ID and the bias inherent in human nature

I'm afraid that the "everyone's biased" line would be more convincing if it were the case that the two parties really were on a level footing.Unfortunately that's not true.In recent discussions here we have been told that Dembski's Explanatory Filter is an important part of ID. Yet there are only a very few examples of it being used at all - even within ID - and nobody has been able to find even one example of it being correctly applied to biology.Behe's IC idea failed as an anti-evolution arguemnt from the start. Behe admitted that IC sstems could evolve by what he called "indirect routes". Behe is of the opinion that such routes are highly unlikely but has yet to show that this is true - and so far the evidence tneds the other way. Indeed Behe and Dembski seem to prefer fiddling with the definition in the hope that somehow that will make the argument work but there really doesn't seem to be any way that that can save the argument.The two big ideas of ID have flopped. That's a fact.Don't believe the propaganda. Check out the facts for yourself.

But nobody is stopping the ID movement from developing their ideas. They're free to do that all they like.The main battle is over school curricula - and if you agree that ID is not ready to go there then it makes no sense to say that the ID movement should not be opposed in those efforts. And the ID movement certainly shouldn't be trying to remove evidence for evolution from the classroom or supporting the teaching of YEC in science classes. So there's nthing wrong in opposing them on those front's either.

It's all very well to assert that, but we would need evidence.In what way are they being hindered ?It seems obvious to me that it isn't bias on the part of the scientiifc community or the media that is stopping ID supporters from making more use of Dembsk's EF, for instance. It's the practical problems of actually using the EF in non-trivial situations that is the real stopper there.

I think that our views of what ID is are very different.But I'm not expecting too much of ID, too soon. It's people in the ID movement who have been trying to force the pace.Nor is it true that it takes two to raise a political issue. The ID movement is using political means to try to influence the science curriculum - against the current mainstream scientific consensus. I can't think of any genuine scientific movement that has done that. Evolution changed the scientific consensus and only got into schools on the back of that achievement. Why can't ID do the same ?

quote:

---

ID is very compatable with MUCH of standard evolution theory.

---

That's a misleading statement. ID represents a whole range of positions. Including positions which are incompatible with a lot of evolutionary theory - and other branches of science.Young Earth Creationism is recognised as being a legitimate ID position. The only dispute between the ID movement and YEC organisations is that the YEC organisations - unsurprisingly - continue their exclusive commitment to promoting their own views, rather than choosing to subordinate themselves to the more inclusive ID "Big Tent" strategy.

Let me remind you of these: Are you going to follow these guidelines or do you intned to go on ignoring them ?

In other words you are running away because you can't support your assertions.That makes it pretty clear just where the bias really lies.

The fact is that you have failed to support your claims as required by the forum guidelines and that you prefer to abandon this conversation rather than do so. It is quite clear who is "running from the truth" here.

quote:

---

First he makes the argument for design, then he follows with the "information requires intelligent sources" argument

---

I wonder what Meyer means by "information" ? YECs using this argument virtually always refuse to deal with that crucial point. And with Dembski defining information as improbability it looks like we can expect similar confusion from the ID movement.

Which only goes to show that you can't even rely on major ID proponents to accurately present ID.

quote:

---

The analogy he used was a long random string of letters (complex) versus a sentence (specified complexity).

---

Which looks like Dembski's definition. Unfortunately in Dembski's definition it's not information (complexity) that is hard to generate, but specified complexity. And even then Dembski recognised back in 1999, that cumulative selection could produce "apparent" specified complexity - by magnifying the probability of producing a specified result.http://www.leaderu.com/...ces/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html (Of course this follows from Dembski's definitions but perhaps it is aimed at a non-technical audience).

Jonathon Coddington's response to the Klinghoffer article:Page not found · GitHub Pages

I have just checked the OSC website and there is no mention of this case at present. Nor has Sternberg put anything up on his personal website. So even now it is still just Klinghoffer versus Coddington.

Shouldn't that be completely wrong ?Plenty of people who are not ontological naturalists believe in Darwinian evolution. Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris are two well known examples.But then you didn't know that Young Earth Creationism was a valid form of ID either. So I strongly suggest that you find out what you are talking abnout instead of making claims that have no basis in reality.

Young Earth Creationism is a "valid" form of ID in that it is accepted as such by the ID movement. Not just "compatible" but part of the ID "Big Tent".And I note that you don't comment on the fact that Dariwnism doe snot require ontological naturalism at all.

Obviously the ID movement is NOT trying to take a balanced view. A balanced view would consider the amount of work done and the success of a theory in weathering challenges. ID hasn't even got a theory. They are apparently "reevaluating" their two major design arguments (irreducible complexity and CSI) despite the fact that it is clear that neither has even been properly completed, and it is clear that as they stand both are abject failures.As science ID is just a speculative fringe movement trying to use political actin to unbalance the scientific landscape in their failure. Lysenkoism briefly succeeded in something similar (although relying on Stalin's support rather than attempt to influence public opinion), but I am not aware of any legitimate science that had to resort to such tactics.