Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Self Organisation is the Answer

From an interesting Telegraph article here.

"Evolution on its own doesn't look like it can make the creative leaps that have occurred in the history of life," says Dr Seth Bullock, another of the conference's organisers. "It's a great process for refining, tinkering, and so on. But self-organisation is the process that is needed alongside natural selection before you get the kind of creative power that we see around us.

37 Comments:

Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

Surely I must be missing something?

You seem to be reporting a natural rather then supernatural explanation for life.

Tell me this is not so ;-)

Regards,

Psi

9:09 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

It is not not so... ie it is so!
or even more briefly - I am.

11:24 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These guys are saying the same things Michael Behe said in his brilliant masterpiece "the Edge of Evolution" which got the Darwinists in an uproar.

5:46 am  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

"It is not not so... ie it is so!
or even more briefly - I am."

The world is full of surprises.
:)

"These guys are saying the same things Michael Behe said in his brilliant masterpiece "the Edge of Evolution" which got the Darwinists in an uproar."

...though they are often sadly followed by disappointments.
:(

12:18 pm  
Anonymous nick said...

Science is fun.

2:07 pm  
Blogger RkBall said...

They create the environment, establish the rules, kick things off, and then claim that the result is evidence of mindless, unintelligent creation?!

Here's an experiment -- throw a bunch of letters and numbers at a junkyard filled with computer parts. Let the computers emerge from the junk, the letters and numbers form software instructions and attach themselves to the evolving computers.

Let me know when the computer can count to ten.

9:56 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

"They create the environment..."

Who's "they"?
What "environment"?

"Here's an experiment -- throw a bunch of letters and numbers at a junkyard filled with computer parts."

Um, no. That's not an experiment.
That's just dumb.

It's just a re-wordng of the hackneyed "747 in a junkyard" argument.
Very predictable. Very dull.

Claim CF002.1:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html

Do you believe in Intelligent Design?
Please tell me you do.
Please. Pretty Please.
(giggle)

12:45 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Cedric your infinite intellectual superiority notwithstanding… that is the worst talk origins answer I have seen.

2:37 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

"...that is the worst talk origins answer I have seen."

Tell it to the scientific community.
Please, go ahead. Let me know what they say.
:)

Andrew, the 747 in a junkyard argument is old.
Very OLD.

It doesn't work.
It's just another creationist canard.
Move along. Nothing to see here.

ID is dead.
Kaput.
It's bleedin' snuffed it!

Nobody wants to defend it or define it or show how it works in the real world or anything.

Remember Steve of Sweden?
That's the kind of dolt you're pitching to.

(Talk about scraping the bottom of the intellectual barrel. Yuck.)

People like Steve have nothing to say about ID.
They're full of religious fervor.
Technically, they're suppoesed to be on your side.

Yet, the whole "ID being science thingy" is totally beyond them.

They can't shut up about creationism.
They don't want to shut up about creationism.

Nobody has anything good or positive to say about ID.

It's isn't a theory.
It isn't science.
It's just another creationist movement that's gone precisely nowhere.

You'd be better off pulling the plug on this site and saving your money.

6:41 pm  
Anonymous Simoney G said...

wow, this is a fantastic blog! That's cos you know about HTML... I saw that you'd removed a comment from the 'draft' blog - but I think you are the person for the blog creation!

10:40 pm  
Blogger Mermaid of Moorgate said...

And I've also gotta say...

Intelligent design is NOT about nebulous pseudo-science or blind faith, but about looking at what we know from science and the wonderful discoveries and revelations of the world, and exploring this evidence which points towards an intelligent creator.

Of course, we can't prove God exists any more than people can prove that He doesn't. We can only show evidence based on nature and science and our own experience and the supernatural experiences of people throughout history as it is recorded. But we don't actually have a photograph of us with God on holiday in Teneriffe, if that's what you want.

But even Stephen Hawkins believes there is credibility in the creationist's evidence that points towards a Prime Mover... an intelligent designer.

10:46 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

Mermaid said..."Intelligent design is NOT about nebulous pseudo-science or blind faith..."

Rubbish. Intelligent Design is pseudo-science. It's Natural Theology dressed up in sciencey sounding words. No experiments. No research. No bloody work. It's a fraud. That's been the state of play now for about twenty years. No work. Lot's of money gathered from the clueless. No actual work done. Ever!

"...and exploring this evidence which points towards an intelligent creator."

Oh yeah? Like what?
(giggle)

"Of course, we can't prove God exists any more than people can prove that He doesn't."

God? Did you say..the "G" word?
So when you are talking about Intelligent Design, you have already identified the designer?
Oops.
Talk about an own goal.
You're not supposed to actually mention the "G" word.
Didn't you get the memo?
Ixnay on the Ognay.
(Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)

"But even Stephen Hawkins believes..."

Why don't you bring up Einstien while you're about it?
If you're going to use an Argument from Authority then..go for gold!
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Authority

"But we don't actually have a photograph of us with God on holiday in Teneriffe, if that's what you want."

God again, eh? Oh dear.
Let's focus on your woeful understanding of Intelligent Design.
Is Intelligent Design a scientific theory?
Yes or No?
You do know what a scientific theory is, right?

9:50 am  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

"No experiments. No research. No bloody work. It's a fraud. That's been the state of play now for about twenty years."

If I produced a list of those involved in the ID movement would you go through the list and say that each one of them has done no work of relevance to the central issue over the last 20 years?

1:45 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

Feb 6th, 2009

"If I produced a list of those involved in the ID movement would you go through the list and say that each one of them has done no work of relevance to the central issue over the last 20 years?"

Sure. Produce your list.
I doubt it has anything that hasn't been sadly trotted out a thousand times before by other misguided people.
The ID movement is just that.
A movement.
A political and religious movement.

It's got nothing to do with science.
When they talk about "the theory of ID"; they're lying.
There is no scientific theory.
Nobody has ever even bothered to scientifically define Intelligent Design! It's a fraud.

That's why there are no experiments. No falsifiable predictions. No practical applications. No peer-reviewed research. No scientific work at all. Nothing.
Twenty years of fleecing the faithful.

Let me tell you a little about your list.
It's all smoke and mirrors.
It's designed to fool you.
To take advantage of your belief in god. It works on the principle that you won't be able to recognise actual scientific research from coffee-table books or studies that never actually mention Intelligent Design at all.

Present your list.
All I ask is that you personally vet every single item BEFORE you present it and make yourself aware of the objections to those items that are freely available on the internet.

Make sure you understand what peer-review is and why the scientific community so highly values it.
Make sure you understand what a scientific theory is and why it's so important to science.
Make sure you understand what falsifiablity is and why that is important.

Here's a lead in to some of the things you need to watch for...
www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution

Hmm, bad link.
add this /issues/peerreview.shtml



and for a very quick and fun video, check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMzdR1tepig

3:21 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

Feb 7th, 2009

Andrew? Hello? Your list?

3:52 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Cedric,

Your style of commenting does not fill me with a great deal of enthusiasm for having a discussion with you on the whole. This notwithstanding...

I have mentioned the work of Doug Axe on this blog which I admire.

This is well within the "no work" window.

Dembski had his Design Inference published within the window by the Cambridge University Press in the Studies in Probability Series.

Gonzalez' research record has been outstanding - would you say that none of it has any relevance for ID?


Can I also ask you a question?

Assume for the sake of argument that God did create ex nilo the first living organism as a fully working unit. Would simply saying "God did it" be unscientific in your view if this were true?

4:59 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

Febuary 7th, 2009

"I have mentioned the work of Doug Axe on this blog which I admire."

Doug Axe has done scientific research on Intelligent Design?

(awkward silence)

Are you sure?
Are you really sure?
Please demonstrate this.
Can you think of any possible criticisms to this?

"Would simply saying "God did it" be unscientific in your view if this were true?"

If it were true, then it's true.
Yet I don't see how it would be scientific.

You'd have to come up with a way to "put god in a test-tube", metaphorically speaking.

I have no idea how anybody could do that. Yet if they could, I'd like to see it.

...................................

Happy to talk about Dembski and
Gonzalez in our next posts. To keep things neat and tidy, let's focus soley on Doug Axe for now. When we've disposed of him, then we can move on to the others. I must say I'm looking forward to this.

6:08 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

I said:
"Would simply saying "God did it" be unscientific in your view if this were true?"
You said
"If it were true, then it's true.
Yet I don't see how it would be scientific."

-------
Continuing in this hypothetical scenario....
So as far as science is concerned in this scenario the truth would be irrelevant and science would simply ignore it and continue to try to find an untruthful natural explanation?

9:06 am  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Cedric,

These are the two papers that were discussed previously I think:

J Mol Biol. 2004 Aug 27;341(5):1295-315.

J Mol Biol. 2000 Aug 18;301(3):585-95.

I am not sure whether I still have them around. But I will have a look.

9:18 am  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

"Continuing in this hypothetical scenario...."

Woah up there. Hold your horses. I thought you just wanted to ask me a question?
I only answered to be polite. That was NOT an invitation to go launching off onto another topic entirely.

I'd rather we deal with Axe, Dembski and Gonzalez.
Ok?
Now if you want, by all means open a special thread devoted to godtalk and I'll throw in a few comments if you really want me to.
However, I find the "science" of Intelligent Design much more interesting than theological musings.
The idea of finding genuine scientific research on ID as opposed to coffee-table books or studies that never actually mention Intelligent Design at all, is an exciting one.
This discussion could be ground-breaking for the ID movement as a whole...if you can deliver the goods.

Focusing on one thing at a time will prevent distractions and going off on tangents.
Fair enough?

Now the two papers, you've cited...
Are you aware of any criticisms about them?

1:32 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

"Woah up there. Hold your horses. I thought you just wanted to ask me a question?
I only answered to be polite. That was NOT an invitation to go launching off onto another topic entirely."

Cedric,
I read... I don't want to answer this question.

If I replied to one of your question like this I would probably get repeated comments like..

Andrew....my question???


Andrew... Any answers???

Andrew...are you there? have you got an answer to my question?

No I thought not!!

10:16 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Now the two papers, you've cited...
Are you aware of any criticisms about them?

Have you looked at the two papers?

Are you aware of any criticisms of them?

Do they look like they are papers that are relevant to ID done by someone who is committed to ID?

In which case is your statement about no ID work at all over 20 years wrong?

10:24 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

Febuary 10, 2009

“Cedric,
I read... I don't want to answer this question.”

Well...yes.

Theological musing is boring.
Tediously so.
At least, it is for me.

I don’t particularly want to talk about gods any more than I want to talk about baseball. It doesn’t interest me and it’s got nothing much to do with anything.

I’m here to talk about Intelligent Design. The science of Intelligent Design.

(Not gods or the bible or burning bushes or angels and demonically possessed swine or talking donkeys or Judas or the nature of sin or slavery or the Roman legal system or Noah’s ark etc.)

This blog is titled “ID in the UK”. That title is why I’m here.
You want to talk about ID and I want to talk about ID.
Let’s get to it.

As for the godtalk, if you really need to, then create a separate thread and I’ll contribute a few comments if it will make you happy.
Personally, I think it’s a waste of time but I’m willing to go with the flow.
I promise I will show up and make at least three comments to get the ball rolling for you.
Ok?

9:00 am  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

10 Febuary 2008

"Do they look like they are papers that are relevant to ID done by someone who is committed to ID?"

I don't understand.

How are the papers by Axe on Intelligent Design?
What do the papers say about Intelligent Design.

Committed? I'm sure Axe is committed to many things.
(shrug)
Let's leave his "commitments" for another time.

Let's have the science of ID.

"Are you aware of any criticisms of them?"

Well, are you?

(waits patiently)

9:03 am  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

12 Febuary 2009

(...and waits...)

9:31 am  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

I am not aware of any criticisms of the papers in terms of methodology or results etc.

I am aware that many say that they have nothing to say at all about intelligent design.

The reason that I rate Axes work highly is that he has a good method for asking the right questions about how difficult it is to build/find a new functional protein.

Have you looked at previous posts on Axe?

10:29 am  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

Feb 12 2009

"I am not aware of any criticisms of the papers in terms of methodology or results etc."

That is not the nature of the criticisms.
Nobody seems to have any problems with the papers themselves. The methodology and results given are unremarkable.

"I am aware that many say that they have nothing to say at all about intelligent design."

That's pretty much it. The phrase Intelligent Design or CSI or Irreducable Complexity or a run throught the Explanatory Filter or any other meaningless ID movement buzz-words are not mentioned, used or explained.

Take away the Discovery Institute's creative interpretation on the papers and there's no reason a casual observer would guess in a thousand years that Axe's papers were anything out of the ordinary.

All of the ID claims happen...outside of the peer-review process and are not actually written in the paper itself.
We are left with the Discovery Institute acting as the Oracle, "helpfully" explaining to others what the papers are REALLY saying.
Not good.

This detail, in an argument on Intelligent Design, is not easy to find unless you actively search for it. The rubes just read the list provided by them by the Discovery Institute and then just make natural assumptions. Assumptions that are incorrect.

I actually fell for this trick myself once in an on-line discussion.
By the time I figured out the con, the discussion had moved on.
Not impressed.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

This business of "creative interpretation" of peer-reviewed papers that have simply nothing to do with ID is a common gimmick.
Here's an example...
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/the-despair-of.html

Once again, nobody has any criticisms of the paper itself. That's fine. It's the spin that raises eyebrows. This has happened more than once.


"Have you looked at previous posts on Axe?"

I think so. Was there anything of special significance you wanted to mention or should we move on to Dembski? Your call.

3:03 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

You said:
"No scientific work at all. Nothing."

Are you saying that calculating the probabilities of new protein function production has nothing to do with ID?

3:47 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katebsy said...

"Are you saying that calculating the probabilities of new protein function production has nothing to do with ID?"

Nobody seems to think so outside of the Discovery Institute.

Calculating probabilites of proteins is...fine.
It's ID part that's the tricky bit.
If somebody wants to crunch some numbers and connect the dots to ID then I'd like to see that happen.

Axe has not done this.

Any connecting of the dots to ID happens well away from any peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Here's another example of what they do.
Peer-review? Yep.
Any mention of ID at all in the peer-reviewed papers? Well..um..I think that...er...
(crickets chirping)

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2009/01/the_biologic_institute_bill_de.php
Hmm. Bad link. Please add /2009/01/the_biologic_institute_bill_de.php

6:29 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Has Discovery ever said that ID is proven scientifically? Not something that I would agree with.

There are valid ways forward to address it. It is a real possibility. Biology is the study of things that look designed for a purpose. Some people v keen on ID are involved in producing good results which are relevant to the issue. ie if the probability of two new interdependent protein functions arising is below a certain limit we can say design... therefore lets start working out the probabilities of one function arising by chance etc,

Seems like real work to me.

I am away for 1 week so there will be no new comments for that period.

11:10 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

Feb 13th 2009

"Has Discovery ever said that ID is proven scientifically? Not something that I would agree with."

They claim that ID is real science.
Now.
Is this something you can agree with or is this a falsehood?

They claim that ID is a scientific theory.
Now.
Is this something you can agree with or is this a falsehood?

They claim that ID is supported by peer-review.
Now.
Yet you have to read Axe's papers with special Discovery Institute goggles.
Falsehood?

These claims are blatent lies.

Why are you willing to bend over backwards for these charlatans?
Can't you see they are just using you?

"There are valid ways forward to address it. It is a real possibility."

It's been over twenty years now.
Not a single experiment.
Not even a single PROPOSED experiment.
They have money and lab space and lists of "dissenting scientists" and...no work.

You remember the Templeton Foundation? Even they got tired of the Discovery Institute word games.

A New York Times article said the foundation asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research and quoted Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, as saying "They never came in" and that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review", he said.[65] The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Harper stated. "They're political - that for us is problematic", and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science", "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation

I've got nothing against you, Andrew.
I've never commented on your religious beliefs, one way or the other.
Keep them and welcome.

Yet I find it so frustrating that you won't bite the bullet on this pseudo-scientific nonsense.
How long are you willing to let them string you along?
Another twenty years?

Biology is the study of things that look designed for a purpose.

Not according to the scientists.

Biology (from Greek βιολογία - βίος, bios, "life"; -λογία, -logia, study of) is a branch of the natural sciences concerned with the study of living organisms and their interaction with each other and their environment...Five unifying principles form the foundation of modern biology: cell theory, evolution, gene theory, energy, and homeostasis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology

Andrew, please spend a few minutes and watch this video. Let me know what you think...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0sK8qNkMdY

I am away for 1 week so there will be no new comments for that period.

No problem. I'll pop back in a week. Looking forward to Dembski.

12:19 am  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Cedric,

You said:
"No experiments. No research. No bloody work."
and again...

"It's been over twenty years now.
Not a single experiment.
Not even a single PROPOSED experiment.
They have money and lab space and lists of "dissenting scientists" and...no work."

Doug Axe - research was motivated by looking for evidence for ID. It is directly relevant to the issue. It was published in a peer reviewed journal. Does it have to have ID in the title to qualify?


"They claim that ID is real science.
Now.
Is this something you can agree with or is this a falsehood?"

I agree.

"They claim that ID is a scientific theory.
Now.
Is this something you can agree with or is this a falsehood?"

Not in the same sense as evolution is a theory.

Behe showed that scientists use the word thory in a number of ways from the published literature. I think that is the sense they claim.


"They claim that ID is supported by peer-review.
Now."

The discovery list includes papers that are relevant to ID and which provide some evidence that the authors believe point towards ID.



I said:
"Biology is the study of things that look designed for a purpose."

You said:
"Not according to the scientists."

I was quoting from Richard Dawkins - Blind Watchmaker... which is a book arguing that the appearance of design is an illusion.

OK watched the video.

Is it scientific/logical to believe that something came from nothing?

5:45 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

I was quoting from Richard Dawkins - Blind Watchmaker... which is a book arguing that the appearance of design is an illusion.

Ah yes. I didn't catch the quote.

Thank you for mentioning that his book argues that the appearance of design is illusionary.

He says...“The purpose of this book is to resolve this paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design.“
Most creationists, when they quote Dawkins, conveniently leave that part out. If there's one thing that I really detest is quotemining. Thank you for not doing that.

Doug Axe - research was motivated by looking for evidence for ID.
Nobody is interested what his "motivation" was. It's neither here nor there.

It is directly relevant to the issue.
Only according to the Discovery Institute. They have a vested interest to say so.

It was published in a peer reviewed journal.
NOBODY is disputing this. People produce papers on protein folding ALL THE TIME. It's routine stuff.

Does it have to have ID in the title to qualify?
Andrew, nobody has EVER demonstrated or mentioned ID in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Nobody can even define what it is!
It's all hand waving.

Not in the same sense as evolution is a theory.
Behe showed that scientists use the word thory in a number of ways from the published literature. I think that is the sense they claim.


Behe is a scientist with access to a lab. He has done no work on ID.
Nothing. If we're going to go with wishy-washy definitions of what "theory" really means then let's look a little further at what Behe said under oath in a court of law.
Example
Do you really want to play word games with the word "theory" just to somehow sneak ID in as science? Is that how real science is done nowadays?

The discovery list includes papers that are relevant to ID and which provide some evidence that the authors believe point towards ID.

"...Relevant to ID"???
"...point toward ID"???

This is just another way of saying that peer-reviewed scientific papers never mention ID, don't define ID and that the only way you can spot the connection to ID is by wearing Discovery Institute goggles. Bizzare.

Is it scientific/logical to believe that something came from nothing?
Example

Andrew, to be honest, I put philosophy in the same bag of boredom as theological nail biting.
Please, let's just stick to the science for now, ok?
If you want to talk about philosophy, then set up a thread devoted to it and I promise to contribute a few posts.
If ID is real science, then where is the work?
If ID is a "paradigm shift" that will overturn "Darwinism" then...where is it?
Press releases? Check.
Coffee-table books? Check.
FoxNews inteviews? Check.
Real Scientific Work in the boring, old fashioned sense of the phrase?
Nope.
The Templeton Foundation offered them money on a platter to help them do research. Yet the Discovery Institute couldn't even send in a proposal to collect the cash. Is that science?

The Discovery Institute set up it's own "peer-reviewed journal" to publish ID papers. It died a slow and miserable death. Check out the latest date.
Is this science? Seriously?

OK watched the video.

Thank you. What did you think of it?

3:51 am  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Ah yes. I didn't catch the quote.Thank you for mentioning that his book argues that the appearance of design is illusionary.

The point was that Dawkins recognises that we can detect at least the appearance of design. The next question is whether it is real or just an illusion. It is an important and valid question- How many peer reviewed papers has he published demonstrating that the appearance of design is illusory?

Doug Axe -Nobody is interested what his "motivation" was. It's neither here nor there.

What started me responding to your comments was your claim that:
There are
"No experiments. No research. No bloody work."
and again...

"It's been over twenty years now.
Not a single experiment.
Not even a single PROPOSED experiment.
They have money and lab space and lists of "dissenting scientists" and...no work."

My Counter example was Doug Axe’s work.
Did you mean there are no papers that demonstrate ID as a proven fact?
How long would you say it took for evolution to evolve from initial idea to proven fact?

Andrew, nobody has EVER demonstrated or mentioned ID in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Nobody can even define what it is!
It's all hand waving.


The Behe/Snoke paper was known to be an ID paper hence the unusual step of printing a counter paper with it.


Do you really want to play word games with the word "theory" just to somehow sneak ID in as science? Is that how real science is done nowadays?


No, I agree that ID is not a theory in the same sense as the theory of evolution.

Andrew, to be honest, I put philosophy in the same bag of boredom as theological nail biting.


My something from nothing comment as in response to the video clip you pointed to using an infinite regress against ID. If nothing can produce only nothing then doesn’t naturalism leave you with the same infinite regress?

7:49 am  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

"The point was that Dawkins recognises that we can detect at least the appearance of design."

Yes, people do that all the time.
We are hard-wired to to see things in nature that are familiar to us.
The "face" on Mars. The "man" in the Moon. The Virgin Mary on a slice of toast.
Things that look designed are all around us. It's quite another thing to prove that there was actually an invisible "designer" that did it.
No matter how...suggestive it may be.
:)
Suggestive Example

My counter example was Doug Axe’s work.

Axe's paper makes no claim at all about ID.
What membership card Axe carries or interviews he gives AFTER the paper is published is irrelevent to the paper itself. If Axe wants to make a scientific claim and can demonstrate said claim then let him (or anybody else at all) put it in a peer-reviewed paper.
Nothing stops him from doing a follow-up paper where he can explicitly spell out what all the world's scientists seem to have missed; that his paper is relevent/supports/connected somehow to ID.
This, however, will never ever happen.

Did you mean there are no papers that demonstrate ID as a proven fact?

No. There is no need for "proven facts". ID claims to be real science.
People want to see the actual science.
They want to see the actual work.
ID does nothing.
As an idea, it's stillborn
Nobody is taking the ball and running with it.
The ID people claim that they have a "paradigm shift".
Andrew, the only thing that's "shifting" is the audience getting bored in their chairs, waiting for something to happen.

Remember the infamous list of "Dissenters of Darwinism"?
How many signatures did the Discovery Institute eventually scrape together?
600? 700?
So...where's their avalanche of research given their numbers?
Dembski's Explanatory Filter?
What has it actually "filtered"?

Where are the experiments?
Where are even the proposed experiments?
How do you go about falsifying ID?
What predictions does it make?

If it's really science...then there must be...WORK.

How long would you say it took for evolution to evolve from initial idea to proven fact?

Compare the history of the theory of Evolution with the history of the "theory" of Intelligent Design.
Please.
In fact, compare the history of any new scientific discovery that ran counter to the scientific establishment of it's day and compare it to the history of the ID movement.
Straight away you'll notice some glaring differences.
Prions, Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory, Radiometric Dating, DNA sequencing etc.
How did they get established in the scientific world? How did they present their evidence?
Did they have to fiddle with the definition of the word "theory"?
Did they make excuses about not having peer-reviewed research?
Did they bypass the scientific process and take their case straight to the popular media?
Did they start publishing school text books and stacking school boards before even proposing a single experiment?
ID is a politico-religious movement. It's not about science.
It never has been.

The Behe/Snoke paper was known to be an ID paper...

No. Neither Behe nor Snoke has ever mentioned or demonstrated ID in a scientific peer-reviewed paper. They have done precisely nothing with ID.
They are performing no research on ID.
They are not doing any experiments on ID.
There. Is. No. Work.

They have the political support.
They have the lab space.
They have the money.
They have (supposedly) the scientists.
They have the buzz words and the sciency-sounding jargon.
However, they produce no science.
ID is empty.

"No, I agree that ID is not a theory in the same sense as the theory of evolution."

Thank you. This is very important. The ID movement pretends to have an alternative scientific theory. They don't. They're...lying.

Why are you not incensed by this?
Why do you placidly accept such shameless deception?
As a Christian, do you really feel that this is acceptable?

Theories in the scientific world are incredibly important. They have a very strict criteria. The Theory of Evolution (for example) is a bona fine scientific theory. You can do real scientific work with it. It's productive. It's falsifiable. It's demonstrable. It's useful. IT WORKS.
See here and here
No special "goggles of interpretation" required.

My something from nothing comment as in response to the video clip you pointed to using an infinite regress against ID.

Andrew, come on.
That's not why I gave you the link to the video..
The real meat of the video is NOT about infinite regression. It's about the circular reasoning inherent in Intelligent Design. If you don't want to talk about that then I can't very well make you. It was just a suggestion.

12:37 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Yes, people do that all the time.
We are hard-wired to to see things in nature that are familiar to us.
The "face" on Mars. The "man" in the Moon. The Virgin Mary on a slice of toast.
Things that look designed are all around us. It's quite another thing to prove that there was actually an invisible "designer" that did it.
No matter how...suggestive it may be.


So we need a way to distinguish rigorously. Such a method would be v. useful.
Isn’t that what ID is saying?


The ID people claim that they have a "paradigm shift".
Andrew, the only thing that's "shifting" is the audience getting bored in their chairs, waiting for something to happen.


Time will tell.


Why are you not incensed by this?
Why do you placidly accept such shameless deception?
As a Christian, do you really feel that this is acceptable?


It is not easy to know how to refer to the ID idea. It is not a simple hypothesis. It is a whole way of thinking about things. I was convinced of some kind of ID well before I heard of Behe or Discovery. What they were saying resonated strongly with what I already thought. They may not have used the term theory always in the correct way (the scientific literature abounds with similar transgressions) but I understood what they were saying and what they were trying to do and had an instinctive sympathy with it. I don’t agree that there is deliberate deception involved.

The real meat of the video is NOT about infinite regression

I sat down &watched it through again with pen in hand - I was not v impressed with the argument.

It relies on a accepting a distinction between Intelligent agent and Intelligent life.
The “real” intelligent life forms are by definition what you want them to be and exclude the attributes you want to exclude like eternity etc.

Just because we have only observed mortal life it does not mean that that is the only kind that ever has or ever will exist.

Therefore because by definition the “real” intelligent life forms cannot be eternal you have an infinite regress.

I put my infinite regress bit in because as far as I can work out naturalism is committed to some kind of infinite regress with regard to origins of matter/energy.

2:21 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reason ID causes difficulty has nothing to do with science. The real problem is it might actually be true. Now that is totally unacceptable.

10:13 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home