, which, as it turns out, was exactly what you said in the first place.

---

If you think that is what took place, not only are you wrong, but there are other words I won't use that describe you very well.

When has nature acting alone been observed to bring life from non-life?

quote:

---

crashfrog:
So, what you're saying is, the Fallacy of the False Dilemma is the best support you have for your argument?

---

Wrong again. I was merely asking for the positive evidence for materialistic naturalism. I see you can't provide any.

Since when did the actual observance of an event make it necessary to infer something about that event?

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Not the event; the mechanism.

---

Design is a mechanism. Also we have the following:

ID and Mechanisms

and

A Brief word on Mechanisms

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Darwin couldn't propose natural selection as a mechanism of evolution until he had seen selection in action.

---

Actually Darwin stole the idea of NS. However we still haven't observed NS create anything from scratch.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Similarly, intelligence can't be proposed as the source of biological systems until we see an intelligence create a biological system.

---

Ever hear of genetic engineering? By your logic we can't propose that life or biological structures came about by nature acting alone because we NEVER observed nature acting alone doing so.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

PaulK:
Given Philip Johnson's standing in the ID movement if he asks a member to resign for endorsing Common Descent then we have strong evidence that Common Descent is against the ID movement's "official line" even if they permit others holding similar views to remain.

---

Yup, sure, whatever you say. Please present the evidence that is what took place. I will take the word of IDists over your inference based on partial evidence.

Taken from
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1329

The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us.

The only evidence you have exists in your mind and maybe the minds of other anti-IDists. IOW you have nothing.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

but there are other words I won't use that describe you very well.

Really? Because so far, the only words you seem unwilling to use are the words that would support your arguments with evidence.

I was merely asking for the positive evidence for materialistic naturalism.

No, you were asked for the evidence for a designer. You offered a supposed lack of evidence for naturalism via a rhetorical question.

But that's the fallacy of the false dilemma. Even if you were to somehow disprove naturalism, that wouldn't substantiate an intelligent designer.

Design is a mechanism.

Design is never a mechanism. Only someone completely ignorant of the way things are made would make such a statement.

Turning something on a lathe? That's a mechanism. Casting in bronze? That's a mechanism.

"Design"? Not a mechanism.

Actually Darwin stole the idea of NS.

Irrelevant. Darwin was the first to propose a scientific model of evolution because he was the first to indentify the mechanisms.

However we still haven't observed NS create anything from scratch.

NS doesn't create, NS selects. RM creates.

Together, we've seen these processes generate endless variety and novelty, as you have been shown in other threads.

Ever hear of genetic engineering?

Certainly, but I've never heard of it doing anything but shuffle genes already created by natural selection and random mutation. I've never heard of any genetic engineers engineering a totally novel organism from scratch, as you would have us believe intelligence can do.

By your logic we can't propose that life or biological structures came about by nature acting alone because we NEVER observed nature acting alone doing so.

We observe it in every new organism.

I was merely asking for the positive evidence for materialistic naturalism.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
No, you were asked for the evidence for a designer. You offered a supposed lack of evidence for naturalism via a rhetorical question.

---

I gave evidence for design. Then I asked for you and your ilk to do the same but to support your faith.

On NS RM:

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Together, we've seen these processes generate endless variety and novelty, as you have been shown in other threads.

---

That would be a lie. Please point me to where I have been shown this. Even Theobald's 29 evidences doesn't discuss a mechanism.

on genetic engineering:

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Certainly, but I've never heard of it doing anything but shuffle genes already created by natural selection and random mutation. I've never heard of any genetic engineers engineering a totally novel organism from scratch, as you would have us believe intelligence can do.

---

Talk about moving goalposts! Can you support your assertion that the genes were already created by natural selection and random mutation?

No one has ever heard of nature acting alone bring about a totally novel organism from scratch.

By your logic we can't propose that life or biological structures came about by nature acting alone because we NEVER observed nature acting alone doing so.

[quote]

Nice unsubstantiated assertion. Seems that is what evolutionists are good at.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

Thanks for demonstrating what ID is all about. Insinuations and falsehoods and spin.

I didn't ask for peer-reviewed papers, and if no details were offered it would be easy for you to show an equivlaent from the ID movement. But you can't.

And there are no double standards except in the imagination of those who desperately wish to suppress the criticisms made of ID.

I gave evidence for design.

No, what you gave was what you viewed as a lack of evidence for naturalism.

Thus, you committed the fallacy of the false dilemma. It really is that simple.

Please point me to where I have been shown this.

Lac operons in E. coli.

Even Theobald's 29 evidences doesn't discuss a mechanism.

The mechanisms are natural selection and random mutation, working together.

Can you support your assertion that the genes were already created by natural selection and random mutation?

Of course. We know that selection occurs because it's impossible for it not to, based on the laws of physics. We know that random mutation occurs because it's impossible for it not to, based on the laws of physics. We don't know of any other operating processes, and have certainly observed none.

In the same way that we conclude that it is gravity that holds you in your seat like everybody else and not your own personal invisible angels, we conclude that these genes were the process of NS and RM.

No one has ever heard of nature acting alone bring about a totally novel organism from scratch.

Since it only had to happen once, and could not now happen on Earth, that's not surprising.

Nice unsubstantiated assertion.

You believe that it is merely an assertion that organisms reproduce? Or that organisms take non-living matter as food in order to construct themselves?

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-18-2004 12:07 PM

Me: You stated that a person who does NOT believe in common descent would be in the creationist camp.

IDman: I don't believe that is what I said.

Uhmmmmm, well here is the exchange witnessed in post #55 in this very thread...

PaulK: Let us also point out that Behe sees acceptance of common descent as the issue which distinguishes him from creationists. Where then do we place a movement which rejects common descent ?

IDman: In the Creation camp, which shows that ID is NOT Creation.

What's the difference between a movement and an individual who rejects common descent?

IDists don't have to believe in common descent. IDists CAN believe in common descent, Creationists don't. That is the difference

Hanging your hat on a choice doesn't help you.

IF ID is a scientific theory that is supposed to compete with evolution as a rival scientific theory it will have to have some sort of answer to this question. Otherwise it is a lesser model.

IDists follow the evidence. IF that evidence leads us to the conclusions of Creationists- that there were many different types of organisms that first populated the Earth- so be it.

This is of course the point being made. The EVIDENCE as it CURRENTLY STANDS is wholly in support for common descent. That is why common descent is part and parcel of current SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

Only a creationist can avoid the evidence enough to try and argue he has a choice as a scientist. This is why Behe and Jones were two examples of scientists trying to stay within appropriate scientific bounds.

Those pretending they have a choice and so can doubt it, are rejecting the evidence and science... creationists, even by your own standards.

I hope you understand this.

I gave evidence for design

No you gave proposed criteria and an example of how it might work on a biological organism. Until the criteria can be proven experimentally the example of its application is useless.

Here is an example.

I say that I have come up with a way to detect "xatus" in objects, and treat a strip of paper with a chemical which I claim will react and exhibit the presence of "xatus". Xatus will turn the paper yellow, otherwise it will just stay the same color.

I touch it to various objects and some turn the strips yellow, some don't. See then, I say, I have proven they have Xatus.

Well that's just a bunch of snake oil.

I need to define what xatus is, I need to explain what the mechanism I am using to detect xatus is, and it must be proven in experiments to detect between objects that have xatus and those which do not.

I defy you to find any experiments by any ID theorists (beyond vague thought experiments) to prove the detection criteria work.

The problem with Behe is that he has jumped to application without proving the criteria. Examples of what he claims are IC systems, have in some cases been later proven not to be IC at all (which his classification would have ended further research). There are also IC systems (by his def) which are known to have been produced through intermediate steps.

And Behe is the best ID has.

That would be a lie. Please point me to where I have been shown this.

Crash has given you examples. You are the liar.

No one has ever heard of nature acting alone bring about a totally novel organism from scratch.

Thankfully evolutionary theory does not state that this has ever happened.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Since it only had to happen once, and could not now happen on Earth, that's not surprising.

Well it never had to happen at all. Remember he said from scratch. What the hell is scratch? Even evo theory involves complex precursor materials which are not life, but can assemble an organism in the right environment.

This sounded to me like he was trying to cart out the "dog never gives birth to a chicken" argument with a new coat of paint.

There never was a scratch.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

ID man writes: quote: Percy: The underlying assumption of ID is the insufficiency of natural causes to account for biological structures and processes. That is false. The underlying assertion is that it takes an intelligent agency to account for IC and CSI.

Not sure why you're objecting to this, I'm just repeating a well known IDist position. Dembski says this in extremely similar words in his book, The Design Revolution. You seem to be quibbling about descriptive labels, but no matter what you call it, it is still accurate to say that ID assumes as fundamental that natural causes are insufficient to account for biological structures and processes. From this they conclude they must have been designed by an intelligence.

But please if you have ANY evidence that nature acting alone can bring about the biological structures with alleged IC then present it. Otherwise all you have is a belief system. Belief systems are not science.

Science is not free to propose processes for which there is no evidence, but this is the approach taken by ID, and that is why it is not science. It is encumbent upon those who are convinced that nature acting alone could not bring about the variety and complexity of life to find evidence for the agents and processes of ID. If they've been active throughout the history of evolution guiding it along then they should still be active today, and you should be able to find evidence of them.

quote: Percy: The ID terms complexity, contingency, specified, and specified complexity are all just invented, pulled out of thin air. And that is pure assertion. Is assertion the best you have?

I say this because of the absence of any record of observational and experimental data from which the concepts of ID might have been culled. Without such a foundation it is justified to say they were invented. If I am incorrect and there is a body of research supporting the basic concepts of ID and their application to biological structures and processes then please just let us know.

quote: Percy: And ID simply assumes an agent that has never been observed performing an action that has also never been observed, let alone defined. There is the double-standard again. When has nature acting alone been observed to bring life from non-life? Why does an agent have to be defined before we can infer that an object is a product of design? Since when did the actual observance of an event make it necessary to infer something about that event?

There is no double standard. I'm just holding ID to the same standards to which science holds itself. To use your example of the puzzle of how life arose from non-life, science doesn't really know how that happened, though there are a number of informed speculations, but science assumes that all the same physical laws that govern the universe today and which we have established through extensive observation and experiment were also in play during the appearance of the first life. ID, on the other hand, postulates agents and processes for which there is no evidence, and that's why its proposals are not science.

The support for ID you've offered so far is of the form, "Just look at the bacterial flagellum. It is obviously designed." But this isn't evidence. It would be as invalid for evolution to say, "Just look at the bacterial flagellum. It obviously evolved." If we're to answer the question of the origin of the bacterial flagellum in a scientific manner then we must study how known physical laws operating on matter might have brought it about. ID doesn't do this because by its own statements (I again cite Dembski) the agent and the means used by this agent are not known, and further (and weirdly) are not even of interest to ID. This is reminescent of the scientific creationism position advocated by Duane Gish that the means by which the Creator created are not amenable to scientific study.

--Percy