quote: By the way, note Sanford's somewhat conflicting views, where he accepts ID while simultaneously rejecting common descent and believing in a young Earth just like young Earth creationists.
There's no real conflict. ID is a "big tent" which happily accepts YECs (such as Paul Nelson and Nancy Pearcey). (This is one reason why there is no theory of ID - ID contains so many conflicting views that no single theory could encompass them all).
quote: Michael Behe, arguably the founder of the ID movement, accepts common descent and rejects a young Earth.
I wouldn't consider Behe to be the founder of the ID movement at all. Given that he seems to have been a very early member of the movement I'd accept one of the founders of the ID movement but I don't think he played a sufficiently prominent role in organising it. I'd nominate Philip Johnson (who did take a leading role) or, if intellectual influence is considered, possibly Michael Denton (whose work was a strong influence on both Behe and Johnson - and probably others)
quote: That is a fairly good counterpoint. However, some of those problems are rather rare and of course the sickle cell is something that protects against a specific serious disease. I'm not saying the sickle cell was designed. I'm saying it is probably the result of blind natural Darwinian evolution.
Which is why it is relatively common. Where there is malaria selective pressure maintains the sickle-cell gene at a relatively high frequency. And there are other genetic disease that have similar effects.
quote: You are probably not seeing this the way I am seeing this. Look at a amino acid code table. In order to acheive a specific effect that is beneficial to the organism, you must have specific changes at specific places within long strings of codes. How many generations does it take a self replicating cell to acheive this with a few random mutations? Can't random mutations occur anywhere in the genome?
Your problem here is that you are thinking in terms of how a designer would do it. A designer might look for a specific change, but evolution doesn't. Thinking in this way leads to the "hindsight" problem I referred to in the probability thread. A better question is what is the probability of hitting on a beneficial mutation.
quote: We learned that Darwinian conjecture doesn't always explain things. Rather it seems to mislead us or even delude us. (See message #390 in the Expelled thread in links & information.) Darwinian conjecture is a way of thinking but it doesn't seem to represent reality very well. At least it doesn't seem to do it for me.
If you accept that Wounded King's suggestion is correct, then it would mean that a layman using "Darwinian conjecture" got closer to the truth than the ID "experts". That isn't bad going.
quote: I also sometimes get the impression there exists confusion of ID with Creationist thought.
That isn't even possible. All the major creationist positions are accepted parts of ID. Including Young Earth Creationism. Creationist thought IS ID.
quote: I know I said that I will leave for now. I lied. With posts like the one Mark24 posted, I can't believe how Darwinists could think that I am not objective and they are objective like minded scientists
I don't know exactly what you object to in Mark's post but the problem seems to be that you don't understand how CSI has been defined.
The most important issue here is that CSI - as defined by Dembski - requires that you calculate the probability of a feature evolving. Nobody has managed to produce a valid calculation, and there are simply no known examples of that sort of CSI in biology.
So I would say that Mark's comment is largely correct. Certainly you haven't offered any valid counter examples - just guesses.
On the other hand you claimed that ID had "done better" than publishing the occasional math/informatics paper that sank without trace - but all you offered was a review paper sneaked into a journal by an unethical editor - that also sank without a trace. That doesn't sound a lot better (it sounds worse to me). And how does one paper published years ago show that ID is "on the up" ?
(And I have to say that if you consider this site to be hostile territory you haven't been looking at the ID blogs).
quote: You think you have got me on that one? You don't. A good argument against ID should be a good argument for Darwinism. If scientists can't explain Darwinism with nucleotide or amino acid sequences, then this is a negative for Darwinism.
In other words Mark was right.
And uou are making another mistake. Arguments against ID do not have to be arguments for the specifics of modern evolutionary theory (what if another evolutionary theory were the real truth ?). And if you were right a good argument against Darwinism SHOULD be a good argument for ID - but your "negative" isn't even an argument for ID at all.
quote: I guess it is a matter of perspective in reconstructing a trend or finding evidence for it.
Since a single example would not be adequate for either your guess is obviously incorrect.
quote: This is not stupidity, it is common sense. Maybe I should rephrase that. "The best arguments for Darwinism should be major blows to ID."
If your original statement was common sense you would not have had to change it - especially not to the extent where it becomes irrelevant to the point you were attempting to make. If you remember you were trying to dismiss a criticism of ID on the grounds that it did not support Darwinism.
(Of course, even your modified version - while better - is not true because ID is so amorphous. It is quite possible to argue for major features of evolutionary theory without arguing against every possible form of ID. Behe's view in particular is so close to that of modern evolutionary science that the best arguments for Darwinism would not be expected to be major blows against it).
quote: Once again, a rational person demands positive reasons to believe in something. I wouldn't be invested in ID if it was only critical of Darwinism.
But the "science" of ID is almost universally directed to criticising evolutionary theory. Behe, in particular, is dedicated to trying to find "gaps" to shove God into.
quote: Weighing the evidence for and against the subjects doesn't contradict scientific methods. It is a complimentary perspective.
Actually I wouldn't blame many of you for not wanting to look at it that way because if you did then design wins by far.
But that is not what you are doing. You are not weighing the evidence, you are advocating for ID. Instead of weighing the evidence you are just accepting the pronouncements of the ID crowd without looking any deeper. And worse, ignoring criticisms that have already been brought to your attention (which apparently you choose to blame on your opponents).
Of course I can't blame you for refusing to really weigh the evidence. Because if you did ID would be shown to be an anti-scientific propaganda movement dedicated to changing the U.S. educational system to favour the religious beliefs of the ID supporters.
We have the Wedge Document. We have the lack of real research coming from ID. We have the outright propaganda, unrelated to actual science - the attempts to link evolution to the Nazis or to racism. We have the amorphous nature of ID which embraces almost everything from Young Earth Creationism to almost-theistic-evolution (but not ACTUAL theistic evolution because ID opposes that). We have the attempts to paint support for ID as rising - your own for instance (you didn't weigh the evidence there !).
quote: I would expect scientists who are proponents of ID to do research. This is because it is obvious to me natural laws and natural causes are operating all of the time. But you are probably using Creationism as a reference for comparison and that is why you see it as "so close".
Then you need to offer a real explanation for why there is so little published ID research. And why the ID movement couldn't find anyone to take up the offer of a grant from the Templeton Foundation.
quote: I would really like to know what they were if I have not refuted them.
We can start with the fact that ID is not distinct from creationism - it includes creationism.
I can point out the fact that we have not one demonstrated example of Dembski's CSI in biology - yet you still try to produce "CSI" as evidence for ID.
quote: There may be an assumption here that we cannot figure out the way an intelligent designer designed things.
If so, it must be on the part of the ID movement. It is the ID movement that avoids taking a firm position on what the designer did.
quote: I believe that Wounded King and I mutally agreed when you take this outside of science into atheism or ID it then falls into the realm of philosophy. I, of course, do not believe Richard Dawkin's arguments are better.
Richard Dawkins is not trying to change science education to make it friendlier to his philosophical views. Nor does he spend large amounts of time, for instance, trying to link his opponents views with the Nazis.
quote: When Darwin's theory became well known 150 years ago, archaeopteryx was found two years later. This I believe was no accident. The whole paradigm permeated its way into the way societies thought and how governments ran. Trends form and their effects are felt. Look at the stock market trend in the 1990s and the real estate trend and the current trend in gold. No single explanation can be found for the reason why they were formed. All of these trends were driven by multiple reasons.
This hardly addresses the point - or the evidence I referred to. Not even the single example you chose to quote.
But let us consider how to objectively weigh the evidence:
You claimed that there was a rising trend for ID based on a paper published 5 years ago, under dubious circumstances.
1) One point cannot show a trend.
2) If there were really a rising trend you would not have to go back 5 years to find something.
And that's without going into the quality of the paper, the fact that it was not original research or the questionable circumstances surrounding the publication.
quote: I just researched this on the Discovery Institute site. I saw that a grant from the Templeton Foundation was given to the authors of the "Priveleged Planet".
To write a book, not to do scientific research.
And you still haven't addressed the main point - where is the ID research ?
quote: Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [ L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189. Emphases added.]
I said it before, you see no CSI and you hear no CSI. I have ased this question before, if it is not CSI, then what is it then?
Just because two different concepts are given similar names does not make them the same. It may or may not be an example of Dembski's CSI BUT NOBODY HAS SHOWN THAT IT IS or even given a good reason to think that it is. You ought to know this by now.
If you are going to accuse me of willful blindness, just for understanding an ID argument and pointing out it's flaws - which is what you've just done - you throw out any pretence of honestly seeking the truth. You just want to support ID and the truth can go hang.
quote: I have tried to find evidence against what I believe. I found this in another link on this forum:
So you say. But your post clearly shows that you have not done so and that you are ignoring facts that have been brought to your attention. None of your post addresses Dembski's definition of CSI.
quote: I'm tired of arguing with walls. I'm begging you to shut me up.
It seems that you're the one acting like a wall. You ignore what I say, and keep repeating your errors. Except for the nastiness of the false accusations.
The "complex" part of Dembski's CSI is a probability measurement. NOT complexity as it is usually thought of. Tossing a coin and getting 500 heads in a row would be complex by Dembki's standard even though it is very, very simple.