Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

I've been very much discouraed by some of the portrayals of intelligent design. In way too many topics, people describe it as a scientific nothing, and say that evolution has so much evidence behind it that there's no point to believing in ID. I thought that this board was supposed to counter perceptions like this and explore the creation vs. evolution for what it truly is, and not as a one-sided debate. People like Dembski and Meyer, and organizations like the Center for Science and Culture, Access Research Network, and the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center can quickly rebut some of these clearly false portrayals of intelligent design. Even using common sense, the idea that this whole controversy, that the curriculum at places like Kanasas, that the scientists who put work into intelligent design, that they all are working to promote a scientific nothing, would be proposterous on its face.I've also seen people who object to evolution or agree with ID described by words such as bigots, morons, and fringe nutcases. What is disturbing that believing in the creation side seems to be warrant enough for such labels. It is frustrating to try to post on this forum and yet have my side victimized by such negative stereotypes, and many times my posts have to spend a disproportionately large amount of time refuting these stereotypes or exposing simple logical fallacies within these stereotypes.I do not understand how any progress can be made on a creations versus evolution board and how it can have any purpose if people want to maintain that it is a fact that ID has gotten nowhere scientifically, or that negative stereotypes of the creation or anti-evolution side would be allowed to exist.Actions like this put the board one step closer to becoming like TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy, a site that claims to explore the controversy but is inherently biased towards evolution. Changed thread title. --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 03-28-2005 09:02 AM

You know, I've had the ability to post some of this for longer than you have known, but the disturbing thing is that I'm required to post this. It would be one thing to say that a certain aspect or tenet of ID is not science or that it creates a non-falsifiable theory, but to extend that accusation to the entire theory of intelligent design on a creation vs evolution board is proposterous. Too many topics are getting bogged down with such worthless requests.And to pre-empt this argument, don't try citing the rules and saying that assertions must be backed up with evidence. What I'm doing here is saying that claiming that ID is a scientific nothing is an abusive assertion, destroying clash and making the debate too one-sided. Let me remind you that I'm a debater, so don't try to pull the wool over my eyes on this one. Every time I've previously made this claim, the typical reaction is to turn this into an evidence war. However, that doesn't really clash with my claims of abuse.Frequently Asked Questions | Center for Science and Culture5. Are there established scholars in the scientific community who support intelligent design theory?Yes. Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.6. Is research about intelligent design published in peer-reviewed journals and monographs?Yes. Although open hostility from those who hold to neo-Darwinism sometimes makes it difficult for design scholars to gain a fair hearing for their ideas, research and articles supporting intelligent design are being published in peer-reviewed publications. Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski and Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe. Additional peer-reviewed books about design theory are scheduled to be published in 2003 and 2004 by Michigan State University Press and Cambridge University Press. In the area of journals, Michael Behe has defended his concept of "irreducible complexity" in the peer-reviewed journal Philosophy of Science published by the University of Chicago. There is also now a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on design theory, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, which has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations. Finally, the works of design theorists are starting to be cited by other scholars in peer-reviewed journals such as the Annual Review of Genetics.FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable? FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testableYes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!FAQ: Will intelligent design lead to false positives (or could it eventually say that "everything" is designed)?FAQ: Will intelligent design lead to false positives (or could it eventually say that "everything" is designed)?A false positive is when you say something is true, but it really isn't. Right now, science probably have to worry about ID producing false negative (saying something ID isn't designed, when it really is) because science already operates under the presumption that nothing is designed anyway, so "false negatives" will not change how science currently works. But false positives could pose a problem for science--if we begin to infer design when we really shouldn't. However, false positives are always a problem in many scientific theories--where we are making claims based upon inferences. If the evidence points to design, we should infer it. We can be careful and use the explanatory filter to only detect design in certain circumstances where the evidence seems to warrant design. If we do infer design, that doesn't stop us from still investigating natural causes.

Here we go with the abuse then. This is just frustrating that I can't quote evidence without having it automatically discredited as propaganda. If I can't quote evidence without this happening, why should I use evidence at all? Likewise, should the entire talk.origins archive be thrown out because it's evolution propaganda? You have absolutely no proof to back up this baseless and crude claim. I would also suggest that you acquaint yourself with the "ad hominem" logical fallacy as well, as it will easily discredit your position.It's these types of frivolous claims that are creating problems with this forum.Also, look at Charles Knight and Ooook! Now that I've satisfied some of the users and posted some evidence, they think that my appropiate reward is to mock me for my efforts.And can I at least have an admin or a mod weigh in on my first post?

You see this is why I didn't want to post evidence. I specifically said that this would turn into an evidence war and there would be any clash referring to my claims of abuse, and look what happens. No one has really even attempted to respond to my claims of abuse. In fact, nowhere in your entire post is abuse mentioned. However, this topic is titled "Abusive assumptions." Once again, while I wouldn't mind getting into an evidence war over specific tenets of ID, it is simply unacceptable withing the context of this forum to argue that ID and creation as a whole are unscientific.Also, no one has dealt with the negative stereotypes problem that I raised in the second post of my argument.This message has been edited by commike37, 03-24-2005 05:49 PM

This is not about evidence. It's about abuse and being reasonable. I've clearly stated this, I've clearly warned about turning this topic into an evidence war, and yet I'm still ignored.

So you want to maintain that it's OK to call creos bigots, morons, and nutcases, and that this is not stereotyping? Actually, I haven't done that. But I've now been stereotyped as doing that just because I'm a creo.This message has been edited by commike37, 03-24-2005 06:02 PM

Furthermore, let me point out some more abuse.That evidence from the Center for Science and Culture said
"[PCID] has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations."
but you want to maintain, using your own words and yourself as a source of credibility
"PCID journal mentioned is peer-reviewed by IDers only, is published only on-line, and only contains theoretical/philosophical and/or review papers." I thought I just covered that with "FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?"---
Unfortunately, when I do present evidence, it's being filtered out through your selective filter.

Furthermore, let me point out some more abuse.That evidence from the Center for Science and Culture said
"[PCID] has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations."
but you want to maintain, using your own words and yourself as a source of credibility
"PCID journal mentioned is peer-reviewed by IDers only, is published only on-line, and only contains theoretical/philosophical and/or review papers." I thought I just covered that with "FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?"---
Unfortunately, when I do present evidence, it's being filtered out through your selective filter.

So I'm understanding that it's OK to mock users, right? Ah, the peer-reviewed study. Yet another argument IDEA refutes. I'm only going to post the link since this isn't my main focus:
FAQ: Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed science journals?
The IDEA website cas also discredit so many of these false perceptions you have about ID. And I want to discuss real ID rather than to have to spend every topic refuting these false perceptions about ID. I don't like you think you can simply claim that all of this evidence is invalid with a blanket statement.And I thought I mentioned this earlier at "FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?"It seems that my evidence is being scrutinized in an unfair way. This is more of a complaint than a new topic. And cut the attitude. You continue the mocking attituted with the "LOL, ROTF, LMAO etc."---
Furthermore, I want to clarify that this is about abuse, not evidence. This point is ignored by many users once again. In fact, I want anyone who posts a reply to this message to specifically quote this part and discuss it, and to do so by focusing on abuse, not evidence.

That is part of my main point. This isn't an inflamatory remark, it's a debate tactic showing how the the assumption is abusive.

The long answer [if you follow the link I gave you] will give a more in-depth explanation. I didn't want to post it though, because it's long, and I want to focus on abuse, not evidence. And even without the long explanation, it's their words vs your words. And I believe that it would be reasonable to trust IDEA more than I trust a random user on a random board.And even with everything you mentioned, you're still turning this into an evidence debate, more specifically an example debate. You want to maintain that in the history of ID, no one has treated it in a proper scientific way, and that all of these scientists, despite their credentials, have misrepresented science. Now that is abusive. Even if you're right on these two [edit: two examples you brought up in your post], these are only two examples. Through all of this evidence I was hoping to give you a broad perspective of what ID had really become. And it's silly to think that this whole scientific controversy and all of its venues were based off of an unscientific theory.This message has been edited by commike37, 03-24-2005 06:43 PMThis message has been edited by commike37, 03-24-2005 07:01 PM

Askiing for evidence to prove a certain aspect or tenet of ID is reasonable, but to suggest that all of ID and the creaton side are unscientific is just abusive. It just clutters this board with too many useless challenges. I've covered this in depth in Message 29 and Message 1.

Still though, there's been a noticeable trend in topics lately with this argument.Should intelligent design be taught in schools?
No, ID isn't science, so it shouldn't be taught in science classes.This person believes in ID. What a fool...who would believe in non-science.Now I could go on and on, but the main problem is that many of these topics could get into many interesting issues, but some are just degrading into an "ID isn't science" debate.It kind of reminds me about how Bush responded (yes, a Republican is posting a criticism of Bush, though I'm mostly recalling this from my memory of what someone else said in a discussion of this debate) to Kerry's attacks on Iraq. He seemed to echo again and again how Kerry's criticisms were bad for the troops morale, sends mixed messages to the troops, etc, trying to turn each argument with this neo-con response. The same thing is happening with "ID isn't science."Also, saying that ID isn't science seems to really undermine and oversimplify the progress the intelligent design has made. It's basically claiming that the 300 on the Dissent from Darwin list, Beckwith, Campbell, Craig, Dembski, Gonzalez, Hartwig, Mims, Weikart, Pearcey, The Center for Science and Culture, Access Research Network, The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center, Intelligent Design Network, Inc, and many others who I don't have time to put on this list are all wrong, that despite all of their combined credentials, not one of them has presented a viable theory on ID that fits "X" criteria. A lot of primers and FAQs from the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center can easily refute many of the misconceptions presented in this topic alone. IDEA has even written a refutation to an ACLU brief on this subject. Now I could go on an on about these accomplishments, but I'll let it rest because that's not what I'm here for. I'm here to establish some respect for ID. To say that despite everything I've listed here and much that I've left out, that ID can't put forth a plausible theory is just plain ludicrous. It would be nice if people could learn to respect ID as science more without having to have this evidence thrown at them.Don't misconstrue me on this, however. I'm certainly not going to advocate that all of these aforementioned authors and groups are right, and that they conclusively prove that ID wins and evolution loses. It reminds me of something I read in a debate handbook which basically said don't expect to win every argument. But at the same time, the other side shouldn't think that they can win every argument, that every theory related to intelligent design has been dealt with, and thus we can conclude that ID should not be considered a form of science. A lot of this is interpretation, too. While I mentioned my desire to keep this evidence minimal (for the purpose of this topic), let me pull one piece from the IDEA FAQ: Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed science journals? A lot of this is about interpretting the evidence, too, not just citing loads of evidence, so this issue of ID not being science is not as cut and dry (in many ways, not just in the specific one I mentioned in my piece of evidence) as you would think.As an aside, it's interesting that although I provided substantial evidence once in this topic, that everybody thought they could win by simply analyzing this evidence with their own brain, and pointing out every little detail. I didn't see anyone really quote a source as a piece of counter-evidence. And even if some evidence is weak or doesn't fit "X" criteria, it's certainly better than no evidence at all. And I was just plain pissed about this counter-post by PaulK That was basically his blanket standard for rejecting all of my evidence.Finally, let me leave you [edit: you does not specifically refer to AdminAsgara, it's more like a you all] with two warnings.
1: I find the idea of being of hoping to be as prestigious as TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy quite scary. The subtitle reads "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy." However, this website presents a very biased, one-sided story. When http://www.trueorigins.org came about, it quite frankly stated, "We're biased towards creation." They didn't try to add a nice subtitle or to list some sites on the other side to look good. They openly admitted their bias. That's part of the reason why I like the Center for Science and Culture. They may not support the required teaching of ID in schools, but they don't oppose it or claim its unconstitutional or anything like that. In this way, they act as a balancing force.
2: There's a general feeling of elitism on the evolution side. Let me tell you a story to explain this. This year I was one of six in my school's first Advanced Competitive Forensics (advanced debate) class. We were so small that we were put in with the regular debate class. When it came time for a discussion about the class at the end of the semester, one student noted that the ACF class seemed very cocky or elitist to her. That comment caught me off guard, but unfortunatly a feeling deep inside told me she was right. It feels like the very same thing is happening here.This message has been edited by commike37, 03-24-2005 10:51 PMThis message has been edited by commike37, 03-25-2005 01:06 AM

Cut it, Lam. Nowhere have I made any references to my faith or to the designer being the Christian god. This is just more negative stereotyping and blatant discriminatin.It is possible to believe in ID and not be a stereotypical right-wing Christian fundie. Consider this excerpt from the ABC News article, "Famous Atheist Now Believes In God," about an atheist named Tony Flew. And as for his reason for converting: Furthermore, your post here should automatically be rejected due to an "ad hominem" fallacy. And as far as I know, evolution can't change the rules of logic.

I've spent part of my post listing all of the people and organizations who have supported ID in one form or another. I just want you all to realize the progress ID has made without me having to rehash evidence for every potential topic that would degrade into an "ID isn't science" debate. If we can get beyond this silly proposition then we can start doing a more in-depth exploration of the controversy. And notice how I specifically construct this part of my post to talk about how I'm asking the same thing for both evolution and ID. To win this argument, you're going to have deal with this issue of uniqueness for your argument.
----- You never directly refute my claim here. Even a cursory observation of the web site, for example, the post of the month section, would reveal that it is almost exclusively composed of pro-evolution or anti-creation science. I challeng you to find one piece of pro-creation or anti-evolution evidence from that website [this should be an easy challenge, but I'll make the next one harder if you succeed]. There's a serious issue of resource allocation here, that is, allocating research to an evolutionary viewpoint solely. How do you call such exclusion true science?