Monday, May 08, 2006

Meyer vs Ward

The "conversation" is available here:
http://www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archived/WME.cfm?EVNum=2006040103&TYPE=V

Overall impression.

This was a clear win for Meyer. Having said that I admire Ward for having a go. He was clearly out of his depth in the philosophical background and arguments. Meyer is a formidable debater and has made this territory his home ground. A future opponent will need to be someone who has spent more time focusing on this debate than Ward appears to have done.
Meyer came across as articulate, knowledgeable and fair-minded and in terms of a rhetorical contest he scores way above Ward. Having said that Ward always appeared on the defensive. Meyer always seemed to have more to say that was relevant to the debate. If a word count was made I am sure that Meyer would have more than double the number of words used. Not that he wasted words – he was just a more enthusiastic and articulate speaker.

A few of Wards’ Points

ID cannot be falsified.
ID does not result in experimental work.
ID stifles intellectual curiosity leading to national mind decay.
ID believers must not use antibiotics.
ID will result in retardation of medical research.
ID requires a supernatural designer


Things I objected to in Ward’s arguments.

Constantly appealing to scientific colleagues with big reputations in the audience.
Constantly interjecting that ID is not a theory.
Constantly asking for experiments that show that ID is testable or falsifiable even when Meyer had given good answers to these questions.

Things I found interesting.

Ward maintained that Dawkins had done a huge disservice to the debate by suggesting that religious people are stupid.
The description of Discovery related experimental work along the lines of looking at the “fine tuning” of protein components for irreducibly complex structures along the lines of the arguments I tried to present in my golf course argument.

Which Golf Course.
Back to the Golf Course.

31 Comments:

Blogger allygally said...

"This was a clear win for Meyer. Having said that I admire Ward for having a go. He was clearly out of his depth in the philosophical background and arguments. Meyer is a formidable debater and has made this territory his home ground."

Meyer is a good debater. But it is interesting that you put it this way. “Winning” the debate is not necessarily the same as proving the point: in this case that ID is science. Do you think Meyer made the case the ID is really a scientific theory?

Meyer does know the territory. That includes the evasions and blind alleys to lead the discussion through. Ward had only his knowledge of science to put up against the rhetorical, debating and political skills of someone who had been over the ground 100 times, who is paid to do precisely that and who knew how not to answer the main points at issue.

"A future opponent will need to be someone who has spent more time focusing on this debate than Ward appears to have done."

Debating is a political skill and it is not realistic to expect scientists to be “formidable debaters”.

Which produces another difficulty for working scientists: they will have a real job to do - working on research, lecturing, publishing papers, keeping up with developments in their field. Taking time off to learn the skills of debating and the counter arguments to ID will be a distraction from their work and their career. The more so as they will see ID as clearly not a respectable theory, and therefore the effort, to some extent, wasted.

Sadly, it may be necessary to waste scientists’ time in this way if the DI continues to pump millions of dollars into the Wedge strategy and teaching the controversy and all the other political manoeuvres they employ to push their political / religious agenda.

"Meyer came across as articulate, knowledgeable and fair-minded and in terms of a rhetorical contest he scores way above Ward."

As I said, rhetoric isn’t always truth. The disappointing thing for me was that Meyer trotted out the same arguments that were discredited at Dover. There was nothing new as far as I could see. How much real evidence that ID is science did he produce, and how much of it was fresh?

4:46 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

“Having said that Ward always appeared on the defensive. Meyer always seemed to have more to say that was relevant to the debate. If a word count was made I am sure that Meyer would have more than double the number of words used. Not that he wasted words – he was just a more enthusiastic and articulate speaker.”

This is just another aspect of the fact that Meyer has been over this ground 100 times, and is paid to hone the arguments, and is an experienced debater. He certainly said more, but was it really designed to prove that ID is science, or merely to fill the time?

In a debate, it is important that both sides get equal time. One tactic is to keep talking. If the chairman lets you, you can talk over and take the time of the other side, thus potentially weakening their case. On occasion, Meyer grabbed the debate and “talked out” Ward. Ward’s inexperience in this type of forum told against him. It says nothing about the relative strengths of the arguments, and it certainly does not prove that ID is science.

You are surely not saying “We have the best debaters therefore ID is scientific”?

4:56 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

”A few of Wards’ Points

ID cannot be falsified.”

Ward is right about this. Falsifiablility is a necessity for any scientific theory. Meyer did not address it directly, that I heard. If you heard it, perhaps you could let us know how ID can be falsified.

”ID does not result in experimental work.”

Ditto. Although he did suggest that Minnich was experimenting with a cancer cure. No results yet. Unfortunately.

“ID stifles intellectual curiosity leading to national mind decay.”

I think what he said was, if you have a “creator” as the ultimate answer to all questions, then the motivation to ask new questions eventually withers. Thus the end of science as we know it. Makes sense to me. It’s the absence of god that has ensured that the scientific method has been much better than prayer at finding cures for illness.

”ID believers must not use antibiotics.”

A serious joke. If you don’t believe in the scientific method, why should you benefit from scientific advances? Think of all the animal rights nutters who get ill. Should they benefit from treatments whose efficacy was tested on animals or is the result of vivisection, and which they fiercely oppose?

”ID will result in retardation of medical research.”

Medical research is a scientific discipline, If science is undermined, so will medicine be.

If you do not believe in evolution, how do you, e.g., anticipate the evolution of viruses and prepare antidotes?

”ID requires a supernatural designer”

True. Science deals with the natural. Meyer said the designer was, in his opinion, god. God exists outside nature, i.e. he is supernatural. Ditto aliens.

How could something earthly (i.e. natural) create the Earth?

5:19 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

”Things I objected to in Ward’s arguments.

Constantly appealing to scientific colleagues with big reputations in the audience.”

He did it once? He also brought his son into the debate. Anyway, hardly disabling, is it?

”Constantly interjecting that ID is not a theory.”

ID is not a theory. Meyer’s constant pretence that it is a theory, is another PR technique. Repetition gets your message across. Believe me, I’m a politician, I have used this technique many times. Simplify, simplify, simplify. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Lodge the message in the audiences’ heads. Ward was merely mirroring Meyer. Every time Meyer tells the lie, point out that it is not true. Politicians call it rebuttal, and it is a necessary antidote, particularly to a false statement.

”Constantly asking for experiments that show that ID is testable or falsifiable even when Meyer had given good answers to these questions.”

Meyer did not give a good answer. To the question on testability he said that if it explained already known facts, that was a test. He did not propose any specific test that would “prove” ID.

On falsifiability, I cannot recall any answer, and there is none in my notes.

5:36 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Allygally,
Scientists like Dawkins use the full weight of their considerable authority as scientists to argue for atheism and secularism. Thus prominent scientists were at this type of activity well before the Discovery institute began to fight back. I suppose I am saying... You started the fight...you can't blame us for fighting back.

Dawkins is a formidable debater too and he is paid to argue for proper public understanding of science. He should have been taking on Meyer....Where is he?

10:40 am  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Allygally,

What about Eugenie Scott or Daniel Dennett?

10:43 am  
Blogger allygally said...

Andrew Rowell said...

"Scientists like Dawkins use the full weight of their considerable authority as scientists to argue for atheism and secularism."

Ad hominem. Dawkins is not the issue. Neither is atheism nor secularism. The isuue is: is ID science? Is it?

"Thus prominent scientists were at this type of activity well before the Discovery institute began to fight back. I suppose I am saying... You started the fight...you can't blame us for fighting back."

And a hearty John MacEnroe to that!

Scientists presented the facts. Over the last 150 years the ToE has explained the facts better than any other construct we yet know. Creationists fear the facts and the ToE because they blow their 6000-y-o world out of the water. So the creationists "hit back" as you put it against the overwhelming evidence of science by pretending that religion is science and should be taught in science classes.

AND THEN YOU BLAME THE SCIENTISTS!

"Dawkins is a formidable debater too and he is paid to argue for proper public understanding of science. He should have been taking on Meyer....Where is he?"

Ad hominem. Richard Dawkins is not the issue, no matter how much you wish he was. And anyway, how should I know where Dawkins is? What difference does it make to the debate between Meyer and Ward, which you say Meyer "won", but you haven't provided the evidence of "testability" and "falsifiability" which you claim Meyer gave (but which I certailnly did not hear him give). And BTW, the evidence on predictability is very thin too (i.e none yet. 10 years after the "theory" was invented).

BTW didn't you promise to analyse the Dover decision and explain why it is mistaken. You asked for patience, but it was about 6 weeks ago. Do you accept the Dover decision that ID is religion, not science? If not, why not?

12:05 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

Andrew Rowell said...

Allygally,

What about Eugenie Scott or Daniel Dennett? "

What about them?

I am no expert on these people, but as far as I know, neither of them pretends that what they do is something else entirely in an attempt to fool people and get it taught in inappropriate lectures.

Is that a fault?

As I said before, the issue is: is ID science? Did Meyer prove that it was?

Before we lose sight of the real shape of the arguments here, I found it interesting that you concentrated on the political skills of Meyer when praising his performance. I think this is no coincidence: what it shows is that the ID movement is a political movement. They have religion (creationism) disguised as sceience (ID) but with a political aim (changing the US constitution). That's why the presentation was notable for its polish and its presentational skills. And why it was not at all notable for the quality of the scientific content. Unless, that is, you considered the lack of scientific content as notable. I did.

12:28 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Allygally,

I have not got time to watch the debate all through again but when a transcript becomes available I will look through with your points in mind.

1:45 pm  
Anonymous Nathan said...

I listened to the debate the other day and had a similar reaction as you Andrew, it was a complete blowout for the ID side.
Allygally, you said that Meyer "Talked out Ward" but I would be inclined to disagree. Meyer was making excellent points, it was Ward who was distracting Meyer and trying to dominate the debate with his frequent interruptions that were both rude and distracting I would assume.

Allygally you are pulling out all the old, tired arguments about ID being religion and creationism, if you listen to the debate a little more closely you might catch on to this, as Meyer adresses these issues quite well I think.

Pulling the "religion card" was used frequently by Ward when he was unable to answer the perfectly legitimate, testable claims that Meyer was talking about.

But yes, I would have liked to have seen a better representation of the Darwinian side in this debate.

Sorry Ward but Meyer will never join "The dark side."

7:30 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

Nathan said...

Allygally, you said that Meyer "Talked out Ward" but I would be inclined to disagree."

That's alright. We are allowed to disagree.

"Meyer was making excellent points, it was Ward who was distracting Meyer and trying to dominate the debate"

So Ward should not try to dominate the debate? If you were in a debate, would you stand a side and say "on you go, dominate"? The idea that Ward should not try to get his point across as strongly as he could is strange. And didn't you say the debate was a blow-out for Meyer, i.e. he dominated the debate. Double standards methinks.

Meyer spoke for two thirds of the time, Ward for one third. Dominate?

"with his frequent interruptions that were both rude and distracting I would assume."

If the other guy is "dominating" it is not surprising that Ward wanted a word in edgewise.

"you are pulling out all the old, tired arguments about ID being religion and creationism,"

It is. Have you read the Dover judgement? Andrew promised to analyse and post his reasoning as to why it is mistaken, but he hasn't done it yet, because (I believe) he does not want to look foolish. V wise IMO.

Fact: ID is creationism is religion.

"if you listen to the debate a little more closely you might catch on to this, as Meyer adresses these issues quite well I think."

Point me to where Meyer covers testability, falsifiability and predction better than I posted above. Bet you cannot.

"Pulling the "religion card" was used frequently by Ward when he was unable to answer the perfectly legitimate, testable claims that Meyer was talking about."

Pulling the religion card! VERY GOOD! When you are arguing with a religious POV, should you not mention the religion? Yes Pastor, the Bible is a science textbook. You are rght and the moon is made of green cheese.

What perfectly legitimate testable claims? I watched the broadcast and I asked Andrew and I still have no knowledge of these testable claims. They do not exist. Or maybe you can point them out?

"But yes, I would have liked to have seen a better representation of the Darwinian side in this debate."

Better? in the sense of a better political presentation? Or better in the sense of truer?

I would have liked to have seen a more honest admission by Meyer that ID is a religious idea. After all David Heddle has done it and Dembski admitted that his view of the IC of the blood clotting mechanism is religious, as opposed to Behe who thinks it is evidence for ID and therefore science.

8:35 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

But Dembski has this to say;
"Dembski admitted that his view of the IC of the blood clotting mechanism is religious, "

It wasn't blood clotting, it was the immune system. see here;

"Our immune system is an amazing work of common grace by which God, acting preemptively, mitigates the harm these microbes would otherwise cause us."

Support from the ICR for Judge Jones.

read more here;

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.04.c

9:45 pm  
Anonymous Nathan said...

There is nothing wrong with trying to dominate a debate, I believe that is kind of the goal, however it was the manner in which he attempted to do so that bothered me. Ward regularly interrupted Meyer, and at least twice he tryed to get assistance from outside the debate from people in the audience. Meyer was respectful, and allowed Ward to finish what he was saying before he made his rebuttal.
Do I think that he succeeded in dominating Meyer? No, Meyer kept the debate on track, and made an excellent case for the ID side, despite Wards rude behaviour.

Meyer covered testability and evidence for ID with regards to the bacterial flagellum mainly, and I believe he gave a few other examples, but my memory fails me as to what those were.
If you want an ID perspective on the Dover decision, read the book "Traipsing into Evolution" but dont put down Andrew for not analyzing the decision yet. An ID perspective on the trial is available, and if you really want to hear it, stop being lazy and read the book.

"Fact: ID is creationism is religion."

Would you care to elaborate on such an insightful statement.

"Better? in the sense of a better political presentation? Or better in the sense of truer?"

I think that Darwinists can do a better job of presenting their arguments than Ward was able to accomplish.

"I would have liked to have seen a more honest admission by Meyer that ID is a religious idea."

And I would like you to tell me how ID is a religious idea. If you mean that it has religious implications, then I would be inclined to agree with you. However, I could say the same thing for Darwinism, which has strong Anti-religious implications.

5:31 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

allygally should take a look at who moderates dembskis site for him. an AGNOSTIC who thinks revealed religion is nonsense. kind of blows your tired line that ID=creationism=religion.

that and you have to pretend that anthony flew doesnt exist as well. unless, youre willing to argue that flew is really a theist in disguise and has been for the past 60, 70+ yrs!

allygally= politician= art of deception. look, i can do it too!

1:48 am  
Blogger allygally said...

Nathan said...
"Do I think that he succeeded in dominating Meyer? No, Meyer kept the debate on track, and made an excellent case for the ID side, despite Wards rude behaviour."

It's your opinion that Ward's behaviour was rude. I disagree (we are allowed to disagree).

"Meyer covered testability and evidence for ID with regards to the bacterial flagellum mainly,"

Meyer's statement on testability was "if it explains already known facts, that's a test". He said nothing more on testability that I heard. In what manner idoes the flagellum allow testing of ID?

"and I believe he gave a few other examples, but my memory fails me as to what those were."

Not surprised.

"If you want an ID perspective on the Dover decision, read the book "Traipsing into Evolution" but dont put down Andrew for not analyzing the decision yet."

I like the yet. It's only six months and his blog is called ID in the UK!

"An ID perspective on the trial is available, and if you really want to hear it, stop being lazy and read the book."

I have read many of the arguments on the ID and DI websites. They don't convince an open mind. If the book says anything different, please let me know.

"Fact: ID is creationism is religion.

Would you care to elaborate on such an insightful statement."

You mean you didn't know that the DI invented ID because the other paths to teaching creation "science" in the USA were blocked by the courts and the constitution? That seems strange to me since you seem to know rather a lot about the subject. It is wierd that you have contrived to miss the central fact of the matter.

"I think that Darwinists can do a better job of presenting their arguments than Ward was able to accomplish."

I'm sure the science side could have better presentations, but they, unlike the DI people, have a real day job as well.

"I would like you to tell me how ID is a religious idea."

ID is not a new idea. It is a rehash of the ancient inference from design which says that if a thing looks designed, there must be a designer. Before science explained many things about the universe it was accepted as a strong argument for a "god" or prime mover (n.b. not necessarily only the Christian god).

I first became aware of the argument when I heard the old Frankie Laine song "I Believe". ... "every time I hear a new born baby cry, or touch a leaf, or see that sky, then I know why I beeellliiieeeve!"

That was a big hit in the 50s so ID in the early 90's is a johnny come lately.

If the idea of a designer is such a commonplace that it is in the US and UK hit parade, it can hardly be seen as a great novelty 50 years later. Note how the "designer" is explicitly the Christian god (I Believe!).

Less entertainingly, the ID people have produced only one textbook. It was drafted as an update to a creation "science" manual, but a court decision banned creation "science" from US schools, so they just went through the book replacing "creation" with "design" and "creator" with "designer". Very clumsy and quite transparent. Bet you wish they hadn't done that.

There's tons more, but I shouldn't make you lazy. A good website is The Panda's Thumb


If you mean that it has religious implications, then I would be inclined to agree with you."



However, I could say the same thing for Darwinism, which has strong Anti-religious implications.

Nathan said...
"Do I think that he succeeded in dominating Meyer? No, Meyer kept the debate on track, and made an excellent case for the ID side, despite Wards rude behaviour."

It's your opinion that Ward's behaviour was rude. I disagree (we are allowed to disagree).

"Meyer covered testability and evidence for ID with regards to the bacterial flagellum mainly,"

Meyer's statement on testability was "if it explains already known facts, that's a test". He said nothing more on testability that I heard. In what manner idoes the flagellum allow testing of ID?

"and I believe he gave a few other examples, but my memory fails me as to what those were."

Not surprised.

"If you want an ID perspective on the Dover decision, read the book "Traipsing into Evolution" but dont put down Andrew for not analyzing the decision yet."

I like the yet. It's only six months and his blog is called ID in the UK!

"An ID perspective on the trial is available, and if you really want to hear it, stop being lazy and read the book."

I have read many of the arguments on the ID and DI websites. They don't convince an open mind. If the book says anything different, please let me know.

"Fact: ID is creationism is religion.

Would you care to elaborate on such an insightful statement."

You mean you didn't know that the DI invented ID because the other paths to teaching creation "science" in the USA were blocked by the courts and the constitution? That seems strange to me since you seem to know rather a lot about the subject. It is wierd that you have contrived to miss the central fact of the matter.

"I think that Darwinists can do a better job of presenting their arguments than Ward was able to accomplish."

I'm sure the science side could have better presentations, but they, unlike the DI people, have a real day job as well.

"I would like you to tell me how ID is a religious idea."

ID is not a new idea. It is a rehash of the ancient inference from design which says that if a thing looks designed, there must be a designer. Before science explained many things about the universe it was accepted as a strong argument for a "god" or prime mover (n.b. not necessarily only the Christian god).

I first became aware of the argument when I heard the old Frankie Laine song "I Believe". ... "every time I hear a new born baby cry, or touch a leaf, or see that sky, then I know why I beeellliiieeeve!"

That was a big hit in the 50s so ID in the early 90's is a johnny come lately.

If the idea of a designer is such a commonplace that it is in the US and UK hit parade, it can hardly be seen as a great novelty 50 years later. Note how the "designer" is explicitly the Christian god (I Believe!).

Less entertainingly, the ID people have produced only one textbook. It was drafted as an update to a creation "science" manual, but a court decision banned creation "science" from US schools, so they just went through the book replacing "creation" with "design" and "creator" with "designer". Very clumsy and quite transparent. Bet you wish they hadn't done that. They certinly do.

Michael Behe said that ID is not science by the currently accepted definition of science. If ID is to be "science", the definition would have to be broadened to include religious ideas like astrology.

There's tons more, but I shouldn't make you lazy. Look it up youself. A good website to start with is The Panda's Thumb,
http://www.pandasthumb.org.

The Talk Origins website is also an invaluable resource in fighting creationist "misinterpretations".

9:04 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

I seem to have rather cocked up the previous post, let's try again.

Nathan said...
"Meyer kept the debate on track, and made an excellent case for the ID side, despite Wards rude behaviour."

It's your opinion that Ward's behaviour was rude. I disagree (we are allowed to disagree).

"Meyer covered testability and evidence for ID with regards to the bacterial flagellum mainly,"

Meyer's statement on testability was "if it explains already known facts, that's a test". He said nothing more on testability that I heard. In what manner does the flagellum allow testing of ID?

"and I believe he gave a few other examples, but my memory fails me as to what those were."

Not surprised.

"If you want an ID perspective on the Dover decision, read the book "Traipsing into Evolution" but dont put down Andrew for not analyzing the decision yet."

I like the yet. It's only six months and his blog is called ID in the UK!

"An ID perspective on the trial is available, and if you really want to hear it, stop being lazy and read the book."

I have read many of the arguments on the ID and DI websites. They don't convince an open mind. If the book says anything different, please let me know.

"Fact: ID is creationism is religion.

Would you care to elaborate on such an insightful statement."

You mean you didn't know that the DI invented ID because the other paths to teaching creation "science" in the USA were blocked by the courts and the constitution? That seems strange to me since you seem to know rather a lot about the subject. It is wierd that you have contrived to miss the central fact of the matter.

"I think that Darwinists can do a better job of presenting their arguments than Ward was able to accomplish."

I'm sure the science side could have better presentations, but they, unlike the DI people, have a real day job as well.

"I would like you to tell me how ID is a religious idea."

ID is not a new idea. It is a rehash of the ancient inference from design which says that if a thing looks designed, there must be a designer. Before science explained many things about the universe it was accepted as a strong argument for a "god" or prime mover (n.b. not necessarily only the Christian god).

I first became aware of the argument when I heard the old Frankie Laine song "I Believe". ... "every time I hear a new born baby cry, or touch a leaf, or see that sky, then I know why I beeellliiieeeve!"

That was a big hit in the 50s so ID in the early 90's is a johnny come lately.

If the idea of a designer is such a commonplace that it is in the US and UK hit parade, it can hardly be seen as a great novelty 50 years later. Note how the "designer" is explicitly the Christian god (I Believe!).

Less entertainingly, the ID people have produced only one textbook. It was drafted as an update to a creation "science" manual, but a court decision banned creation "science" from US schools, so they just went through the book replacing "creation" with "design" and "creator" with "designer". Very clumsy and quite transparent. Bet you wish they hadn't done that. They certinly do.

Michael Behe said that ID is not science by the currently accepted definition of science. If ID is to be "science", the definition would have to be broadened to include religious ideas like astrology.

There's tons more, but I shouldn't make you lazy. Look it up youself. A good website to start with is The Panda's Thumb,
http://www.pandasthumb.org.

The Talk Origins website is also an invaluable resource in fighting creationist "misinterpretations".

"However, I could say the same thing for Darwinism, which has strong Anti-religious implications."

The facts are the facts. The ToE only marshalls the facts in context. If you think the facts undermine religion, that's your judgement. You cannot blame the facts.

9:13 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

"Meyer covered testability and evidence for ID with regards to the bacterial flagellum mainly,"

See my comments above.

BUT

We seem to have slipped falsfiability and predictive power out of the picture.

Given that the claims on testability are fragile, can you explain (or say how Meyer explained) where ID can be falsified and what/where it has made predictions which have subsequently been proven? Or suggest what scientific predictions it could make?

2:37 pm  
Anonymous Nathan said...

"In what manner does the flagellum allow testing of ID?"

The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, which means that all parts of this structure must be present for correct functionality. This bears the hallmark of intelligent design since it requires the integration of information all at once, or the foresight to pass through stages which are non-functional. One way to test this from an evolutionary perspective is to see whether this structure could have been produced in any other manner, based on current knowledge of Darwinian biology, i.e RM and NS. This has already been attempted by Kenneth Miller, who attempts to explain this using co-option. I agree that if ID is not science then it certainly cannot be tested by the scientific method, however, evolutionary cell biologists are already testing this idea, which makes it quite scientifically rigorous.

'and I believe he gave a few other examples, but my memory fails me as to what those were.'

"Not surprised."

Right, because I'm a stupid ID supporter, who can't begin to compete with the more highly evolved mind of a Darwinian.

"You mean you didn't know that the DI invented ID because the other paths to teaching creation "science" in the USA were blocked by the courts and the constitution? That seems strange to me since you seem to know rather a lot about the subject. It is wierd that you have contrived to miss the central fact of the matter."

Wow, would you care to back up such a claim.

"Note how the "designer" is explicitly the Christian god"

No you are flat out wrong there, ID makes no statement on the identity of the designer. All it shows is that these structures such as the flagellum and the information rich DNA were designed. We know that information only results intelligence, but the DNA does not have the name Yahweh, or Allah built into it.

"Less entertainingly, the ID people have produced only one textbook. It was drafted as an update to a creation "science" manual, but a court decision banned creation "science" from US schools, so they just went through the book replacing "creation" with "design" and "creator" with "designer"."

Care to prove it?

"Michael Behe said that ID is not science by the currently accepted definition of science."

I think that many ID proponents would disagree with this statement, but Behe makes an important point since methodological naturalism poses some rather large problems for biology, particularly in the area of "origin of life biology."

" the definition would have to be broadened to include religious ideas like astrology."

Tell me ally, when was the last time that a respected Biologist went on the attack, held conferences, and wrote papers arguing against astrology? It seems that this particular "religious" idea of ID is getting a rather large share of attention.

I have looked at both Panda's Thumb, and Talk origins websites. Panda's thumb seems more like a blog for a christian hate group than anything else, not to mention that I find it ironic that the title of the website "Pandas thumb" is absolutely invalid as an argument against ID. Also, I have never once found a convincing argument from Talk origins, only alot of the old rehashed arguments that I have heard before.

" If you think the facts undermine religion, that's your judgement. You cannot blame the facts."

No, you are quite right, I agree completely. We must follow the evidence (NOT FACTS) wherever it takes us, including whether it leads to the destruction of macroevolution as we know it.

"Given that the claims on testability are fragile, can you explain (or say how Meyer explained) where ID can be falsified"

Well, you can't have it both ways. Here we have you saying that ID is not falsifiable and then we have Kenneth Miller saying that he has falsified the ID claims made by biochemists such as Mike Behe. But is there not a contradiction here? How can ID be falsified if it is unfalsifiable.

One interesting prediction that ID would make has already been shown to be true. "Junk DNA" as it was called, was thought to be functionless, but using what we know about intelligent designers, one would predict that it would have a function. It was discovered later, that these stretches of "Junk DNA" have a regulatory function in protein production.

6:33 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

Nathan said.

"In what manner does the flagellum allow testing of ID?"

The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex (no it isn't)which means that all parts of this structure must be present for correct functionality (no they do not)..... etc."

My interjections. They seemed appropriate.

Seriously, this is just a restatement of the standard ID pitch. Irreduceable Complexity is not supported by any respectable scientific publications, peer reviews, tests, re-tests, etc... Irreducible Complexity is not accepted by the scientific community and there is no strong evidence base for the correctness of the proposition. It is an idea only, and has been so for at least a decade......

BTW Irreducible Complexity is not Intelligent Design.

"One way to test this from an evolutionary perspective is to see whether this structure could have been produced in any other manner, based on current knowledge of Darwinian biology, i.e RM and NS. This has already been attempted by Kenneth Miller."

It seems to me that if the test works as described, it is a success for evolution. It cannot test ID.

"I agree that if ID is not science then it certainly cannot be tested by the scientific method, however, evolutionary cell biologists are already testing this idea, which makes it quite scientifically rigorous."

So it hasn't yet been tested.

BTW what "idea" are "evolutionary cell biologists" already testing"? Could you name a few. Which institutions do they attend? When can we hope to see the results published and peer reviewed?

1:06 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

Nathan wrote
"and I believe he gave a few other examples, but my memory fails me as to what those were.'

"Not surprised."

Right, because I'm a stupid ID supporter, who can't begin to compete with the more highly evolved mind of a Darwinian. "

Nathan, that's not what i meant at all. It's because Meyer didn't give any other examples.

1:10 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

"You mean you didn't know that the DI invented ID because the other paths to teaching creation "science" in the USA were blocked by the courts and the constitution?"

Wow, would you care to back up such a claim."

Why else would they invent ID?

Seriously, the Discovery Institute is a right wing religious republican think tank. Of course they want religion taught in schools (Why else exist?) They very helpfully produced a document revealing what ID really is, and outlining a strategy to get it taught in schools. It's called "The Wedge" stratgy and the document is widely available on the web.

It's here. Read it (I know you probably have already, but my theory is you may be suppressing the truth that it tells, i.e. ID is religion). Happy reading.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html

1:20 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

Nathan wrote
"Note how the "designer" is explicitly the Christian god"

No you are flat out wrong there, ID makes no statement on the identity of the designer."

Nathan, I was talking about the Frankie Laine song "I Beliiieeeve!", The designer is god in the song. Of course the songwriter may just have been more honest than the DI and its apologists.

Th DI tries (cunningnly it thinks, blunderingly everybody else thinks) to hide god. God doesn't look good in science publications .... we took the experiment so far and then ...pooof! godditit!. Null Points.

1:25 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

"Less entertainingly, the ID people...just went through the book replacing "creation" with "design" and "creator" with "designer"."

Care to prove it?"

Oh dear. Nathan. Have you read the Dover judgement and the expert witness statements. Please tell me you have! Otherwise, how can we have a serious conversation about ID if you have missed the best, most independent evidence?

Here is a quote from the judgement. you can get the whole thing at the NCSE website.

http://www.natcenscied.org/

From Judge Jones;(Pandas = Of Pandas and People, the ID/creationist textbook. Edwards is the previous court decision outlawing creation "science" from school science lessons);

"As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes
FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and
“creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas.."

There's tons more. Read it.

1:38 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

"Michael Behe said that ID is not science by the currently accepted definition of science."

I think that many ID proponents would disagree with this statement,"

Name one, and where he has disagreed? And, BTW, Meyer said it at the Ward debate also.

"but Behe makes an important point since methodological naturalism poses some rather large problems for biology,"

Which problems does biology have with the scientific method? Intrigue me. Quote chapter and verse paper and publication, scientist and science centre. Please.

"particularly in the area of "origin of life biology."

You mean maybe godditit? You should know, of course, that the ToE has nothing to say about origins.

1:46 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

" If you think the facts undermine religion, that's your judgement. You cannot blame the facts."

No, you are quite right, I agree completely. We must follow the evidence (NOT FACTS) wherever it takes us."

So you believe the evidence for the ToE undermines religion? Your motivation is therefore religious, not scientific. Same as all the other ID folks,,,,!

1:53 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

"can you explain (or say how Meyer explained) where ID can be falsified"

Well, you can't have it both ways. Here we have you saying that ID is not falsifiable and then we have Kenneth Miller saying that he has falsified the ID claims made by biochemists such as Mike Behe. But is there not a contradiction here? How can ID be falsified if it is unfalsifiable."

a. I'm not Ken Miller, so that does not absolve you from answering the question.

b. It's a strawman. Miller was speaking of Irreducible Complexity. IR is an idea that the ID people call in support of ID. If true, it would count as evidence for ID. BUT. It is has not been proven to be true. And, more importantly, IR is NOT ID.

IR is falsifiable because it is based on real (if mistaken) biology. ID is not falsifiable because it is not based on anything natural (a "designer" with no attributes, only hints that it might be aliens, god, or other supernatural beings).

So, back to the question you avoided. Can you explain to me how ID can be falsified. Meyer didn't do it, and so far I have heard of no plausible explanation of how you can disprove the existence of supernatural prime movers. Over to you Nathan.

2:04 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

"One interesting prediction that ID would make has already been shown to be true. "Junk DNA" as it was called, was thought to be functionless, but using what we know about intelligent designers, one would predict that it would have a function. It was discovered later, that these stretches of "Junk DNA" have a regulatory function in protein production."

Forgive me. Predicting the past is not acceptable. Try predicting the future, that's what science does.

Or has Micheal Behe been hiding his Nobel Prize for his seminal paper "Predicted Uses of Junk DNA", Cambridge 1997, under a bushel?

(Biblical quote there, just to keep you happy).

2:08 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

If the Wedge url doesn't work, try this

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

2:31 pm  
Anonymous Nathan said...

Ok, lets go through this in some degree of detail.
The bacterial flagellum IS irreducibly complex, because it must have all of its components to fulfill the function of moving the bacterium through its watery environment. Scott Minnich has worked on the flagellum perhaps longer than any other microbiologist and he would disagree with your claim that the bacterial flagellum is not IC, so you see, I am going to need you to explain to me why it is not IC.

"Seriously, this is just a restatement of the standard ID pitch."

Right, it is a pillar of the ID movement, and a knife in the side of purely undirected darwinian evolution. So you had best address it.

" Complexity is not supported by any respectable scientific publications, peer reviews, tests, re-tests, etc..."

Well it seems important enough to warrant attacks from prestigious professors in the evolutionary community, from institutions such as Brown University. And how about you stop avoiding the issue here, is the bacterial flagellum IC and is IC a clear hallmark of design. The answer to both questions is yes. IC structures require the foresight of an intelligent mind working toward an end, we see this in many human-made objects all the time. See you are trying to ignore the actual issue. IC is supported by many biologists. Respectable scientists such as Mike Behe,Scott Minnich, and many more. The rest of the community is yet to propose any argument that refutes it (although not from a lack of effort).
Have you read Darwin's Black Box yet?
"BTW Irreducible Complexity is not Intelligent Design."

BTW IC is a hallmark of Intelligent design, and like you said it is evidence for it. But lets take a closer look at IC and something that William Dembski calls specified complexity. Dembski describes specified complexity by using an example of flipping a coin, and say you get the result of HHHHHHHHHH, this sequence would exhibit specified complexity, because it has low specificational complexity (which can be thought of as the minimum description length or pattern) i.e x number of heads in a row, and it also exhibits high probabilistic complexity (Low probability of occuring). Design is present whenever Specified Complexity is present. Dembski states that both IC and SC are key markers of intelligent agency, and if it could be shown that the incredibly complex and integrated systems of nature could have arisen by way of gradual darwinian processes, then ID would be effectively refuted.


"BTW what "idea" are "evolutionary cell biologists" already testing"?"

Sorry I should have been more specific, what I meant was that they (Evolutionists such as Kenneth Miller) are attacking the argument of IC, and claim to have refuted it.
However, in Science, "Jamie Bridgham, Sean Carroll and Joe Thornton claim to have shown how an irreducibly complex system, such as that described by Discovery senior fellow Michael Behe, might have arisen as the result of gene duplication and a few point mutational changes." (Discovery.org). Although this claim fails for reasons described by Behe, it shows that IC is being seriously considered if critiques of the idea are being published in Science.

"Seriously, the Discovery Institute is a right wing religious republican think tank. Of course they want religion taught in schools (Why else exist?)."

That is a lie that has been propogated by evolutionists. Meyer has said that the goal of the discovery institute is to give criticism of Darwinism a fair chance in the classroom. Your statements about "The Wedge" are unfounded,the document actually critiquing materialism. Take a look at this article by the Discovery Institute:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/discovery_institute_s_wedge_document_how.html

"Less entertainingly, the ID people...just went through the book replacing "creation" with "design" and "creator" with "designer"."

ID and Creationism are completely seperate, but it seems to be a point of confusion for many people, so lets go through it, Dembski style.

From Dembski's Book: "The Design Revolution"

Scientific Creationism is committed to the following propositions:
1)There was a sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.
2)Mutations and Natural Selection are insufficient to bring about the development of all living kinds from a single organism.
3)Changes of the originally created kinds of plants and animals occur only within fixed limits.
4)There is a separate ancestry for humans and apes.
5)Earth's geology can be explained via catastrophism, primarily by the occurence of a worldwide flood.
6) The earth and all living things originated 10,000 years ago.
ID propositions:
1) Specified Complexity and IC are reliable indicators of design.
2)Biological Systems exhibit SC and emply IC subsystems.
3)Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of SC or IC.
4)Therefore ID constitutes the best explanation for the origin of SC and IC in biological systems.

So in comparing the two lists it is obvious how different creationism and ID are. The reason that creationism was barred from public education is because it matches up with the Christian Religion's account of origins. However, as shown, ID makes no such propositions.

" "Michael Behe said that ID is not science by the currently accepted definition of science."

I think that many ID proponents would disagree with this statement,"

Name one, and where he has disagreed? And, BTW, Meyer said it at the Ward debate also."

I havent read anywhere Behe saying this, but I have heard this claim many times before so I will look into it, I assume it is another case of Behe's words being taken out of context. As for scientists disagreeing with the statement that ID isnt science, take your pick. Surely Dembski believes it is science, and Meyer also would say that ID constitutes a scientific theory. What you are referring to is the fact that science has by convention only resorted to material mechanisms to explain lifes diversity. So let me be perfectly clear, ID makes no statement on the identity of the designer, whether he/she/it be natural, supernatural, or something in between.

"but Behe makes an important point since methodological naturalism poses some rather large problems for biology,"

"Which problems does biology have with the scientific method? Intrigue me."

I am talking about Methodological Naturalism, the idea that one must only resort to material, natural explanations of the diversity of nature. The problem is that if indeed there are supernatural forces at work, then science will all together miss it. This problem becomes apparent when looking at the origin of life.
"You mean maybe godditit? You should know, of course, that the ToE has nothing to say about origins."

You should know that the Theory of Evolution does say something about origins, its called Chemical Evolution and its taught in the classroom, any student could tell you that.

"So you believe the evidence for the ToE undermines religion? Your motivation is therefore religious, not scientific. Same as all the other ID folks,,,,!"

Don't put words in my mouth. All I am saying is that evolution has clear anti-religious implications, just as ID has theistic implications. For you to make statements about my motivation is a gratuitous statement about me, and something that you cannot back up. So lets stick to what you know. OK?
This is something that Meyer addressed in his debate with Ward, he called it "Motive Mongering" and it distracts from the central issue of whether ID is or is not science. It sets up a strawman in place of ID.

"So, back to the question you avoided. Can you explain to me how ID can be falsified. Meyer didn't do it, and so far I have heard of no plausible explanation of how you can disprove the existence of supernatural prime movers."

Scientists who are both evolutionists and ID theorists have one thing in common, they believe that nature gives the appearance of design. To the hardcore materialist, this design is only apparent, while to the ID theorist the Design is real. To prove that Design has not produced the complex structures in nature, one only need to show how they could have been produced by gradual processes of darwinian evolution. IC and SC are hallmarks of intelligent design, and to show that design is not at work, one need to only show how material mechanisms could produce such structures which show these two features. ID scientists are not trying to prove the existence of "Supernatural Prime Movers", they are trying to show that the best explanations for many structures in biology are best explained by design, i.e to prove that these structures were designed, NOT that a supernatural designer exists.

As for your question about predictability, one obvious prediction that ID would make is that science should be full of Specified Complexity which is a marker of Intelligent agency and therefore points to intelligent design. But lets turn the tables here, what predictions does Darwinism make? Dembski points out the problem with evolution by saying that the predictions it makes are either extremely broad, or are extremely tiny, and in no way demonstrate the degree of change that is required for macroevolution.

"adapt or go extinct" is not a prediction of Darwin's theory and is a logical truth that is reasoned out independently of his theory
(Dembski, Design revolution).

Thanks,

Nathan

7:30 pm  
Blogger Phil said...

Hello everyone...I'm new to this board so greeting to everyone...

I few quick things about the debate/conversation between Ward and Meyers... I think it was clear Meyers "won" the debate regardless of what side of the issue you fall on. Ward's repeated appeals to experts in the audience was a little embarrising and was not convincing in the least bit. Also, saying to Meyer's, "trust me" in regards to a debatable point is not an argument at all, it's simply an appeal to his own authority on the subject. Being such, he should of articulated his argument instead of brushing it aside.

Meyer's clearly won in a contest of idea's and answers. Is he suppossed to be penalized because this is his "territory" and that he is polished and well spoken? Keep in mind that it was Meyer's who fielded the majority of questions from the audience (some of which were very good questions) and had a very reasoned and plausible answers for each.

Ward asked a very good hypothetical question in regards as to how Meyer's would approach falsifying ID. Although, drawn out a bit, Meyer's answer was indeed more than adequate.

You cannot penalize Meyer's for "out talking" Ward. Not to be juvenile, but if Ward had something to say then he had the oppurtunity to do such. Instead, what you find Ward doing is again appealing to experts in the audience, quibbiling over terms, sneering that ID is not a theory. Understandably, this doesn’t prove ID as legitimate. What is does say is that Ward is not capable speaker in successfully defending or promoting neo-Darwinism. Nothing more, nothing less….

I hope I'm not in the minority when I say this. I have sincere questions about ID and I want to hear good questions and answers from the oppossing side. I've heard Ward speak on the subject twice now. Unfortunately, he does not impress me at all. I would love to hear Dennett, Dawkins, or Ken Miller debate the topic with Meyers.

ON A SIDE NOTE:

Allygally, your use of Ad Hominem is not used correctly. I don't think you want to start criticizing other posters in regards to philo/logic...I read your original post in regards to the original topic and it's riddled with problems.

8:30 pm  
Blogger allygally said...

Nathan said...
“The bacterial flagellum IS irreducibly complex, because it must have all of its components to fulfil the function of moving the bacterium through its watery environment.”

Irreducibly Complex is a self defining category. When something is found that looks as if it could not have arisen from a series of intermediate (evolutionary) steps, IDers call it IC.

The flagellum is not necessarily IC. Kenneth Miller has shown that a sub assembly would function like the type 3 bacterium. Other intermediate stages have not yet been identified. This is not proof that they did not occur, merely that they may not yet have been found. No IDer has shown hat they did not take place.

”Scott Minnich has worked on the flagellum perhaps longer than any other microbiologist and he would disagree with your claim that the bacterial flagellum is not IC, so you see, I am going to need you to explain to me why it is not IC.
(IC) is a pillar of the ID movement, and a knife in the side of purely undirected darwinian evolution. So you had best address it.”

I’m no scientist, but it my understanding that, if Mr Minnich has a sound hypothesis, it will have been published in a top scientific journal and it will have been appreciatively peer reviewed, he will have absorbed the arguments and perhaps re-shaped the hypothesis, it will have been tested by other biologists and used to check their own ideas. In short, it will have a “life” in the scientific community and will become respectable mainline science. As far as I know, none of this is true. Or perhaps you can point me to the scientific literature that promotes and justifies and peer reviews Irreducible Complexity or that the flagellum is “IC”.

I said. " Complexity is not supported by any respectable scientific publications, peer reviews, tests, re-tests, etc..."

Nathan replied “Well it seems important enough to warrant attacks from prestigious professors in the evolutionary community, from institutions such as Brown University. And how about you stop avoiding the issue here, is the bacterial flagellum IC and is IC a clear hallmark of design. The answer to both questions is yes. IC structures require the foresight of an intelligent mind working toward an end, we see this in many human-made objects all the time. See you are trying to ignore the actual issue. IC is supported by many biologists. Respectable scientists such as Mike Behe,Scott Minnich, and many more. "

But, you have to admit, IC. is not supported by any respectable scientific publications, peer reviews, tests, re-tests, etc..." just as I said above. And you have not addressed. And, I suspect, never will.

BTW Irreducible Complexity is not Intelligent Design."

Yes, but the point I was making is that attempting to prove or disprove IC is not the same as accepting the whole ID enchilada.

”BTW IC is a hallmark of Intelligent design, and like you said it is evidence for it.”

It would be, if it was true. But, as we agree above, IC has never been shown to be true to the satisfaction of those scientists who work in related fields. It has not been peer reviewed nor in any other way generally accepted. As science, it has never passed the hypothesis stage.

”But lets take a closer look at IC and something that William Dembski calls specified complexity.”

The Isaac Newton of information theory has not has his work peer reviewed either. Where are we going with this Nathan? Is it your contention that only non-peer reviewed work counts as science? Or are IDers allowed to pick and mix?

“Dembski states that both IC and SC are key markers of intelligent agency, and if it could be shown that the incredibly complex and integrated systems of nature could have arisen by way of gradual darwinian processes, then ID would be effectively refuted.”

Dembski has gone religious since the defeat at Dover. He has said that the immune system (one of the so-called IC systems), is a gift from god. You can imagine what poor old Behe thinks of being hung out to dry by his so-called friend.

"BTW what "idea" are "evolutionary cell biologists" already testing"?"

”Sorry I should have been more specific, what I meant was that they (Evolutionists such as Kenneth Miller) are attacking the argument of IC, and claim to have refuted it.”

So nobody is testing whatever the “idea” was.


"Jamie Bridgham, Sean Carroll and Joe Thornton claim to have shown how an irreducibly complex system, such as that described by Discovery senior fellow Michael Behe, might have arisen as the result of gene duplication and a few point mutational changes." … it shows that IC is being seriously considered if critiques of the idea are being published in Science.

If they ignored it, the IDers would moan about that. If they produce an argument against it, Behe tries to refute it, while claiming the disproof is evidence that he is being taken seriously. It really is politics, not science.

"Seriously, the Discovery Institute is a right wing religious republican think tank. Of course they want religion taught in schools (Why else exist?)."

That is a lie that has been propogated by evolutionists.”

True enough to hurt. The DI was involved in the early stages of the Dover fiasco, until they saw that it could expose their baby to too much bright light, so they chickened out.

“Meyer has said that the goal of the discovery institute is to give criticism of Darwinism a fair chance in the classroom.”

Why do they attack the Theory of Evolution and not the Theory of Gravity or any other dominant theory? They are both triumphs of human thought and the scientific method in particular. Could it be that extreme fundamentalist religious types have problems with evolution? Religion, not politics, as I said many tinmes.

“Your statements about "The Wedge" are unfounded, the document actually critiquing materialism.”

Why? Materialism has given us great scientific, medical and technological advances. What’s wrong with it (apart from not admitting the supernatural in to science)?

"Less entertainingly, the ID people...just went through the book replacing "creation" with "design" and "creator" with "designer"."ID and Creationism are completely seperate, but it seems to be a point of confusion for many people, so lets go through it, Dembski style.”

I seee you don’t deny that they did go through the book replacing “creation” with “design” Strange behaviour if they are completely separate, don’t you think?

From Dembski's Book: "The Design Revolution"

”Scientific Creationism is committed to the following propositions:
1)There was a sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.
2)Mutations and Natural Selection are insufficient to bring about the development of all living kinds from a single organism.
3)Changes of the originally created kinds of plants and animals occur only within fixed limits.
4)There is a separate ancestry for humans and apes.
5)Earth's geology can be explained via catastrophism, primarily by the occurence of a worldwide flood.”
6) The earth and all living things originated 10,000 years ago.”

How very like the Bible.

ID propositions:
1) Specified Complexity and IC are reliable indicators of design.
2)Biological Systems exhibit SC and emply IC subsystems.
3)Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of SC or IC.
4)Therefore ID constitutes the best explanation for the origin of SC and IC in biological systems.

How very “don’t mention the Bible”. I prefer the first definition. It’s looney, but honest. The ID “definition”, is Clinton’s “big tent” adopted for creationists (don’t mention the things that divide us, and we can make progress on the things we secretly agree on. Nudge nudge. Wink wink). And it’s dishonest. SO dishonest.

So in comparing the two lists it is obvious how different creationism and ID are. The reason that creationism was barred from public education is because it matches up with the Christian Religion's account of origins. However, as shown, ID makes no such propositions.

Nathan, did you read the Dover Judgement? And, why did they replace the word “creation” with “design”, “creator” with “designer”. It appears to that you are in denial. Follow the evidence. You’ll feel better.

" "Michael Behe said that ID is not science by the currently accepted definition of science."

I think that many ID proponents would disagree with this statement,"

Name one, and where he has disagreed? And, BTW, Meyer said it at the Ward debate also."

I havent read anywhere Behe saying this,

He said it at the Dover trial. That’s why you have to read it Nathan. You must have the evidence. Don’t deny yourself.

“As for scientists disagreeing with the statement that ID isnt science, take your pick. Surely Dembski believes it is science,”

Dembski is a mathematician. It’s interesting that the only “scientists” you can name are associated with the right-wing-republican-christian Discover Institute, but somehow ID is “not” religion. Strange eh?

“What you are referring to is the fact that science has by convention only resorted to material mechanisms to explain lifes diversity.”

That’s what Behe said - Science would have to include astrology (religion)! In other words, science would stop being science. How many ways do I have to find to say this to you?

So let me be perfectly clear, ID makes no statement on the identity of the designer, whether he/she/it be natural, supernatural, or something in between.”

They explain no natural process, they name no designer in an attempt to pretend that they are not what they are (creationists). As for in-between- what can you possibly mean by that? Goblins? Elves?

"Which problems does biology have with the scientific method? Intrigue me."

I am talking about Methodological Naturalism, the idea that one must only resort to material, natural explanations of the diversity of nature. The problem is that if indeed there are supernatural forces at work, then science will all together miss it. This problem becomes apparent when looking at the origin of life. “

So it’s not only biology, it’s all of science? The definition of science would have to stretch to include astrology (religion, the supernatural). Nathan, at some points you deny the supernatural is involved, now you are saying it should be involved. What do you HONESTLY believe?

"So you believe the evidence for the ToE undermines religion? Your motivation is therefore religious, not scientific. Same as all the other ID folks,,,,!"
Don't put words in my mouth. All I am saying is that evolution has clear anti-religious implications,”

The facts are the facts. The evidence is the evidence. If the facts and/or the evidence are a problem for your religion, please do not blame the facts/ evidence. The T0E has no implications, only inferences. And you draw the inference that it challenges your belief.

“just as ID has theistic implications”

It is all religious implications.

“This is something that Meyer addressed in his debate with Ward, he called it "Motive Mongering" and it distracts from the central issue of whether ID is or is not science.

ID is not science. If it was it would have all the scientific backup we mentioned earlier, peer reviews etc. It would be falsifiable. It would be testable. It is none of these things. It is not science.

“So, back to the question you avoided. Can you explain to me how ID can be falsified. Meyer didn't do it, and so far I have heard of no plausible explanation of how you can disprove the existence of supernatural prime movers."

”Scientists who are both evolutionists and ID theorists have one thing in common, they believe that nature gives the appearance of design. To the hardcore materialist, this design is only apparent, while to the ID theorist the Design is real. To prove that Design has not produced the complex structures in nature, one only need to show how they could have been produced by gradual processes of darwinian evolution.”

Sorry to point this out again, all that would do would add more proof to the ToE.

“ID scientists are not trying to prove the existence of "Supernatural Prime Movers", they are trying to show that the best explanations for many structures in biology are best explained by design, i.e to prove that these structures were designed, NOT that a supernatural designer exists. “

And they have never proved it. After 10 years of the Wedge. Not a scintilla of proof.

”But lets turn the tables here, what predictions does Darwinism make?”

Darwin made the basic prediction: the Earth would have to be many millions of years older than believed by science at the time. And he was right. And that’s what upsets the creationist/ID camp: it shows the world is much older than their religious viewpoint allows.

“Dembski points out the problem with evolution by saying that the predictions it makes are either extremely broad, or are extremely tiny, and in no way demonstrate the degree of change that is required for macroevolution.”

Dembski, the mathematician?

4:36 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home