Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Creationism
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 136 of 154 (197142)
04-06-2005 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by commike37
03-23-2005 8:51 PM


Welcome back, Commike37
Post 133 left you with what I thought was the simplest thing for you to answer.
You requested time in the classroom for ID. You suggested it was all (or is that 'only') about purpose.
Post 133 asks that, since you wanted time for something in the classroom, you tell us what that is. I would think that would be something that you would have all ready to post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by commike37, posted 03-23-2005 8:51 PM commike37 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by NosyNed, posted 04-12-2005 6:59 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 137 of 154 (198785)
04-12-2005 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by NosyNed
04-06-2005 12:39 AM


Bump for Commike37
I will lose my connection next week for a bit (another move!).
Meanwhile, there was this issue of what should be taught in the science classroom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by NosyNed, posted 04-06-2005 12:39 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 138 of 154 (199655)
04-15-2005 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by commike37
03-23-2005 10:21 PM


Post 133 for Commike37
You wanted something taught in the "equal time"?
Have you forgotten this thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by commike37, posted 03-23-2005 10:21 PM commike37 has not replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 154 (200252)
04-18-2005 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by NosyNed
03-26-2005 11:57 PM


Draft of a Curriculum
That other topic seems to be quieting down so I'll move on over here.
Well, you could start out with a brief history of intelligent design from Plato to Paley to today. Then you could start getting into some basics of modern ID, especially Dembski's explanatory filter. Don't forget to specifically explain that modern ID can't ID (unintended pun) the designer. Throw in some of the accomplishments of ID (like the discovery that junk DNA may not be junk). After that, segway into the modern ID-evolution controversy. That's a cursory draft of a possible curriculum. Also remember that it doesn't have to go too far into detail as well. Biology class was never meant to be an authorative reference on evolution or ID (those who would want to delve further into evolution or ID would probably have to do so on their own time). I doubt that any of the advanced arguments I've seen here have come from biology class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by NosyNed, posted 03-26-2005 11:57 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2005 2:35 AM commike37 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 140 of 154 (200284)
04-19-2005 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by commike37
04-18-2005 10:37 PM


Re: Draft of a Curriculum
quote:
Well, you could start out with a brief history of intelligent design from Plato to Paley to today.
Don't forget to mention that Hume is accepted as having discredted the entire argument.
quote:
Then you could start getting into some basics of modern ID, especially Dembski's explanatory filter.
Don't remember to mention that nobody actually makes serious use of the filter. At present it's just a theoretical curiosity - and there's no sign that that will change.
quote:
Don't forget to specifically explain that modern ID can't ID (unintended pun) the designer
You mean that most in the ID movement mean "God" but find it politically awkward to mention it except when trying to mobilise political support amongst fellow-beleivers.
As well as the fact that the ID movement completely rejects the idea that we can infer the nature of the "designer" from the alleged "designs" because that evidence points away from the cinlusion they want.
quote:
Throw in some of the accomplishments of ID (like the discovery that junk DNA may not be junk).
If ID has real achievements why are you trying to steal somebody elses ?
quote:
After that, segway into the modern ID-evolution controversy
And we should say that it is a purely political controversy - stirred up by a religious group which wants to get their ideas into the school curriculum.
The trouble is that there isn't an awful lot of biology here. There's philosphy (Plato, Paley and Hume). A bit of mathematical theory that doesn't seem to have any real relevance to practical science. A lot of political claims. And one false claim of success in biology.
I suppose it would be worth letting kids know the truth about ID - we can skip the philosophy. ID's scientific failures and political record is damning enough,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by commike37, posted 04-18-2005 10:37 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by commike37, posted 04-19-2005 4:47 PM PaulK has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 154 (200448)
04-19-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by PaulK
04-19-2005 2:35 AM


Re: Draft of a Curriculum
First off, the history of ID was moreso to give some background on the subject. It wasn't supposed to be the meat of the content, it's just an intro to segway into modern ID theory. (edit: it could also include the design scientists who existsed up until the rise of evolution)
And we should say that it is a purely political controversy - stirred up by a religious group which wants to get their ideas into the school curriculum.
Oh, I see, it's always blame it on the Christian right. They're the cause of all the problems in the world. These scientists who work with ID try to make some positive progress, and if they have a personal faith, they try to keep it separate from their scientific work. And yet despite all they try to do, all you can do is dismiss it as a religious/political controversy. Have you taken into account that there may also be some people who believe in ID that are not from the Christian right? Not only is this comment fallacious in multiple ways (two of them are a generalization and ad hominem), but I find it personally offensive when this controversy is constantly blamed on the "Christian right."
Don't remember to mention that nobody actually makes serious use of the filter. At present it's just a theoretical curiosity - and there's no sign that that will change.
There's a nice little unsupported assertion. Do you want to bring a scientific challenge to this filter? In fact, do you bring in a single piece of evidence or a logical attack that doesn't involve the word "political" or "religious"?
This message has been edited by commike37, 04-19-2005 03:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2005 2:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by CK, posted 04-19-2005 4:52 PM commike37 has replied
 Message 144 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2005 5:36 PM commike37 has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 142 of 154 (200453)
04-19-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by commike37
04-19-2005 4:47 PM


Re: Draft of a Curriculum
quote:
There's a nice little unsupported assertion. Do you want to bring a scientific challenge to this filter
Well you can kill this stone dead then - give us an example of the application of this filter to a real world example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by commike37, posted 04-19-2005 4:47 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by commike37, posted 04-19-2005 5:22 PM CK has not replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 154 (200456)
04-19-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by CK
04-19-2005 4:52 PM


Re: Draft of a Curriculum
First off, despite the requests I receive for evidence, rarely do I see the people making these requests use evidence before they make this request. But that's just my observation...
Anyway, people do use Dembski's explanatory filter. It's a huge part of modern ID right now, so you can come to expect that it will be used even more in the future.
quote:
     Response to ACLU ID FAQ: Part 4
Note: The author is Casey Luskin, writing in the first-person.
Regarding original research, this is a complete bluff. In 2002, over 50 leading proponents of intelligent design gathered at Biola University for the RAPID (Research and Progress in Intelligent Design) conference where I attended. I witnessed numerous researchers who presented papers on protein specificity, and using Dembski's explanatory filter, found that many biological systems bear exceedingly high levels of complex and specified information, implying they are the result of design. All of these presenters presented their own lab research which they personally conducted.
Granted, the explantory filter may not be 100% perfect, but science is a constant process of revising and improving your work, as perfection in science is the unreachable holy grail. I doubt evolution as presented in Origin of Species is an accurate scientific portrayal today (many counter-arguments to it and counter-counter arguments and so on have been developed). However, the explantory filter is making some real progress in the world of ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by CK, posted 04-19-2005 4:52 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by JonF, posted 04-19-2005 5:46 PM commike37 has replied
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2005 6:05 PM commike37 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 144 of 154 (200461)
04-19-2005 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by commike37
04-19-2005 4:47 PM


Re: Draft of a Curriculum
Well the religious group I had in mind was the Discovery Insititute's CSRC. Did I say anything about the "Christan right" ?
And if they aren't all "Christian" that doesn't mean that they aren't religiously motivated - Jonathan Wells certainly is.
BTW if you know of any other scientific movement that had to get pushed into the science curriculum before producing results let me know. Dembski suggested just that http://www.designinference.com/...ents/2002.07.Mike_Gene.htm
And finally:
quote:
Don't remember to mention that nobody actually makes serious use of the filter. At present it's just a theoretical curiosity - and there's no sign that that will change.
There's a nice little unsupported assertion. Do you want to bring a scientific challenge to this filter?
Now there ARE theoretical problems with the filter but that isn't what I said, is it ? If you want to argue that Dembski's EF is being seriously used then produce some examples - real examples not assertions that some unnamed person or persons has used it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by commike37, posted 04-19-2005 4:47 PM commike37 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 145 of 154 (200466)
04-19-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by commike37
04-19-2005 5:22 PM


Dembski's EF is a failure
Your reference, by Casey Luskin, does not contain any examples of the application of the filter (whic is whaat was requested). It merely contains a claim that applications exist, with no references at which one could verify or debunk that claim.
Granted, the explantory filter may not be 100% perfect, but science is a constant process of revising and improving your work, as perfection in science is the unreachable holy grail.
The EF is an abject failure. A few of the fatal flaws:
  • Calculating the probability required to eliminate chance requires perfect or near perfect knowledge of the possible ways in which the event of interest could happen, which nobody has for any real-world problem. See Dembskis' laughable "calculation" for the flagellum in No Free Lunch, demolished at Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates:
    quote:
    Since Dembski's method is supposed to be based on probability and he has promised readers of his earlier work a probability calculation, he proceeds to calculate a probability for the origin of the flagellum. But this calculation is based on the assumption that the flagellum arose suddenly, as an utterly random combination of proteins. The calculation is elaborate but totally irrelevant, since no evolutionary biologist proposes that complex biological systems appeared in this way. In fact, this is the same straw man assumption frequently made by Creationists in the past, and which has been likened to a Boeing 747 being assembled by a tornado blowing through a junkyard.
  • The EF assumes design as the default, with no justification. This is a false dichotomy (trichotomy?). Any eliminative procedure for which the final default choice is not "Insufficient information to reach a conclusion" is snake oil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by commike37, posted 04-19-2005 5:22 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by commike37, posted 04-19-2005 9:57 PM JonF has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 146 of 154 (200480)
04-19-2005 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by commike37
04-19-2005 5:22 PM


Uses of Dembski's EF
So Casey Luskin CLAIMS that there were "numerous" researchers who had successfully used Dembski's EF. More then 2 years ago.
So where are the published examples ? You can't say that there hasn't been time to get a few examples out. There's no excuse for not producing the results - if they existed in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by commike37, posted 04-19-2005 5:22 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by commike37, posted 04-19-2005 9:59 PM PaulK has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 154 (200552)
04-19-2005 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by JonF
04-19-2005 5:46 PM


Re: Dembski's EF is a failure
Your reference, by Casey Luskin, does not contain any examples of the application of the filter (whic is whaat was requested). It merely contains a claim that applications exist, with no references at which one could verify or debunk that claim.
I will admit that it is hard to find published examples (but that's an entirely different subject, or maybe I'm just not looking in the right spots), but a biology class wouldn't have the time to analyze such applications case-by-case. For the purpose of biology class, it would probably be enough to know that the explanatory filter exists, explain how it works, and then know that people do use it (and then dig up an example or two of it). Just like the biology class would present criticism of evolution, it could also present criticisms of the explanatory filter as well.
Second, even though that evidence doesn't contain any actual examples, it still is evidence. You would have a lower burden of refutation since I didn't bring up any specific examples, but that doesn't mean you don't have a burden of refutation.
Calculating the probability required to eliminate chance requires perfect or near perfect knowledge of the possible ways in which the event of interest could happen, which nobody has for any real-world problem. See Dembskis' laughable "calculation" for the flagellum in No Free Lunch, demolished at Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates:
It's quite odd. Your evidence refers to the "straw man," but the use of the bacterial flagellum example to prove that it's impossible to calculate the probability of chance is by itself a straw man. OK, maybe Dembski did mess up his calculations with the flagellum, but does that mean we can't calculate the chance of anything?
The EF assumes design as the default, with no justification. This is a false dichotomy (trichotomy?). Any eliminative procedure for which the final default choice is not "Insufficient information to reach a conclusion" is snake oil.
Your comment on assuming design by default doesn't hold much weight as well. I could easily turn this and argue that evolution assumes chance by default, so this is non-unique. Or, I could point out that specified complexity is a two-fold criterion (speficied and complex). Considering that something has to meet a criterion to be design, I wouldn't exactly call that design by default.
The explanatory filter isn't the flaw you made it out to be. Some of the finer details of it will be hashed out and debated by scientists, but you can't put up a good enough case that the explanatory filter is so flawed that we can't teach it at all in the classroom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by JonF, posted 04-19-2005 5:46 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by JonF, posted 04-19-2005 10:20 PM commike37 has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 154 (200555)
04-19-2005 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by PaulK
04-19-2005 6:05 PM


Interesting Claim
So you want to claim without any evidence to prove this that Luskin lied and that all of these examples were fabricated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2005 6:05 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2005 2:56 AM commike37 has not replied
 Message 154 by JonF, posted 04-20-2005 9:31 PM commike37 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 149 of 154 (200559)
04-19-2005 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by commike37
04-19-2005 9:57 PM


Re: Dembski's EF is a failure
I will admit that it is hard to find published examples (but that's an entirely different subject, or maybe I'm just not looking in the right spots), but a biology class wouldn't have the time to analyze such applications case-by-case. For the purpose of biology class, it would probably be enough to know that the explanatory filter exists, explain how it works, and then know that people do use it (and then dig up an example or two of it).
However, we're still looking for evidence that people use it and that there exist any examples of it.
It's quite odd. Your evidence refers to the "straw man," but the use of the bacterial flagellum example to prove that it's impossible to calculate the probability of chance is by itself a straw man.
Really. Exactly in what way does the reference misrepresent what Dembski did?
OK, maybe Dembski did mess up his calculations with the flagellum, but does that mean we can't calculate the chance of anything?
No, it doesn't mean that. It just proves that nobody's demonstrated such a calculation yet.
It's the fact that doing a meaningful calculation requires knowing all ways that any equivalent system could (not necessarily did) arise is what means that we can't calculate the probability of any protien or biological system arising by chance. Nobody has the required data.
Your comment on assuming design by default doesn't hold much weight as well. I could easily turn this and argue that evolution assumes chance by default, so this is non-unique.
Well,your turning around would be wrong. First, the theory of evolution is not an eliminative process like the EF. Second, in all science the default result is "insufficient information to reach a conclusion". That's why the EF isn't science.
Or, I could point out that specified complexity is a two-fold criterion (speficied and complex).
Irrelevant.
Considering that something has to meet a criterion to be design, I wouldn't exactly call that design by default.
In the EF something does not have to meet any criterion to be called design. It must instead fail to meet the "regularity" and "chance" criteria. That's a very different kettle of fish.
If the EF were to be formulated as a real test it would be something like:
  1. Test for regularity.
  2. If not regularity, test for chance.
  3. If not chance, test for combined regularity & chance. (This is where evolution would be tested ... Dembski doesn't even consider the mainstream explanation as a possibility!)
  4. If not regularity & chance, test for design.
  5. If not design, insufficient information to reach a conclusion.
Since the last possible conclusion of Dembski's EF is not "insufficient information to reach a conclusion", it's snake oil. No matter what the nature of the tests are, the wrong last possible conclusion dooms it.
Added by edit:
The EF just as flawed as I've said, and more. I've just listed the fatal flaws that are easily explained and established in a short message. There's plenty more fatal flaws that are more complex.
Some of the finer details of it will be hashed out and debated by scientists, but you can't put up a good enough case that the explanatory filter is so flawed that we can't teach it at all in the classroom.
We don't teach unsupported unscientific hypotheses, which a kind way to characterize the EF, as science in public schools. When and if it gets formulated as a scientific hypothesis, when and if it is tested against the real-world evidence and passes the test, we'll teach it as science. Don't hold your breath.
This message has been edited by JonF, 04-19-2005 09:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by commike37, posted 04-19-2005 9:57 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by commike37, posted 04-19-2005 11:59 PM JonF has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 154 (200580)
04-19-2005 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by JonF
04-19-2005 10:20 PM


Re: Dembski's EF is a failure
However, we're still looking for evidence that people use it and that there exist any examples of it.
This is basically a repeat of what you just said in the last post, and what I refuted in my last post. I'm not going to refute this again.
Really. Exactly in what way does the reference misrepresent what Dembski did?
Here's what the evidence says: Dembski can not calculate the probability of chance for the backerial flagellum.
Here's what you say: Noone can calculate the probability of chance for anything.
Whether you want to consider that straw man or any other logical fallacy, it's still a logic leap.
It's the fact that doing a meaningful calculation requires knowing all ways that any equivalent system could (not necessarily did) arise is what means that we can't calculate the probability of any protien or biological system arising by chance. Nobody has the required data.
Once again, you're just repeating what you previously said, rather than contributing something new, but I'll go ahead and refute this further. Although there are a lot of possibilities as to how something could have happened, many of these can be discounted because the probability is so minutely small (it's like we have a million grains of sand). What we instead must consider is the more probably ideas. Sure, we lose some accuracy doing this, but if the calculations lead to a 10*-20 probability when we only need a 10*-10, then that margin of error would be a nonfactor.
Furthermore, specified complexity (meaning both specified and complex) is the criterion for design. If it fails this criterion it falls into chance. Being specified but not complex would fail the criterion and fall into chance, so evolution would really be a subset of chance, rather than being excluded from the explanatory filter.
Well,your turning around would be wrong. First, the theory of evolution is not an eliminative process like the EF. Second, in all science the default result is "insufficient information to reach a conclusion". That's why the EF isn't science.
You could argue that we have insufficient information to make the calculations for the EF in a specific case, but that shouldn't generalize to say the EF is wrong in all scenarios. Insufficient information is simply not having enough information to use the EF (in situation X only), not a fatal flaw to the EF itself.
Irrelevant.
I'm glad to see that you can refute what I said in a one-word, unexplained response.
The EF just as flawed as I've said, and more. I've just listed the fatal flaws that are easily explained and established in a short message. There's plenty more fatal flaws that are more complex.
Sure, you can list these flaws, we can debate them, but are any of them a true science-stopper? There's a difference between being not perfect and being fatally flawed. Neither evolution or ID are perfect, so we give them their proper treatment and teach the controversy in our schools. It's perfectly fine for opposite sides to hold their own opinions (even experts disagree). However, to exclude a certain form or origins science does not just mean that it's inferior, it means that it is completey and undoubtedly unscientific. You can nitpick mistakes with the EF here or there, but you can't prove it be completely and undoubtedly unscientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by JonF, posted 04-19-2005 10:20 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Loudmouth, posted 04-20-2005 5:39 PM commike37 has not replied
 Message 153 by JonF, posted 04-20-2005 9:24 PM commike37 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024