Thinking Christian Comments
Original Post: Rhetorical Ploys
Our host again controverts without evidence my statement that ID has produced no useful research or directions for useful research. (As a reminder, my previous comment, I was not speaking of evidence to show whether or not design exists, without more. The only research guide that this conclusion by itself presents is the epitomy of stifling: "Stop looking for any further causes.") Tom cites a list of "peer-reviewed" articles that the Discovery Institute continues to trot out, despite the fact that almost none of them even mention ID, and that some of the authors have repudiated any link to ID. Only one of the articles (Axe, 2000) contains any original research of the kind that is relevant to this question, and Axe himself has stated that none of his publications make an argument for design (Forrest & Gross, 2004). See The TalkOrigins Archive, Creationist Claim C1004.4 (revised 12/05) for analyses of the other cited works. I stand by none, nada, nichevo. I'll even throw in niente and nichts..
Ron follows the gravamen of my statement, saying: "What new insight do you gain why a particular flagellum is assembled the way it is and not some other way by invoking design?" It does not provide any scientific benefit. This is why we assert that ID is scientifically feckless. This is why, if real biologists followed ID, their reserach would be stifled.
If, as Tom said, his own purpose in demonstrating the existence of design is to bolster his faith in the Designer, then welcome to that. Just don't try to shove it off onto biological research. My livelihood as a patent attorney depends upon a continuing stream of new results, and I don't want any stifling. Cutting NIH funding is bad enough.
Tom:
Well done. Ron and Olorin (and, of course, scientistic DL as well as reductionist Paul) demand this kind of fisking. The personal baggage they bring into these discussions is not only repugnant to intellectual discourse, it’s arrogant and perverse to employ tactics that utilize fallacies and self-imposed ignorance (especially of philosophical basics) to make their point. Olorin’s position—as an “attorney” to boot!—is embarrassingly selectively inattentive: he decries (correctly) the imposition of seeking design upon biological research, but is seemingly unflustered by the imposition of using biology to draw the manifestly non-MES (modern empirical science) conclusion that there is no design in nature. As to his livelihood depending on new neo-Darwinian results, well, as is always advisable, it’s good to follow the money trail: we now know exactly whose payroll he’s on.
Having said that, however, I find it troubling that ID is labeled a science (meaning “MES”) in the title of Woodward’s book—as I similarly found troubling the title of Dembski flagship book. (In the interests of full disclosure, I have not read Woodward’s book.) The MESs are about seeking material and efficient causal relations in nature. As such, the MESs can’t “see” design, because design is a deeply teleological concept—it is final causality because design implies a goal or an end. The MESs cannot observe, measure, describe, or speculate upon design or goals or ends or purposes—you need philosophy to do that.
BUT, neither can the MES “see” or pass judgment upon “non-design.” Whenever a Darwinist asserts there is no design or purpose or intention in nature, they are talking out their collective wrinkled grommets because those are not MES assertions: the MESs cannot (because they are not equipped to do so—they depend on methodological naturalism to do their good work) deny the existence of design or purpose. It is a clear and undeniable non sequitur to conclude that because the MESs can’t “see” design, that therefore there is no design. For this reason, Darwinists know they need a philosophical argument to back them up. Yet, instead of doing the right thing, i.e., thinking, in a cute form of circularity Darwinists argue that metaphysical naturalism is the true understanding of reality. Do you see the fallacy? The MESs cannot “see” purpose, which animates their philosophy, which then comes back to “confirm” there is no purpose. (Let’s even leave aside the blatant self-stultification of Darwinists trying to convince us—with great strength of purpose and intent—that there is no purpose in nature.)
ID’s biggest problem right now is not neo-Darwinism—that ship will sink of its own accord. (To be clear by neo-Darwinism I’m not talking about descent with modification but the metaphysical naturalist interpretation imposed on this observation.) ID’s problem is that it is trying to employ the MESs to do precisely what a strong, consistent, realist philosophy should be doing for them. That philosophy must be able to properly distinguish between the “beingness” of the various objects considered (substance, accident, beings of reason, privations, etc.) as well as the various causalities writ large. In other words, ontological considerations are vital to properly interpret the observations provided by the MESs and perhaps from this to infer design. But until that is straightened out, ID will continue to fight (and lose) on merely MESs grounds.
That’s why people like Olorin correctly point out that not much—if any—MES research is produced by ID… although I’m willing to listen to them. What does ID expect to “demonstrate”… design?!? How can it? If ID is wholly dependent upon the MESs, then it will never see design. Consider DL’s idolization of prediction, for example: He is, in fact, correct that when dealing with the MESs, prediction is a must—it is the sine qua non of the verifiability of the MESs. Yet while DL is trying to use the MESs to “not see” design, ID is trying to use prediction per the MESs to “see” design. Neither one will work… unless one redefines the MESs, and there is no need to do that. Once you start down that road, the MESs will run the risk of (at the very least) losing their epistemological efficacy or (at the worst) be destroyed.
The sad irony in all this is that, contra the neo-Darwinist canard, design as inferred in nature will NEVER threaten to limit biological work. Descent with modification may very well be true, and as such the how question (which is deeply contingent on new information) will always be there. That atheists are uncomfortable with this is their personal problem—it is not an MES issue, nor will they get away with twisting the MESs to serve their ends… even as they accuse the other side of the same.
(I wrote this before Holopupenko posted, but HaloScan fought me on it and it took a long time to get this published, so this makes no reference to what H has written.)
Ron,
Forrest & Gross, 2004, had (by Thomas Woodward's count) 52 inaccuracies/distortions/misrepresentations in the introduction alone. It's a great example of what I posted on here.
Douglas Axe actually does say his work supports ID (see also here.)
You wrote:
Ron follows the gravamen of my statement, saying: "What new insight do you gain why a particular flagellum is assembled the way it is and not some other way by invoking design?" It does not provide any scientific benefit.
Is "scientific benefit" the only good you seek? Is scientific knowledge the only kind of knowledge there could ever be? (And if you say that it is, is that itself a statement of scientific knowledge? How so?)
Holopupenko, you raise some interesting challenges to design detection. Have you seen Wm. Dembski's Design Filter?
ID does not attempt to skirt the philosophical issues as neo-Darwinism does; it addresses what it would take to detect design in nature. And ID leaders are not saying design can be proved; they talk instead about an "inference to the best explanation." This acknowledges that other explanations are conceivable, but that design seems, for stated reasons, to be a better explanation.
The general form is "whenever we see information, it comes from an intelligence; if we see information present in nature, we can infer that it came from intelligence." Of course in order for that to be the best explanation it has to be compared to the quality of explanation provided by neo-Darwinism, so that is part of the program.
Another note to Olorin: you misread me. You wrote,
If, as Tom said, his own purpose in demonstrating the existence of design is to bolster his faith in the Designer, then welcome to that.
I said something quite different from that. It leads me to wonder, did you read what I wrote, or did you read what you were stereotypically expecting me to write?
Tom:
I have read it, but philosophically it's inadequate. It would be a VERY long discussion to flush out why. If I were not a philosopher and simply saw, for example, that Thomists aren't jumping in the ID bandwagon in its current manifestation, that alone would give me pause to consider that ID is lacking in some aspects. My problem is I'm too close to the philosophical side of the debate: there is an ontological issue that is at the core of current ID scientists that is unresolved. I'm not going to get into it here, but I can point, for example, to an issue of Craig and Moreland's ontology that is deeply troubling and closely animates Dembski's position: they believe being is a univocal term--that being is a genus, i.e., that all things share existence in the same way, i.e., that the beingness of carbon atoms is the same as the beingness of the human being is the same as the beingness of a concept is the same as the beingness of an accident, etc. If that is correct, then the MESs are indeed the necessary and sufficient means by which to obtain knowledge. I think you see where that will take us...
H,
Your statements about what science can and cannot see are ridiculous. That's why I enjoy ridiculing them.
Design. That's a scientific concept. A computing system that looks at the possible outcomes of a decision, simulates them, and, based on a preference, executes the appropriate choice. Can science find out whether a person is acting by design or by chance? It most definitely can in some cases.
The "day after tomorrow." What's unscientific about that? Is a day (Earth's rotation relative to the Sun) not a scientific concept? Is relative time not a scientific concept? Is present time not a scientific concept? You've got nothin'.
Humans have many concepts that are obviously loose associations between millions of experiences. Love is one of these. But just because some experiences are so subtle and complex does not mean that they are beyond science.
H, your statements about experienced stuff being beyond science are unjustified. The self-imposed ignorance (egnorance?) is your own. Or is your ignorance imposed by Aquinas?
The problem with ID isn't that it is unscientific in principle. As ID advocates like to point out, SETI and archaelogy are partially design science too. No, the problem is that ID is unscientific in practice.
To do this scientifically, you have to discuss what design is from a scientific perspective. You also have to discuss what it is about the designer and his methods and limitations that make his design recognizable. Needless to say, ID won't do this because God doesn't do design as humans would recognize it, and God doesn't have any limitations. God uses inexplicable magic for inexplicable reasons.
ID is a valid class of scientific theories, it just happens to be an empty set.
DL:
You're not worth my time because your scientistic imposition of what counts as valid knowledge only betrays your philosophical ignorance. You just don't know what you're talking about—and that's been demonstrated over and over and over again. Here's just one of your latest howlers: "A [physically deterministic] computing system that looks at ["looks" at?!?] the possible outcomes of a decision, simulates them, and, based on a preference, executes the appropriate choice." "Chooses"?!? You are so ignorant of what you speak—and athromorphizing upon machines (!)—it even boggles my imagination.
Regardless whether Axe has changed his miind as to what he thinks about his article, no one else can see how his article challenges Darwinian evolution, or provides positive evidence for intelligent design. Maybe Michael Behe has the key. In his testimony at the Kitzmiller trial, he stated that Intelligent Design is implausible unless one believes in God. The voice of the expert. (However, I certainly admire Behe for standing up for his beliefs. William Dembski bugged out after realizing that he would be exposed to cross-examination by the other side.)
Tom denigrates the importance of my point about stifling with: "Is 'scientific benefit' the only good you seek? Is scientific knowledge the only kind of knowledge there could ever be? Let me answer that diversion.
Scientific benefit is not the only good I seek. Nor the only truth, nor the only beauty. Tom was a musician. once. During rehearsals of Mozart's Requiem for the past couple months, I feel the presence of God in every Kyrie, every, Holstias, every Lacrimosa. Our church choir will do Thompson's "Alleluia" in a few weeks; same thing. I also see the majesty of God in science: in the sweep of background microwave radiation, in the mystery of quantum entanglement, and in the vast march of biological evolution. So I would ask you not to cheapen God by casting Him as a tnkerer who must specifically design His creatures, modify them when He was wrong the first time, then destory almost all of them when they didn't adapt to changing climates.
So I would ask you not to cheapen God by casting Him as a tnkerer who must specifically design His creatures, modify them when He was wrong the first time, then destory almost all of them when they didn't adapt to changing climates.
I really appreciate your alluding to the greatness of God.
The "bumbling tinkerer" description of the Designer is another one of those common rhetorical ploys, however--thank you for another illustration. It's a red herring metaphor that has nothing to do with ID or even with (if I may make the reference here to the extreme case) to Scientific Creationism. Why assume that God "was wrong the first time"? Why assume that he had to do everything just one way, one time? Why assume that their not adapting to changing environments was, in God's eyes, a failure? Why assume that you know how God would have done it all?
Why, except to pull it out as an emotive rhetorical flourish? It has nothing to do with the research program of ID, the search for exemplars of design in nature.
Holopupenkos 2:07 post is just what I wish I'd said last week, if only I were so eloquent. That's the underlying discomfort I have about ID being science. It's ultimately a philosophical and aesthetic question being asked. How can one gain a concensus in any empirical definition of "design?" Ask 10 people and you'll end up with at least 20 definitions.
Tom, I have serious questions about part of your reply to Holopupenko's post. You wrote:
ID leaders are not saying design can be proved; they talk instead about an "inference to the best explanation." This acknowledges that other explanations are conceivable, but that design seems, for stated reasons, to be a better explanation.
If they can't prove design, why are we talking about science? How do they define "best explanation?" Wouldn't that imply some sort of proof? There's too much scientific wiggle room here. I personally already believe that design is the best explanation, but it's not a belief founded in science. It's informed in part by scientific understanding, but fundamentally it's philosphical.
How then did Of Pandas and People interchange "ID" with "Creationism" in its various editions? I don't know how they chose "Creationism" as text in early editions, but "Creationism" as defined here was never the intent of the text, and the change to "Intelligent Design" was a correction of an erroneous word choice.
Actually, from what I've heard, the original drafts didn't even have references to "creationism" or "creation science", but just to words like "create" and "creator" (a standard that would render the Constitution a "creationist document, if we want to be technical).
Of course, even if the authors of P&P are creationists, and that was the reason for that use of words, it doesn't mean that ID is creationism. Regardless of the other beliefs held by many or most IDers, the two ideas are distinct as a matter of hard logic.
The argument that ID is creationism because certain IDers were creationists conflates people with the ideas held by people. That is, it confuses "John is a creationist who believes X" with "X is a creationist idea". Running with that argument, you'd have to say that gravity is a creationist concept, because most creationists believe in gravity.
Greg:
Thanks for the kind words. Just wanted to emphasize what I said about design in contrast to your example of not having a group of scientists being able to come up with a definition of “design.” While correct, what I’m saying is stronger still: scientists will never be able to come up with a correct definition of “design” in principle—despite DL’s ignorant claims to the contrary. “Design” is by its very nature goal-oriented—teleological: one designs something in order to meet an end. The MESs aren’t equipped to “see” final causality… they can’t even “see” formal causality (i.e., the “whatness” of objects) in the full ontological sense of these concepts, and even efficient causality they can only see in its limited physical aspects.
Here’s an example from physics where apples and oranges aren’t mixed, and in which science is done correctly: in 1931 Pauli “predicted” (“inferred” is more accurate a term) that an as yet-unobserved neutrally-charged particle exists based on the fact that energy and momentum did not appear to be conserved in certain radioactive decays. In 1934 Fermi developed a theory of radioactive decay that included Pauli’s hypothetical particle—termed “neutrino” which described accurately experimentally observed results. Subsequently, the neutrino was “observed” indirectly. Case essentially closed. Note that through out this process, the beingness of the objects was kept consistent: all are real particles and all processes were physical.
In contrast, look at what happens in ID and neo-Darwinism: both mix apples and oranges.
ID mixes philosophical design inference with good science that criticizes shortcomings of neo-Darwinist theories for describing the mechanisms of descent with modification. Crudely put, you can’t put design in your pocket or “measure” it, but you can (in a manner of speaking) put physical processes in your pocket and “measure” them.
But neo-Darwinism does the same thing: it infers philosophically the non-existence of design (which is not able to be captured by the MES) from certain interpretations of physical observations. In fact, neo-Darwinism is worse for it’s trying to infer a privation—which is not simply a negation of design but the absence (ontologically speaking) of design. But privation is even more rarified than concepts like design: privation is a being of reason because the human mind needs a place-holder (crudely put) to understand the non-existence of something. (A shadow is not a “thing” but the privation of a thing, namely “light.”) Design is a concept of something out there. The non-existence of design is a very different animal—speaking philosophically, that is.
Holopupenko, I didn't mean to water down your argument. I tend to jump quickly to the practical because that's easiest for me to communicate. I follow and agree with your ontological argument, but I'd be hard pressed to put it into words. I definitely agree that MES cannot come up with a correct definition of design, but that doesn't stop anyone from trying to come to concensus on a good enough definition (which can be a valid approach at times). I'm just saying that even that would be doomed to failure. Any concensus would be among a minority group and the majority would write-off their efforts -- no different than ID is treated today.
H,
“Design” is by its very nature goal-oriented—teleological: one designs something in order to meet an end. The MESs aren’t equipped to “see” final causality… they can’t even “see” formal causality (i.e., the “whatness” of objects) in the full ontological sense of these concepts, and even efficient causality they can only see in its limited physical aspects.It's easy to cast overwhelming doubt on your baseless assertions.
Say you want to put your lawn mower in the garage. How do you know when you have reached this goal? How did you learn what actions would get your lawn mower there? How did you derive a conception of "a lawn mower" or "a lawn mower in a garage" in the first place? Let me guess... you just know intuitively! Well, Heaven forbid you should actually question your intuitions.
And before you go off on a rant about physicalism... I don't assume physicalism. I merely assume that experiences conform to discoverable rules most of the time. It doesn't matter that you cannot "put design in your pocket." The question is whether or not you would know design when you saw it. If your definition of design is just that (i.e., "Holopupenko knows it when he sees it"), then sure, the world is designed by that definition. H says the world is designed so it's designed. Not that anyone cares for your intuitions.
If there's a definition of design that goes beyond your personal feelings, then there has to be a test you can apply to your experiences that makes the distinction for you. That almost certainly means that design is a scientific concept.
Your narrowing of science to things measurable by the five senses is a gigantic straw man. Mathematics isn't a science by that standard. Neither is computer science. And yet you know for a fact that I don't exclude these things as sciences.
Oh! Sorry, I forgot, you don't respond to criticisms of your medieval worldview.
Holopupenko and Greg,
I take heart from knowing that Alvin Plantinga, in addition to J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Rob Koons, and other excellent philosophers believe design can be inferred from natural phenomena. You could even include Antony Flew on that list.
So if there are philosophical problems, at least they must not be obvious, knock-down idea killers.
Greg, as to how one infers to the best explanation: it's done all the time. It's not a matter of coming to a final answer that could never be dislodged, but of coming to a better answer than what was known before, and continuing the process of investigation from there.
On the other hand, I agree with you that philosophical arguments for design are very strong, not to mention the Biblical support for it. These approaches--in fact, even the philosophical argument alone--are strong enough that if Behe et al. never make their case among the science community at large, I would still assume design behind nature. Nevertheless, if there is design detectable in nature, that's something we would want to know about, isn't it?
Speaking of philosophical arguments (PA)....aren't there several of these in science today? For starters, there's the PA that says evidence X in favor of a theory is stronger than evidence Y against the theory.
At first there is a small 'crack' in a theory, and as more evidence is gathered the crack deepens until the theory 'breaks'. Going back in time to the beginning, the PA used to discount the evidence against the theory was obviously wrong. Obviously hindsight is in play here, but the point I'm getting at is the 'weighing of the evidence' is not objective and scientific - which means it's philosophical.
Am I wrong?
It has been rhetorically very useful for Intelligent Design opponents to link ID with Creationism.
Here's an exchange between the lead ACLU attorney and the head of the creationist outfit that published Pandas. The 2 terms, according to Pandas mean the same thing.
And as federal court cases continue to emerge, you can be sure this will continue to be useful to us in the future, too. I think it's quite possible you guys don't realize just how badly the Kitzmiller decision hurt the ID movement legally.
Note: I don't deny that there are some differences between creation science (CS) and intelligent design(ID). I don't think I ever said they're identical--if I did, I spoke hyperbolically and will fix it. But they are VERY similar, and the emergence of the term ID after key Supreme Court reverses--along with the corresponding waning of the fortunes of the CS movement are very telling. And we haven't even discussed (in this post at least) things like the fact that nearly all ID's financial support comes from the one particular demographic, let's say, just like the CS movement. That was just one similarity. There are very many.
The matter should be easier than that, though: if ID and Creationism are identical, they should share identical tenets. But they don't.
Let's put it this way: ID displays signs of common ancestry with CS.
(How then did Of Pandas and People interchange "ID" with "Creationism" in its various editions? I don't know how they chose "Creationism" as text in early editions, but "Creationism" as defined here was never the intent of the text, and the change to "Intelligent Design" was a correction of an erroneous word choice.
A correction that just happened to coincide with the Supreme Court Edwards decision. How convenient.
Many of the comments here conflate "methodological naturalism" (MN) with "philosophical naturalism" (PN; or "ontological naturalism"). Of course, some scientists do that too; Richard Dawkins, although technically keeping them apart, uses the parsimony principle of MN as evidence for PN---which may confuse some people. Ken Miller and many other biologists are perfectly comfortable with both MN and belief in God.
Methodological naturalism is itself a philosophical principle, averring that science can best proceed by limiting itself to explanations from natural causes, without assuming either existence or non-existence of supernatural causes; supernatural causes are simply ex scientia. MN did not start with Darwin. After Francis Bacon's "Novum Organum," it replaced teleological explanations over the next century. Remember that Aristotle thought that rocks fall because their purpose was to be united with the ground, since both were made of the element earth, and like attracts like. Coperinicus gave us a sun-centered cosmology, but he argued from purpose. There are and can be only six planets, he said, because there are five regular Platonic solids, and God would certainly have designed one of them inscribed between each pair of planets. Kepler got rid of this "purpose," but was delayed in finding elliptical orbits for decades because God would certainly have designed orbits as "perfect" circles. Newton ditched more teleology, but still saw orbital pertrurbations as imperfections in a God-imposed design. A space of a hundred years passed, in which chemists and physicists also gradually granted abandoned design and accorded preeminence to MN.
What did this 17th century see? It saw the burgeoning of modern science, new insights that previous philosophies of science had blinded scientists to. A Cambrian Explosion of science. MN has become the definition of science. And that definition has produced and continues to produce new understandings and practical applications at an ever-increasing torrent.
Should we now abandon that definition and admit supernatural causation? Scientists---the researchers who actually produce these results for us---see that as stifling research. The above examples in astronomy illustrate how arguments from design have retarded advances in the past. The complete lack of any result other than the mere "detection" of design in more than a decade indicates that ID bodes ill for applications using a design inference in the present century.
Actually, the Discovery Institute probably would not want me to search for understanding or applications based uopon designs. Let me, however, outline a tentative research program. The first topic is to determine whether or not the Designer is limited by any natural law. (My preliminary hypothesis is "yes, designs are so limited.") The next question is how many Designers there are. (Again, preliminarily, "multiple," because so many of the designs seem to work at cross purposes, such as killing each other.) A further topic that has almost boundless application is to detrermine the mechanism by which the Designers implement their designs. (If we can understand that, we can imitate it ourselves, perhaps eliminating the shortcomings that the Designers either overlooked or were powerless to avoid. The problem of death comes to mind.) After that, I would inquire into the Designers' purposes; the aim here would be to substitute my own purposes. (I have not yet thought this one through, but just knowing what the present purposes are would be interesting to know---perhaps the Designers really want us to kill each other off.)
But, you may say, the Designers are supernatural, so we cannot duplicate their capabilities, or even understand their thoughts. Well, that would stifle my design-oriented research, so I'd have to fall back on methodological naturalism in order to get anywhere. Actually, the MNers have made a lot of progress. Biologists have built organisms using several of the amino acids that were overlooked in previous designs. Studies in the biological basis of morals indicates that moral standards are statistically independent of whether a person is a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, an agnostic, or an atheist; the only difference seems to be that the agnostics have a somewhat higher sense of responsibility toward the environment than do the believers. Economists have envisioned faith as a "good" and have developed the rudiments of an economic theory of religion. Antonio Damasio and others are even as we speak probing the loci in the brain of religious experiences.
Tom says that he is not a practicing scientist, that biology is a hobby, and that he prefers not to argue the technical points. However, when ID says that MN cannot in principle explain certain systems, and biologists point to explanations, we have to "believe" one side or the other; just as a jury must choose which of conflicting expert witnesses will guide their decision, after they have been examined and cross-examined. During the Kitzmiller trial, Professor Behe stated his oft-repeated opinion that the vertabrate blood-clotting cascade is irreducibly complex and therefore designed, and gave his evidence and reasoning. The plaintiffs then confronted him with 58 papers, chapters, and books explaining how the steps in this cascade could have evolved in small steps. ("Could have" is not weaeling, because Behe claimed that no _conceivable_ sequence of steps "could have" done it.) He did not refute any of the papers; he merely waved them away (literally, so I'm told) as "not enough." From this and several other admissions, the judge was convinced that Behe was wrong. (Remember that the Discovery Institute was initially overjoyed with Judge Jones---a staunch Catholic, a conservative Republican, recommended for appointment by Sen Rick Santorum, who has promoted ID actively for years.)
So we have tens of thousands of research biologists who, after years of education, accept darwinian evolution. Then we have half a dozen public-relations biologists who accept design as a "better explanation." Well, to some extent: Behe accepts common ancestry, most of them accept an old Earth, and all accept that species change with time. (Most the other 700 computer programmers, physicists, chemists, and physicians on the DI list will go no further than saying thay have "some doubts" of the sufficiency of natural evolution. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of ID. Meanwhile, the AAAS circulates a list of 795 research biologists named Steve who have no doubts as to darwinian natural selection.)
After all that, what's the take-away? The evidence shows me that intelligent design is not only unproductive but bogus. Methodological naturalism is what makes present science run, and changing its definition would impair it, especially for present-day students taught ID entering the field in the future. And I'm happy that my religious faith is not tied to gaps in our current knowledge of the universe.
===================
PS. Please strike Antony Flew from the list of ID supporters. Although he remains "minimally deist," he has recently regretted having been associated with the theory of intelligent design.
Olorin has said:
Regardless whether Axe has changed his miind as to what he thinks about his article,
What evidence do you have that his current position represents a “change of mind”?
What Douglas Axe says:
I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails "severe sequence constraints". The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.
Against his statement all I have seen is Barbara Forrest’s contention on stand at Dover:
There's nothing in it that supports intelligent design theory. And Dr. Axe himself declined to say that it did when I specifically asked him to do that or what was his position.
Have you seen the content of her email and the context of his reply? Is this printed in her book, as you referenced it?
no one else can see how his article challenges Darwinian evolution, or provides positive evidence for intelligent design.
This is not only empirically indefensible (necessitating, perhaps, signed statements from everyone else) but demonstrably false: Stephen Meyer and William Dembski clearly see how Axe’s work challenges Darwinain evolution, as did his benfactors, the DI.
Ken Miller even seems to think there is some challenge there as well:
Certainly the topics Axe mentions are of interest to science, says Kenneth Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who testified as an expert witness for the pro-evolution side at the Dover trial. Miller adds that they might be of particular interest to people intent on undermining evolution if, like Axe's earlier work on protein folding, they can be used to highlight structures and functions whose origins and evolution are not well understood.
In highlighting such lack of understanding they are presenting a challenge.
Maybe Michael Behe has the key. In his testimony at the Kitzmiller trial, he stated that Intelligent Design is implausible unless one believes in God. The voice of the expert.
Not quite accurate, but close.
What Behe really said
What if the existence of God is in dispute or is denied? So far I have assumed the existence of God. But what if the existence of God is denied at the outset, or is in dispute? Is the plausibility of the argument to design affected? As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, the argument is less plausible to those for whom God s existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God's existence.
(However, I certainly admire Behe for standing up for his beliefs. William Dembski bugged out after realizing that he would be exposed to cross-examination by the other side.)
This claim certainly contradicts Dembski's version of the events. Are you contending that he initially thought there was to be a trial free of cross-examination? This would be odd, since he devised and advertised a strategy for the defendants' law firm in their cross-examination of the claimants.
Why Dembski didn’t testify.
So I would ask you not to cheapen God by casting Him as a tnkerer who must specifically design His creatures, modify them when He was wrong the first time, then destory almost all of them when they didn't adapt to changing climates.
As Tom pointed out this is not the position of ID, but additionally, it is a theological argument. This religious view should not affect the gathering and interpretation of evidence.
PS. Please strike Antony Flew from the list of ID supporters. Although he remains "minimally deist," he has recently regretted having been associated with the theory of intelligent design.
Upon what evidence does he remain a deist, then?
His reasoning as presented on this video, for rethinking his atheism ...“It’s been entirely, these, I suppose, biological discoveries ... the integrated complexity of the living world ... “
He [Behe] did not refute any of the papers; he merely waved them away (literally, so I'm told) as "not enough."
What Behe really said:
Rothschild:”Now these arguments rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system?
Behe: No, they certainly do not. …
Rothschild: So these are not good enough?
Behe:
They’re wonderful articles. They’re very interesting. They simply don’t address the question I pose.
On the additional 50 articles, Rothschild repeated:
Is that your position today, that these articles aren’t good enough … ?
Behe:
“These articles are excellent articles, I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/i...the-dover-case/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/i...t-pandas-thumb/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/i...-actually-said/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/i...g-the-deceived/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/i...ffing-obsolete/
Meanwhile, the AAAS circulates a list of 795 research biologists named Steve who have no doubts as to darwinian natural selection.)
Given the fact that scientists are supposed to hold their findings tentatively and subject to new evidence this sounds rather dogmatic and unscientific - especially considering that there are many naturalistic evolutionary biologists who express their doubts as to the ability of Darwinian natural selection (actually, the random mutation and natural selection of the modern synthesis) to account for the complexity of life.
Allen_MacNeill:
I would be the first to admit that “random mutation and natural selection” alone is insufficient to explain both the diversity of life on Earth and the exquisiteness of biological adaptations. However, the phrase “random mutation and natural selection” captures about as much of the full scope of evolutionary theory as “what goes up must come down” captures the full scope of general relativity and Newtonian gravitation.
...
I'm not sure how much of that I lost.
Here is a little more from MacNeill on the widespread doubt of the mechanisms of the modern synthesis:
Prof. Giertych is probably right in asserting that the “modern synthesis” mechanisms grounded in theoretical population genetics are insufficient to explain macroevolution. However, scientists within the field of evolutionary biology have been saying the same thing for over a century.
The evidence shows me that intelligent design is not only unproductive but bogus.
But you appear to have been misled on some of this evidence.
Greg:
Agreed. Thanks for your comments—I appreciate them. By the way, I did not take it that you were “watering down” my comments—in fact I viewed your comments as supporting the overall position. I was driving the point home further for the sake of clarity.
Tom:
As I said, the discussion over Moreland’s and Craig’s ontological claims (and how they actually work against them) is long and highly-nuanced, but it has profound ramifications. It just wouldn’t work to fully expand on it here because so much foundational knowledge is presupposed… but I’ll try to do it in two paragraphs:
The bottom line is that if they claim the concept “being” is univocal (as they do), they get themselves into a whole lot of hot water. Why? The MESs operate with univocal definitions—that, among other things, is what makes them so epistemologically efficient in the realm of the material and physical. A univocal word means that the word in question always has the same meaning, i.e., a univocal word unambiguous and precise. Truly univocal words are universal: they apply to any individual that belongs to a general class of things that share the same nature. That’s why terms used by the MESs are univocal and why great effort is devoted to formulating precise definitions of new terms. That’s also why Craig and Moreland are (for among other reasons) incorrect to apply univocity across the spectrum of beings: concepts are not the same kind of thing as accidents… as substances…, etc. It literally undermines their ability as philosophers to properly critique illicit interpretations of science. Why? Well consider metaphysical materialism or naturalism as illicit applied to all of reality: if all beings are the same kind of thing (material entities and physical processes) then indeed the MESs are necessary and sufficient to obtain all knowledge… which means DL is correct: the MESs do in such a case become the epistemological arbiters of all knowledge. I know I’m repeating myself a bit from yesterday, but it’s an important point to get across.
Also, I know it may appear bad, but don’t worry: metaphysical naturalism (and its sundry cousins like positivism, etc.) are self-stultifying. The point is that a solid, consistent, explanatory realist philosophy must support ID-based science to really drive neo-Darwinism off the scene. If Moreland and Craig fight on MES turf with MES-only instruments at their disposal, they will “lose”—time after time—as I fear Dembski is losing, and Behe is floundering. Now, as a tiny tease to the disloyal opposition: I bet even this today’s Darwinists wouldn’t have a heartache about—especially if descent with modification is confirmed. What really scares them to death about realist metaphysics is that inescapably such a philosophical vision reflects truths that are, indeed, beyond the MESs… which means one can establish at least the beginnings of a language that properly addresses beings that are not observable to the MESs. Bottom line: the atheist worldview collapses in a heartbeat. Why do you think DL fights so tenaciously against metaphysics? For him, theology is fish in a barrel once metaphysics is eliminated… but there is no way he can be correct in such intellectual discourse: he’s using his own metaphysics to decry metaphysics… and we’ve seen how easily he presents other self-stultifying ideas throughout these discussions.
Now, getting back on track, I agree with you for agreeing with the list of philosophers you provide: design can INDEED be inferred from nature. There is no argument there. The point I’m making, however, is subtle yet central to understanding the “beyond science” claims neo-Darwinists make and the “beyond science” claims ID theorists make. When Craig, Moreland, Koons, etc. (I’m not quite sure I’d include Plantinga in this group—in my mind he operates on a higher plane than the others) say design can be inferred from nature, they are NOT speaking as MES-ers using MES language. Why? There is NO MES-language for design. These guys are speaking precisely as interpreters of observations of nature, i.e., they are speaking as philosophers. They’re speaking a language that goes beyond the ability of narrow language of the MESs. Now, my point wrt to their language is that there are errors in their concept of “beingness” (see above), which means it won’t be acceptable to MES-ers even if the latter were charitable and listened to the argument. The upshot of Craig and Moreland’s philosophy is it leaves them operating on MES territory. Why? Because they themselves have defined an ontology where being is a univocal term… which means the MESs are necessary and sufficient for acquiring knowledge about reality. MESers will always turn to them and say (correctly) “why are you inventing beings that we can’t observe to explain things we can’t understand, and yet you use intellectual instruments that pertain only to your self-declared univocity of being?” The MESers are correct!
I know I’ve repeated myself... and more than once! But this point is quite, quite important.
I love this part of your article, Tom--
Ron asked, "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?"
That's a funny question. The first and most important new insight one might gain from seeing that the flagellum is designed is (get ready now, this is complicated) that the flagellum is designed! (I told you it would be hard.)
No, Tom. That wasn't complicated at all. In fact, I'd describe it as unbelievably simple. As in simplistic.
You said in your article that establishing the flagellum was designed is merely "[t]he first and most important new insight". Please, tell me--What are the other insights you allude to? You were careful to mention that your new 'insight' includes the fact that the flagellum can now be cited as evidence for the existence of God (yeah, yeah, either God or Martians). But for some reason you forgot to mention any other 'insights' it provides. So, what are they?
I've asked you that question many times, and you always mention that establishing that the flagellum was designed proves there's a designer somewhere. But for some reason, you never mention anything else. No new insight into how it works. Why it takes the appearance it does vs. another appearance. Why this bacteria has one but that one doesn't.
Why do you suppose that is, Tom? Why are your answers to that question heavy on the theological but kinda light on the actual science?
Please, tell me--What are the other insights you allude to? You were careful to mention that your new 'insight' includes the fact that the flagellum can now be cited as evidence for the existence of God (yeah, yeah, either God or Martians). But for some reason you forgot to mention any other 'insights' it provides. So, what are they?
Is the insight that there is a Designer insignificant? I listed it as the first and most important, not the only; but before I answer your follow-up questions I'd like to hear you address that one.
Holopupenko, do you have a source I can read for more background on that? Thanks.
Tom,
An insight that there is a designer is highly significant, but you cannot have it both ways.
The claim that there is a designer has to have highly specific scientific consequences or else you wouldn't have been able to infer it scientifically in the first place. There has to be an experiment that turns out one way if there's a designer, and another way if there isn't. What is that experiment?
In order to do this, you have to have a scientific model of design and the designer. If you don't have this, then you're playing a "God of the gaps" game, not science.
I think we need a model of what design looks like, not necessarily a model of the designer. We're inferring design and not much more from the scientific side.
Tom:
Try these first: http://www.morec.com/nature/evol.html. The ontological mistake Craig and Moreland make is at the top of page 188 of their textbook. They subsequently try to work around it on the next few pages, but it fails to address important differences in existence of the various types I listed above. Also, I have a strong suspicion (corroborated by others -- I believe Moreland has been criticized on his understanding of being at either Tu Quoque or Telic Thoughts) of what may be--at least partially--driving their position. No need to get into that here. Please be aware, what I'm providing just scratches the surface: one has to wade carefully through the distinctions and nuances of the ontological discussions.
DL is out to lunch again with his scientism: he was specific and quite clear in his recent comment that without the MESs (I'll throw in math for him) we can't know design. On top of all his earlier fallacious reasoning, he's blatantly begging the question of what design is in the first place. I think he's slipping off his rails...
Do you have a suggestion as to which of those articles to start with?
Tom:
I actually don't... and was afraid you'd ask. The problem is these articles also presuppose some level of philosophical knowledge. It's not that this stuff is inaccessible, but it does take some preliminary wrestling with the mind. Nonetheless, the Tkacz article may be the one you want to start with in terms of Thomistic criticisms of ID. There are more criticisms out there, and I'm actually trying to collate and summarize them now... but they're in bits and pieces scattered here and there.
I'm on the side of ID in terms of properly formulating what it actually is and can say. The mistake I believe they've made is a difficult one to walk away from: lot's of money (it must be admitted) has gone into ID as an MES discipline by lots of well-intentioned people... but people, nonetheless, who don't understand the finer nuances between philosophy and science as such. The Discovery Institute I believe knows this deep down inside, and I'm hoping it's dawning on them that (currently) ID is a difficult sell at best--even as a counter-theory to neo-Darwinism. If the overall strategy will be to keep work in the MES-sphere, then ID theorist must be content with simply pointing out the MES-deficiencies of Darwinian theory. If it is to buttress ID with good, solid philosophical interpretation, then it can go beyond the MES criticisms... but then it shouldn't be taught in the science classroom--just as neo-Darwinist metaphysical claims should not be taught in the classroom. But that's not the reasoning I suspect most of the well-intentioned people who sent their hard-earned money to the Discovery Institute want to hear... and clearly that's not what the Discovery Institute wants to hear.
No suprise coming from me is that I have a huge gripe against public schools not teaching the basics of philosophical thinking while avoiding the terrible mistakes made by Descartes, Hume, Kant, etc. Teach kids to think critically on these issues, and Darwinism as a world-view will happily fade away...
Greg, as to how one infers to the best explanation: it's done all the time. It's not a matter of coming to a final answer that could never be dislodged, but of coming to a better answer than what was known before, and continuing the process of investigation from there.
Tom, this is very close to a God of the gaps argument. While I personally take some comfort in this line of thinking at times, it's nothing to base one's faith upon. And it's irresponsible to ask others to. I know, I know. ID is not about 'converting' people (at least above-board) but it is a challenge to the PN worldview.
Of course it's a challenge to the PN worldview. But the challenge is not just from the science end. It's also being done from the side of philosophy--two methodologies converging toward one conclusion by providing evidence from different directions.
But you'll have to help me in understanding how this comes close to a God of the Gaps argument. I don't see it in there.
In an earlier comment, I harrumphed that:
PS. Please strike Antony Flew from the list of ID supporters. Although he remains "minimally deist," he has recently regretted having been associated with the theory of intelligent design.
Charlie called me on it. Here is Flew's more recent change of heart:
In another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his statement "a deity or a 'super-intelligence' [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." wrote Flew.
Maybe he's changed his mind again; I don't know. The context for my quote is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew.
As to Axe, my only authority is Barbara Forrest's Kitzmiller testimony quoted by Charlie. Does Charlie contend that she lied under oath, as defendants William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell did?
As to others' opinions, they certainly admit that Axe at least researched his own data. But his conclusion? Changing one base doesn't destroy protein function; but changing 20% or does. (He didn't even investigate whether the function might have changed to another function.) OK. How can this be interpreted as positive evidence for design, as he now claims? In any event, my point was not so much that its implications were wrong per se, but that it went only to detection of design, and not to productive applications in research.
Sorry I wasn't clearer. Let's take irreducible complexity as an example. ID researchers say "look biological feature X is irreducibly complex, therefore design is a better explanation than random mutation." Later a Neo-Darwinist demonstrates how that complexity can be reduced and therefore refutes that design example. That's a black eye for design and the more often it happens, the less people will consider design as ever being a useful explanation.
Greg, the IC situation is even worse for ID than you portray. Some of Behe's examples of IC systems have been shown to be acccessible to darwinian selection; more will undoubtedly be in the future.
Beyond that, even if Behe finds a truly IC system, Behe's claim that removal of a part makes the system functionless is obviously incorrect: a mousetrp without a bait hook is still a document clip; one with only a base is still a paperweight. Surprisingly enough, IC was originally put forth in 1918 (as "interlocking complexity") as an argument for natural selection. Behe appears to be unaware of that literature.
Another problem is that defining the parts of an IC system is subjective. If I define the parts of a mousetrap aas Behe does, it is IC. If I define them to include pins to keep the spring from sliding off the bar, then it is not. For example, Behe has described the bacterial flagellum's parts in several different ways, from 3 (motor, O-ring, propellor) to 40 (individual proteins).
Even beyond these failings, IC itself can be no more than negative evidence against darwinian selection. It is not positive evidence for ID. If natural selection is wrong, then how about a natural "pattern field" that causes systems to "learn" from each other? (See Rupert Sheldrake's morphological field concept.)
Irrecducible complexity fails as a test of intellectual design on several levels, not just one.
Hi Olorin--
Many of the comments here conflate "methodological naturalism" (MN) with "philosophical naturalism" (PN; or "ontological naturalism").
I've mentioned this to the denizens of this blog more than once, and this is a consistent creationist habit. The difference between the two--at least to me--is fairly easy to see, so I really don't understand why it seems to be necessary to re-explain it, as you've had to do.
Tom--
I just had explorer burp and un-do everything I was working on. I had a riff going, too. It's at times like this that not being able to swear becomes a genuine speech impediment. This may be short.
Is the insight that there is a Designer insignificant? I listed it as the first and most important, not the only; but before I answer your follow-up questions I'd like to hear you address that one.
Okay, but only if you answer mine.
Culturally, it's big. Very. (Haven't we had this discussion before?) But if you're looking for the answers to any of the questions I posed, about the only way 'design' will answer them is if God left you his cell phone number.
Okay, now you.
Olorin,
As to Axe, my only authority is Barbara Forrest's Kitzmiller testimony quoted by Charlie. Does Charlie contend that she lied under oath, as defendants William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell did?
I'll leave questions of Forrest's honesty and integrity for others. I am contending that she said exactly what she wanted to say on the witness stand and that her testimony provides no evidence for your statement:
Only one of the articles (Axe, 2000) contains any original research of the kind that is relevant to this question, and Axe himself has stated that none of his publications make an argument for design (Forrest & Gross, 2004).
If this is what Axe stated then this is what Forrest would have testified to. Her testimony is more consistent with the case that Axe declined to answer her email at all, or at least the question she says she posed to him.
On the other hand, I haven't seen the email, but perhaps it's in the book that she cites, without quoting.
Here is Flew's more recent change of heart:
This is definitely not his most recent. The Strobel interview I linked to was released in Nov. 2006, refers in past tense to 2004, and refers to Flew as being 83 years old - he was born in February of 1923.
Thanks, Ron.
What I wanted to come to agreement on is this: that if ID demonstrates Design, that in itself is worthwhile knowledge--"very big," as you said.
Now as to the other question you asked, here's what ID would contribute if it is shown to be an accurate paradigm:
1. Research agendas. Biologists might look more intentionally for instances of design in nature.
2. Corrected answers. We would be closer to a true understanding of nature if we discard a disproven model.
There may be more. ID would definitely not interfere with current research into population variation (e.g. bacterial antibiotic resistance) or research into common descent, because it strongly agrees with the one and is generally open to the other.
So I think that the fact of a designer (if shown) and numbers 1 and 2 are, together, a set of good outcomes that we can seek within an ID paradigm.
That's a general answer. You asked specifically about insight into the working of the flagellum. I don't think it has to contribute anything to the understanding of how it works, other than the above. Why should it? We can understand the structure and function without reference to its origin, though looking at it from a design perspective might lead one to pursue the question from a different angle. Or it might not. The same could be said of looking at it from an evolution angle.
There's an example of design principles contributing to biology here.
What I wanted to come to agreement on is this: that if ID demonstrates Design, that in itself is worthwhile knowledge--"very big," as [Ron] said.
This is the point that I have denied from the beginning. Why would it be of any consequence, except to satisfy a longing for evidence of the existence of God?
As to Tom's specific proposals, (1) Why would looking for more designs in nature advance understanding or practical applications? It would only add to evidence for the designer, which you assume already to have been demonstrated. (2) To improve our "understanding of nature", we have to not only discard an incorrect model, but replace it with one that is more productive. The only thing that the design model tells us is "yes, here is a design." ID not only does not but refuses to advance beyond that goal. How in the world (excuse me; how in heaven) does that advance understanding or produce applications?
The web page in your "example of design principles contributing to biology" appears devoid of an actual examples. (Although the page it refers to is gone into 404-land.)
I'm really getting tired of the DI's bare naked staements that they have a research agenda and can advance understanding without providing a single concrete example. It's like the ads, "Limited only by your imagination!" OK....but can you help my poor imagination along just a little?
Olorin,
You cannot settle on one challenge. Sometimes you say that the concern is that design is not positively demonstrated, then you complain that ID work will not lead to greater practical knowledge, or that it is stifling.
First, ID scientists do add to the practical knowledge. Men like Behe and Minnich (among many others) are published scientists who have added to the body of science just as every other published scientist has. As a design theorist Sanford helped to invent the gene gun to further his work, and has obviously contributed practicality.
Minnich, drawing specifically on his interpretation of design, theorized and has provided evidence for the relationship between the BF and the TTSS ( a position the reigning paradigm argued against). This is also a great example of following the evidence where it leads, as his opponents use just this work to try to argue against his position of the IC of the flagellum (he has answered those objections, of course). This smacks of good science.
So now the critic needs to shift his goalposts a little. He might say that this work was done by an ID scientist, but that it does not rely upon an ID inference - or more disingenuously, that the appers do not "explicitly argue for "design". Maybe yes, maybe no. But it certainly gives evidence to the fact that working from an ID perspective does not impede science (your Kepler counter-example notwithstanding - as many a naturalistic view point has stifled timely knowledge as well). It also ignores the fact that Minnich was specifically thinking "design" when he came up with the hypothesis. As was Gonzalez when he offered his lunar-meteorite proposal, and Seelke when he went into the lab to test just what RM and NS could do (the agency refusing his grant felt (and stifled research), as convinced naturalists, that the work was unnecessary since we already know what evolution can do - everything. This would be like telling Pasteur not to investigate whether or not life can occur spontaneously. We already know it does because, gee, look around, here we are. Or asking him, so what if you show there is no spontaneous generation of life? Then what?)
These findings, welcome or not, have been added to the greater body of scientific knowledge of the natural world.
So the critic has one more dodge - you haven't proven "design". I agree, and I say "so what?"
The ID proponent believes he has demonstrated evidence for design, the neo-Darwinian believes he presents evidence for no design. The ID proponent looks at the body of evidence gathered over the years (by presumably non-design scientists) and says that much of it can be interpreted to argue for his point, and the materialist looks at the ID proponent's work and thinks it can argue for his own naturalistic point as well.
But saying "it was designed" may make a true statement of fact. And facts are good to know whether they give you another patentable discovery or not.
And it is certainly no less productive than saying "it wasn't designed".
If you want practical knowledge then views of origins are asides. What science does is observe, weigh, measure, see "how" and provide applications. There is nothing about saying "it was designed" that will stand in the way of this.
When IBM searches the "junk" DNA for (supposedly) unexpressed "words" or motifs in the sequences, or others investigate a second and third code buried in the structure it doesn't much matter if they make explicit the fact that unguided natural events are very unlikely to be able to account for this information without the input of a mind. This presupposition seems implicit, even if it is unacknowledged. And if there is further decipherable information in biology which has no beneficial expression then it is a perfectly legitimate scientific proposition to say that this is, in principle, beyond the ability of and blind variation/selection process.
These implications lead other theorists to infer alien input, or the effects of information traveling backward in time. If they were somehow to be proven right, and we discovered these sources, who would ever say "it was unproductive, why did we ever ask the questions and question the paradigm in the first place"?
Olorin,
This is the point that I have denied from the beginning. Why would it be of any consequence, except to satisfy a longing for evidence of the existence of God?
Some people say that science is a good thing if it does nothing but add to knowledge. If we add to knowledge in this area, is it any different? Does there have to be a "consequence"? Is there always a "consequence" to every area of scientific research?
But I still think that something that is "very big," as Ron put it, is "very big."
First, ID scientists do add to the practical knowledge. Men like Behe and Minnich (among many others) are published scientists who have added to the body of science just as every other published scientist has. As a design theorist Sanford helped to invent the gene gun to further his work, and has obviously contributed practicality.
Minnich, drawing specifically on his interpretation of design, theorized and has provided evidence for the relationship between the BF and the TTSS ( a position the reigning paradigm argued against). This is also a great example of following the evidence where it leads, as his opponents use just this work to try to argue against his position of the IC of the flagellum (he has answered those objections, of course). This smacks of good science.
So now the critic needs to shift his goalposts a little. He might say that this work was done by an ID scientist, but that it does not rely upon an ID inference - or more disingenuously, that the appers do not "explicitly argue for "design".
Yes, please, I'll have a helping of #2: Minnich and Behe have indeed contributed to science, but not because of any design inference. Other scientists have not seen any use of a design inference in the publications themselves; if Behe and Minnisch have privately employed such an inference, they have not identified what the inference was, or which particular results it engendered, or in what way it might deepen our understanding of their results, over what MN principles would provide.
John Sanford may have used his gene gun to create human-designed biological systems, but no one has vouchsafed to me how he used any specific ID inference or tool in that project or any of his others.
Scott Minnich may say that his TTSS work was guided by ID, but it is difficult to see how. In the Kitzmiller trial, he followed the other ID witnesses in emphasizing that ID only detects designs, and does not propose how they were implemented, or any other mechanism. What can you go just by knowing that something is designed, without any conception of how the design works or where it came from? Sounds a little ex post facto to me. Minnich did discuss the "evolution" of the TTSS; seems to me that was his guide, not "design." BTW, I'm pretty sure that Minnich 2004 on TTSS was an ID conference report, not a mainline peer-reviewed pub.)
Maybe the design inference is in some main-line publications, maybe it did contribute to a result. But the DI keeps saying there are results without every pointing out any specific, concrete, express, categorical details. At what particular place was an inference made? As to what individual protein or system was the inference made? What concrete result or application did it lead to? And, most significantly, why in this particular case did a design inference lead to an insight different from that which pedestrian evolution would suggest? (As to the latter question, I'm thinking especially of the Axe 2000 article.)
I'm with Jerry McGuire: quit waving your arms and show me the money. The DI is always demanding that "Darwinists" demonstrate exact paths by which a particular system (clotting cascade, e.g.) actually did evolve, in full panoply, cuncta stricte discussurus. So, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the Discovery Institute.
Re "science is good if it only adds knowledge." I heartily agree, but we want the knowledge to accumulate somehow; we want to stand on the shoulders of giants and see farther than they did. "We've detected a design in the anterior hindgut of caenorhabditis elegans!" "Great! Where else can we dig to learn more from that?" "Well ... nowhere; but isn't that just peachy all by itself?" Actually, no.
Olorinb,
The DI is always demanding that "Darwinists" demonstrate exact paths by which a particular system (clotting cascade, e.g.) actually did evolve, in full panoply, cuncta stricte discussurus.
No they aren't.
You have presented false information.
Other scientists have not seen any use of a design inference in the publications themselves; if Behe and Minnisch have privately employed such an inference, they have not identified what the inference was, or which particular results it engendered, or in what way it might deepen our understanding of their results, over what MN principles would provide.
It was neither private nor unstated. The concept is irreducible complexity.
And even if it was private and unstated, so what?
Behe and Minnich look at the work of those scientists and don't see random, unguided, chance, etc.
Each does his own work, with his own inspiration, and is welcome to his own interpretations.
Scott Minnich may say that his TTSS work was guided by ID, but it is difficult to see how.
You listen to him say that many of his insights are design-inspired.
Minnich did discuss the "evolution" of the TTSS; seems to me that was his guide, not "design."
1) ID is not "anti-evolution".
2) What seems to you to have been his guide is not exactly the deciding factor.
BTW, I'm pretty sure that Minnich 2004 on TTSS was an ID conference report, not a mainline peer-reviewed pub.)
How would this impact the fact that he has used ID to do his work, that it has yielded results, and that work and investigation has not been stifled? Or the fact that he is widely published in professional journals?
What concrete result or application did it lead to?
The demonstration of the IC of the flagellum, the prediction of the existence of the TTSS, the relatedness of the BF and the secretion of virulent chemicals, the demonstration of the resources needed to get two beneficial mutations, the probability of spontaneous mutations producing proteins of fundamentally new structures, and the negative effects of mutations on protein coding, etc.
Where else can we dig to learn more from that?"
In the structure of DNA, in its secondary and tertiary codes. A designer can convey information which is not accessible to natural selection and we can search for this.
John Sanford may have used his gene gun to create human-designed biological systems, but no one has vouchsafed to me how he used any specific ID inference or tool in that project or any of his others.
Of what necessity is that? He is an ID scientist thinking in terms of design, producing practical benefits and not being stifled by his inference. All the things you say you want.
You accuse me of waving my arms, but that is all you have done here. You have been shown that ID scientists are doing work, are being published, are looking further into the evidence, are producing practical benefits, and are not being stifled. But still you ratchet up your demands.
What I wanted to come to agreement on is this: that if ID demonstrates Design, that in itself is worthwhile knowledge--"very big," as you said.
Yeah, but Tom--This is nothing new.
We established this a month ago.
Now as to the other question you asked, here's what ID would contribute if it is shown to be an accurate paradigm:
1. Research agendas. Biologists might look more intentionally for instances of design in nature.
Once design is firmly established--as you're so confident it will be--why re-establish the fact over and over--unless it proves to be useful in some way?
I tell you, there are good reasons to keep the church's mitts off the sciences. And a lot of other public policy most likely.
2. Corrected answers. We would be closer to a true understanding of nature if we discard a disproven model.
I'm waiting...
There may be more. ID would definitely not interfere with current research into population variation (e.g. bacterial antibiotic resistance) or research into common descent, because it strongly agrees with the one and is generally open to the other.
Woah. You set my 'global warming' meter off with that one. Are you seriously suggesting to me that if the two of us were to google 'common ancestry' (CA) on Disco's site and looked at the first 25 pages that came back, that a substantial portion of them would be supportive of common ancestry? Baloney.
I haven't even tried it, and I'd be willing to bet good money that virtually all the hits would be articles trashing CA.
Sorry, Tom. To suggest that ID is--as you said--'generally open to' the idea of CA is just wrong. ID--as is easily demonstrated--is very hostile to common ancestry. I don't think Disco's ever officially ruled out CA, but they trash it at every opportunity, which tells you something.
So I think that the fact of a designer (if shown) and numbers 1 and 2 are, together, a set of good outcomes that we can seek within an ID paradigm.
What, that's it? Because of this 'revolutionary' new science of ID, biology can now go off on some 'design' snipe hunt and celebrate the overthrow of 'Darwinism' on weekends? That's really your answer?
That's a general answer.
Guess so.
You asked specifically about insight into the working of the flagellum. I don't think it has to contribute anything to the understanding of how it works, other than the above. Why should it?
There's your 'ID's better explanation' right there.
We can understand the structure and function without reference to its origin, though looking at it from a design perspective might lead one to pursue the question from a different angle. Or it might not. The same could be said of looking at it from an evolution angle
But not accurately. Not if there's anything to evo-devo.
Judgement: Defendants (Disco Inst., Tom Gilson et al) may continue with their research, but no public monies are to be used or inclusion in public school curriculum allowed until they use ID principles to lead to a treatment for a disease. Other sciences have had to prove themselves first; no free rides for ID.
Ron:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you assert earlier that you were a moral relativist? If so, why are you imposing moral absolutes on Tom? "No free rides for ID", etc., etc.? Doesn't that make your ideas hypocritical on the level of DL... or am I missing something? People in Ukraine joke about Homo sovieticus as a person who thought one thing, said another, did a third. Food for thought, I guess...
Ron:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you assert earlier that you were a moral relativist?
No, I don't use terms like that.
If so, why are you imposing moral absolutes on Tom? "No free rides for ID", etc., etc.?
Insisting that ID not enjoy a free ride has nothing to do with morality per se. IF ID is legitimate science as it claims to be it should be able to produce some kind of scientific results--cure a disease, expand our knowledge of the flagellum, that sort of thing. The guy that discovered prions didn't start out by petitioning the Arkansas state legislature to have his theories taught in high school science class. He did the work, published the results and won a Nobel prize. Now he doesn't have to petition anybody to have his theory taught. That's the way it's supposed to be done. Not the way the Discovery Inst. has been doing it--whining that they're being suppressed and whipping up the faithful in the churches to show up for the next school board meeting, instead of doing any actual research.
Ron,
Amen, brother!
H,
Your claim that moral relativists cannot make moral appeals is inane. Why do you keep bringing it up? We've been over it a dozen times. Moral debates are about persuasion, even when those debates are between moral realists.
If your values are such that you don't think scientific theories should have to prove themselves before being taught in schools, then you won't be persuaded by Ron's argument. Otherwise, you will be persuaded. It's that simple. No moral realism required.
Ron, I know we established that point a long time ago but Olorin kept asking about it. Sorry if it seems redundant.
doctor(logic)
Your claim that moral relativists cannot make moral appeals is inane. Why do you keep bringing it up? We've been over it a dozen times. Moral debates are about persuasion, even when those debates are between moral realists.
If moral relativists make moral appeals, what are they appealing to?
If your values are such that you don't think scientific theories should have to prove themselves before being taught in schools, then you won't be persuaded by Ron's argument.
Why oh why oh why does that straw man keep reappearing? Why in particular would someone bring it up in a thread that was started on the topic of false rhetorical ploys being used by ID opponents?
Ron,
Woah. You set my 'global warming' meter off with that one. Are you seriously suggesting to me that if the two of us were to google 'common ancestry' (CA) on Disco's site and looked at the first 25 pages that came back, that a substantial portion of them would be supportive of common ancestry? Baloney.
I love your research methods. (Have you actually tried this?) Here's another one I would suggest to you: find out what Michael Behe thinks on the topic, and whether the DI thinks he's a pariah who should be banned from future participation.
If moral relativists make moral appeals, what are they appealing to?Moral standards that are relative to a certain group, society, etc.
Languages are relative (there is no one absolute language, each culture has its own), and yet one's language appears completely natural, transparent, and obvious (=absolute). That doesn't mean that we can't talk, though, just because each language is relative, so to speak, to its own culture and to each speaker.
Here's another one I would suggest to you: find out what Michael Behe thinks on the topic, and whether the DI thinks he's a pariah who should be banned from future participation.
I would suggest that Ron begin his research this way. Some DI members speak to religious groups, who generally do not accept common descent. Does Behe, who does accept it, ever addtress these groups? I think Ron will find that he does not. Therefore, Behe is a pariah banned from participation where he would be an embarrassment. Investigate Scott Minnich, too, so that you include all the actual practicing scientist Fellows of the DI. Oops---astronomer Guilermo Gonzalez. I don't know, but would hypothesize that he accepts some form of common descent and does not speak to religious groups; please let me know how it turns out.
Olorin, you just changed the subject. First we were talking about ID, and now you're talking about religion.
Sorry, Tom. I thought you were the one who brought up the topic:
Here's another one I would suggest to you: find out what Michael Behe thinks on the topic, and whether the DI thinks he's a pariah who should be banned from future participation
My point was that Behe is in fact a pariah for ID with respect to certain of their audiences---specifically to the religious contingent whpo provides much of their financial support.
Deuce and Tom have made a great point about Olorin's literature bluffing. This is why URL-battles among laymen (such as myself) mean nothing. What's much more important in a forum where we are suposed to be thinking is what we do with the literature we read. As we have seen, what Olorin does is make mistakes, rely o upon rhetoric ploys, spread false information, make unsupportable assertions and draw faulty conclusions.
For instance, Olorin, what of your above assertion to Ron?
You keep making some very interesting points.
Why do you think Ron will find that Behe does not address religious groups? Do you have any evidence for this supposed pariah-status of Behe's?
Your preferred source, Barbara Forrest, along with Kitzmiller attorney Rothschild, seemed to think Behe makes a significant number of presentations to churches.
I expect this evidence will only make you switch your complaint from one that IDers are too tall to one that they are too short, but nonetheless, here are links to Forrest comenting on Behe's propensity to give presentations in churches.
By the way, didn't she have anything to say on it in her book, Creationism's Trojan Horse?
Dover testimony here and here.
She also thought it important enough to mention in her expert witness tatement, along with a citation.
As to your mistakes, virtually every pronouncement on these several threads have been false, and have been shown to be false.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
src=hsr#206935
Olorin
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
src=hsr#206945
"(BTW, I never said that IC has been demolished.
Yeah, you did.
"Only that finding an IC system does not disprove darwinian evolution.)"
This was a later qualification.
You said:
" Both "irreduciable complexity" and "complex specified information have been thoroughly demolished by experts in the fields of matehematicas and biology. "
Olorin | 04.06.07 - 1:25 pm | #
But you took it back, sort of:
" Sorry, I was too elliptical there. IC and CSI have been demolished as evidence of design in biology."
This reminds me of the time when you claimed that Behe said that the 58 articles were "not good" enough and now have taken that back - also , 'sort of'.
You say now, knowing that he did not say they were "not good" enough, " that:
"He waived them away as OK but not pertinent (??), and neither then nor afterward did he refute any of them. "
This is interesting thinking on your part. Apart from showing your allegiance to the technique of literature bluffing, which Deuce and Tom have addressed, why do you suggest that Behe ought to refute papers which did not address his project?
Your analysis here is as flawed as it has been previously and as has been the material you've been getting from your references.
Olorin:
"The DI counts distortions in the same manner. I followed the Kitzmiller trial closely at the time, and was surprised that (a whole year!)"
Why did you get Behe wrong on "not good enough", "peer review" and "implausibility of design" if you followed so closely?
"the DI asserted a number of factual errors and distortions in the decision. I reviewed the transcripts and the opinion. The "errors" occurred when a DI witness stated a fact ("The blood clotting cascade is IC and thus inaccessible to unguided evolution") and the judge decided the other side's evidence (58 papers on evolution of the BCC) was more credible. Deciding against the ID "facts" was an "error."
You got this wrong too. It wasn't that Jones found in favour of the plaintiff's evidence - it was that he misrepresented the evidence of the defence, ignored direct testimony, and repeated verbatim errors made by the plaintifs as though they were truths.
Continuing, among your errors you've said/asked on one < a href="http://www.haloscan.com/comments/tgilblog/E20070329113037/?src=hsr#206945">thread:
"Their sole and only concern is to show that design did occur in a given case."
False
"Have they proposed any practical applications of that knowledge? Any ways in which a design inference could lead to further research?"
Yes.
"Intelligent Design, both inherently and as advocated by the Discovery Institute, kills scientific research."
False
"Evidence of whether ID stifles research includes whether ID itself has produced or suggested any fruitful research. It has not. None. Nada. Nichevo.
Olorin | 03.30.07 - 8:35 pm | #"
False
"Opinions are one thing, facts are another. You can post a citation to biological research that ID proponents have carried out, or have suggested. New results. Experiments. Tests. Any. Any at all.
I thought not.
Olorin | 03.31.07 - 9:06 pm | #"
You thought wrong
"But most of the people at Discovery Institute promote it dishonestly---not for the furtherance of science, but in order to insinuate (their own) religious principles into education and legislation at every possible opportunity. "
Assertion. Evidence?
"Maybe some day, when science education in the US doesn't trail the rest of the wotrld by such a large maargin, more people will also accept it.
Olorin | 04.08.07 - 12:53 am | #"
Fear mongering based upon faulty information.
And on another thread:
"And, once more, intelligent design has produced nothing of interest to science, even if it were valid."
Wrong - admitted yourself on Behe and Minnich.
" And the evidence so far convinces me that it is not. In my naturalistic tentative opinion, of course.
Olorin | 04.04.07 - 7:05 pm | ""
Your sources have given you bad information and your opinion is falsified repeatedly.
"Read Forrest & Gross's book Creationism's Trojan Horse , Pretty bad, even if you believe only a samll part of it. And she did testify under oath to a lot of the subject matter in Kitzmiller v. Board ."
Have you read it? It seems not.
What have you presented that we ought to believe and why ought we to believe any of it if we can't believe half of it?
"Both "irreduciable complexity" and "complex specified information have been thoroughly demolished by experts in the fields of matehematicas and biology. "
Wrong - withdrawn.
"Please excuse the incompletreness. I just started collecting this stuff a short itme ago, and it is not yet organized or indexed. "
You have not done well with your copiled information thus far. You should look for other sources, given your track record.
And perhaps even a little humility in your assertions given the faulty inferences you've drawn.
"(BTW, I never said that IC has been demolished. Only that finding an IC system does not disprove darwinian evolution.)
Olorin | 04.08.07 - 4:23 p "
False
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?src=hsr#206935
On this, the Rhetorical Ploys thread- which has been my favourite
"Only one of the articles (Axe, 2000) contains any original research of the kind that is relevant to this question, and Axe himself has stated that none of his publications make an argument for design (Forrest & Gross, 2004). See The TalkOrigins Archive, Creationist Claim C1004.4 (revised 12/05) for analyses of the other cited works. I stand by none, nada, nichevo. I'll even throw in niente and nichts."
False. Bad resource - which you've repeatedly cited.
"This is why, if real biologists followed ID, their reserach would be stifled."
Demonstrated false. And ID biologists are real.
"Regardless whether Axe has changed his miind as to what he thinks about his article, no one else can see how his article challenges Darwinian evolution, or provides positive evidence for intelligent design. "
No evidence that he changed his mind. Bad reading of evidence by Olorin.
"In his testimony at the Kitzmiller trial, he stated that Intelligent Design is implausible unless one believes in God. The voice of the expert. "
False. Bad memory of trial transcripts which Olorin claims to have followed closely.
"William Dembski bugged out after realizing that he would be exposed to cross-examination by the other side.) "
Unsupported and refuted opinion.
"So I would ask you not to cheapen God by casting Him as a tnkerer who must specifically design His creatures, modify them when He was wrong the first time, then destory almost all of them when they didn't adapt to changing climates.
Olorin | 04.02.07 - 3:20 pm | #"
Strawman of ID.
Theological argument imposing upon science and evidence.
"Kepler got rid of this "purpose," but was delayed in finding elliptical orbits for decades because God would certainly have designed orbits as "perfect" circles. "
Bad reading of history.
"He did not refute any of the papers; he merely waved them away (literally, so I'm told) as "not enough." "
False portrayal of events and false requirement of refutation.
"PS. Please strike Antony Flew from the list of ID supporters. Although he remains "minimally deist," he has recently regretted having been associated with the theory of intelligent design.
Olorin | 04.03.07 - 12:13 am | #"
Bad information.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...2115025/ #206663
Olorin challenged me:
"Does Charlie contend that she [Forrest] lied under oath, as defendants William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell did?"
I responded, demonstrating Olorin's faulty reading of the statement:
I'll leave questions of Forrest's honesty and integrity for others. I am contending that she said exactly what she wanted to say on the witness stand and that her testimony provides no evidence for your statement:
"Only one of the articles (Axe, 2000) contains any original research of the kind that is relevant to this question, and Axe himself has stated that none of his publications make an argument for design (Forrest & Gross, 2004)."
If this is what Axe stated then this is what Forrest would have testified to. "
"To improve our "understanding of nature", we have to not only discard an incorrect model, but replace it with one that is more productive. "
False, and a misrepresentation of the situation.
"The only thing that the design model tells us is "yes, here is a design." ID not only does not but refuses to advance beyond that goal. "
False and false.
"Yes, please, I'll have a helping of #2: Minnich and Behe have indeed contributed to science, but not because of any design inference. "
Bald and unsupportable assertion.
"if Behe and Minnisch have privately employed such an inference, they have not identified what the inference was, or which particular results it engendered, or in what way it might deepen our understanding of their results, over what MN principles would provide."
False.
"Minnich did discuss the "evolution" of the TTSS; seems to me that was his guide, not "design." "
What seems to be the case to you is often false.
"The DI is always demanding that "Darwinists" demonstrate exact paths by which a particular system (clotting cascade, e.g.) actually did evolve, in full panoply, cuncta stricte discussurus. "
False.
Unaddressed answer to your challenges.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...2115025/ #206794
"Does Behe, who does accept it, ever addtress these groups? I think Ron will find that he does not. Therefore, Behe is a pariah banned from participation where he would be an embarrassment. "
Unsupported assertion - conclusion drawn from your own question.
Assertion and conclusion contrary to facts and to the testimony pf Olorin's go-to girl, Barbara Forrest.
My point was that Behe is in fact a pariah for ID with respect to certain of their audiences---specifically to the religious contingent whpo provides much of their financial support.
Olorin | 04.06.07 - 4:57 pm | "
Repetition of false assertion.
Quoth Charlie:
This reminds me of the time when you claimed that Behe said that the 58 articles were "not good" enough and now have taken that back - also , 'sort of'.
You say now, knowing that he did not say they were "not good" enough, " that:
"He waived them away as OK but not pertinent (??), and neither then nor afterward did he refute any of them. "
Can't remember the exact words, but Behe's testimony went like this. He claimed that the BCC is IC and therefore not possible for darwinian evolution. The ACLU attorney called him on his conclusion (not possible), rather than upon his claim of IC, and asked whether Behe thought they were credible references to show darwinian evolution. Behe said they were excellent, but did not address the project that Behe was proposeing.
Well, Behe never said what the project was that he actually was addressing, and never answered the matter that was asked (whether the references were credible to show darwinian evolution of Behe's example). Behe thus dismissed the references by evading the question, and by not even stating what his own subject was. (Thus the "??" in my previous post.) This amounts to the same thing, in my eyes and apparently in Judge Jones' eyes: an unexplained evasion is not a denial.
As to Behe not addressing religious groups; I didn't say that he didn't---I asked Ron to include that question in his research on the question pariahhood, and offered a guess. Ask Ron what he found out.
Why did you get Behe wrong on "not good enough", "peer review" and "implausibility of design" if you followed so closely?
Let's take peer review. The ACLU attorney asked Behe whether there were any peer-reviewed scientific papers for ID. The question was long and carefully framed, in order to avoid weaseling about papers whose only connection to ID was that they were written by an author known to support ID, or that could be stretched to support ID, or that do not contain any original research, etc. Behe's answer was no, there are not any such references.
As to DI distortion claims, Charlie said:
You got this wrong too. It wasn't that Jones found in favour of the plaintiff's evidence - it was that he misrepresented the evidence of the defence, ignored direct testimony, and repeated verbatim errors made by the plaintifs as though they were truths.
As to ignoring direct testimony, that's what cross-examination is all about. The judge thought Behe was not a credible witness, because of his failures on cross. As to misrrpresenting evidence of the defense, that's what re-direct examination is all about---Behe's attorney can attempt to correct any misrepresentations. He failed to show crdible evidence of any. As I recall, ther was no re-cross, so Behe had the last word. As to the judge repeating plaintiff's errors verbatim, the reson is that he thought they weren't errors. The DI thinks they're errors because the judge should have believed the iD witnesses.
Both sides offered proposed conclusions of fact. Look at the ID's proposals sometime. They're even phrased in third person for direct cut-and-paste: "This Court finds that..." blah blah. Without a careful reading, I believe that the court did not in fact adopt any of them. The court did adopt many of the ACLU proposed findings, therefore deciding that he thought those facts had been shown by the testimony. THis is what it means to say that the judge accepted plaintiff's evidence. (He did not adopt all of plaintiff's proposed findings, however.)
Sorry I don't have time to address your other points. That dosen't mean I agree with them of course. No wait; I might agree with one:
"Maybe some day, when science education in the US doesn't trail the rest of the wotrld by such a large maargin, more people will also accept it.
Olorin | 04.08.07 - 12:53 am | #"
Fear mongering based upon faulty information.
My information probably is faulty. Based upon the fact that 10% of American adults still do not believe that the Earth orbits the sun, advances in science education probably will not erase the successor to intelligent design.
Fear mongering? You bet. Political interference with science is always to be feared, whether it is the Administration rewriting scientific reports on global warming, making up fake studies that "show" abortion interferes with later successful births, or legislating that science teachers must offer up a non-existent controversy as to darwinian evolution. Listen; I'll say it yet again: EINSTEIN DIDN'T TRY TO GET SCHOOL BOARDS TO INCLUDE RELATIVITY IN THEIR CURRICULA; LAVOISIER DIDN'T TRY TO PASS LAWS TO TEACH THE CONTROVERSY AROUND PHLOGISTEN; LISA RANDALL MAY WRITE POPULAR BOOKS ABOUT MULTI-DIMENSIONAL STRING THEORY, BUT SHE DOESN'T LOBBY CONGRESS TO FORCE NASA TO INCLUDE IT IN THEIR RESEARCH PROJECTS. You got a scientific theory, you do your research and present it to the experts---the scientific experts, not the political or theological experts.
Olorin,
Can't remember the exact words,
We all forget things, but you didn't have to rely upon your faulty memory - I did give you links. Here's another.
but Behe's testimony went like this. He claimed that the BCC is IC and therefore not possible for darwinian evolution. The ACLU attorney called him on his conclusion (not possible), rather than upon his claim of IC, and asked whether Behe thought they were credible references to show darwinian evolution. Behe said they were excellent, but did not address the project that Behe was proposeing.
Well, Behe never said what the project was that he actually was addressing, and never answered the matter that was asked (whether the references were credible to show darwinian evolution of Behe's example).
More errors.
Behe specifically did tell us what project he was addressing - he said it over and over again in correcting and clarifying for Rothschild. Moreover, the questions related directly to that project and his answers did address the matter, although Rothschild was trying to obfuscate and create a new matter.
Q (from plaintiffs lawyer). We’ll return to that in a little while. Let’s turn back to Darwin’s Black Box and continue discussing the immune system. If you could turn to page 138? Matt, if you could highlight the second full paragraph on page 138? What you say is, “We can look high or we can look low in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.” That’s what you wrote, correct?
A (from Behe). And in the context that means that the scientific literature has no detailed testable answers to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection.
His project? Both he and Rothschild knew what it was, as they both referred to its source - the book he wrote, Darwin's Black Box. The same book Rothschild was questioning him about. This is, in fact, the subject of most of the cross-examination to this point.
In fact, Behe clarified what his project was about immediately as Rothschild attempted to frame his views (and tried to stop his elaboration):
A. The detail [missing in Rothschild's characterization of Behe's view] is actually simply this, that by these publications, I mean detailed rigorous accounts for complex molecular machines, not just either hypothetical accounts or sequence comparisons or such things.
Rothschild tries again:
Q. And all of these materials I gave you and, you know, those, including those you’ve read, none of them in your view meet the standard you set for literature on the evolution of the immune system? No scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system?There's his project right there.
A. Again in the context of that chapter, I meant no answers, no detailed rigorous answers to the question of how the immune system could arise by random mutation and natural selection, and yes, in my, in the reading I have done I have not found any such studies.
Bringing things to a sharper point:
Q. We'll get back to that. Now, these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system?And there again.
A. No, they certainly do not. My answer, or my argument is that the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that.
Q. So these are not good enough?
A. They're wonderful articles. They're very interesting. They simply just don't address the question that I pose.
And let's get another bird with that stone. Jones' error, quoting not Behe, but the ACLU:
In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty- eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” ([130]23:19 (Behe)).”
Olorin:
Sorry I don't have time to address your other points. That dosen't mean I agree with them of course.
I don't really expect us to agree on much. You'll see the reasoning below.
Olorin:
As to Behe not addressing religious groups; I didn't say that he didn't---I asked Ron to include that question in his research on the question pariahhood, and offered a guess. Ask Ron what he found out.
Is that what you think you said? Maybe that's why we disagree so much; you use words differently than I do.
As, for instance, when you said that IC had been demolished and then claimed never to have.
Here are your statements on Behe and speaking to religious groups:
I think Ron will find that he does not. Therefore, Behe is a pariah banned from participation where he would be an embarrassment.
I guess you meant, "if Ron finds out what I think he'll find out then Behe can be called a pariah."
My point was that Behe is in fact a pariah for ID with respect to certain of their audiences---specifically to the religious contingent whpo provides much of their financial support.
I guess here you meant "my point is that if Ron asks the question I suggest and finds out what I say he'll find out, then, in fact, Behe is a pariah for ID."
I also guess you think Ron will find this out because you don't believe Barbara Forrest's testimony in Dover.
Bringing things to a sharper point:
Q. We'll get back to that. Now, these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system?
A. No, they certainly do not. My answer, or my argument is that the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that.
Charlie is correct. This quoted testimony is the point. This was Rothschild's real question, and this was Behe's real answer.
The judge, looking at the evidence, found Behe's answer not credible, and decided to accept the plaintiff's interpretation of the references. This is not an "error"; it's judgment call.
Commenting by HaloScan
