Thinking Christian Comments
Original Post: Intelligent Design: Bah Humbugs from Bert Humburg
Hi Tom -
Two quick questions:
1.Regarding your assertion "The suggestion that ID is not science is old, and yet scientists continue to do ID work", can you point me to any current research being presented in the peer reviewed literature? I haven't seen any. It seems that Behe and Dembski are not doing any actual lab work to support their hypotheses. Do you know of anyone who is doing such lab work?
2. What do you make of the testimony by Steve Fuller in the Kitzmiller trial, where he admitted, inter alia , that "intelligent design is a modern view of creationism" (pages 80-81 from the trial transcript of his testimony), that "It [intelligent design] is a kind of creationism" (page 81), that "what we now call the intelligent designer used to be called the creator historically" (page 82), that "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, et cetera" (pages 85-86, sounding uncannily like the definition of intelligent design), and that he used the phrase "intelligent design a.k.a. creationism" in one of his publications (page 87)? Fuller, I'm sure you'll remember, was one of the defense experts in the Kitzmiller trial who didn't back out at the 11th hour.
Tom,
I must admit I am excited by your statement that "...scientists continue to do ID work".
Who are these scientists? Where are their laboratories? Research?
I have never been able to find any peer-reviewed articles by any ID scientist.
Where can they be found?
You said that....[ID is] "a research program devoted to detecting instances of design in nature".
Who is in charge of this research program? Who funds it? Where is the program located? Do you have an address? What exactly are they working on and how? Are they doing lab research or mounting an expedition somewhere? How have they defined "design" in scientific language? Do they have a workable scientific theory?
Sorry for all the questions but if you have some inside information that is not being shared with the global scientific community then I'd be extremely interested to hear it.
Cedric:
a) Research
b) Peer reviewed articles
SteveK, thank you for you efforts.
I'm afraid that there seems to be a bit of a problem with the links you provided.
Clicked on "research" and was taken to an impressive place called "Empirical ID Research".
Yet the first example proved to be a dud.
The first explanation was:
• Geron Telomerase Cell Line - Biotech firms, like the Geron Corporation, are utilizing the "research manual" qualities of DNA that Dembski formulated.
Heady stuff! Sounds good.
Yet strangely, the follow-up definition I found via the word “Biosteganography” the top of the Dempski quote was...well..'watery' and not so good.
"Geron Telomerase Cell Line - Biotech firms, like the Geron Corporation, are utilizing something like a "research manual" quality of DNA that Dembski speaks of."
“Something like?”
"Dempski speaks of something?”
Huh?
I don’t understand how this is connected with ID.
The company makes no mention of ID at all at it’s website, nor does it mention William Dempski in any way, shape or form.
(But if you can track down the connection I would be very grateful.)
Please understand, I’m looking for ID scientists doing scientific work on ID in the scientific world. It would be great if ID science is helping Geron but there’s no connection between them.
Geron was founded in 1993 and was doing whatever it does long before Dempski “spoke” of “something like a research manual” in 2002.
Dempskis’s musings (though interesting) doesn’t qualify as work. Nor research. Nor science.
I’ve spend a good hour or so trying to see whether this is ID research and I feel that your link has led me to a dead end.
I’d rather not waste my time like this again, so rather that going laboriously down the list of examples, could you just provide me with a sure-fire example of ID scientists doing real work and real research in the scientific world of ID, just like other scientists in other fields normally do? Please recommend the best one.
Michael Behe, Scott Minnich, Kirk Durston, Dean Kenyon, MikeGene (who works pseudonymously, representing a whole lot of scientists who don't feel free to go public with their research yet because of the career death that would follow), Guillermo Gonzalez, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, Granville Sewell . . .
Dembski's musings don't qualify as work? Sorry, your standard gives you away. You dismiss what you disagree with. I suggest you re-read the last paragraph of the blog post.
So I know you won't accept any of this; and to me it matters little. There is ID work being done, and if I'm right it will boil over into the mainstream, and if you're right it won't. Time will be the proof.
Cedric:
I concur with Tom... and so because of this and for a number of other reasons, I'm pulling out of the conversation.
What bothers me about all this is that scientists are forced to do their work under cover because it challenges the notions of the established orthodoxy. Will there be restitution (or at least a pained conscience) for ideology putting brakes and holding back inquries like ID? Don't hold your breath.
Tom, thank you for the list of names starting with Michael Behe etc.
Yet I must confess that I am surprised by you answer.
Please understand, I am a layman in these matters.
I am, in short, not a scientist. My definitions may be wrong but I have tried to obtain my definitions from reputable sources.
You object to my term of calling Dempskie's musings work? Then how would you term them.
Dempski said " Consider now the following possibility: What if organisms instantiate designs that have no functional significance but that nonetheless give biological investigators insight into functional aspects of organisms. Such second-order designs would serve essentially as an "operating manual," of no use to the organism as such but of use to scientists investigating the organism. Granted, this is a speculative possibility, but there are some preliminary results from the bioinformatics literature that bear it out in relation to the protein-folding problem (such second-order designs appear to be embedded not in a single genome but in a database of homologous genomes from related organisms).
While it makes perfect sense for a designer to throw in an "operating manual" (much as automobile manufacturers include operating manuals with the cars they make), this possibility makes no sense for blind material mechanisms, which cannot anticipate scientific investigators. Research in this area would consist in constructing statistical tests to detect such second-order designs (in other words, steganalysis). Should such second order designs be discovered, the next step would be to seek algorithms for embedding these second-order designs in the organisms. My suspicion is that biological systems do steganography much better than we, and that steganographers will learn a thing or two from biology -- though not because natural selection is so clever, but because the designer of these systems is so adept at steganography.
Is this science or just a man making suggestions at a conference?
How have I “set my standards too high”?
(Oops, clicked the wrong button. Sorry)
Consider now the following possibility: What if organisms instantiate designs that have no functional significance but that nonetheless give biological investigators insight into functional aspects of organisms. Such second-order designs would serve essentially as an "operating manual," of no use to the organism as such but of use to scientists investigating the organism. Granted, this is a speculative possibility, but there are some preliminary results from the bioinformatics literature that bear it out in relation to the protein-folding problem (such second-order designs appear to be embedded not in a single genome but in a database of homologous genomes from related organisms).
While it makes perfect sense for a designer to throw in an "operating manual" (much as automobile manufacturers include operating manuals with the cars they make), this possibility makes no sense for blind material mechanisms, which cannot anticipate scientific investigators. Research in this area would consist in constructing statistical tests to detect such second-order designs (in other words, steganalysis). Should such second order designs be discovered, the next step would be to seek algorithms for embedding these second-order designs in the organisms. My suspicion is that biological systems do steganography much better than we, and that steganographers will learn a thing or two from biology -- though not because natural selection is so clever, but because the designer of these systems is so adept at steganography.
(There..., that's better)
So, as I was saying...
Is this science or just a man making suggestions at a conference?
How have I “set my standards too high”?
I have disagreed with nothing.
Dempski has stated possibilities and voiced some suspicions.
Wonderful.
But my question still stands?
How is this science?
Where's the research? The hard work?
If my standard is too high, then how should I re-set it?
Tom, you said "So I know you won't accept any of this; and to me it matters little."
I'm very sorry you feel that way.
If I have offended you, then I apologise. Yet I just don't see where I have erred. Did Dempski actually spell out a real scientific theory or something and I foolishly missed it?
If there is ID work to be done, then could you at least tell me what data they are using or what tests they are conducting?
You said " Time will be the proof"
Well...yes, isn't it always?
Holopupenko, I'm sorry you are pulling out so soon. You sounded like somebody who had insight in these matters. Alas, you have far more important things to do. Believe me, I understand.
Holopupenko, you said "that scientists are forced to do their work under cover because it challenges the notions of the established orthodoxy."
If they are underground, and refuse to publish then how can you be sure they are there?
Perhaps you could at least direct me to one of the many underground research centers of ID or at least a general location? A hint perhaps?
(sigh)
Cedric:
You asked for research info and you got it. Sorry you don't like some of the quality of research or the direction it's headed. They have to start somewhere, wouldn't you agree? As Tom said, time will be the proof for ID.
SteveK:
It's best that I refrain from posting further.
It's Tom's site and I guess I've crossed a line.
Clearly I just don’t understand how scientific research is done.
If you ever find out that Dempski was really working with the biotech firm, then please let me know.
As for ID having direction, I just don’t see it at all.
Time will tell...but...
From the heart, I respectfully ask that you hold Dempski's feet to the fire.
Since the start of the ID 'controversy' the days have turned into months. Months have turned into years. And as the years become decades, the major players of the ID movement will eventually turn into dust.
Yet I fear that, no matter how long ID remains fruitless, no matter how long the secret labs remain secret, those who were faithful and patient will never get a refund from Dempski’s book royalties.
At least, I won’t be holding my breath.
Cedric, you have not set your standards too high. You have set your standards too low.
If you believe that you can dismiss the years of work done by a double-Ph.D in multiple areas by questioning the validity of one very brief statement he made, which he himself admits is speculative, and which is taken out of all context, then you have certainly set your standards too low. Too low in regard to your own work, that is. You really ought to set yourself a higher standard: to try to understand and properly represent a person you intend to criticize.
Hi Tom –
I don’t think Cedric’s objection was just that Dembski is engaging in speculation. Rather, I think it was that (i) this speculation is being offered as an example of Dembski engaging in scientific research, and (ii) it really isn’t scientific research.
Engaging in speculation is easy. Doing actual research to back up one’s ideas is where “the rubber meets the road” in science. It is here, unfortunately, where Dembski has fallen short.
But the problem is that we had said Dembski was doing work, and Cedric gave us this quote and said, "How is that work? How is that scientific?"
I think Dembski probably also walks his dog, if he has one. And he probably takes a Sunday afternoon nap, if he's like me. I'm even willing to bet that Ernst Mayr did, or Stephen Jay Gould, or that Richard Dawkins does.
Just because we can lift out an example that does not look like "work" does not mean that the person does not do any.
Whether Dembski's work meets up to your expectations or not is another question. A lot of scientists have done work that turned out to be wrong, and yet was still useful in the progress of science. So his work is still certainly work; it's contributing to a paradigm; the paradigm is still progressing. And I'm still betting it will not turn out ultimately to be wrong.
But Tom, this wasn't something something that Cedric pulled out of thin air, this was from the list that SteveK provided. And it doesn't stand up under scrutiny. It was being presented by SteveK as an EXAMPLE of Dembski's scientific research, and Cedric pointed out that it isn't scientific research, it's merely Dembski engaging in some speculation.
OK, so if that isn't an example of Dembski's scientific research, where will we find one? Where are his publications reporting results in the peer-reviewed literature? The world waits for him.
Come on, Tom. Share.
Just what are your favorite pages on that 'ResearchID wiki' site you guys like to link to so much--and why do you think so?
You did look that site over before you linked your readers to it, didn't you? When I looked at the "Geron Telomerase Cell Line" site and entered Dembski's name in the search box, nothing came up. When I entered "intelligent design" in the search box, nothing came up.
I guess all I'm saying is I'm a little surprised you didn't catch that. But one of your other readers did, I see.
Oh, and FWIW--One of that company's product lines uses embryonic stem cell research. Dembski is helping to advance embryonic stem cell research, and I'm gonna tell all his religious bankrollers.
Ron:
Could you please provide references that directly link Dembski to support of embryonic stem cell research? Thanks.
Ron, you may have missed the part in my blog entry where I said I wasn't covering Dembski and Behe.
This needs further clarification, apparently. I've just written a blog post about it.
bobby:
It was being presented by SteveK as an EXAMPLE of Dembski's scientific research, and Cedric pointed out that it isn't scientific research, it's merely Dembski engaging in some speculation.
Is speculation part of the scientific method? I think it is. If his (or others) work never went beyond speculation, then your criticism would be valid. As I said, give these people some time.
Tom, since you specifically addressed me, permit me to respond to your comments.
(I don’t wish to task you nor overstay my welcome here. This is your site and you can run it how you want. If you wish me to leave then there will be no need to ban me. If you tell me not to post here then I will respect your wishes and stop posting.)
You said ”If you believe that you can dismiss the years of work done by a double-Ph.D in multiple areas…”
No, I do not believe this.
Indeed, I never said it! I never once brought up Dembski’s “years of work” nor the question of how many Ph.D’s he has.
I am commenting on the very first example off the list that SteveK kindly provided for me.
I am commenting EXCLUSIVELY on the very first example off the list that SteveK kindly provided for me.
It is one small example.
The claim (your claim?) is that this is an example of ID research. ID science. ID work.
Let me state clearly that I have not looked closely at the other examples on SteveK’s list.
I have no idea if they are good, bad, or indifferent.
I don’t know if I should continue my search along that list without guidance.
I am not making a grand dismissal of ID based upon one small example. That would be absurd.
I am not making ANY comment about what Dembski may or may not have done elsewhere at other times in his career.
I have NOT examined the matter closely so how could I comment?
So what was I commenting on again?
Ah yes, the first example on SteveK’s list, and that’s it!
So……
I do not see how ‘the first cab off the rank’ in SteveK’s list qualifies as ID research.
Strangely enough Tom, as near as I can figure it, you seem to agree with me.
You said (referring to Dembski’s words that I mentioned) that I was “…questioning the validity of one very brief statement he made,…”
No, I am not questioning the validity of his statement.
I’m saying what you are saying; that it is…(well)…a brief statement!
It does not qualify as ID research.
Or are you trying to say that a brief statement, in the scientific world, is real research?
(I’m sure you don’t mean that.)
You then went on to say “…, which he himself admits is speculative…”
Yes, I agree with you. He admits it is speculative.
(I seem to remember highlighting this part when I quoted him.)
Speculation by itself is not research. Or are you going to suggest it is?
(I’m sure you would do no such thing)
So, what we have here is Dembski making a brief, speculative statement that he himself admits to being speculative?
Yes?
I don’t see how one can sensibly argue that a self-admitted brief speculative statement is scientific research. If I am not understanding how research is done in the modern word of science then please show me how I am in error.
Please!
(post continues)
(..Post Cont..)
Finally, you said”… , and which is taken out of all context,…”
...Excuse me???...
If I have taken Dembski’s words “out of context” then…how?
From the very link that SteveK provided, these are the only words of Dembski’s that are quoted.
” William Dembski asked, "What if organisms instantiate designs that have no functional significance but that nonetheless give biological investigators insight into functional aspects of organisms? Such second-order designs would serve essentially as an 'operating manual,' of no use to the organism as such but of use to scientists investigating the organism."[1] Such a discovery would be strong evidence for the design inference.”
And that’s it!
Not content with such a small quote, I went and read the entire speech that Dembski gave. It was a very long speech on many different topics, so for the sake of brevity, I wanted only the relevant passages. I did not choose what was relevant and what was not.
Dembski did.
My source for my Dembski quote was from ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy
which focused only on the example provided in SteveK’s list.
It's true I did not include the opening paragraph.
It was simply Dembski giving his definition of the word Steganography.
Nor indeed did I include the conclusion, the thrust of which focuses on how, if his speculations are correct, then this would be great for ID and that “ID theorists should be at the forefront in unpacking the information contained within biological systems”
How have I destroyed the context of what Dembski said?
What critical piece of information did I miss?
So, I did not just use the very short quote in SteveK’s list.
I used the much longer version provided by the ISCID, of which Dembski is a society fellow.
Tom, how am I being unfair?
I have taken you at you word that there is real ID research out there.
I faithfully followed the link that SteveK provided.
I did not “cherry pick” a bad example from the list.
I went with the very first one.
After diligently following various links and trying to get the most information I reasonably could I ended up with a mouthful of feathers.
Am I not entitled to be just a bit cautious about spending even more time on the next example on the list?
(post continues)…
(Final post, sorry for the length)
Oh, and this is NOT a criticism of SteveK.
I’m sure he gave me that list in good faith and trusted that the list was devoted entirely to rock-solid ID research and science.
Had you said ”ID is still speculative and people are still discussing how to proceed” rather that saying that there is real ID science and real ID scientists doing real ID work then we would not be having this discussion.
If you had said “ID isn’t really science but it would be nice if it was” then we would not be having this discussion.
Tom you said in a later comment ” … Just because we can lift out an example that does not look like "work" does not mean that the person does not do any.”
Once again, I agree with you. Just because the first example I was given (and please remember I did not choose it) it does not follow that the person has not done any.
Later still you said “A lot of scientists have done work that turned out to be wrong, and yet was still useful in the progress of science.”
Once again, we are in agreement. But the work, even though it turned out wrong, was verifiable work, yes? People searched for the North-West Passage but came up empty.
Yet at least they got on ships and risked death and frost-bite. They put in the work.
I salute them.
But as for ID, where is the nose? Where is the scientific grind-stone (scientifically speaking)?
Right work or wrong work is not the issue.
It’s the very existence of the scientific work itself that I’m having trouble over.
There’s science and then there’s sound and fury signifying nothing.
Let me restate that I am commenting EXCLUSIVELY on the very first example off the list that SteveK kindly provided for me.
I am not making a grand dismissal of ID based upon one small example. That would be absurd.
I am NOT making ANY comment about what Dembski may or may not have done elsewhere at other times in his career.
For my part, I am prepared to assume that there is indeed real ID science and real ID scientists doing real ID.
Paychecks are being collected (now), royalties are being made (now), household works are being bandied about (now), serious sounding men are giving out press releases and op-eds (now).
So, I’d like to see some science (now).
What pragmatic, level-headed person would do otherwise?
By the way (I fell behind on the discussion because of a flight home from Orlando), that original link to ResearchID Wiki didn't come from me. I think it's a valuable site, but I didn't do the research to look things up there, and I'm not sure I need to. So in response to:
Anyway, I'm glad you're not dismissing Dembski or his work on the basis of one short quote. It sounded like you were doing that here. But now I accept your statement that you were not.
As for whether the work is really going on, I tire of the question. Yes, it is. You can add Doug Axe to my earlier list. If you doubt that these people are actually showing up in their labs and running experiments, I'm not in a position to correct you, and I don't think we really need to do that anyway.
Cedric/Ron,
If you would seriously like to see some science (now) and seriously want some guidance I would specifically point you to the work of Scott Minnich.
It was in searching for references to work of his that I had previously read about that I first came across the Empirical ID research page. Some of his work is cited there. A quick Google of "mInnich+TTSS+knockout" will get you much of what you are looking for).
Specifically, he is the man who, via knock-out experiments (empirical, wet-bench studies) demonstrated that the bacterial flagellum required each and every one of the described gene products to function.
He pursued this work based upon a design theoretic approach and in order to investigate whether or not the flagellum was irreducibly complex.
It was also his design perspective which led him to hypothesize the close relationship between the TTSS and the flagellum - against the opinions of those thinking in the current neo-Darwinian paradigm. This is the reference I went looking for and did not find on that page.
I still want to find the quote where he says his prediction (fulfilled) was rejected by others based upon current evolutionary knowledge.
The other biologist you might want to read about is Ralph Seelke. Based upon his design perspective he wanted to find out what kind of complexity genetic mutation could generate. He was refused funding and one of the reviewers of his proposal said something to the effect that the experiment was unnecessary because we already know that mutation can generate great complexity, because, well, look around - life is complex.
You might be interested in Seelke's results. You might also find yourself wondering why his experiments were never done by those accepting the reigning paradigm.
There is no one experiment which proves design but these men, and many others, are answering important questions about the abilities of RM + NS and building, piece by piece, their case for design. Even if they fail to ever make their case they are adding to the body of knowledge relevant to all of biology, and are doing so from a perspective informed by intelligent design.
They are identifying the necessary components of certain systems, testing the effectiveness of mutation in developing such systems, demonstrating the necessary resources toward achieving them, etc.
Coincidentally, the gene gun used for such experiments was invented by a design-oriented scientist, John Sanford (also on that page). No, I do not think its invention is an example of design-based research, it's just an interesting aside about the contributions these scientists can make to other experimenters and to science as a whole while they pursue their hypotheses.
These are the guys, as well as Douglas Axe, that I would suggest you look at first in your quest to see the science.
By the way, on the Dembski quote, I think you all are being entirely too critical. It is not provided as an example of design research, even though it is listed first on the page. If you'll note, what comes first in many of the categories is an introduction to the topic. Dembski's quote stands as an introduction to the topic of biosteganography.
Also regarding the Dembski quote: what a huge big deal was made over such a peripheral issue!
Ron:
I notice you've not responded to my 03.28.07 - 9:11 am request for you to back up your claim that Dembski directly supports embryonic stem cell research (or indirectly, for that matter). Could it be you're making this up? Still waiting...
Sorry -- the only word that should have been bold was "embryonic"
Tom,
You said “I think it's a valuable site, but I didn't do the research to look things up there, and I'm not sure I need to.”
So you’re saying that you haven’t actually checked out the site properly?
Fair enough but…
You believe that the site is valuable because…?
…………………………………..
Thank you for accepting my statement that I am not dismissing Dembski based on one short quote. (Confusion can happen to the best of us.)
So, you are sure that there is real scientific ID work going on, real ID research, real ID science?
There is no doubt in your mind? Fine!
Doug Axe it is.
I’m sure that he’s done a great deal of a great many different things.
(I’ve never heard of him but that means nothing)
Rather than me wading through all of his research, which could probably take many months to do justice to, could you quote me chapter and verse on a pristine example of his ID research?
One that you personally find to be utterly convincing.
One example that you actually have ‘done the research on’ because you were sure you ‘needed to’?
I don’t want to make the mistake of choosing a ‘peripheral issue’ and then making a ‘huge big deal’ over nothing much at all.
The more specific we both are, the less room there is for misunderstanding, yes?
(Please bear in mind that I do not have access to an English language library and will be restricted to Internet resources.)
If I do faithfully follow your exact directions and wish to discuss my findings with you on this site, will you welcome such a discussion specifically related to the example of Doug Axe’s work that you yourself provided?
What say you? Do we have a gentleman’s agreement?
Tom, you said “If you doubt that these people are actually showing up in their labs and running experiments, I'm not in a position to correct you, and I don't think we really need to do that anyway.”
Trust-based pay checks? No time sheets, work plan or review process required?
In short, zero accountability?
Sounds incredibly ripe for abuse, but it’s your time and money I suppose.
…………………………………
Now, let us deal with unfinished business and conclude this discussion, shall we?.
Tom, is the example in the SteveK’s list an example of ID research?
Yes or No?
Charlie has decided that is definitely not. Merely an introduction. Do you concur?
Yes or no?
Oh and one other thing…
You accused me of taking Dembski’s words ‘out of context’.
If I did then please show me how. so that I will not make such a serious mistake again!
If I did not, then I respectfully ask that you please withdraw your comment. Thank you.
Charlie, that’s a lot to get through. :O
But I do appreciate you taking the trouble to dig it up.
I mean that most sincerely.
I’ll try to do it justice but I’m a layman and I’m going to need some very easy explanations from authorities in the relevant field before I can make an informed comment. Not to mention time.
Charlie, you’re absolutely right about me being critical. It’s just the way I was brought up.
The are just too many “false prophets” in the world for me to do otherwise.
I have nothing against Tom or anybody else here.
But I don’t want to be off on a wild goose chase. I can’t for the life of me understand why there are people who will not protect themselves against deceit. I don’t like to see good people having their trust abused.
Critical? Guilty as charged. 
You said (regarding the Dembski quote)..”It is not provided as an example of design research, even though it is listed first on the page. If you'll note, what comes first in many of the categories is an introduction to the topic. Dembski's quote stands as an introduction to the topic of biosteganography."
If it’s not an example of design research then let’s happily abandon it.
However, I would suggest that the signposts provided on the site would lead any casual observer to conclude ID research was right here.
Title: Empirical ID research
(Sounds pretty unambiguous).
From ResearchID.org
(Once again, this sounds very hopeful.)
By coming to understand intelligent design and its subsidiary views, we can see that empirical study in academic research applications and commercial research and development is already underway and more is currently developing. Here we will explore empirical research applications of intelligent design, also known as ID-empirics.
(I would go out on a limb and say that this was the introduction, but perhaps I’m mistaken?)
Empirical research – current
Current emprical research? Ok, play BALLLL!!!!!!!
Biosteganography
Fine, let’s check out this example.
…….
……..
And then, a mouthful of feathers…
Darn!
Cedric, you're being very demanding--have you noticed?
The wiki is valuable as a place for researchers to post ideas in progress. I'm not trying to follow the technical discussions there. I do have other contact with the people behind that web page that also leads me to consider it valuable; I won't go into that in more detail, though.
Doug Axe:
"Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors" Journal of Molecular Biology, vol 301, p 585.
"Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds" Journal of Molecular Biology, vol 341, p 1295.
Now, in accordance with the clariification I published yesterday, that's all the further I'm going to go with those articles here.
Trust-based pay checks? No time sheets, work plan or review process required?
In short, zero accountability?
Sounds incredibly ripe for abuse, but it’s your time and money I suppose.
This is just blatant speculation on your part and not worthy of response, other than to point it out for what it is.
As to your final questions, the one about SteveK's example is irrelevant in my opinion, as I've already indicated; and I've already acknowledged that I misunderstood what you wrote about Dembski. I think we've covered all of that sufficiently already.
Tom, you said "Cedric, you're being very demanding--have you noticed?"
Yet again, we find common ground. And I must say you are being very reasonable.
Thank you.
I said "Trust-based pay checks? No time sheets, work plan or review process required?
In short, zero accountability?
Sounds incredibly ripe for abuse, but it’s your time and money I suppose."
And you replied "This is just blatant speculation on your part and not worthy of response, other than to point it out for what it is."
Very well. I withdraw my speculation. Yet I remain curious how close the ID scientist’s nose is to the scientific grindstone.
(After all, it has been quite a few years now.)
And then you said "As to your final questions, the one about SteveK's example is irrelevant in my opinion, as I've already indicated;"
I’m sorry, are you saying that my question is irrelevant or that you don’t believe that the example discussed is relevant ID research?
And finally "... and I've already acknowledged that I misunderstood what you wrote about Dembski. I think we've covered all of that sufficiently already."
So I didn’t take Dembski’s works out of context? It was just a misunderstanding?
Splendid. I am very glad we have resolved that.
I regard taking things out of context very seriously and do my level best to avoid it. I have no patience with quote-mining or context-pulling or anything like that.
I shall now get started on the information you generously provided. Sounds promising.
Cedric,
Charlie, that’s a lot to get through. :O
But I do appreciate you taking the trouble to dig it up.
I mean that most sincerely.
You're welcome, but it wasn't any trouble. Writing mostly from memory and providing no links I know I've left you some work, but you did just ask for some guidance.
However, I would suggest that the signposts provided on the site would lead any casual observer to conclude ID research was right here.
It is.
Critical? Guilty as charged.
I have nothing against being critical. I was commenting on your misguided critique which was erroneously based. You seem to me to want to continue in its tenor behind a guise of faux-civility while you slip in little needle-words - but maybe that's just me.
(I would go out on a limb and say that this was the introduction, but perhaps I’m mistaken?)
When you were in school did you ever write essays?
Do you remember writing an introductory paragraph for the entire thing and then introducing each sub-topic as well? I do.
You seem to me to want to continue in its tenor behind a guise of faux-civility while you slip in little needle-words - but maybe that's just me.
It's not just you, Charlie.
Hmm, needle words?
Perhaps my frustration with the topic at hand got the better of me.
I'll try to do better for the sake of all those here.
...............
Charlie, I do indeed remember during class writing essays and including introductions. However, immediately after such an introduction I was taught to justify my introduction with content.
After I got past the title page, I went to Biosteganography. From here, all I got were the words of Dembski.
We all agree that these words are only an introduction so...
What should I conclude?
Has the writer and organiser of the list and web-page been fair to me? Where's the promised research that was implicit in the title and introduction?
How would you have proceeded in my shoes and where would you have stopped and said "Ah, there it is, right here!"?
Where have I gone wrong? Somebody?
Hi Cedric,
Has the writer and organiser of the list and web-page been fair to me?
Yes, he has.
How would you have proceeded in my shoes and where would you have stopped and said "Ah, there it is, right here!"?
Good question.
I think we were in the same shoes, as we were both excited about finding out about such things as
"Who are these scientists? Where are their laboratories? Research?
...
Where can they [any peer-reviewed articles] be found?
...
Where is the program located? Do you have an address? What exactly are they working on and how? Are they doing lab research or mounting an expedition somewhere?
With interests similar to yours, here's what I did when I saw the biosteganography section, for instance:
I skimmed Dembski's description of what biosteganography is and how it applies to ID. I saw the two entries which would presumably fulfill the promise of the page's introduction, ie., would represent commercial or academic research applications of ID or its subsidiary views. Being familiar with ID, its proponents, and its main concepts I chose to skim the rest of the page before starting into following its links.
Since I wasn't trying to debunk the claims, nor was I looking for justifications of them, I wanted to see what the page had to offer.
Like you, I was excited to see what research the website would point me toward.
When I got to the section for Reverse Engineering I saw that it, like the previous section, had a short blurb describing the field and how it related to ID.
Here I also found the very familiar name of Scott Minnich (as I mentioned, I was looking for his work when Google led me to this page).
I did follow this link (but didn't actually find the piece I was looking for). I presume that you would have looked into this one as well, as it specifically talks about molecular and microbial research - just the thing you said you were excited to find out about - ID researchers, their labs, their methods, etc.
But you were also interested in peer-reviewed articles, so perhaps before following the link that suggested there were ID scientists working in labs researching microbiology your eye would have strayed to the next section, where Jonathan Wells' article in Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum was referenced. Personally, and no slight to Dr. Wells, I've never been excited enough by this outline or concept to delve into his papers on the subject.
The next section spoke about a genetics company using "something akin" to ID concepts, and didn't excite me too much. I would think it wouldn't you either, given your described interest in the subject.
But the next certainly caught my eye (admittedly due in part to the fact that I was already familiar with Seelke) as it would yours.
Here we see actual descriptions of experiments and tests:
In order to test Behe's proposal in the laboratory, scientists are using gene knock-out methods to form a type III system with a missing flagellar component and see if the bacteria, on their own, can assemble the TTS into a functional flagellum.
KNowing Sanford's name, and wanting to see how he was connected to Seelke's interesting work, I also followed the link for him.
I confess I was about finished with the page by this point the first time I visited. I would think you would be too.
Researchers, labs, experiments, peer-reviewed articles, applications of ID concepts, it all seems to be there - although nothing on the aspect of who funds such work, I'll admit.
Unfortunately if you did stop here (as I did the first time) you would miss the Douglas Axe references and, if not familiar already with him and Biologic, you would miss an opportunity to find out about the recent controversy surrounding his lab and funding.
That's more or less how I read the page, and would have thought somebody else interested in the topic might first view it as well - with an eye to gathering information in a relatively time-conscious manner.
My apologies for yet another broken block-quote.
I should have closed it after the first three phrases of yours, instead of opening a new one. Sorry for the ugly format.
Easy to fix
Nice. Thanks, Tom.
Can you fix my grammar as well? And put some clever words in my mouth?
Thanks in advance.
Now, that's the kind of help you don't need!
Somebody, somewhere said something about 20/20 hindsight.
I’ve looked back over this thread (especially at my own words and tone) and I am not happy about how things have gone.
It seems to me, despite my best intentions, that my attempt at discussion got off on a bad foot and went downhill from there.
I am not by nature a trusting person.
I read the first example on SteveK’s list and didn’t find what I was looking for.
Before starting, I promised myself that I would put my strong reservations on hold, however briefly, and read the first few links thoroughly.
I spend a very reasonable amount of time on fact-checking and cross-referencing.
I felt strongly, that within my narrow focus, that I had done my homework.
Yet when my investigations bore no fruit, all my reservations about ID went back into full swing!
Tom misunderstood me and his comment about my use of Dembski’s works confirmed my deepest fear that people here were playing me for the fool.
I reacted defensively and it manifested itself in my tone and style.
The reason why I felt justified in using the style and tone that I did was because I believed that I had fairly read all that was reasonable.
Charlie, I did not use the research style path you have explained because I didn’t believe that I had any right to skim over anything. I did not want to be accused of misrepresenting the ID ‘research’ presented.
When I saw the mention of the biotech lab, I was genuinely surprised. There is sound science behind biotechnology (as far as I know) and I felt sure that the biotech link was going to yield some real information. I really wanted that line of enquiry to pan out.
Same thing with Dembski’s conference. I read everything he said to make sure that I had not missed something important.
I didn’t go on to the Reverse Engineering section but I felt that I had made that clear before.
I assumed that (in my second post on this thread) that even if somehow I was mistaken in not going to the Engineering section, that people would tell me “No, not the biotech stuff or Dembski. The next section down is the real stuff. Get your facts straight!”
Instead, things got out of control and I did my part in creating the uncomfortable atmosphere here.
Tom, when you said that I had taken Dembski’s words out of context, I really was angry with you. Talk about waving a red rag at a bull.
I just don’t do that kind of thing and I really wanted you to withdraw your comment, with no ambiguity.
That’s why I was so strident.
With your permission, I’d like to repost a modified version of one of my postings.
……………
Tom, you believe there is ID science being done.
Not just ‘science’ but Science.
I don’t understand why you think that. I want to understand you reasoning.
I do not want to misrepresent your position.
I do not want to engage a strawman discussion. I do not want to spend time on researching evidence offered in support of your position, only to learn later that the evidence was not pivotal to any serious discussion we might have in the near future.
Doug Axe it is.
I’m sure that he’s done a great deal of a great many different things.
(I’ve never heard of him but that means nothing)
Thank your providing the references for his work.
I do not want for us to misunderstand each other. The more specific we both are, the less room there is for misunderstanding.
(Please bear in mind that I do not have access to an English language library and will be restricted to Internet resources.)
If I do faithfully follow your exact directions and wish to discuss my findings with you on this site, will you welcome such a discussion specifically related to the example of Doug Axe’s work that you yourself provided?
Could you trust me to act as a gentleman?
Could you even go so far as to tolerate a gentleman who harbours suspicions about the ID movement and who occasionally overreaches himself and seems demanding?
Tom--
...the question of ID is not a theological one. It's an empirical one: are there features of nature that are better explained as the product of design than by any other explanation? That's it.
Maybe this is a good time to remind you what the DI's 'better explanation' of the flagellum was. You remember that one, Tom--we had this long talk in a prev. post about how the Disco Inst. couldn't say what this 'better explanation' actually was; we finally agreed their 'explanation' was 'evolution can't explain it'. Remember how I sneered about how lame of a reply that was?
It still is.
The better explanation is design. Sneer away. Or, if you're prepared to follow the argument, we can talk about how this can be a better explanation in spite of that expression on your face.
Mornin', Tom--
The better explanation is design. Sneer away. Or, if you're prepared to follow the argument, we can talk about how this can be a better explanation in spite of that expression on your face.
We already did, don't you remember?
What new insight do you gain into why a particular flagellum is assembled the way it is and not some other way by invoking design? How does invoking design explain why there are hundreds of different configurations of flagellum--what, the designer couldn't make up his mind? Demonstrate how invoking design explains why some bacteria have a flagellum but others don't. How does invoking design explain how God--I mean, the Designer--makes a flagellum in the first place?
I've posed these questions to you before and you couldn't answer any of them.
Are you really trying to find out more about how and why the flagellum works the way it does? Or are you more interested in proving that God exists, and once you've done that, all your interest in biology evaporates?
Commenting by HaloScan
