Bill Dembski is a dishonest loser, as proven by the fact that he banned me from posting, and then deleted "PART" of what I'd said, so that it looked like I'd said something entirely different.
What had occurred was that I had explained how and why cosmological evidence that we are not here by accident cannot be construed as evidence for a "designer" without direct proof... and he didn't like that since it kills the angle of the entire movement, so he manipulated the situation in order to save face.
Dembski needs to grow a pencil-thin mustache...
Behe's claims have been absolutely destroyed. Behe and Snoke 2004 proves, if you use real-world numbers, that Irreducibly Complex things can evolve all the time. But you're right that they were better than Dembski's ideas.
T.L.J.C---
this is just wrong. Where have Behe's claims been absolutely destroyed? This is a bold claim that is said regularly but rarely defended.... and when defended it is usually shown to be incorrect (at least it reflects an incorrect understanding of what Behe was claiming to be IC).
"Bill Dembski is a dishonest loser, as proven by the fact that he banned me from posting, and then deleted "PART" of what I'd said, so that it looked like I'd said something entirely different."
This proves nothing. Maybe you were banned because you comported yourself on UD as you do here (calling someone a dishonest loser)? Seems to be a reasonable conclusion.
"What had occurred was that I had explained how and why cosmological evidence that we are not here by accident cannot be construed as evidence for a "designer" without direct proof... and he didn't like that since it kills the angle of the entire movement, so he manipulated the situation in order to save face."
This is supposed to be some novel insight? People have claimed this before on UD and have not been banned. I have disagreed with Dembski and have not had parts of my post deleted to support some supposed agenda on his part.
How does your interpretation that it disagrees with the idea of cosmological design kill that angle of the argument? This is such a bold, arrogant claim that it needs to be supported with actual evidence.
Before politicized ID, believers did not have to hide their beliefs behind pseudonyms, as many non-tenured faculty now feel they must do.
Given your influence and importance on the blogsphere, I would beg you to reconsider. Why should a faculty member be victim because of something Dembski or Behe said or what goes on in Dover, PA. The fault is not the ID movement but the persecuting faculty.
The anger being generated is by people like Barbara Forrest claiming this is some plot to create a theocracy and destroy science and ruin public education. That misinformation coupled with the prejudices out there are a major source of the problem, not the writings of Michael Behe or William Dembski or Stephen Meyer.
I would hope you consider what happened to Richard Sternberg. Did he deserve what happened to him? Was his ordeal the result of the Discovery Institute promoting intelligent design that he nearly lost his job?
Another example. Even before the ID movement was in the forefront, a pro-ID master's student by the name of Gordon Wilson during in the middle of oral exams experienced members of his exam committee turning purple with rage when he revealed his position against evolution.
By a miracle, Wilson eventually got his PhD from another institution, GMU, the same institution that would later dismiss Caroline Crocker 3 years later. He managed to slip under the radar screen having transferred from the school where his Master's examiners were turning purple with rage.
The rage and Dawkineque prejudice has been there independent of the ID movement especially in the biology curriculums. The hatred toward Christianity will not be soothed. It has little to do with the Discovery Institute's leadership. You of all people should know what the source of the hatred is, and it's not the actions of the ID leadership. Before you point the finger at the ID leadership, I hope you reconsider the real reasons the spirit of this age hates Christianity and any evidence which would testify of Jesus.
I do have a big problem if they (the DI or the ID movement) label such efforts as science (when it isn't) and a bigger problem when they engage in politics to achieve their goals.
Stephen Meyer has himself said the issue of label is not as important as whether it is true or worthy of belief. Neither the Discovery Institute nor IDEA have pushed for ID to be mandated in public school classrooms.
I have even said, let's teach ID in the religion and philosophy classes in universities, to which even Eugenie Scott gave her blessing in public correspondence with me.
My correspondence with Eugenie Scott on ID in the universities
science points to a creator, and in a way that is compatible with scripture. Shoe-horning your way into science class curricula, by any method--no matter how distasteful, or how deceptive, or how awful it makes Christians look--will only serve to diminish rather than enhance the design message.
What major ID organization is attempting to shoe-horn their way into science class curricula? I would hope you reconsider whether this applies to the official position of the leadership of the ID movement.
This is mis-information from Barbara Forrest and friends. Dover PA's disaster had nothing to do with the major ID leadership's position but rather a bunch of creationists polititicians trying to bully others.
ID must stop stating it can prove design, especially since people like Mr. Dembski have never proved anything. You are confident, you write, that those in information science and engineering find his critique scientifically sound. I will wait for any published demonstration of a proof that a biological component was designed. And keep in mind, this challenge is from someone who believes that life was designed. ID can convince, but it never proves. You’ve been sold, in my opinion, a bill of goods.
The book Design Inference does not commit design to a doctrine of intelligent agency:
The design inference stops short of delivering a causal story...
The principle advantage of characterizing design as the complement of recularity and chance is that it avoids committing itself to a doctrine of intelligent agency.
He notes that detecting design is well suited for detecting the action of intelligent agency. I don't recall that Dembksi claims in a sceintific or mathematical capacity that the inference must be absolutely true in the scientific sence, but rather a falsifiable hypothesis. If he accepts that biology is intelligently designed, it is his personal opinion, but I don't believe his formal mathethematical argument say anywhere, "therefore God did it."
If you are going to claim that your mathematics proves design,
If you mean by design, intelligent design, I have said no such thing in a scientific and mathematical capacity, and neither has Bill. I invite you to post where this claim is offered as a proven theorem in any of Dembski's writings.
Our critics take our philosophical views and the pretend these are our scientific and mathematical statements. And then we are falsely accused of peddlng philosophy as science. Would you appreciate having your personal views being represented as your scientific claims or claims of absolute mathematical proof?
Dembski has formalized the conception of the ordinary practice of calling things designed. Even atheistic biologists use the word "design" and this common usage can be formalized quite well through mathematics.
The Design Inference laid out how such labels can be affixed. It is within that formalization that Darwinian evolution and genetic algorithms can be shown to be theoretically self-contradictory.
The book design inference merely formalize when it is appropriate to label somthing as being designed. Even atheist biologists do this. It does not strongly the address whether intelligent agency is an absolute necessity for the design to originate, and in his latest papers he merely states that what ever the source of the design be it intelligent or not, it cannot be stochastically described...
If I or Bill say we believe something is intelligently designed, one must be careful to evaluate if the claim is a personal one or a scientific and mathematical claim, or if we are offering a reasonable hypothesis versus a claim of absolute proven truth.
For me personally, its been refreshing to see the work of Dembski's caliber in print. It refutes a lot of false claims by the Darwinists about the efficacy of Natural selection in the wild.
I've personally examined and debunked the nonsense being promoted by Dembski's critics like Elsberry, Perakh, Shallit, Thomas, Lenski, Adami, and others. I plead you reconsider who is closer to the truth in terms of valid deductive methods....
Irreducible complexity makes sense in a scientific context if the universe evolves its inherent traits perpetually "forward" in the direction of absolute symmetry by way of periodic big bangs that occur after energy has been disseminated more-uniformly than previous universes accomplished.
This enables work to be maximized beyond that which was accomplished by previous universes in order that energy might be eternally conserved when a more symmetrical object is produced by less work each time that we have a big bang.
This means that the near-perfectly-flat structure that the big bang produced was a real-good but not perfect shot in the direction of absolute symmetry. This is rather absurdly obvious, actually, so the idea that this wasn't the "intended" goal of the big bang is very lame.
e.g., the unattainable "goal" of evolution, (universal or othewise), is absolute symmetry, via a never-ending, (nor begining), series of evolutionary leaps to higher ordered structures that increase entropy more efficeincy than the structure that it evolved from.
This defines a perpetually inherent "final cause" or purpose in nature without need for a supernatural or otherwise intelligent designer.
sorry, godidn' dosquat.
island,
you didn't prove a thing.
People claim at best a design inference is philosophical.... what island just spewed would be a few echelons lower.
"sorry, godidn' dosquat".
Sorry, your post didn't prove anything. Maybe it gave us a few insights into your character, but as uninteresting as those are it's the best you've accomplished so far.
"Irreducible complexity makes sense in a scientific context if the universe evolves its inherent traits perpetually "forward" in the direction of absolute symmetry by way of periodic big bangs that occur after energy has been disseminated more-uniformly than previous universes accomplished."
Now I understand why Dembski deleted your posts. Alot of words, concepts and incoherent rambling.... seems worthy of deletion.
This proves nothing.
yuh, okay. So here I am for your viewing pleasure, proving every point with the facts.
You can't assume that human-intent is any different than any other form of naturally expressed bias... so there is no justification for added entities without a means for differentiating between intelligent and natural "intent".
Doug understands zero about cosmology... got it.
Let's see how he does on number two.
Doug,
Please disprove the following or shut-up their big uneducated mouth… please:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says “god” doesn’t throw dice…
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/
2...msg0073320.html
Real Objects of Negative Orthodoxy… not mass
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/
2...msg0073465.html
"Doug understands zero about cosmology... got it.
Let's see how he does on number two."
Again... if this is how you handle yourself, I think Dembski was in the right.
Such a bold claim considering how little you know of what I know.
Salvador writes
"The hatred toward Christianity will not be soothed."
Consider this, Sal: David's last three posts here have made this atheist feel LESS antagonistic and more hopeful that Christians and atheists can behave decently and get along in the world and even ork together towards a greater scientific understanding of our universe.
Your comments have the polar opposite effect.
And I can assure you that I am not alone.
Think about it.
Oh and doug, you're even a worse representative for Christ than Sal and I didn't think that was possible.
No, you made it quite obvious that you don't know what you're looking at, yet you chose to tell me anyway.
You earned what you got, punk, so sorry if you don't like it.
"Doug,
Please disprove the following or shut-up their big uneducated mouth… please:"
Your links aren't working. Also, calm down. Why are you getting so emotional over this? Try to handle criticism without springing a leak.
"No, you made it quite obvious that you don't know what you're looking at, yet you chose to tell me anyway.
You earned what you got, punk, so sorry if you don't like it."
Oh my. island.... are you seriously this emotional over this? Dang man, that's odd.
Your post made little sense and came across as rambling with technical jargon sprinkled on it. I call it like I see it. Ease up on the name calling. More reasons why you probably got banned. island, you lose friends this way.
Salvador,
First of all, you greatly overestimate my influence. I get about 250 hits a day on this site. I’m reasonably sure, for example, UD gets at least an order of magnitude more, not to mention all the other ID related sites, such as telic thoughts, ID the Future, etc. ID has a sizable base, and my reservations (which are not new, by the way) will not make a dent. This should be clear from the fact that no IDer has commented that he/she agrees with me.
Also, I am not a convert to the opposition, but rather I am saying, in effect, a pox on both your houses.
The point is well taken that nobody should be victimized because some of the leaders of the ID movement are inept. Nevertheless, that is the fallout that we see. So the question is: is it worth it? If people were suffering because of the gospel, then clearly the answer is yes. But people are not being wronged (in this case) because of the gospel, but because a few have taken a despicable route (politics) to push a misrepresented platform (ID is science, and not about God) and impotent “proofs” (Dembskimatics.) As usual in a political movement, the leaders don’t suffer (on the contrary, they profit), the foot soldiers do.
As for Sternberg, a foot soldier, you might recall that I blogged several times, forcefully, in his defense. You can search my site if you were not aware.
I know nothing about Gordon Wilson. I will say this: I was on the faculty committee that reviewed tenure applications. If, at that time, a person had came up for tenure in biology and they were against evolution and they were doing solid research, I would (assuming everything else was in order) have fought anyone to the mat to approve their application. On the other hand, if they were against evolution and were as unproductive as, say, Dembski is (in terms of actual peer-reviewed research) I’d have voted them down. Your entire tenure application cannot stand on the fact that you oppose evolution anymore than it can stand on the fact that you support it. You’ve got to do some science if you claim that you are a scientist.
Yes, there have always been people like Dawkins and Barbara Forrest. But their arguments did not generate nearly the audience they do today. I’m not against a fight or making enemies, but this was not a fight for which Christianity should have expended so much capital.
If there is ever a new ID movement, one that seeks to further develop the use of scientific results as apologetics for theism, count me in. Or, if IDers start doing experiments and publishing results, I’ll knock on the door and meekly ask to be let back in.
That's a lot better, thanks.
The links work for me when I right click and open them in a new window.
Did you try pasting them in?
No Doug... you insulted me first in the worst possible way, but you do not even realize it.
"Oh and doug, you're even a worse representative for Christ than Sal and I didn't think that was possible."
And you are? I have my faults. But I try to be understanding. You come with comments like this? This is truly sad. You guys are acting like children. If you can't handle it when someone disagrees with you, without resorting to this type of melodramatic comment slinging.... then find another hobby.. not for me, but for your own health.
Doug can't handle dougs own medicine
"No Doug... you insulted me first in the worst possible way, but you do not even realize it."
The worst possible way? Please island, you are taking this so personal. Again with the melodramatic comments. What do you want me to say? Your post didn't make sense. Yes, I understand cosmology.... no, I didn't get what your point was. You ended your post with some arrogant comment and I called you on it. That's it, nothing to get all frazzled about.
"Doug can't handle dougs own medicine"
I disagree.
Okay, I addressed your point but you failed to respond:
This was my point to Dembski.
You can't assume that human-intent is any different than any other form of naturally expressed bias... so there is no justification for added entities without a means for differentiating between intelligent and natural "intent".
See, Dembski doesn't like it because it allows for an einstein-like view of purpose in nature that is just physics, which you will never see a neodarwinist using. Dembski wants to use evidence for purpose in nature as evidence for an intelligent manipulating agent, so he deleted the parts that proved he was not justified in doing so.
David,
I thank you for your time, and I hope this is my last post on this thread. Your weblog may not be widely read, but the critics will sieze on what you say, and you ideas are respected by several ID proponents in the blogsphere including members of the Discovery Institute.
It is my personal interest to alert you to the state of affairs. No where have I heard among the ID leadership that such and such absolutely proves ID. They have even in their own words only claimed it is "the best" explanation. Such qualitative words convey an opinion, not a claim of fact.
Furthermore, although it would be the ID leadership's delight to see it received and taught, I don't see where they are trying to impose it into public schools or even college curricula through legislative politics. How much pro-ID legislation has the ID leadership really attempted to pass? I don't hear the DI saying, "support this pro-ID bill".
Critiques of Darwinian theory or naturalistic evolution from existing peer-reviewed articles don't count as ID being taught in science classes. Darwinian evolution's claims are pseudo-science (even by Darwinist's own admission in unguarded moments) and does not deserve to even be associated with real theories like celestial mechanics or electro-magnetism or even real biological disciplines like cellular biology or molecular biology.
I have pointed out evolutionary biologist lament that even biology students in college get only a couple lectures worth of evolution at most colleges as it's totally irrelevant as an operational science. See: In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom.
I think therefore accusations of using politics are misplaced. If any thing, Darwinian evolution has been sustained by politics and ideology than any sustainable science.
Finally, I think the actual scientific and mathematical claims in the ID's technical literature are far more modest than you think. One should not be thinking ID proponents philosophical or theological view are necessarily scientific claims.
For example, I have yet to see where Dembski says, in a mathematical sense, that intelligent design is proven mathematically. If someone attributes that claim to him, that would be highly uncharitable rendering of his technical literature. He merely formalized the common usage of the word "design". In that sense he is in very good agreement with the notion of design as it is used in ordinary human experience.
a scientist may view design and its appeal to a designer as simply a fruitful device for understanding the world, not attaching any significance to question such as whether a theory of design is in some ultimate sense true or whether the designer actually exists
William Dembski
This a very modest claim and consistent with the practice of systems biology. We treat biological systems as designed systems. This already a common practice....
I have pointed out, the willingness to consider design of objects with little immediate Darwinian reproductive advantage may uncover real designs. I pointed out such architectures here: Airplane magenetos, contingency designs, and reasons ID will prevail. Thus the design perspective will be the defacto way to characterize biology, not reproductive fitness.
What Dembski has however done from a mathematical perspective is demolish Darwinian evolution as the major source of biological innovation. There is no salemanship there.
In sum, I would hope you reconsider some of the criticism you have leveled against Bill in light of the fact that his actual technical writings make very modest claims.
Salvador,
You shouldn't worry about such things. I am a small blip on both the ID as well as the anti-ID radar. I don't think Panda's Thumb will be posting front-page articles about my disillusionment with the ID leadership. And, as I said, it is really nothing new. I'll point out that back in April I was saying much the same thing (admittedly without the direct criticism of ID leaders, but it's there, between the lines.)
And, of course, I cannot refrain from writing what I believe because I might become a sort of "useful idiot" for anti-theists.
In a sense, my position relative to the ID movement is, rather bizarrely, something of a religious wing nut. I am even "more out there" than they are. Orthodox IDers are saying it's about science, I'm saying: it's about God.
David,
If you find the time (perhaps a follow-up post?) can you address where and why you think Dembski's mathematics is deficient?
Is design like pornography (it's solely in the eye of the beholder), or is it possible to mathematically describe properties of design?
wrf3,
Arggh. I was afraid someone would ask me that, after I declared I was done with this topic. However, it's a fair question, so I'll post on it in the near future, including how I reluctantly came to examine his mathematics in detail--when for the longest time I was comfortable hiding my gut instincts behind "I never read Dembski's work" when asked about it by friend or foe.
It's an interesting problem. On the one hand, we obviously see design where none exists. The new high resolution images of the "face on Mars" demonstrate this (http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/
SEM09F8LURE_1.html). On the other hand, it "obvious" to me that we also deny design where it does exist. Is this all subjective?
Great post, Heddle. On Sternberg, I don't claim to be an expert. However, The Panda's Thumb, for example here, claims that the story isn't nearly what the ID movement has put out.
Sal is lying scum from the DI garbage pond.
His little IDEA club only changed their policy that you had to be a Christian in order to be an office holder when they lost at Dover. But of course, con men for Jesus like Sal will tell you ID is not about religion or Christianity, it's about science (wink wink).
Shut up Sal. Just shut up and go back to that joke called uncommondescent where you can censor anyone who asks "where is the science?"
Angry Christian (and others)
Please make substantive comments or don’t bother. You or anyone else can insult me as much as you like, but you are going way over the top in the way you are addressing Salvador. (And you are giving credibility to Salvador’s point that my rejection of the ID movement will be abused.) I have never deleted a non-spam comment. But from this point on I will delete any that are merely insults directed at another reader. (As for me, you may insult at will and as long as it is not obscene and the comment will remain unmolested.) I won't allow my comment section to start looking as repulsive as that of Panda's Thumb.
Ephesians 4:26
It's an interesting problem. On the one hand, we obviously see design where none exists. The new high resolution images of the "face on Mars" demonstrate this (http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/ SEM09F8LURE_1.html). On the other hand, it "obvious" to me that we also deny design where it does exist. Is this all subjective?
wrf3 | 09.22.06 - 7:59 am
wrf3, you really hit the nail on the head with the porn comment. Recognizing design is an unconscious heuristic which works well in everyday situations. It's part of our common sense. But often in science, you encounter weird phenomena which contradict common sense. Evolution has worked on quadrillions of organisms over billions of years, and this is not the kind of thing our common sense can be expected to have a good gut feeling about. Kind of like how Einstein's relativity defies common sense, but it's nonetheless true.
Mr. Heddle, did you read Elsberry & Shallit? They did a fine job.
(I have to ask. My computer system is usually omnipotent, but I just bought a new one, and so far I've only transferred my mp3's.)
Salvador: What Dembski has however done from a mathematical perspective is demolish Darwinian evolution as the major source of biological innovation. There is no salemanship there.
It's nothing but salesmanship, Sal, because we all know that Dembski will never apply his math to an actual biological system and use it to make predictions that can then be tested by experiment and observation.
Moreover, he hasn't demolished anything because the assumptions on which his math is based are completely wrong.
Now, if ID is science, why has it never helped anyone to produce any actual data? Why did embracing ID transform Behe's previously measurable, but mediocre, scientific output to zero (simulations aren't data)?
Sal
"They have even in their own words only claimed it is "the best" explanation. Such qualitative words convey an opinion, not a claim of fact."
Lies on top of lies. First, so-called "ID theory" doesn't "explain" anything in biology, which is why sincere scientists universally ignore the claims of Behe and Dembski.
Second, this handwaving about "mere opinions" is a sad joke, Sal. Is the flagellum "irreducibly complex" or not? I seem to recall that the flagellum was claimed to be irreducibly complex. If so, then my understanding of the "theory" is that it must have been designed by intelligent beings who pre-exist the development of the vertebrate brain on earth. There is nothing "qualitative" about these sorts of claims, Sal.
On the other hand, there is nothing scientific about them either because as soon as we analyze the terms you ID peddlers throw around we discover that it's nothing but vapid rhetorical garbage.
"Lies on top of lies. First, so-called "ID theory" doesn't "explain" anything in biology, which is why sincere scientists universally ignore the claims of Behe and Dembski."
Universally? And this 'stunt' from the one who claimed 'lies on top of lies'. Chaperonin proteins make sense from a design perspective; exonuclease & PCNA make sense from a design perspective.... many cellular functions can be elucidated from a design perspective.
Does ignoring them involve engaging them in debate? (Miller - Behe & Hunter - Ruse). No it doesn't, so you are incorrect.
"On the other hand, there is nothing scientific about them either because as soon as we analyze the terms you ID peddlers throw around we discover that it's nothing but vapid rhetorical garbage."
Support this claim. I have read numerous articles from nontelic-minded scientists who have used terms like 'design' and other intention-laden terms. Even scientists who tell us to put forth an active effort to remind ourselves that what we are seeing is NOT designed.
And with you as well. If you can't discuss the topics without letting your emotions trump your ability to converse in a diplomatic manner.... leading you to overexaggerate claims and resort to silly labels (vapid rhetorical garbage) than maybe this just isn't for you. I have no problem with dissent. I do have an issue with emotional wrecks slinging mud at people who are truly interested with discussing the topics.
I challenge anyone to find where Sal has intentionally lied or intentionally mislead.
There seems to be some pretty smart cookies here so I'll attempt to get an answer to my BIG question:
"How did we (humans) come to exist?"
I've been watching this debate unfold and it seems that the point is ultimately to determine the more viable explanation as to how we arrived on the scene, so to speak.
So, let's assume that I know nothing about science or religion. Someone out there please tell me how we got here. Scientist, Christian, Atheist, IDer, anyone will do. I just need a synopsis to help catch me up to speed on all this. Thank You in advance for your prompt and kind replies.
"I have read numerous articles from nontelic-minded scientists who have used terms like 'design' and other intention-laden terms."
Hahahhaaha. So a scientist used a term that you claim is "intention-laden" and that means that those scientists believe that Dembski and Behe's claims regarding "irreducible complexity" are not garbage?
Real deep, doug. Real deep. In response, I offer you a google search for the term "designed by the wind."
http://www.google.com/search?hl=...+by+the+wind%
22
Please contact the writers at those google pages and let me know how many of them believe that the wind is "intelligent."
I'll be waiting right here, laughing my butt off (but not holding my breath).
"I challenge anyone to find where Sal has intentionally lied or intentionally mislead."
That's easy:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archi...l#comment-
31208
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archi...l#comment-
31256
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archi...l#comment-
31260
Caught red-handed telling a bald-faced self-serving lie. This is an infamous event. I'm surprised you don't already know about it.
"I've been watching this debate unfold and it seems that the point is ultimately to determine the more viable explanation as to how we arrived on the scene, so to speak."
"We" were given birth to by creatures similar but not identical to us (i.e., our parents), who were given birth to by creatures similar but not identical to us (i.e., their parents), who were given birth to by creatures similar but not identical to us ... etc., etc. repeat for billions of years.
That's what happened. Anybody who tells you otherwise is a confused stooge. Let me know if you think you or your most distant relative was not given birth to by "a creature similar but not identical" to them. Also, let me know if you think you are more equally closely related to your parents and your grandparents. If you have any other questions, I recommend attending college at a respected university (i.e., not Falwell University) and majoring in biology. Good luck! Life is fun.
Alan, Please allow me to shorten your title to AA and of course, I can't escape the irony in that given the condescending tone to your post.
I do see your point, though. Biology explains it all. OK, but take me back to the beginning point. You apparently already have me labeled as dumb so this will give you an opportunity to be an educator. Educate me on where the first humans came from. I really do want to know. I really thought I was the only simpleton here but thanks to your simplistic response to my post, I'm no longer lonely.
Can no one tell me how the first humans got here?
"Hahahhaaha. So a scientist used a term that you claim is "intention-laden" and that means that those scientists believe that Dembski and Behe's claims regarding "irreducible complexity" are not garbage?"
We both know they they are not going to say "Behe and Dembski WERE correct!".
But you said, "which is why sincere scientists universally ignore the claims of Behe and Dembski".... maybe they do, maybe they don't; but they don't ignore the fact that design is not such an off-the-wall idea, because they are attempting to explain away that which seems intuitive (a design inference).
And you're still wrong. Where is this 'universal' ignoring you were mentioning?
If they thought the concept was garbage they wouldn't be engaging Dr. Behe or Dembski. Again, you're making bold exaggerations that you can't support.
"Please contact the writers at those google pages and let me know how many of them believe that the wind is "intelligent.""
This doesn't prove anything, except that you're conflating ideas. The fact is that the wind does 'design' certain patterns.... do you think that when scientists are telling us to ignore the appearance of design at certain levels of biology they mean the same thing?
"I'll be waiting right here, laughing my butt off (but not holding my breath)."
Again, Stunt Woman is unable to have a conversation without letting her emotions trump her ability to converse diplomatically.
We both know they they are not going to say "Behe and Dembski WERE correct!".
Why not, doug?
This doesn't prove anything,
Yes it does. It proves that your argument about the use of "intention-laden" terms was bogus.
If they thought the concept was garbage they wouldn't be engaging Dr. Behe or Dembski.
According to doug's "logic" there must be some validity to slavery and race-based discrimination because decent human beings have found it necessary to "engage" racists at various points in our country's history.
That's pretty sad, doug.
they are attempting to explain away that which seems intuitive
No more so than those folks at those Google pages are attempting to "explain away" the wind, doug.
But go ahead and keep lying, doug. Lie for Jesus.
When you lie, doug, you make Christians stink.
IAEFR
Can no one tell me how the first humans got here?
A disengenuous plea followed by goalpost moving? And a refusal to answer straightforward direct questions?
I am shocked -- shocked! -- to this sort of behavior at a blog where Salvador Cordova has posted.
Tell us, AllElseFails: do you consider yourself a Christian?
If so, then why do you pretend that your question has not been answered? Because it was answered. Plainly and directly. If you any sincere questions about the details, why not pick up a book by an expert on human evolution it and, uh, read it?
Stunt Woman is unable to have a conversation without letting her emotions trump her ability to converse diplomatically.
Sometimes it's hard not to laugh at the garbage that creationists come up with. Please accept our apologies.
TLJC wrote: wrf3, you really hit the nail on the head with the porn comment.
Great. Just what I need on my tombstone. 
Recognizing design is an unconscious heuristic which works well in everyday situations. It's part of our common sense. But often in science, you encounter weird phenomena which contradict common sense.
So? Sometimes you encounter phenomena which confirm common sense.
Evolution has worked on quadrillions of organisms over billions of years, and this is not the kind of thing our common sense can be expected to have a good gut feeling about.
So what? Common sense isn't the only tool we have at our disposal. Probability and statistics are well developed branches of mathematics. We can model a random process to determine what the odds are, say, of infinite monkeys at typewriters trying to come up with coherent sentences of varying lengths. We ought to be able to do the same thing for biological systems.
Kind of like how Einstein's relativity defies common sense, but it's nonetheless true.
I'm familiar with some of the math for relativity and I know about the measurements which confirm the formulas. Where is this work applied to biological systems?
Can design be mathematically quantified? Dembski says yes; David says no (please correct me if I've misunderstood you). If Dembski is right, what happens when we apply the math to complex natural systems?
Common sense isn't the only tool we have at our disposal. Probability and statistics are well developed branches of mathematics. We can model a random process to determine what the odds are, say, of infinite monkeys at typewriters trying to come up with coherent sentences of varying lengths. We ought to be able to do the same thing for biological systems.
We can do it with the monkeys at typewriters because we possess all the words for a language. We know the dictionary in advance.
In order to do so biologically, you'd have to do things like, for instance, figure out from the amino acid sequence whether a folded protein is useful in any possible biological system. You'd have to figure out what all the words are, so to speak. If you can do this, you will get free airfare to Sweden, if you know what I mean.
We can do it with the monkeys at typewriters because we possess all the words for a language. We know the dictionary in advance.
Understand, wrf3? Do you understand this simple concept?
Not only do we know the dictionary IN ADVANCE of our prediction and what constitutes "a sentence" IN ADVANCE of our prediction, but we also know all the letters available to the chimpanzee IN ADVANCE of or prediction. That is what makes the probability calculable.
If you are still having trouble understanding this very elementary concept, wrf3, ask yourself this: can we model a random process to determine what are the odds of a chimpanzee writing a sentence that is coherent in a language WHICH HAS YET TO EVOLVE?
The odds that a planet in the universe could evolve to be like the earth im 2006, with its complement of life forms, are easy to calculate: 100%. How do I know? Because I live on earth.
Where do you live, wrf3?
If Dembski is right, what happens when we apply the math to complex natural systems?
How long would it take monkeys to type the above question?
Answer: Not very.
TLJC wrote: In order to do so biologically, you'd have to do things like, for instance, figure out from the amino acid sequence whether a folded protein is useful in any possible biological system. You'd have to figure out what all the words are, so to speak.
We know what the words are in biological systems, just like we know what the words are in English. If we can calculate the odds of word formation in English, we ought to be able to calculate the formation of "words" using ATGC.
Altamont Alan asked, can we model a random process to determine what are the odds of a chimpanzee writing a sentence that is coherent in a language WHICH HAS YET TO EVOLVE?
Languages don't evolve absent intelligence. Nevertheless, given the known properties of atoms and given the known properties of working biological systems, what are the probabilities of the formation of the complex systems that comprise the cell?
The odds that a planet in the universe could evolve to be like the earth im 2006, with its complement of life forms, are easy to calculate: 100%. How do I know? Because I live on earth.
No, you "know" because you're assuming your conclusion. "We're here because we're here" explains nothing, calculates nothing, demonstrates nothing.
Altamont Alan also asked, How long would it take monkeys to type the above question?
Since the sentence "If Dembski is right, what happens when we apply the math to complex natural systems?" has 84 characters, the answer is "longer than the age of the universe".
But we both know that's not the only sentence that follows the rules.
"A disengenuous plea followed by goalpost moving? And a refusal to answer straightforward direct questions?
I am shocked -- shocked! -- to this sort of behavior at a blog where Salvador Cordova has posted.
Tell us, AllElseFails: do you consider yourself a Christian?
If so, then why do you pretend that your question has not been answered? Because it was answered. Plainly and directly. If you any sincere questions about the details, why not pick up a book by an expert on human evolution it and, uh, read it?"
AA,
I did not realize we were playing football and I recall no straightforward, direct questions from you to me. If I missed them, please ask again and I'll answer. My point is simply that neither side of these debates can "prove" how humans came to exist.
Your mentioning of SC is of little significance to me as I am not familiar with his views.
I am a Christian and I do not pretend that my question has not been answered. The only views we have as to how humans came into existence are based in faith on both sides of the debate. I do not believe we humans can answer the question with proof. You may have faith in science (as do I, BTW); however, I have faith in a being commonly called "God" that I believe created the laws of nature that people use to conduct science.
The question that I am chiefly interested in ascertaining an answer to is: "If we evolved, where did the matter that we evolved from come from?"
Please define "human evolution" for me. By my definition, I strongly believe in human evolution. That is, I believe humans have evolved within our own species as many other species have evolved within their own; however, I do not believe humans evolved from a "precambrian soup."
I'm freely willing to admit that my views are based in faith to an extent. Are you willing to admit that yours are ultimately based in a faith as well. Remember, science has yet to prove how we humans came to be. Science has only offered a theory.
One last thing. The little reading I have done on irreducible complexity was about blood clotting as an irreducibly complex process. This makes sense to me (a simpleton). Is there any evidence to the contrary? Please note that I realize that the abscence of evidence is not in itself evidence.
We know what the words are in biological systems, just like we know what the words are in English. If we can calculate the odds of word formation in English, we ought to be able to calculate the formation of "words" using ATGC.
Learn a little about protein folding and you'll see your big mistake.
If All Else Fails: 1 Behe and Snoke 2004 proves that Irreducibly Complex things can evolve all the time 2 Many organisms have similar, but simpler, blood clotting systems than ours. Confronted by this evidence, Behe has never been able to identify which blood clotting system is IC.
The question that I am chiefly interested in ascertaining an answer to is: "If we evolved, where did the matter that we evolved from come from?
More blatant goalpost moving by an admitted Christian. It's so easy to collect data on the practice of these dishonest tactics by self-professing Christians. One only needs to know where to look.
You do make Christians look bad (if not merely stupid and anti-science) when you behave this way, you know. You do realize that, don't you?
I'm freely willing to admit that my views are based in faith to an extent.
Faith and ignorance, actually, if you are trying to deny that human beings evolved from a common ancestor we share with other primates.
Are you willing to admit that yours are ultimately based in a faith as well.
No, because I have no idea what "ultimately based in a faith" is supposed to mean. Also, it's entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand which is: "ID theory" is a simply apologetics which its peddlers like to pretend is scientific.
Rather than providing coherent rebuttals to Heddle's descriptions of ID as such, the Christian creationists who have posted here simply reaffirmed Heddle's position on the matter.
TLJC,
Could you explain something to me about protein folding and evolution?
Here is a hypothetical situation involving a hypothetical pore protein evolving a new function which will ultimately allow it to produce a gated channel. This was previously suggested on this blog as a hypothetical first step in the evolution of the flagellum (IC), and in support of the position that IC evolves all the time (and that Behe is wrong).
Gene A is duplicated (encoding a pore protein) to produce gene B. At the start, both genes are identical and functional. They can both be selected based upon the transport function. Selection keeps them both around, but only one is necessary at this point. The duplicated gene B can begin to mutate without causing the cell to die, but whatever mutations occur, those mutations have to provide some selective advantage to the cell (or else there is no selection for gene B). If gene B acquired mutations that gave it a new function, the selection could occur based upon the new function. However, new functions require multiple mutations in gene B and they require long periods of time to accumulate (because mutations are rare). If gene B isn’t selected based upon a new function, the only means of keeping it around is selection based upon its original function. Gene B is thus limited in the types of mutations that it can acquire. They must not decrease its original function (or gene B is lost or rendered nonfunctional) and they must at some point generate a new function which will allow selection for cells based upon this new function (independent of the first function). This requires that many mutations arise and persist in gene B until one final mutation causes a new selectable function to appear. The problem is that these mutations, intermediates along the way towards a new gene B function), will not persist because they don’t provide any selective advantage (based on either the transport function, or a new function). How then, does the new function (a gating capacity) evolve in gene B?
If a protein is constrained in its three dimensional structure as a result of selection by virtue of its function, how does a new function arise within that constraint?
If this is too far a divergence from the tack this thread has taken, I apologize. It just seemed like a good opportunity to explain in scientific terms why Behe is completely wrong.
Certainly my child.
You have too strong a view of selection. Everything does not have to be selected at every moment. Let us say you go to the car dealership and there are only three cars. A Yugo, a Gremlin, and a superb '68 Dodge Charger. However, the Charger has those ugly Yosimite Sam mudflaps.
Despite the fact that the mudflaps slightly diminish the value of the car, it is still the car you select.
Is it clear, my child?
If not, check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Neu...cular_evolution
TLJC
So if I were to take your link on neutral mutations and drift as a response and put it into the context of the example, one would expect the follow to occur: A neutral mutation occurs in gene B, then it becomes abundant in the population as a result of drift. Another neutral mutation occurs in B, and is similarly made abundant in the population through drift. This occurs repeatedly until enough neutral mutations become associated in gene B to cause some small, but selectable, new function (like pore gating) to arise. Now gene B is functioning as both a pore and a gating protein, but can be selected based upon gating alone at this point.
Is this correct?
I cannot tell if you mean 'pore' and 'gating' to be two different things here, or one thing 'poregating'.
TLJC,
The original gene A encodes a pore that is unregulated (not gated). The idea here is that a second protein can evolve from a duplicated gene A, and this protein has a new function which is to regulate (gate) the original pore. The transport function of the pore is different from regulation (or gating) of the pore.
Yes, in your scenario of A and B, such a thing could happen.
BTW:
It just seemed like a good opportunity to explain in scientific terms why Behe is completely wrong.
It would be foolishly inefficient for me to retype the numerous explanations of why Behe is completely wrong. So many of my smart young creatures have already taken care of this. For one example--a particularly delicious one--see here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
archi...y_is_as_th.html
It's particularly delicious because if you replace Behe's population size with a real-world estimate, Behe's model spits out Irreducible Complexity millions of times a second.
AA, do you not realize that you are involved in the practice of apologetics? All you've done thus far, however, is make snide remarks and back-handed comments about Christians and their "tactics". You have yet to take me back to the very beginning and explain where our common ancestor came from.
Which takes more faith? A belief that we ultimately evolved from inorganic matter into the complex, organic creatures that we are today or that we were created by a supernatural being?
Could your problem be that if you had to admit to the existence of God, that you may feel the need to be obedient to him?
This game is simple. Answer my questions and don't call names. If I make Christians look bad it is not intentional; however, you do your cause no favors with your poor attitude and snarky tone. You may still make your points without the condescending "I'm smarter and better than you and oh by the way, the theory I believe in is absolutely RIGHT."
I think you know exactly what I mean by your having to have faith. You have to have faith in the theory you support because it is just a theory. It has not and cannot be proven to be true. You have faith but no proof.
Here's where I stand. I believe ID is a very good Christian apologetic tool. I do not believe that it is science nor do I particularly care.
Now come back with answers and quit muddying these waters with name calling. You present yourself as being smarter and better than that. Live up to it.
Carry on.
John's questions serve to illustrate exactly why wrf3 and others are so deeply confused about biology and the scientific study of nature generally.
Terms such as "function" and "purpose" were coined by human beings so that we could communicate with each other about things we observe in reality. However, it should go without saying (except in conversations with creationists) that biological features do not come with instruction booklets which set forth their "function" or "role" in the cell. To the extent scientists assign "functions" or "roles" to proteins, we do that based on our OBSERVATIONS of the actions of those proteins under various conditions. But there is nothing that presents a given protein from changing its role or function over time, nor is it ever possible to conclude that a particular protein has but one particular "reason" for its existence.
Likewise, human beings themselves are not born with a defined "purpose" branded on our shiny behinds. If you CHOOSE to believe that human beings have a "purpose," feel free to do so. But such assumptions are not scientific and attempts to tie that assumption to scientific observations about the natural world are simply abusing/exploiting scientific knowledge to advance a personal agenda. Christians have been behaving this way pretty much forever, so I hardly expect them to stop now, in spite of the pleas from other Christians themselves who realize that such behavior essentially perverts religious belief into an ignorance-embracing anti-scientific ideology.
All you've done thus far, however, is make snide remarks and back-handed comments about Christians and their "tactics".
There's nothing "snide" or back-handed about my remarks. They are observations which are well-documented and understood. David Heddle has documented the behavior as well in his posts here and has tried to explain to you what the problem is. That you refuse to listen is your problem, not mine because you claim to be associated with Christianity. I do not. Do you get it? Like David, I am urging you to clean up your house.
You have to have faith in the theory you support because it is just a theory.
Wrong. I don't have to "faith in the theory." The theory makes prediction which are testable and they have been tested and the tests show that the theory of evolution rests on ground as solid as the theory of a sun-centered solar system.
That is why when you go to PubMed and read the scientific literature you find mountains of papers which discuss and refer to the evolution of life on earth. Or do you have another explanation for that observation? If so, I'd love to hear it. But perhaps you don't want to add to my collection of data which shows how certain Christians are willing to say *anything* not matter how stupid or disengenuous if it serves their agenda of either bashing evolutionary biology or the scientific method generally.
Make my day.
I believe ID is a very good Christian apologetic tool. I do not believe that it is science nor do I particularly care.
Let's get this straight: claiming that there is a scientific basis for concluding that an "intelligence" designed every life form on earth -- regardless of whether in FACT there is a scientific basis for that conclusion -- is a "very good Christian apologetics tool."
Sounds to me like Christians don't give a hoot about honesty. Whatever happened to "bearing false witness"? Has that Commandment been redefined by contemporary Christian preachers to allow misleading people about science?
Perhaps you can show me, IAEFRO, where I can find you on the web prior to the Dover decision criticizing the Dover school board for preaching Christian apologetics in public school science classes. That would show that you are a reasonable and honest person of moderate intelligence.
Let's see it.
Could your problem be that if you had to admit to the existence of God, that you may feel the need to be obedient to him?
Please don't project your Oedipal issues onto me.
My "problem" is with Christians who are ignorant of biology pretending that their heroes like Bill Dembski at the Discovery Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated something that is relevant to the biological sciences when, in fact (as pointed out by your fellow believer Mr. Heddle) they have "never proved anything."
You seem to believe it is important to point that I think you are dishonest or ignorant.
What you are ignoring (intentionally, I must assume) is that Christians like you have been reciting a script about scientists which is far more critical and -- this is key -- utterly FALSE. And this script of your fellow Christians is not being recited in the comments sections of obscure web pages. It's being promoted to major media outlets with millions of dollars behind it.
But no science.
I suggest you focus your energy on cleaning up your own house and convincing people like Sal Cordova and his heroes to stop lying. Of course, if you actually succeed in doing that (good luck!) you'll succeed in reducing charges of dishonesty and that might diminish your ability to convince others that you are being persecuted.
A tough choice for you?
TLJC,
I will check out the link you mentioned, but while we are on this topic, let me ask you another question.
You said "Yes, in your scenario of A and B, such a thing could happen."
This seems to to imply that a relatively small number of neutral mutations could give rise to a new protein function that could be improved with further selection over time. Do you know of any research that addresses this directly through experimentation?
It also implies that neutral mutations and drift are an essential component of evolution. No?
This seems to to imply that a relatively small number of neutral mutations could give rise to a new protein function that could be improved with further selection over time. Do you know of any research that addresses this directly through experimentation?
Just of curiosity, John, let's say that TLJC didn't know of "any research" that "addressed this directly."
Why would that make any difference to you whatsoever?
Seriously.
There are hundreds of professional evolutionary biologists who can answer your questions. You can find them on the web. Call them up, if you're as interested in these issues as you appear to be.
Or learn how to use PubMed.
It also implies that neutral mutations and drift are an essential component of evolution.
That's a lot like asking whether rainfall is an essential component of erosion.
Why not do some serious reading on the subject so you can ask better questions?
Also, I note that TLJC has made a sincere effort to provide you with answers to your questions but you have failed thus far to thank him. What's up with that, John?
You're right AA.
Thank you TLJC. I appeciate your responses. I also apologize for imposing my rude behavior on David's blog.
TLJC,
I will check out the link you mentioned, but while we are on this topic, let me ask you another question.
You said "Yes, in your scenario of A and B, such a thing could happen."
This seems to to imply that a relatively small number of neutral mutations could give rise to a new protein function that could be improved with further selection over time. Do you know of any research that addresses this directly through experimentation?
I believe there are references to such research in the wikipedia article. It has been a subject of much debate in the scientific community over the last few decades. Also, here is a page from MIT
http://hrst.mit.edu/hrs/
evolutio...traltheory.html
As for me, I don't have a degree in biology, so I don't bother going to the very technical papers. I prefer to read articles where experts dumb it down a bit for me. If I wanted to develop enough expertise to really judge the claims for myself, I would have to spend the years scientists spend reading papers and textbooks and such, and I've really got other things to do. It's like relativity--I haven't personally done experiments with length contraction, or worked through Einstein's differential equations for myself, but I accept the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that it's pretty accurate.
It also implies that neutral mutations and drift are an essential component of evolution. No?
John | 09.23.06 - 5:47 pm |
Indeed it does. When the idea was proposed there was fierce resistance by people who were very die-hard selectionists. But experiments were done and measurements were taken, and now the argument is over how important a role it plays. Evolution is a very complicated set of processes, and there is a lot we still don't know.
BTW John, you have a great attitude. You seem to lean toward the creationist side, but what's much more important is that you have an open mind.
Many people in this discussion would absolutely refuse to believe in evolution even if I Myself appeared and told them it was so.
Many people in this discussion would absolutely refuse to believe in evolution even if I Myself appeared and told them it was so.
I also thank you for your input. I had a feeling you were a reasonable dude when it came to science.
Maybe later you can tell us whether abortion is murder, and why (just kidding, Jesus -- I know you're busy!).
Maybe later you can tell us whether abortion is murder, and why (just kidding, Jesus -- I know you're busy!).
Altamont Alan | 09.23.06 - 8:01 pm
My child, I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole. People on both sides are crazy. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Dr. Heddle,
I am surprised that it took you so long to realise that the ID movement is lead by liars and conmen.
Thanks for this post. I quoted a paragraph from it in my blog, here. All the best on the book.
Commenting by HaloScan
