Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

I guess the Thor example is meant to put all supernatural possibilities regardless of source and scholarship and in the absense of any scientific explanation somehow on the same plane.That which is capable of explaining everthing that could be observed actually explains nothing with any rigour... being simply a plastic tautology.So long as every observation is greeted with some fantastic just-so story with out a single fact, no observations, no experimental evidence as being the truth, the light and the way simply because someone can imagine a way it could have been ... therefore it was that way QED.; evolution will continue to reguarded with scepticism such as that of the D.I. 400.

Reading their stated objectives and concerns I would assume they (those 400 Phd types from every leading university in America and encompassing about 35 fields of teaching and research) would continue to perform valuable scientific service as they have in the past but with due attention to the fantasmogorically suspect tenets of evolution mutation and natural selection as the agents of evolutionary change. And I suspect they even have ideas on scientific alternatives to those much overrated and suspect, essentially tautological tenets. Won't it prove somewhat difficult to classify all those people like members of the National Academy of Sciences, to department heads at little schools like Rice, MIT on and on as misinformed non-scientist dunderheads?EvopeachEvopeach

A little news for you, biological science has no preferred position in the furthering of science in the large sense. And as such the several scientific fields such as chemistry and physics should be concerned about the integrity of the entire scientific community, their methods, the tenets held and certain McCartheite activities over the last decades by the Weathermen of Biological evolution, as in the horribly dispicable instant case at Ohio State University.Your analysis of the statement is not consistent with the dogmatic claims in this forum as to the joy with which the community feels about the large, influential and growing community of scientists who have grave doubts in these principal tenets of the theory.Should we review a few posts making it clear that there is not a scintilla of doubt about these tenets except in the mind of the incompetent and the deluded.. thus no need to conduct any experimental investigation as their grounding in fact.. there is no doubt by the mainstream people in the know.The dawn is breaking.

Having laid out an ID hypothesis, predictive element, falsification element and having received no cogent reply, I propose the following as being an ICS and accoutable for only by ID.Proposition: Carbon is ubiquitious and essential throughout life as we know it in every form. In fact there is no life that does not contain carbon. The carbon atom is an irreducibly complex system which is essential to every aspect of biological evolution and embedded in every form of life of which we are aware and without which no form of life could exist neither past nor present.Corollary: A IC system is one which cannot be envisioned as working in any useful way and is natualistically accounted for by a series of small changes from less and less complex systems over long time periods principally bt random mutation and natural selection.Corollary: Every form of life at the system or subsystem level is then irreducibly complex because one cannot remove carbon from it and still have any semblance of life.Corollary: Since no naturalistic explanation for the essentiality of carbon in life there is no viable alternative other than supernatural and the scientific complexity of the carbon atom makes it logically an ID system. Neither is there any scientific demonstrable basis for a non-carbon form of life at any point in the history of lifeConclusion: Evolution is a falsified theory because no scientific inquiry has ever demonstrated the development of the carbon atom from simpler "things" in a step by step process and carbon is a subsystem of every living entity without which all such entities cease to be alive. Life is an Ireducibly Complex System in every form for all time and inexplicable from other than an ID since the removal of one subsystem Carbon renders life to be non-life and cannot be built from simpler forms step by step.Evopeach

Off topic remark about astrophysics is not responsive. Carbon 12 is about 98.8 % of all carbon extant and occupies that role in life forms. No life exists without carbon 12 although carbon 14 and 13 in trace amounts will be in life though 14 of course disappearing.Carbon 12 is irreducibly complex and thus life is, in that, in the context of this forum one cannot demonstrate life being built from other forms of carbon in those trace amounts as we see in life and functioning as life in any respect if the subsystem, carbon 12, were removed. The amounts of carbon 13 and 14 in life are miniscule.Not a single form of life can be shown reducible by the elimination of carbon 12 and maintain life functionality. No sequence of carbonless precursors at any stage in a supposed development sequence of living organisms can even be scientifically imaginable, let alone demonstrable.

Sorry but your team has removed abiogenesis from any topic of discussion in this forum.. it being totally disassociated from evolution which only has meaning after abiogenesis has occured, first life form extant, from which evolution is the explanation for lifes diversity and functionality. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution accoriong to this forum.Every type of atom involved in life existed prior to abiogenesis so you are defining away the substance of the forum debate arbitrarily and without a scientific context whatsoever. IC is precisely concerned with the removal of any component of a life system and having removed it the result is that the system ceases to function... you don't get to define which subsystem can or can't be removed.Please feel free to pick any living organism or subsystem there of and demonstrate its operability absent carbon and I will demonstrate a fe hundred thousand that can't operate. Neith can they be built up from simpler carbonless forms or simpler forms of carbon that serve the purposes equally well.Thus life is irreducubly complex respecting carbon and there is no demonstrable alternative but to suppose a non-natural source for all carbon and all life forms and their design.

I am not pushing anything back... remember your team declared the big bang off limits .. no evolution theory prior to first life.I think its safe to assume however that currently here on earth we don't consider fusion temperatures as being any naturally occuring setting for biological discussions such as evolution, ID or IC ... granted star formation and all that on rare circumstances see triple collision processes in play.

What happens rarely .triple collision processes... so rare as to haave been excluded at the big bang.. thus no carbon has nothing to do with the terrestrial based life process called evolution which by definition deals only with what happened in the chain of life post abiogenesis... star formation processes are not on topic by definitionas being unrelated to the definition of evolution herein.

Several postes from cave and chiop seemed to be pulling in the formation of carbon in star cores by triple collision processes but such is totally irrelevent to this discussion as evolution is defined as constrained to things that occur at less than fusion temperatures right here on earth.

I am so content to let you demonstrate the character asassination and
ranting about these people .. it is prima facia evidence of the irrational hostility directed at any scientists who disagree with the true believers on your team. Keep going ... it strengthens our hand.

Any of 100 citations would demonstrate that carbon 14 was not produced in the big bang, occurs now in star cores, is possible only at fusion temperatures and the carbon cycle on earth is hardly dependent on the transport of carbon from stars a billion light years away. Try CO2 CO et al

"a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". (Michael Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference)Now throughout the Evo world Behe is given full credit for defining the terms of debate.So I don't think we'll let you redefine the widely accepted definition Irrecuible complexity.Are living systems the subject of evolutionary theory? YesAre all such systems highly dependent on carbon 12 for their existence and functionality?Can the carbon 12 atom be considerd a sub-system of the components which make up living organisms? Yes by any definition of the word system.If all carbon 12 is removed from any life form will it continue to function as living? No, not everIf all carbon 14 is removed from any lifeform can it be shown to function with a substitutionary atom that performs the life tasks sufficiently well as to be declared alive? No not everCan a series of simpler life form systems be demonstrated that build up to a carbonless life form over long time periods? Nope not everThus any and every known life for is dependent on carbon for its existence and function no matter where in its evolutionary development we look and if that system component is removed life ceases always with no possible substitute being even a rational suggestion.Life systems are thus ireducibly complex with regard to carbon.This of course can be falsified in a single morning by demonstrating a noncarbon based lifeform or a life form where removeal of all carbon atoms leave a well functioning and living lifeform.Evopeach

Actually my entire thesis and demonstration are perfectly not just similar to Behe's definition but truly congruent in every respect.No one having read Darwin's Black Box would assume he is talking about removing "one" as in counting one molecule or one atom or one eye since mostly there are more than one. Surely you are not proposing such.... well silliness.Any one means pick from among the components that apparently contribute very distinctly to the living entity and remove it and determine by observation whether the entity remains functional or ceases to function.Please feel free to pick any any living system and then remove all its carbon atoms and see if it can function in any living capacity.Are carbon atoms a suitable subsystem? Of course because in living matter every component has carbon in it because its a cell.Is carbon 12 irreducibly complex of course because if you remove the electrons, protons or neutrons you no longer have a carbon atom. I did not say one electron or whatever, as between isotopes, I said all of any one type of particle whichever.Now we have identified a component ubiquitous throughout each and every living entity, carbon ,which is itself irreducibly complex.It is apparent that the designer used a unique and particular component for creating every form of life and that the component is not reducable itself if it is to continue its function and idenity.Since such systems cannot arise in any steps where carbon is not present in every functioning part and since no substitutionary subsystem has been identified regardless of how much less complex the system may be in consideration of time,place or circumstance then by darwins words the theory is falsified. It cannot be built up from a series of connected evolving entities.

What does your watch have to do with biology... surely you don't consider watches to be alive.I once saw a watch made entirely from glass ... so I guess glass could substitute for your iron atoms prima facia.In fact a watch can be made from a lot of materials other than iron.

A theory must include so called special cases otherwise it is falsified by that special case. In fact that is what is meant by a falsification experiment. You set up a particular test condition that is intended to see if the theory actually behaves the way it predicts or explains a phenomena or that it can be continued to be accepted in its current form given the outcome of the particular experiment.Now evolution posits that there are no living irreducibly complex systems in that every such system can be accounted for by a series of less complex "versions" which never the less performs adequate to the tasks required of it. If ever there is a system which cannot perform in a state where one component is removed then that system is IC. That system was designed since it cannot be accounted for by undesigned evolutionary criteria namely staged development by change over time through of series of adaptations which at any one stage are living and quite functional though in a less demanding way perhaps yet easily connected to the current more complex instant state.In my special case I simply remove all the carbon atoms from the living entity and see how it performs.Can the system be mutationally related to a slightly ever so slightly less functional version which works just fine by substituting another element for the carbon or one that functions using only those parts which have no carbon atoms in them yet performing all needed functionality.