Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9042 total)
632 online now:
nwr, PaulK, ringo, xongsmith (4 members, 628 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,148 Year: 3,794/14,102 Month: 99/315 Week: 99/131 Day: 20/29 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory
RAZD
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 112 (186855)
02-19-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mick
02-19-2005 5:18 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
the retraction is actually at
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html

when dealing with sites using frames it is a little harder to get the exact addresses -- I right click to {open in another tab\window} and then you get just the page without the frame.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mick, posted 02-19-2005 5:18 PM mick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-19-2005 7:41 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 29 of 112 (186856)
02-19-2005 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by pink sasquatch
02-19-2005 7:34 PM


Re: first id article published / same old tactics
yes, the question remains who "peered" at it. just the previous editor (an admitted IDist sympathizer?)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-19-2005 7:34 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 112 (186858)
02-19-2005 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by pink sasquatch
02-19-2005 7:41 PM


Re: Not really the first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
yeah, that's what it looks like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-19-2005 7:41 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 105 of 112 (453971)
02-04-2008 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Blue Jay
02-04-2008 8:25 PM


My understanding is that John Baumgardner (PhD) for the ICR had reputable spectrometry centers date several samples of rocks from the Grand Canyon, and that the dates produced varied wildly, even between samples that were supposed to be from the same geologic stratum.

This is easy to do for someone that knows what they are doing. Basically you are providing false information about the samples. See

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014_1.html

for information on similar misrepresentations.

However age doesn't really have anything to do with ID and there are a number of threads in the Dates and Dating forum.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=tf&f=3 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=tf&f=3">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=tf&f=3

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2008 8:25 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2008 11:10 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 107 of 112 (454377)
02-06-2008 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Blue Jay
02-04-2008 11:10 PM


The topic: current status/developments
They weren't putting forth new data, just disputing existing data.

Where "they" are the "professional IDians" -- the people selling the idea.

The ID "program"

Curiously, this - and the political appeals such as "teach the controversy" - appears to be the whole program. It is not a matter of "question everything" (science already does that), but of portraying evidence in a manner that gives a false impression of what the evidence in question really means. You can see this most when they use things like carbon-14 dating for objects that did not obtain the measured levels of carbon originally from the atmosphere but some other reservoir system: old seals, young coal. It relies on the ignorance and willing gullibility of the audience rather than on the validity of the argument.

One would think that, if there were any kind of (honest) program behind ID, then there would be, could be, should be, areas of investigation where they were looking to provide something additional, something that would provide positive evidence FOR ID.

Irreducible Complexity

So far they have not really defined what that kind of evidence would be. The closest any one has come is the concept of "Irreducible Complexity" or "IC" - originally defined as (Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." - p 39):

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

The conclusion made by Behe and others is that IF evolution cannot produce them, THEN they must have been made, designed, created.

The problem is that this does not preclude the indirect production of such systems through evolution and adaptation of existing systems for new uses and the subsequent loss of now non-functional elements that were part of the original feature. This is similar to the way roman arches are constructed by supporting the stones until the keystone is in place and then removal of the supporting structure - the arch is irreducibly complex, remove one stone and the arch fails.

Behe during the Dover trial admitted that all known biological systems that have been touted as IC systems could be developed in this manner, and that there was evidence of this being the case.

There are also a few known instances where an IC system has been observed to evolve, such as the Hall experiments. This turns the "IC" concept into a non-starter for something that demonstrates ID.

Information

The only other thing they have going is the issue of "Information" in a number of different permutations, all of which rely absolutely on not providing a definition or a metric for measuring what is meant by "Information" so the statements cannot be tested, verified, or falsified.

However it can be shown (see Hall again) that for the statements\claims made about information (such as "there is only loss of information, never gain") that either (a) the concept of "information" is irrelevant to the issue of what can and cannot occur through evolution or (b) that the statement\claim is falsified. Either way this turns "information" into a non-starter for something that could demonstrate ID.

Conclusion

They are left with portrayals of evidence in false manners and political issues that play on the ignorance and willing gullibility of their audience.

And the only thing that keeps these ideas going is the ignorance and willing gullibility of the audience.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2008 11:10 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Blue Jay, posted 02-07-2008 12:11 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 109 of 112 (454464)
02-07-2008 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Blue Jay
02-07-2008 12:11 AM


Re: The topic: current status/developments
I don't think this is actually an IC system evolving here: it's the last link re-evolving into place ...

Except that it is a different system where "re-evolving" would replace the original. The reason for the evolution is to make use of the energy source, and this did not need to be an IC system, it just happened to be.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Blue Jay, posted 02-07-2008 12:11 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021