Otto Tellick writes:
Hi marc. I noticed that in response to my request (which you quoted) for a description of an experiment that would support a design inference, you did not actually describe any sort of experiment. That request still stands, because you still haven't shown anything to back up your earlier assertion about how "ID ... can experiment and observe a subsequent ~design~ ...".
In case you're not familiar with how to describe an experiment: you begin by stating a particular prediction based on a chosen hypothesis; you then lay out a procedure for gathering specific observations that will provide the information needed to determine whether the prediction is right or wrong. {AbE: Note that this doesn't have to involve direct manipulations in a lab; describing any relevant set of real-world observations would suffice.} Have you ever seen any such procedure described (let alone actually carried out) with regard to a prediction based on ID? I haven't. That request is still open.
Keeping in mind that this thread isn’t about my single handedly showing proof that ID is science (not much chance of that since a)ID loses in courts, b) I have dozens of opponents in this thread, and c) I’m not a biologist. It’s about my claim that IF naturalistic abiogenesis is science, then ID is science. It should be possible to compare the two in a general way using basic real-world observations without going into a lot of scientific detail that no one but degreed biologists would be able to understand.
If you require a particular prediction based on a chosen hypothesis, you can’t really require something big or profound, like the first life on earth was instantly created by a supernatural process/being that we can’t understand, because abiogenesis proponents haven’t made any big, profound predictions, like life on earth first came to be by unguided chemical processes, because they haven’t come close to acquiring all the information needed to determine if that prediction is right or wrong, even after..90 years of study in the public realm. So all you can really require of ID to be science is for it to make small (compartmentalized, if you will) studies and determinations comparable to what abiogensis studies have — see message 107 for examples. Real world studies and observations in ID would be to determine whether information in orderly, complex systems could lie dormant for long periods of time, or whether the information would have to be added close to the time when the system became operational. Remember (though obviously most naturalists would rather forget) that only recently, in mid-2001, the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that each human DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world's largest libraries. In Behe’s words, Since the simplest possible design scenario posits a single cell —formed billions of years ago — that already contained all information to produce descendant organisms, studies could test this scenario by attempting to calculate how much DNA would be required to code the information (keeping in mind that much of the information might be implicit) lf DNA alone is insufficient, studies could be initiated to see if information could be stored in the cell in other ways — for example, as positional information. Other work could focus on whether larger, compound systems (containing two or more irreducibly complex systems) could have developed gradually or whether there are compounded irreducibilities.
Behe has also said that more and better informed questions will be generated as more and more scientists grow curious about design. If students in the early stages of their educations aren’t introduced to design, or are introduced to discrimination if they pursue it in spite of that, naturally the thorough predictions and procedures you’re demanding aren’t going to happen overnight. It’s probably safe to say that Oparin (an abiogenesis scientist of the 1920’s) had nothing to do with the detail of abiogenesis as shown in message 107. It all came decades later, time never seems to be an issue with abiogenesis. Again, I’m not a biologist, but in my quick research of this little discussion, I know that biological research takes lots of time, and lots of people. Abiogeneis has had it, has needed it, and as I’ve proven in this thread, has never had any entrance requirements demanded of it. Yet ID has demands made of it RIGHT NOW!
Now I’m sure you can practically close your eyes and copy/paste scientific refutations of what I said above from thousands of atheist sites on the net. But in keeping with what I said above about not going into a lot of scientific detail that no one but degreed biologists would be able to understand, I would challenge you to make a convincing case that believers in ONLY blind, purposeless, happenstance processes are going to do as thorough a job of researching the INFORMATION contained in DNA to the extent that those who apply design to it. Those who aren’t politically afraid to acknowledge 21st century biology. Information is the key biological word. Do naturalists purposely avoid that word?
So, who (besides Demski) is saying that ID has gotten "off the ground"? Where are the peer-reviewed journal articles citing works by ID proponents as making notable contributions to biology or providing a basis for research? So far, ID proponents have only been publishing polemic books aimed at the general public (and only appreciated by the religious right); they haven't been reporting any research results.
The mere existence of the Dover trial alone and the associated publicity it received clearly shows that it’s off the ground. Whether or not something is off the ground in the real world is not completely dependent on what’s going on in the ivory towers of today’s universities. These forums and many others are loaded with discussions about it. Why would you imply that it's not off the ground?
On the contrary, the quick rise in public consciousness about ID is attributable to PR campaigns by ID proponents, pushing fundamentalist groups into a frenzy of activism directed at school boards and state legislatures.
That’s your opinion. In my opinion, the quick rise in public consciousness about ID is attributable to PR campaigns by atheist organizations on the internet, and the publication of dozens of scientific, atheist books. My opinion makes more sense in light of the documented rise during the 1990’s of atheism in the U.S. particularly among young people. Pushed by atheist groups, and their frenzy of activism directed at school boards and state legislatures.
Another source of publicity for ID, of course, has been the negative impact of the legal decisions that recognize the religious foundations of ID.
I agree, BECAUSE IT SO CLEARLY EXPOSES the atheistic control and foundations of evolution and abiogenesis.
In any case, the things that qualified biologists do, think, and understand have had nothing at all to do with the "rise and fall" of ID.
Why then, do there seem to be so many qualified biologists at message boards such as these who are so agitated by it?
This was an interesting snippet:
Demski writes:
quote:
Even efforts to overturn the various criteria for detecting design are welcome within the intelligent design research program. (That’s part of keeping the program honest.)
So how soon will an ID proponent be coming out with the book that accurately and honestly reviews the recent research results on blood clotting in the various species that lack certain of the components that made this process "irreducibly complex"? That research has been done, results are in, and the claims made by Behe have been refuted; now it's just a matter of ID authors getting around to the part about "keeping the program honest."
That’s an excellent demonstration of the enormity of the problem we have in science today. 21st century biology shows blood clotting to be far more complex than was thought in the 19th century. Someone points it out, and the current establishment, that embraces the simplicity of Darwinian naturalism, of blind, unguided processes, has to do dances to try to make it appear as simple as it was thought to be in earlier times. It exposes the hypocricy of those who claim that ID equals goddidit, that explains it, stop looking to the nature did it, that explains it, stop looking of Darwinists/atheists.
BTW, you didn't didn't say anything (or quote anything from Demski) to address my point about the difference between ID and other kinds of "design detection" -- let me recap: The point is that we need to know the physical properties and behaviors of a purported "designer" in order to establish an objective basis for concluding that something is designed by some entity for some purpose; without this, an IDer asserting a "design inference" is just making up a story about an unknowable "designer", and closing up shop on further investigation.
If SETI has nothing on the physical properties and behaviors of anyone from space who may send signals, why would ID need them? Some claim that abiogenesis is a process that is guided by the supernatural. Why doesn’t it need any properties? Because its study really is completely godless?
Otto Tellick writes:
marc9000 writes:
... you’ve just gone down a path that ignores the big picture. An acceptance of ID into science doesn’t mean a takeover of science by ID. The Wedge Document isn’t about force, it’s about voluntary acceptance, through common sense.
You've lost me there. How do the goals of the Wedge Document constitute "common sense"?
What I was saying is that they don’t constitute political force. They constitute a voluntary acceptance.
How does a strategy to promote a specific, sectarian religious view relate to any sort of "big picture" (as opposed to dogmatic tunnel-vision)?
ID is not a specific, sectarian religious view. It only seeks to scientifically study design possibilities, paths of biological information. As wide open as it can be - no tunnel-vision involved.
Otto Tellick writes:
marc9000 writes:
If ID claims it has a last word, a closing of the door on further research, it can’t prevent other people, other scientists in other labs, from doing more research. But an ID claim of a last word can provide a little more of a motive for godless scientists to do something with more time restrained, result oriented research.
The scientific community is, I'm sure, truly grateful for all that (even those scientists who are in fact not "godless"). But they were doing just fine before ID was "invented", and they would continue doing just fine without it.
I don’t see gratefulness at all from the scientific community, I see anger, and political action and attacks against ID proponents. It makes sense — they don’t particularly like motivation to produce more results, or alternate results from an agenda set by someone other than themselves, anymore than anyone else in a work force.
And they haven’t been doing just fine with abiogenesis — that one missing link they need to make godless evolution a complete package, and end religion as Harris, Stenger and Dawkins have been encouraging them to do for decades now. It has huge gaps, and, (as I referenced above) the 2001 Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics scientific discoveries have greatly increased those gaps.
Religion has been trying to do that for a few hundred years now, and on the whole, the less success religion has in that pursuit, the better off we are as a species.
That’s your worldview. I prefer the morality, financial stability, and standing in the world that the US had 50, or 100 years ago.
To quote another author on this forum: "we've tried ignorance, and it doesn't work."
Yes, now we have Obama.
If you yourself happen to be a fundamentalist Christian, then this implies that you, being also an ID proponent, cannot really convince yourself that ID is completely independent from your religion,
It’s no different than self-proclaimed atheists telling me that evolution and atheism are completely independent of each other. I don’t try to convince myself that my beliefs (ID and religion) are completely independent of each other, I don’t feel like I have too. One is personal, and one is (should be) public. Atheists seem like the ones who feel the need to convince themselves that atheism and evolution/abiogenesis are completely independent of each other. If ID is religious, then evolution is atheistic. They relate to each other in exactly the same way. ID can be promoted by the non religious (those who think mortals from space, from the past seeded the earth with life. Is that far-fetched? No more far-fetched than Richard-Dawkins-loving theistic evolutionists.
which means that your own assertion ("ID has nothing to do with creation or the Bible") would be either duplicity (i.e. lying) or some odd form of self-delusion.
It’s not a bit different from atheists claims that evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Their claim is that their atheism is personal, and evolution is science. If they can be separated, then ID can be separated from religion.
™ Version 4.2