Darwinists squelching ID debate

[Cleombrotus]

A pro-Darwin lobbying group is being accused of trying to censor a published and peer-reviewed scientific article that deals favorably with the theory of intelligent design.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) claims the article by Dr. Stephen Meyers is "substandard science" and should not have been published by the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
But Dr. John West, associate director of the Discovery Institue's Center for Science and Culture (CSC), says the NCSE has flip-flopped just like a politician. "The refrain of Darwinists up till this point has been intelligent design isn't science because its proponents don't publish peer-reviewed articles." West says, "That has always been false; in fact, scientists have been publishing peer-reviewed articles about their ideas on intelligent design."
Now, however, he says the scientists who want to exclude intelligent design and promote Darwinist science cannot ignore West's paper, because it has appeared in "a very standard peer-reviewed biology journal." In the article, titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories", Meyer argues that the theory of intelligent design explains the origin of genetic information in early animal forms better than current materialistic theories of evolution.
But when his work appeared in Proceedings, the executive director of NCSE claimed it was "too bad" the biology journal saw fit to publish Meyer's paper, since it was scientifically substandard.
However, the editor of Proceedings, which is published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., confirmed that the article was put through the standard peer-reviewed process and that the three reviewers were eminently qualified. However, since the article appeared, the journal's editor (Richard Sternberg) and the publication itself have been attacked from several quarters...

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/128463.html

[Gilgaron]

We already discussed that over in Poli Sci here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37184).

Apparently the paper was slipped by the people in charge of the journal, who don't think it deserved being published, and some IDists agree that it wasn't very good.

I haven't read it, myself. Panda's Thumb has a review here (http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html) that Chickenman linked up for everyone.

Please respect the forum guidelines...

[Benster]

I was a biologist by training, and I'm still quite interested in new research in evolution. This ID article is the only article on evolution that I've read in a year, so you can't claim that it was censored.

It certainly wasn't sceintifically sound. More of a journalism-style critique by a lay-person, or more of an editorial than a scientific review aritcle. I think the journal put it in just to spice things up a bit. Subscriptions might have improved a bit as a result.

Ditto.

[brett]

A pro-Darwin lobbying group is being accused of trying to censor a published and peer-reviewed scientific article that deals favorably with the theory of intelligent design.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) claims the article by Dr. Stephen Meyers is "substandard science" and should not have been published by the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
But Dr. John West, associate director of the Discovery Institue's Center for Science and Culture (CSC), says the NCSE has flip-flopped just like a politician. "The refrain of Darwinists up till this point has been intelligent design isn't science because its proponents don't publish peer-reviewed articles." West says, "That has always been false; in fact, scientists have been publishing peer-reviewed articles about their ideas on intelligent design."
Now, however, he says the scientists who want to exclude intelligent design and promote Darwinist science cannot ignore West's paper, because it has appeared in "a very standard peer-reviewed biology journal." In the article, titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories", Meyer argues that the theory of intelligent design explains the origin of genetic information in early animal forms better than current materialistic theories of evolution.
But when his work appeared in Proceedings, the executive director of NCSE claimed it was "too bad" the biology journal saw fit to publish Meyer's paper, since it was scientifically substandard.
However, the editor of Proceedings, which is published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., confirmed that the article was put through the standard peer-reviewed process and that the three reviewers were eminently qualified. However, since the article appeared, the journal's editor (Richard Sternberg) and the publication itself have been attacked from several quarters...

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/128463.html

Darwinism is truly the religion of atheists and deists. Expect more of the same. They don't reject ID on the basis of scientific proof, rather they reject it on philosophical grounds. According to them, supernaturalism must be kept out of the debates at all costs. I think both sides need to be heard.

[George Murphy]

A pro-Darwin lobbying group is being accused of trying to censor a published and peer-reviewed scientific article that deals favorably with the theory of intelligent design.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) claims the article by Dr. Stephen Meyers is "substandard science" and should not have been published by the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
But Dr. John West, associate director of the Discovery Institue's Center for Science and Culture (CSC), says the NCSE has flip-flopped just like a politician. "The refrain of Darwinists up till this point has been intelligent design isn't science because its proponents don't publish peer-reviewed articles." West says, "That has always been false; in fact, scientists have been publishing peer-reviewed articles about their ideas on intelligent design."
Now, however, he says the scientists who want to exclude intelligent design and promote Darwinist science cannot ignore West's paper, because it has appeared in "a very standard peer-reviewed biology journal." In the article, titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories", Meyer argues that the theory of intelligent design explains the origin of genetic information in early animal forms better than current materialistic theories of evolution.
...........................
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/128463.htmlFor those of us who don't have easy access to Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, how about summarizing for us Meyer's ID explanation of the origin of genetic information.

The link you gave (above) returned an Error 404, "The page you requested cannot be found," to me.

Shalom,
George

[Minnesota]

This is posted only in the interests of establishing the facts of the issue, which were previously presented here:


http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=698102#post698102

AND HERE

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=700472#post700472

That means YOU too...

[Xavier]

Appartently, A little reminder is in order:



This is a theist only areas for discussions on issues of origins,science, and how such subjects relate to theology.

PLEASE FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES.

You, of course, are free to start a companion thread in an open forum and discuss the thread there.

[Calvinist4Him]

My goodness, am I posting in the atheist holy land? :teeth:

[Cleombrotus]

For those of us who don't have easy access to Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, how about summarizing for us Meyer's ID explanation of the origin of genetic information.

The link you gave (above) returned an Error 404, "The page you requested cannot be found," to me.

Shalom,
George


There is a companion thread in Poli Sci, started by Jinx, called "Anti-evolution paper met with hysteria, name-calling" or something along those lines, which has other links. It is on Page 3 of the thread list. Sorry I can't be of more help.
Try not to get too riled up when you read the postings. :grin:

[Xavier]

Ditto on the Thread... I think that might help matters slightly.... :smile:

[George Murphy]

There is a companion thread in Poli Sci, started by Jinx, called "Anti-evolution paper met with hysteria, name-calling" or something along those lines, which has other links. It is on Page 3 of the thread list. Sorry I can't be of more help.
Try not to get too riled up when you read the postings. :grin:Perhaps you didn't notice post #14 of that thread which quoted the scientific organization responsible for the journal in question as saying the paper should not have been published. It sounds as if there may be questions about whether the review process was carried out properly. (I've published enough peer-reviewed scientific papers, & reviewed enough, to know that while the process if valuable it isn't infallible.

But that isn't the most important issue. That thread has a link to Meyer's paper. It seems to be the standard negative ID argument - current scientific theories can't explain something so an Intelligent Designer (aka God) did it. I.e., it's a God of the gaps argument expressed in scientific prose.

Of course Christians will agree that God did do it. But God normally acts through natural processes (as traditional doctrines of providence describe) & IDers make no attempt to elucidate those processes.

Shalom,
George

[brett]

But that isn't the most important issue. That thread has a link to Meyer's paper. It seems to be the standard negative ID argument - current scientific theories can't explain something so an Intelligent Designer (aka God) did it. I.e., it's a God of the gaps argument expressed in scientific prose.

Of course Christians will agree that God did do it. But God normally acts through natural processes (as traditional doctrines of providence describe) & IDers make no attempt to elucidate those processes.

Shalom,
George

Isn't it ironic though that this is exactly what you do to with the Resurrection. If you were truly consistent you would allegorize it as well. Or maybe perhaps you already do. But you seem to have implied in prior posts that this is exactly how you’ve arrived at your belief in that particular miracle. I could be wrong. Explain it to me if I am.

[geochron]

Peer review doesn't stop once something is published. And publishing in peer reviewed literature doesn't make things correct. What it does is expose the work to wider criticism, which this paper will now get and is now getting. Complaining about this process is silly.


Isn't it ironic though that this is exactly what you do to with the Resurrection. If you were truly consistent you would allegorize it as well. Or maybe perhaps you already do. But you seem to have implied in prior posts that this is exactly how you’ve arrived at your belief in that particular miracle. I could be wrong. Explain it to me if I am.

With regards to the resurrection, there is no compelling evidence for an alternative explanation (no body, for instance), we would not expect any physical evidence to be preserved and there is the continued presence of Christ in people's lives.

Contrast creation and the flood, for instance. If the story is true all trace of it was removed and replaced with what we'd expect to see if the Earth formed by natural physical processes. This could have happened miraculously, but it isn't part of science and the story is not susceptible to scientific investigation. Which is why there's no place for "creation science" in your worldview. You'd be better employed pointing this out to AiG than to mainstream science.

The analogy with the resurrection would be better had Christ's body been found and preserved in a Museum - clear physical evidence contradicting the story. You could then believe that for ineffable reasons God arranged the resurrection while making the world look as if it hadn't happened, of course. But you wouldn't expect your point of view to be taught in a science class, would you, since science would have no way of ruling your theory out?

Which is the point. Either...

Miraculous creation is subject to scientific investigation. We know what signs should be in the geological record (for instance) and can seek them. But all the evidence points the other way, which is why creationism isn't taught in science classes.

Miraculous creation is not subject to scientific investgiation. Which is why it's not taught in science classes.

[kuboes1831]

[ What are Darwinists? It is bandied about as a hate term.

Has ID produced anything worthwhile scientifically yet? If so I havent seen it despite going on the Design conference at Wisconsin in June 2000, and much now published in Debating Design.

No wonder some respond with impatience!

[George Murphy]

Isn't it ironic though that this is exactly what you do to with the Resurrection. If you were truly consistent you would allegorize it as well. Or maybe perhaps you already do. But you seem to have implied in prior posts that this is exactly how you’ve arrived at your belief in that particular miracle. I could be wrong. Explain it to me if I am.When this person responded to a post of mine on another thread with a false and insulting statement about me I said that I would no longer respond to him.
For the benefit of other readers I will point out that his characterization of my belief in the resurrection of Christ is completely inaccurate.

Shalom,
George

[kuboes1831]

When this person responded to a post of mine on another thread with a false and insulting statement about me I said that I would no longer respond to him.
For the benefit of other readers I will point out that his characterization of my belief in the resurrection of Christ is completely inaccurate.

Shalom,
George

An apology is due to George

[brett]

When this person responded to a post of mine on another thread with a false and insulting statement about me I said that I would no longer respond to him.
For the benefit of other readers I will point out that his characterization of my belief in the resurrection of Christ is completely inaccurate.

Shalom,
George

Huh? I didn't know you promised not to respond to me. :huh:

At any rate, George, this is just unfair blubbering. I've always tried to be polite and even friendly to you. But I've also ventured to expose the problems with your theology. I guess that’s what you object to. But to be sure I've not ever resorted to name calling, or ad hominem attacks of any sort. I brought up this objection above because you've never adequately explained the difference between the belief in these two biblical miracles. You continue to ridicule YECs of ignoring scientific data yet you yourself ignore medical scientific data that concludes resurrections after 3 days are impossible. I think I've made a fair challenge. But if you want to take this ostensible high road, suit yourself.

[geochron]

Huh? I didn't know you promised not to respond to me. :huh:

At any rate, George, this is just unfair blubbering. I've always tried to be polite and even friendly to you. But I've also ventured to expose the problems with your theology. I guess that’s what you object to. But to be sure I've not ever resorted to name calling, or ad hominem attacks of any sort. I brought up this objection above because you've never adequately explained the difference between the belief in these two biblical miracles. You continue to ridicule YECs of ignoring scientific data yet you yourself ignore medical scientific data that concludes resurrections after 3 days are impossible. I think I've made a fair challenge. But if you want to take this ostensible high road, suit yourself.

There is no scientific evidence relevant to the resurrection.

Whereas the products of the ostensible creation are lying around for study.

It's that simple.

[George Murphy]

Huh? I didn't know you promised not to respond to me. :huh:

At any rate, George, this is just unfair blubbering. I've always tried to be polite and even friendly to you.In post #48 of the thread "The Order of Genesis 2" Brett, responding to an attempt of mine to illustrate different types of biblical narratives by comparing Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, said


Oh I get what you’re doing, I just think it’s sad. The truth is you really don’t believe the Bible.

Objective readers may judge how "polite and even friendly" this was. In post #50 of that thread I replied:


You have no justification at all for this statement. That you apparently don't get my point about Kings & Chronicles is excusable. But in your willingness to put the worst construction on what I said you are in clear violation of the commandment not to bear false witness. Unless a sincere apology is given I will have nothing more to do with you and I encourage others who have some respect for honest debate to deal with you in the same way.

Brett's remark above, "I didn't know you promised not to respond to me," thus confirms what might already have been deduced from his way of conducting himself in debates: He doesn't bother to give more than superficial attention, if that, to what other participants in the debate say.

My taking the trouble to write this may seem like just an expression of personal pique, but there's more to it than that. Brett's only real function in this forum is to poison discussions with obstinate refusal to consider any viewpoint other than his own poorly uniformed one, & thus he distracts people who are interested in serious theological & scientific discussion of origins. There is already a Protology forum for people who share views similar to his.
I would encourage people who are interested in real discussion of the issues - and not just bouncing words off a stone wall - to ignore him.

Shalom,
George

[brett]

In post #48 of the thread "The Order of Genesis 2" Brett, responding to an attempt of mine to illustrate different types of biblical narratives by comparing Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, said



Objective readers may judge how "polite and even friendly" this was. In post #50 of that thread I replied:

[/font][/color]

Brett's remark above, "I didn't know you promised not to respond to me," thus confirms what might already have been deduced from his way of conducting himself in debates: He doesn't bother to give more than superficial attention, if that, to what other participants in the debate say.

My taking the trouble to write this may seem like just an expression of personal pique, but there's more to it than that. Brett's only real function in this forum is to poison discussions with obstinate refusal to consider any viewpoint other than his own poorly uniformed one, & thus he distracts people who are interested in serious theological & scientific discussion of origins. There is already a Protology forum for people who share views similar to his.
I would encourage people who are interested in real discussion of the issues - and not just bouncing words off a stone wall - to ignore him.

Shalom,
George






My goodness George, you really are taking this hard. I realize that statement was a bit harsh, now in hindsight. You have understand that we all say (or type) things once in a while that we wish we could take back. That's one of them (which I had totally forgotten about, frankly). I do think we have some very different views on inerrancy that, well, I guess we won't be able to discuss now that you’re ignoring me. I encourage everyone to read the entire discussion in context, though, so you can at least see I'm not a rotten as I'm being portrayed. The fact is I see many weakness in your approach to the Bible and feel I have the right to point them out. And yes I do think your approach denies inerrancy (this is not a blanket judgement on OECs and TEs in general, btw). This may be terribly painful to hear but it’s 100% sincere.

Now if George is honest he'll admit that he's had his “not so nice” moments as well. I won't go and dig them up, but I'm continually accused by him of lying and dishonor. I do not return those types of insults because I feel it’s an ineffective tactic. I will, however, trade sarcasm for sarcasm and really just try to have fun with it. Maybe that’s what's really bugging him. And I’ll admit, I really do struggle with people who dish it out but refuse to take it.

At any rate, it appears both of us are getting quite annoyed with one another. I’ve said my peace for now.

Seriously George, if you’d like to restore our relationship back to a level of civility I’m open and willing. If not, I suppose you could just keep referring to me in the 3rd person.

Sincerely.

[brett]

There is no scientific evidence relevant to the resurrection.

Whereas the products of the ostensible creation are lying around for study.

It's that simple.

Ostensible creation? Interesting! But you said earlier that scientists assume what's laying around today has be formed naturally, and was not supernaturally created. And since we don't have any observational data of how supernaturally formed rocks are made and what they look like, how can we assume to calculate their age? This is the nagging question everyone needs to ask. As I’ve said, the fermentation level in the wine Jesus created would have fooled those who reject miracles. I think naturalistic scientists are being fooled in the same way.

[kuboes1831]

Ostensible creation? Interesting! But you said earlier that scientists assume what's laying around today has be formed naturally, and was not supernaturally created. And since we don't have any observational data of how supernaturally formed rocks are made and what they look like, how can we assume to calculate their age? This is the nagging question everyone needs to ask. As I’ve said, the fermentation level in the wine Jesus created would have fooled those who reject miracles. I think naturalistic scientists are being fooled in the same way.

Brett this is unanswerable as it is complete nonsense

[brett]

Brett this is unanswerable as it is complete nonsense

Ah well there you. I've found the one subject that can rile up evolutionists like nothing else—"miracles!"

[geochron]

Ostensible creation? Interesting! But you said earlier that scientists assume what's laying around today has be formed naturally, and was not supernaturally created. And since we don't have any observational data of how supernaturally formed rocks are made and what they look like, how can we assume to calculate their age?



In scientific terms, the rocks are old. They might have been created yesterday with the scientific appearance of age, but science can't address that point.




This is the nagging question everyone needs to ask. As I’ve said, the fermentation level in the wine Jesus created would have fooled those who reject miracles. I think naturalistic scientists are being fooled in the same way.



In contrast to wine, rocks do not in their nature appear old. I can show you rocks that do not appear more that 6000 years old, can you show me wine that isn't fermented? "Rock" does not subsume the concept "old" in the way "wine" subsumes the concept "fermented".

The nagging questions you still haven't answered is: would the trace elements and radioisotopes have been appropriate to old wine, and how do you know?

[Archimedes]

Maybe this thread should be moved to the general science area? Despite Xavier's attempts to moderate the discussion, it has transformed into an naturalist/supernaturalist argument and there is little reason to keep the atheists out.

[George Murphy]

Maybe this thread should be moved to the general science area? Despite Xavier's attempts to moderate the discussion, it has transformed into an naturalist/supernaturalist argument and there is little reason to keep the atheists out.Perhaps it would be better to end it & start a new thread. It became clear - before this turned into a debate about miracles - that the initial post was really just a hit & run attack on "Darwinists." The initiator of the thread apparently has had no interest in the facts (as I noted in Post #11) that (a) there seem to be questions about whether or not genuine peer review took place with this article, & (b) there is no indication in the paper that Meyer really gave any explanation of the origin of biological information beyond "An Intelligent Designer did it." This suggests that the original poster was only interested in giving the impression that "Darwinists" are meanies.

Shalom,
George

[kuboes1831]

Ah well there you. I've found the one subject that can rile up evolutionists like nothing else—"miracles!"

Before you make any more false accusations you ought to realise that I accept biblical miracles.
You are so sure in your opinions that you have to rubbish anyone who doesnt bleive the rubbish you believe.

[Robyn Banks]

Darwinism is truly the religion of atheists and deists...

...They don't reject ID on the basis of scientific proof, rather they reject it on philosophical grounds.
Apparently not:


“[Darwin’s] ideas were vindicated by the later discovery of the laws of hereditary (to which Darwin did not have access), and by a number of developments in the twentieth century. These included: the statistics of the process; direct observation of natural selection in vivo; irrefutable evidence for the interconnectedness of all living forms in the universality of the genetic code (linking the sequence of DNA to that in proteins); and by the evidence of genealogical connections between widely diverse species, based on sequence relationships in genetic DNA and in particular proteins. No professional biologist can honestly work now on any other basis than on recognising the historical connectedness of all living forms and of the role of natural selection in their mutual transformation over four billion years. As Theodor Dobzhanzky (an Orthodox Christian) affirmed, ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’.”
- Arthur Peacocke, Paths From Science Towards God: The End of all our Exploring (Oxford: Oneworld, 2001), pp. 66-67.

[Lion]

AAAh beleve, don't believe, believe, don't believe. Darwinism is based on a belief, and so are belief in resurrection and other miracles. They have no proof. Faith in darwinism is the same as belief in intelligent design, and this whole thread is a bunch of nonesense. To an observer looking at the inane posts in this thread it appears the whole bunch have nothing better to but talk about something nobody can get the upper hand, so why argue?

[A Beautiful Truth]

AAAh beleve, don't believe, believe, don't believe. Darwinism is based on a belief, and so are belief in resurrection and other miracles. They have no proof.

If there is no proof for the resurrection, then Christians are pitiable to be sure. I know it requires faith, but it is faith based on evidence. While nothing can be "proven" 100%, there is a level of trustworthiness that we can have that assures us of the truth of the matter.

As for ID, I am unsure. It seems evolutionists have reasonable answers for the IDists. But the converse is true as well, the IDists have reasonable answers for the evolutionists. I admit I am unqualified as yet to make a call on it. If I thought that belief in the Bible as the Word of God depended on the science of it, I would become qualified to make that call. I am not convinced that such is required, however.

But this is not the same with the resurrection of Christ. Regarding His resurrection, the side of reason rests with the Christian. There is ample "proof" to believe.

We Christians do not trust in "Peter Pan" theology--just believing it enough does not make it "true". No, if Christ did not raise, Christianity is a crock.

~Charleen

[geochron]

AAAh beleve, don't believe, believe, don't believe. Darwinism is based on a belief, and so are belief in resurrection and other miracles. They have no proof. Faith in darwinism is the same as belief in intelligent design, and this whole thread is a bunch of nonesense. To an observer looking at the inane posts in this thread it appears the whole bunch have nothing better to but talk about something nobody can get the upper hand, so why argue?

"Darwinism" is a belief within science. Intelligent design is supposed to be a belief within science. Scientific beliefs are supposed to be grounded in observational evidence - that's the defining characteristic of science. Thus this is not a case where one belief is as good as another. All participants, in claiming to be scientific, have accepted the way in which their beliefs are to be tested.

[Cleombrotus]

Perhaps it would be better to end it & start a new thread. It became clear - before this turned into a debate about miracles - that the initial post was really just a hit & run attack on "Darwinists." The initiator of the thread apparently has had no interest in the facts (as I noted in Post #11) that (a) there seem to be questions about whether or not genuine peer review took place with this article, & (b) there is no indication in the paper that Meyer really gave any explanation of the origin of biological information beyond "An Intelligent Designer did it." This suggests that the original poster was only interested in giving the impression that "Darwinists" are meanies.

Shalom,
George


Assuming that I am the "initiator of the thread" you refer to, allow me to *ahem* "defend" myself against scurrilous charges.

I never had any intentions of turning this thing into a debate. The post was simply a notice of a controversy that had developed over the publication of an article favorable to Intelligent Design in a "peer-reviewed journal". I think the turning of it into a debate occurred at the hands of others who apparently are bit insecure in their belief in Darwinism.

I do, however, think Darwinists are meanies, having encountered quite a few of them in my short life and finding them universally prone to insisting that the subject of origins must be addressed from the perspective of materialistic presuppositions only.

But that's a topic for another thread.

Regards,
Cleombrotus

[geochron]

I do, however, think Darwinists are meanies, having encountered quite a few of them in my short life and finding them universally prone to insisting that the subject of origins must be addressed from the perspective of materialistic presuppositions only.



From a scientific point of view, any subject can only be addressed from a perspective for which there can be evidence. So, if you're claiming to offer a scientific point of view you can expect scientists to be "meanies". If you don't claim to be offering science, then nobody can object to your addressing things from another perspective. Just don't turn round and claim to have scientific evidence to back up your position!

[Cleombrotus]

From a scientific point of view, any subject can only be addressed from a perspective for which there can be evidence. So, if you're claiming to offer a scientific point of view you can expect scientists to be "meanies". If you don't claim to be offering science, then nobody can object to your addressing things from another perspective. Just don't turn round and claim to have scientific evidence to back up your position!



I'm torn between responding with "I rest my case" or " Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the last time I looked, the issue the IDers are most concerned with is not insisting that their view is the scientific one as the Darwinists do but, rather, allowing the scientific evidence for valid criticisms of the claims of Darwinism to be given an equal hearing. Something the Darwinian fundamentalists have admittted they cannot allow."


Decisions, decisions.

[George Murphy]

Assuming that I am the "initiator of the thread" you refer to, allow me to *ahem* "defend" myself against scurrilous charges.

I never had any intentions of turning this thing into a debate. The post was simply a notice of a controversy that had developed over the publication of an article favorable to Intelligent Design in a "peer-reviewed journal". I think the turning of it into a debate occurred at the hands of others who apparently are bit insecure in their belief in Darwinism.

I do, however, think Darwinists are meanies, having encountered quite a few of them in my short life and finding them universally prone to insisting that the subject of origins must be addressed from the perspective of materialistic presuppositions only.

But that's a topic for another thread.What's the point of your pompous opening sentence? Is not post #1 in this thread yours? Or is there more than 1 "Cleombrotus"?

A claim that that debate about something posted in this forum would be unexpected seems *ahem* "disingenuous." & challenge to the type of material that was posted has nothing to do with being "insecure" & a lot to do with a desire to stop ID urban myths.

& I note that you have nothing substantial to say about the 2 points I made earlier - that there are questions about the nature of the the peer-review in question and the argument in Meyer's paper itself.

Shalom,
George

[Cleombrotus]

What's the point of your pompous opening sentence? Is not post #1 in this thread yours? Or is there more than 1 "Cleombrotus"?

I always like to allow for the possibilty that I may be wrong. I have found it a good way of learning things.




A claim that that debate about something posted in this forum would be unexpected seems *ahem* "disingenuous." & challenge to the type of material that was posted has nothing to do with being "insecure" & a lot to do with a desire to stop ID urban myths.

I know what my intentions were. If you have evidence to the contrary. please present it.


& I note that you have nothing substantial to say about the 2 points I made earlier - that there are questions about the nature of the the peer-review in question and the argument in Meyer's paper itself.




That's why I posted no comments of my own on the controversy. I had no idea what the particulars of the issue were other than that there was a controversy.

Regards,
Cleombrotus

[geochron]

I'm torn between responding with "I rest my case" or " Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the last time I looked, the issue the IDers are most concerned with is not insisting that their view is the scientific one as the Darwinists do but, rather, allowing the scientific evidence for valid criticisms of the claims of Darwinism to be given an equal hearing. Something the Darwinian fundamentalists have admittted they cannot allow."


Decisions, decisions.

Valid criticisms are allowed, of course. Do you have any? The objections I'm familiar with to what ID people say rest on their inability to explain what they mean by information increase and how one sets about testing their criticisms.

Criticisms have to be scientifically testable as well.

[Cleombrotus]

Valid criticisms are allowed, of course. Do you have any?

I believe I have listed the extent of my criticisms. I leave it to those better equipped in the scientific disciplines than I to argue the finer points. They seem to be doing a rather good job of it, IMO. The days when Darwinism enjoyed the hegemonic position of an unassailable scientific theory are over. Now the argument is over who controls the avenues of information dissemination.




The objections I'm familiar with to what ID people say rest on their inability to explain what they mean by information increase and how one sets about testing their criticisms.

Criticisms have to be scientifically testable as well.

It's not the IDers who are putting up the resistance to the idea of their theories being tested. That's what the controversy is all about; getting an equal hearing.

[geochron]

I believe I have listed the extent of my criticisms. I leave it to those better equipped in the scientific disciplines than I to argue the finer points. They seem to be doing a rather good job of it, IMO.



If you can't argue what you call "the finer points" why should anyone pay any attention to your opinion of whether others are doing a good job? Many have come here with the ID information argument, none have managed to put it in a form in which it is both testable and not trivially falsified




It's not the IDers who are putting up the resistance to the idea of their theories being tested. That's what the controversy is all about; getting an equal hearing.



But it is. Leaving aside the commonplace that if I have a theory it's up to me to test it, they don't even seem able to suggest an experiment that would test their theories for someone else to do.

Unless you know better. Since you think the problem is simply that people won't test the ID theory because they are prejudiced, please suggest a test that someone could perform.

[George Murphy]

That's why I posted no comments of my own on the controversy. I had no idea what the particulars of the issue were other than that there was a controversy.Let's see. A person who is simply pointing out that there is a controversy would give the thread a relatively neutral & objective title - maybe like "Darwinists
squelching ID debate." That certainly wouldn't suggest that the poster was pusrsuing an ID agenda!

Give it up! We can see you working. Promoting the notion that there's a "controversy" about evolution, with no attention at all to the merits of the controversy, is a standard anti-evolution gimmick. It may succeed in convincing the uninformed that they don't have to take evolution seriously but has no place in a discussion among people really interested in the issues.

Shalom,
George

[Cleombrotus]

If you can't argue what you call "the finer points" why should anyone pay any attention to your opinion of whether others are doing a good job? Many have come here with the ID information argument, none have managed to put it in a form in which it is both testable and not trivially falsified



But it is. Leaving aside the commonplace that if I have a theory it's up to me to test it, they don't even seem able to suggest an experiment that would test their theories for someone else to do.

Unless you know better. Since you think the problem is simply that people won't test the ID theory because they are prejudiced, please suggest a test that someone could perform.

Mr. geochron, I believe you are either deliberately missing my point and attempting to introduce a red herring of sizeable proportions riding on the back of an even larger strawman or you really don't get my point. Either way, I decline your invitation to debate.

[Cleombrotus]

Let's see. A person who is simply pointing out that there is a controversy would give the thread a relatively neutral & objective title - maybe like "Darwinists
squelching ID debate." That certainly wouldn't suggest that the poster was pusrsuing an ID agenda!

Give it up! We can see you working. Promoting the notion that there's a "controversy" about evolution, with no attention at all to the merits of the controversy, is a standard anti-evolution gimmick. It may succeed in convincing the uninformed that they don't have to take evolution seriously but has no place in a discussion among people really interested in the issues.

Shalom,
George


George, why don't you simply take the time and trouble to read the original post once again. It's a quite neutral presentation of the facts.

Regards,
Cleombrotus

[geochron]

Mr. geochron, I believe you are either deliberately missing my point and attempting to introduce a red herring of sizeable proportions riding on the back of an even larger strawman or you really don't get my point. Either way, I decline your invitation to debate.

That's Dr Geochron, if you insist on being formal :smile:

You say that ID doesn't get a fair shake...




It's not the IDers who are putting up the resistance to the idea of their theories being tested. That's what the controversy is all about; getting an equal hearing.



All I'm asking is that you give an example of a way of testing ID that the mainstream community is ignoring.

Otherwise it's hard to resist the conclusion that you're statement is unsupported.

(I didn't invite you to debate, I asked you to support the above statement.)

[Cleombrotus]

That's Dr Geochron, if you insist on being formal :smile:

You say that ID doesn't get a fair shake...



All I'm asking is that you give an example of a way of testing ID that the mainstream community is ignoring.

Otherwise it's hard to resist the conclusion that you're statement is unsupported.

(I didn't invite you to debate, I asked you to support the above statement.)


*sigh* o O (must I really get dragged into the tar-baby of an evolution/creation debate just to scratch some other guy's itch?)

No, Doc. I say that the portion of the scientific community that has a materialistic predisopsition to the question of origins is having an increasingly difficult time fending off the challenges to their orthodoxy by that portion of the scientific community that holds a diffferent disposition, and for the layman like myself, it is delightful to watch the lengths the materialists will go to protect their sinecure.

Now, please, if you really wish to argue the finer points of the theories behind both positions, go pick on someone your own size.


Either that or please tell me what scientific principles a layman like myself would be familar with that the IDers have proposed that have been shown to be unsound?

[George Murphy]

George, why don't you simply take the time and trouble to read the original post once again. It's a quite neutral presentation of the facts.
Be serious! The title you gave the thread is about as un-neutral as possible. Furthermore, you didn't even bother to follow up the link you yourself supplied to see that there are significant questions about the facts you presented.

There's little to be gained by continuing this debate. I'm willing to attribute your statements to simple ineptitude rather than deliberate malice.

Shalom,
George

[Cleombrotus]

Be serious! The title you gave the thread is about as un-neutral as possible. Furthermore, you didn't even bother to follow up the link you yourself supplied to see that there are significant questions about the facts you presented.

There's little to be gained by continuing this debate. I'm willing to attribute your statements to simple ineptitude rather than deliberate malice.




You could have saved yourself some considerable anxiety if that had been your approach from the start, George. :grin:

[George Murphy]

You could have saved yourself some considerable anxiety if that had been your approach from the start, George. :grin:The only thing I've been anxious about here is to spike ID propaganda. I think that's been done pretty effectively, thank you.

Shalom,
George

[Cleombrotus]

The only thing I've been anxious about here is to spike ID propaganda. I think that's been done pretty effectively, thank you.

Shalom,
George


One has to wonder what would cause you to feel the need to do that?

[George Murphy]

One has to wonder what would cause you to feel the need to do that?One does wonder why you keep posting when you have nothing to say.

Shalom,
George

[Cleombrotus]

One does wonder why you keep posting when you have nothing to say.

Shalom,
George


George,

I've been trying to tell you that from the beginning. It was you and the other materialists who were threatened by the original post that have kept this thread alive, not I.


Cleombrotus

[geochron]

*sigh* o O (must I really get dragged into the tar-baby of an evolution/creation debate just to scratch some other guy's itch?)



Makes no odds to me. You make assertions, I'm asking what grounds you have for making them. That's all.




No, Doc. I say that the portion of the scientific community that has a materialistic predisopsition to the question of origins is having an increasingly difficult time fending off the challenges to their orthodoxy by that portion of the scientific community that holds a diffferent disposition, and for the layman like myself, it is delightful to watch the lengths the materialists will go to protect their sinecure.



Another assertion with no visible means of support.




Now, please, if you really wish to argue the finer points of the theories behind both positions, go pick on someone your own size.



I don't want to argue anything. I'd like to understand on what you base the opinions you persent here.




Either that or please tell me what scientific principles a layman like myself would be familar with that the IDers have proposed that have been shown to be unsound?



I have absolutely no idea, you're the one making assertions. Perhaps your inability to understand the concept of offering evidence in support of an assertion explains why you are impressed by IDers? :smile:

[George Murphy]

George,

I've been trying to tell you that from the beginning. It was you and the other materialists who were threatened by the original post that have kept this thread alive, not I.You have no basis for saying that I am a "materialist," and the statement is false. But keep it up. Every post you send out helps just a bit to discredit the
ID movement.

Shalom,
George

[Cleombrotus]

You have no basis for saying that I am a "materialist," and the statement is false. But keep it up. Every post you send out helps just a bit to discredit the
ID movement.

Shalom,
George

You give yourself away, George.

What scientist without a stake in materialism would approach the issue with a need to discredit the "ID movement", as you say, rather than to examine what they are proposing as an impartial and objective scientist would?

Edison would not have hired you.

[Cleombrotus]

Makes no odds to me. You make assertions, I'm asking what grounds you have for making them. That's all.

Casual observation, Doc.



Another assertion with no visible means of support.

Ditto



I don't want to argue anything. I'd like to understand on what you base the opinions you persent here.

Again, casual observation.




I have absolutely no idea,

Then what the heck are we arguing about?



you're the one making assertions. Perhaps your inability to understand the concept of offering evidence in support of an assertion explains why you are impressed by IDers? :smile:

I don't know, Doc, but it seems to this casual observer and scientific novice that those who are considered IDers are presenting some compelling evidence for their thesis while their critics seem to be largely falling back on the time-tested genetic fallacy to discredit them.

For some reason.

[geochron]

Casual observation, Doc...



Casual observation of... ?




Then what the heck are we arguing about?



We aren't arguing. I'm simply asking what observations, casual or otherwise, you base your statements on.




I don't know, Doc, but it seems to this casual observer and scientific novice that those who are considered IDers are presenting some compelling evidence ...



And the evidence you find compelling is...?

To clarify, I'd be interested if you could complete the following sentence.

One of the pieces of evidence the IDers present that I think is compelling is...

Then I'll know whether I agree with you or not. I'm not sure why this has become an epic - I don't care whether you can defend the evidence, I'd just like to know what it is. But perhaps if you present one of these pieces of compelling evidence one of the mainstream evolutionists on the board might explain why they don't find it compelling. This will allow us form an opinion about whether it is really a materialistic hegemony or simply a disagreement about what makes for compelling evidence.

[George Murphy]

You give yourself away, George.

What scientist without a stake in materialism would approach the issue with a need to discredit the "ID movement", as you say, rather than to examine what they are proposing as an impartial and objective scientist would?

Edison would not have hired you.What makes you think I haven't examined their proposals?

In fact I have. & if you'd like to see why I - as a scientist and as a theologians - have problems with ID claims, you could look at a short article of mine, "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem" in the ELCA theology-science bulletin Covalence for Summer 2002. You can find it online at
http://www.elca.org/faithandscience/covalence/covalence_vol4_no2.pdf .
If you really want to carry on a serious discussion about this why don't you read that to get up to speed?

I'd also be happy to send you a copy of the review I did of Dembski's Intelligent Design for Trinity Seminary Review a few years ago. It isn't online & I may not be able to dig up the old efile so I'd need your snailmail address.

Shalom,
George

[kuboes1831]

George,

I've been trying to tell you that from the beginning. It was you and the other materialists who were threatened by the original post that have kept this thread alive, not I.


Cleombrotus

This is totally offensive as you falsely accuse George Murphy, a fine Christian man, of being a materialist i.e an atheist.

I await your abject apology.

[Cleombrotus]

This is totally offensive as you falsely accuse George Murphy, a fine Christian man, of being a materialist i.e an atheist.

I await your abject apology.


I know how you feel. I looked in vain for a smilie with his tongue in his cheek also.

[Cleombrotus]

Casual observation of... ?



We aren't arguing. I'm simply asking what observations, casual or otherwise, you base your statements on.


Conversations like this one, Doc, for example.



And the evidence you find compelling is...?

To clarify, I'd be interested if you could complete the following sentence.

One of the pieces of evidence the IDers present that I think is compelling is...

Then I'll know whether I agree with you or not. I'm not sure why this has become an epic - I don't care whether you can defend the evidence, I'd just like to know what it is. But perhaps if you present one of these pieces of compelling evidence one of the mainstream evolutionists on the board might explain why they don't find it compelling. This will allow us form an opinion about whether it is really a materialistic hegemony or simply a disagreement about what makes for compelling evidence.

Doc, you still don't get it, do you?

"Perhaps if you present one of these pieces of compelling evidence one of the mainstream evolutionists on the board might explain why they don't find it compelling. This will allow us form (sic) an opinion about whether it is really a materialistic hegemony or simply a disagreement about what makes for compelling evidence"

Did you really think before you posted that? Or haven't you been paying attention to what it is I have been saying? Or is it that you are simply so locked into your materialistic paradigm that your ideology is leading your scholarship?

Or did you just think that I am so stupid that I would fall for that?


Now I will ask you a question:

I am threatened by the idea of creation because...?

[Cleombrotus]

What makes you think I haven't examined their proposals?

In fact I have. & if you'd like to see why I - as a scientist and as a theologians - have problems with ID claims, you could look at a short article of mine, "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem" in the ELCA theology-science bulletin Covalence for Summer 2002. You can find it online at
http://www.elca.org/faithandscience/covalence/covalence_vol4_no2.pdf .
If you really want to carry on a serious discussion about this why don't you read that to get up to speed?

I'd also be happy to send you a copy of the review I did of Dembski's Intelligent Design for Trinity Seminary Review a few years ago. It isn't online & I may not be able to dig up the old efile so I'd need your snailmail address.

Shalom,
George\

I think I already know why you, as a theologian, have a problem with ID.

But I might just look up your article, for intellectual exercise, and you just might get my snailmail addy on private message one of these days.

But I'd better read Dembski first, don't you think?

[geochron]

Conversations like this one, Doc, for example.



As I recall, all I've done is ask you what evidence you find compelling. So you say that you find things compelling because someone on a message board asks you what you find compelling? The logic is hard to follow.




"Perhaps if you present one of these pieces of compelling evidence one of the mainstream evolutionists on the board might explain why they don't find it compelling. This will allow us form (sic) an opinion about whether it is really a materialistic hegemony or simply a disagreement about what makes for compelling evidence"

Did you really think before you posted that? Or haven't you been paying attention to what it is I have been saying? Or is it that you are simply so locked into your materialistic paradigm that your ideology is leading your scholarship?



Asking a question is all there is to this particular scholarship.




Or did you just think that I am so stupid that I would fall for that?



Fall for what? You say you find the evidence compelling, but for some reason you won't tell us what evidence you find compelling. It strikes me as bizarre.

Perhaps as a substitute you'd like to explain why you won't say what the evidence you find compelling is.




Now I will ask you a question:

I am threatened by the idea of creation because...?

[/quote]

But I'm not threatened by the idea of creation. I don't think that the evidence supports Young Earth Creationism. As for ID, I've not yet seen any convincing evidence for it, or a suggestion of how it might be ruled out. Similarly, I've seen no evidence that the world was created yesterday complete with memories and no suggestion as to how it might be ruled out. I have no investment in evolution except insofar as it seems a better fit to the data than anything else, though I admit I'm not an expert. For some reason you won't tell me what the evidence that convinced you is, so I have no reason to change that opinion.

[Cleombrotus]

As I recall, all I've done is ask you what evidence you find compelling. So you say that you find things compelling because someone on a message board asks you what you find compelling? The logic is hard to follow.



Asking a question is all there is to this particular scholarship.



Fall for what? You say you find the evidence compelling, but for some reason you won't tell us what evidence you find compelling. It strikes me as bizarre.

Perhaps as a substitute you'd like to explain why you won't say what the evidence you find compelling is.




But I'm not threatened by the idea of creation. I don't think that the evidence supports Young Earth Creationism. As for ID, I've not yet seen any convincing evidence for it, or a suggestion of how it might be ruled out. Similarly, I've seen no evidence that the world was created yesterday complete with memories and no suggestion as to how it might be ruled out. I have no investment in evolution except insofar as it seems a better fit to the data than anything else, though I admit I'm not an expert. For some reason you won't tell me what the evidence that convinced you is, so I have no reason to change that opinion.


Ever hear of "talking past each other", Doc? You're still trying to argue creation vs. evolution and I'm still talking about the IDers getting their views heard in the scientific and academic community without having their scholarship filtered through the prejudices of their opponents who, at the present time control the avenues of information dissemination.

As near as I can tell, the major point of the IDers is not "Creationism", a concept often confused with "Intelligent Design", but rather that the scientific evidence we now have presents some compelling reasons for questioning the legitimacy of presenting evolution as the only expanation for origins and the processes of natural development.

So, perhaps you can see why I dodged your tendentious question?

But just so there's no hard feelings: Irreducible Complexity has always made me say, "Hey, yeah, what about that?"
Know what I mean?

[geochron]

Ever hear of "talking past each other", Doc? You're still trying to argue creation vs. evolution and I'm still talking about the IDers getting their views heard in the scientific and academic community without having their scholarship filtered through the prejudices of their opponents who, at the present time control the avenues of information dissemination.



No, we aren't talking past one another. You claim that IDers don't get a fair shake, but it's at least possible that they get the shake they deserve. The only way to tell the difference was if you had some ID point that the mainstream community could use or investigate, but wasn't using or investigating.

I'm questioning the grounds on which you are so certain that it is prejudice and not quality control that keeps ID out of the literature.




As near as I can tell, the major point of the IDers is not "Creationism", a concept often confused with "Intelligent Design", but rather that the scientific evidence we now have presents some compelling reasons for questioning the legitimacy of presenting evolution as the only expanation for origins and the processes of natural development.



Well they say that, others disagree. Why so sure one side is right if you can't say what the compelling reasons are?




So, perhaps you can see why I dodged your tendentious question?



It's not a tendentious question. It's reasonable to ask what grounds you have for your assertions.




But just so there's no hard feelings: Irreducible Complexity has always made me say, "Hey, yeah, what about that?"
Know what I mean?



Yes, of course. But if they have compelling reasons I've not seen them (I've not looked that hard, but I'm not claiming to be sure one way or the other whether it is bias or reason that keeps them out of the literature). And it's not materialist bias either way since, as I believe you pointed out, ID and creationism are not the same thing. ID might well be constructed as a materialist theory.

[Cleombrotus]

No, we aren't talking past one another. You claim that IDers don't get a fair shake, but it's at least possible that they get the shake they deserve. The only way to tell the difference was if you had some ID point that the mainstream community could use or investigate, but wasn't using or investigating.

What blatant nonsense. Show me one "ID point" in a high school biology textbook, presented as an "ID point", i.e. making the point that Darwinian theory has holes and should be questioned..



I'm questioning the grounds on which you are so certain that it is prejudice and not quality control that keeps ID out of the literature.


Quality control? Quality control would show that the scientific principles that IDers use are unsound and that this is the reason that they are being discounted, not because they disagree with the ruling orthodoxy. Got any examples of that?




Well they say that, others disagree. Why so sure one side is right if you can't say what the compelling reasons are?

Again, the point isn't which side is right, Doc. It's about allowing both sides to be heard.




It's not a tendentious question. It's reasonable to ask what grounds you have for your assertions.


No, it's a very tendentious question. And my opinion of what constitutes compelling has no bearing on what we are discussing.
But I want to return to that ridiculous proposal you offered:

"Perhaps if you present one of these pieces of compelling evidence one of the mainstream evolutionists on the board might explain why they don't find it compelling. This will allow us form (sic) an opinion about whether it is really a materialistic hegemony or simply a disagreement about what makes for compelling evidence."

So, in other words, the evolutionists get to determine the terms of the debate and the definitions used. And you don't think that's hegemonic? I got a better idea: let's present both sides of the argument to high school students who have not been indoctrinated with materialistic ideology (like home schoolers) and let them decide which side's arguments are persuasive. No, wait...scratch that. Let's just present them to all high school students. Got any problems with that idea?





Yes, of course. But if they have compelling reasons I've not seen them (I've not looked that hard, but I'm not claiming to be sure one way or the other whether it is bias or reason that keeps them out of the literature).

Oh, stop.



And it's not materialist bias either way since, as I believe you pointed out, ID and creationism are not the same thing. ID might well be constructed as a materialist theory.


If ID were constructed as a materialist theory, you guys would be showering them with grants and tenure, and proclaiming it in Second Coming type. Who are you trying to kid?

[geochron]

What blatant nonsense. Show me one "ID point" in a high school biology textbook, presented as an "ID point", i.e. making the point that Darwinian theory has holes and should be questioned..



Show me one valid criticism that should be in a textbook. That's essentially all I've been asking.




Quality control? Quality control would show that the scientific principles that IDers use are unsound and that this is the reason that they are being discounted, not because they disagree with the ruling orthodoxy. Got any examples of that?



So far I've not seen any principles one way or another from you. The principles offered previously by others seemed unsound to me. The "no information increase" argument seems to me to be a good example of something discounted as a criticism because it's flawed




Again, the point isn't which side is right, Doc. It's about allowing both sides to be heard.



Science is not some touchy feely thing, however, it's entirely about which sides are wrong. Theories are judged against well established criteria - "are they falsifiable" is one, "what do they explain that other theories don't explain" is another.




No, it's a very tendentious question. And my opinion of what constitutes compelling has no bearing on what we are discussing.



It strikes to the very heart of your point. You say ID is being ignored unjustly. If it has nothing compelling to say ignoring it is not unjust. Your point rests on the notion that ID offers some compelling evidence for itself (or against evolution, I gather from what you post above). If you can't offer such evidence then you are just wasting electrons! :smile:




"Perhaps if you present one of these pieces of compelling evidence one of the mainstream evolutionists on the board might explain why they don't find it compelling. This will allow us form (sic) an opinion about whether it is really a materialistic hegemony or simply a disagreement about what makes for compelling evidence."

So, in other words, the evolutionists get to determine the terms of the debate and the definitions used. And you don't think that's hegemonic?



That's rather paranoid.

You put your point of view, the evolutionist gets to put his or her point of view, the debate can go on as long as either side wants, anyone reading can make their own mind up. What's the problem?

We (you, me, anyone reading this thread) can each decide whether they are impressed by your example or by any counterarguments. The basis on which we each decide is of course up to us as individuals.




I got a better idea: let's present both sides of the argument to high school students who have not been indoctrinated with materialistic ideology (like home schoolers) and let them decide which side's arguments are persuasive. No, wait...scratch that. Let's just present them to all high school students. Got any problems with that idea?



None at all - they are entitled to decide for themselves what they find persuasive just as you and I are, just as the scientific community is. But don't pretend it is a science class. Science classes in high school cover accepted mainstream science. (Are you saying that home-schooled children aren't indoctrinated with any ideology, btw?)




Oh, stop.

If ID were constructed as a materialist theory, you guys would be showering them with grants and tenure, and proclaiming it in Second Coming type. Who are you trying to kid?



Do you actually know anything much about ID? ID is constructed as a materialist theory - they are v. careful not to specify a supernatural element, they merely attempt to demonstrate that design is required (that's my understanding from previous ID defenders here, anyway, I'm prepared to be wrong if you ever feel like explaining ID). Design by an alien species is one option, for instance.

As yet it's not a successful theory, but so what? Any time you go up against the accepted theory you can expect a struggle - why should ID be different? As it happens I'm in the middle of writing a paper questioning a widely accepted theory in my field - and believe me I've had some fairly unpleasant comments from other workers. That's how science works. You win by demonstrating some new insight your theory can provide in the teeth of a hostile community. ID is not getting special "nasty" treatment as far as I can see.

[chickenman]

what a load of crap
squelching ID?
whats to squelch? they HAVEN'T DONE ANY RESEARCH

thats why they don't deserve equal status with evolution, pure and simple. Until they do, all this nonsense about fair treatment is just whinging

[geochron]

A: I think pointilisitic design should be covered in schools and is unjustly ignored by a scientific establishment biased against it.

B: Really! What's pointilisitic design?

A. That's not relevant.

B: OK, so what makes you such a fan of it?

A: This isn't about me, it's about pointilisitic design .

:rofl:

[Cleombrotus]

Show me one valid criticism that should be in a textbook. That's essentially all I've been asking.

Irreducible complexity. And, no, you haven't been asking. You've been defending evolutionary theory and its claims to exclusivity.




So far I've not seen any principles one way or another from you.

That's because your strawman is standing in the way. Tell him to move and you might see the principle.




The principles offered previously by others seemed unsound to me. The "no information increase" argument seems to me to be a good example of something discounted as a criticism because it's flawed

Fine. So you've made up your mind. Now, how about we allow high school students the same opportunity, what'dya say?




Science is not some touchy feely thing, however, it's entirely about which sides are wrong.

Spoken like a true advocate of scientism, who sees science as a conflict of ideologies instead of a journey of mutual discovery towards truth.




Theories are judged against well established criteria - "are they falsifiable" is one, "what do they explain that other theories don't explain" is another.

...whatever that has to do with what we are discussing.




It strikes to the very heart of your point. You say ID is being ignored unjustly. If it has nothing compelling to say ignoring it is not unjust.


No, I did not say that ID is being ignored. Ignoring it would be one thing. It is being aggressively resisted. That's quite another.
As Robert Harris puts it in his book, the Integration of Faith and Learning, A Worldview Approach: What other arena of knowledge uses the court system to rule out ideas that oppose the dominant ideology, as does the evolutionary establishment in seeking to ban in the public schools all discussion of weaknesses in evolutionary theory or alternatives to it?"




Your point rests on the notion that ID offers some compelling evidence for itself (or against evolution, I gather from what you post above). If you can't offer such evidence then you are just wasting electrons! :smile:

No, Doc. That is the strawman you continue to drag into the discussion. My point rests on the notion that unless the "scientific communtiy" can show that the scientific principles that the IDers offer are unsound (and you have allowed that you know of none) their ideas deserve to be entered into the discussion of the theory of origins and development - in the school system where science is taught and theories are explored.




That's rather paranoid.

No, it's just basic reading comprehension skills.




You put your point of view, the evolutionist gets to put his or her point of view, the debate can go on as long as either side wants, anyone reading can make their own mind up. What's the problem?

o O ( he can't be this dense. He's a doctor, for crying out loud!)




We (you, me, anyone reading this thread) can each decide whether they are impressed by your example or by any counterarguments. The basis on which we each decide is of course up to us as individuals.

Fine, then let us put it into biology textbooks and let the high school students in on the fun too, what'd'ya say?




None at all - they are entitled to decide for themselves what they find persuasive just as you and I are, just as the scientific community is. But don't pretend it is a science class. Science classes in high school cover accepted mainstream science. (Are you saying that home-schooled children aren't indoctrinated with any ideology, btw?)


No one is arguing that high schools are not covering "accepted mainstream science". But there is a very large and growing contingent in the science community that is challenging whether what is accepted as "mainstream science" is really science and not philosophy and ideology.
(BTW, I hope you realize that you have just acknowledged that indoctrination is going on.)




Do you actually know anything much about ID? ID is constructed as a materialist theory - they are v. careful not to specify a supernatural element, they merely attempt to demonstrate that design is required (that's my understanding from previous ID defenders here, anyway, I'm prepared to be wrong if you ever feel like explaining ID).

Doc, I actually don't have to know anything about ID or any other subject, for that matter, as long as I can recognize a bad argument when I see one.
But the idea of design being required strikes at the heart of the evolutionary theory which allows no possibilty for intelligence to be involved. This is a major paradigmatic difference and the advocates know it. As I suspect you do also. And that is why they resist it so much. (And why they have to rely on such shoddy argumentation.)


Design by an alien species is one option, for instance.

Oh, good grief.


As yet it's not a successful theory, but so what? Any time you go up against the accepted theory you can expect a struggle - why should ID be different? As it happens I'm in the middle of writing a paper questioning a widely accepted theory in my field - and believe me I've had some fairly unpleasant comments from other workers. That's how science works. You win by demonstrating some new insight your theory can provide in the teeth of a hostile community. ID is not getting special "nasty" treatment as far as I can see.


Unpleasant comments? Unpleasant comments are like "What a load of crap. Squelching ID? What's to squelch? They haven't done any research" and other sophomoric approaches to the issue.
I get the impression the IDers are nor fazed by unpleasant comments. Let me know when they try to take you to court to have your scholarship disallowed, ok?
BTW, what kind of a doctor are you, anyway?

[chickenman]

But there is a very large and growing contingent in the science community that is challenging whether what is accepted as "mainstream science" is really science and not philosophy and ideology.
as far as i'm aware, this "large and growing contingent in the science community" is a myth
growing? perhaps
large? not at all

this misses the issue anyway, the word contingent needs to be replaced with "evidence" or "research"


Unpleasant comments? Unpleasant comments are like "What a load of crap. Squelching ID? What's to squelch? They haven't done any research" and other sophomoric approaches to the issue.
I get the impression the IDers are nor fazed by unpleasant comments. Let me know when they try to take you to court to have your scholarship disallowed, ok?
BTW, what kind of a doctor are you, anyway?

cool, you can do the same

AFAIK no court order is preventing IDists from doing research, or from presenting the results of this research to the scientific community

court orders are preventing them from teaching something as science before they've done that rather crucial step in science where you actually test the hypothesis you've proposed

its downright IMMORAL to expect to have a theory taught to children which hasn't provided a single piece of original research in its defense - we don't teach children untested hypotheses, for good reason

[geochron]

Irreducible complexity. And, no, you haven't been asking. You've been defending evolutionary theory and its claims to exclusivity.



I asked you what aspect of ID impressed you. Apart from explaining why I think it's an important question, that's all I've done.

Can you give us an example of something that actually is irreducibly complex?




Spoken like a true advocate of scientism, who sees science as a conflict of ideologies instead of a journey of mutual discovery towards truth.



"Truth" - exactly.




...whatever that [falsification etc]has to do with what we are discussing.



It has to do with how things get accepted into the body of scientific knowledge and then, eventually, included in textbooks.




No, I did not say that ID is being ignored. Ignoring it would be one thing. It is being aggressively resisted. That's quite another.
As Robert Harris puts it in his book, the Integration of Faith and Learning, A Worldview Approach: What other arena of knowledge uses the court system to rule out ideas that oppose the dominant ideology, as does the evolutionary establishment in seeking to ban in the public schools all discussion of weaknesses in evolutionary theory or alternatives to it?"



Science classes teach mainstream science. If you want ID taught in science classes it needs engage in and win the scientific debate. Which is why the content of ID is important.

On what basis would you decide which theories should be included in science classes and which not?




No, Doc. That is the strawman you continue to drag into the discussion. My point rests on the notion that unless the "scientific communtiy" can show that the scientific principles that the IDers offer are unsound (and you have allowed that you know of none) their ideas deserve to be entered into the discussion of the theory of origins and development - in the school system where science is taught and theories are explored.



No, in fact I pointed out that the principles as they have been presented to me are unsound. Which is why I invited you to show one which is sound, in your opinion. If "irreducible complexity" strikes you as sound, start a thread here and defend it.




No, it's just basic reading comprehension skills.



Then you need to work on them. :smile:




o O ( he can't be this dense. He's a doctor, for crying out loud!)



I guess I am that dense. I thought people making up their own minds was what you are in favour of.




Fine, then let us put it into biology textbooks and let the high school students in on the fun too, what'd'ya say?



I say win the scientific debate first, then you can put it in the textbooks. This is the hurdle every other theory has to get over, why should ID be different?




No one is arguing that high schools are not covering "accepted mainstream science". But there is a very large and growing contingent in the science community that is challenging whether what is accepted as "mainstream science" is really science and not philosophy and ideology.
(BTW, I hope you realize that you have just acknowledged that indoctrination is going on.)



Having read my Feyerabend, I think any education involves indoctrination of some sort (BTW, I note you didn't answer my question). Some evidence for the "large and growing contingent" would be appropriate, I think.




Doc, I actually don't have to know anything about ID or any other subject, for that matter, as long as I can recognize a bad argument when I see one.



Here's the bad argument...

A. X should be taught in schools.
B. OK, what's the content of X
A. I don't know.
B. Then how do you know it should be taught in schools?
A. Someone told me a load of guys like it and another bunch of guys went to court to stop it being taught in science class.




But the idea of design being required strikes at the heart of the evolutionary theory which allows no possibilty for intelligence to be involved. This is a major paradigmatic difference and the advocates know it. As I suspect you do also. And that is why they resist it so much. (And why they have to rely on such shoddy argumentation.)



The relevant arguments in this case are about whether there is any evidence for design. Do you have any?




Unpleasant comments? Unpleasant comments are like "What a load of crap. Squelching ID? What's to squelch? They haven't done any research" and other sophomoric approaches to the issue.
I get the impression the IDers are nor fazed by unpleasant comments. Let me know when they try to take you to court to have your scholarship disallowed, ok?



Nobody is stopping them from winning the argument in the same way any other scientist would win the argument. What any court case about school science classes does is stop them putting the cart before the horse.




BTW, what kind of a doctor are you, anyway?



I have a PhD in Physics and an academic position in Geology.

Are you saying, BTW, that the version of ID taught in schools should be restricted to a supernatural designer, a specific supernatural designer, or just a designer in general (given your reaction to my "intelligent aliens" point). Or is this another example where the content of what's to be taught in schools is irrelevant to whether it should be taught in schools.

[Cleombrotus]

as far as i'm aware, this "large and growing contingent in the science community" is a myth
growing? perhaps
large? not at all

this misses the issue anyway, the word contingent needs to be replaced with "evidence" or "research"


cool, you can do the same

AFAIK no court order is preventing IDists from doing research, or from presenting the results of this research to the scientific community

court orders are preventing them from teaching something as science before they've done that rather crucial step in science where you actually test the hypothesis you've proposed

its downright IMMORAL to expect to have a theory taught to children which hasn't provided a single piece of original research in its defense - we don't teach children untested hypotheses, for good reason

What hypothesis favoring the conclusion of evolutionary theory has been tested?

[Cleombrotus]

I asked you what aspect of ID impressed you. Apart from explaining why I think it's an important question, that's all I've done.

Can you give us an example of something that actually is irreducibly complex?



"Truth" - exactly.



It has to do with how things get accepted into the body of scientific knowledge and then, eventually, included in textbooks.



Science classes teach mainstream science. If you want ID taught in science classes it needs engage in and win the scientific debate. Which is why the content of ID is important.

On what basis would you decide which theories should be included in science classes and which not?



No, in fact I pointed out that the principles as they have been presented to me are unsound. Which is why I invited you to show one which is sound, in your opinion. If "irreducible complexity" strikes you as sound, start a thread here and defend it.



Then you need to work on them. :smile:



I guess I am that dense. I thought people making up their own minds was what you are in favour of.



I say win the scientific debate first, then you can put it in the textbooks. This is the hurdle every other theory has to get over, why should ID be different?



Having read my Feyerabend, I think any education involves indoctrination of some sort (BTW, I note you didn't answer my question). Some evidence for the "large and growing contingent" would be appropriate, I think.



Here's the bad argument...

A. X should be taught in schools.
B. OK, what's the content of X
A. I don't know.
B. Then how do you know it should be taught in schools?
A. Someone told me a load of guys like it and another bunch of guys went to court to stop it being taught in science class.



The relevant arguments in this case are about whether there is any evidence for design. Do you have any?



Nobody is stopping them from winning the argument in the same way any other scientist would win the argument. What any court case about school science classes does is stop them putting the cart before the horse.



I have a PhD in Physics and an academic position in Geology.

Are you saying, BTW, that the version of ID taught in schools should be restricted to a supernatural designer, a specific supernatural designer, or just a designer in general (given your reaction to my "intelligent aliens" point). Or is this another example where the content of what's to be taught in schools is irrelevant to whether it should be taught in schools.


So, Doc. As a Ph.D. in Geology, tell me, the layman: no sound reasons to question the hypotheses of evolutionary theory? All of the objections raised by members of the scientific community should be ignored?

[geochron]

So, Doc. As a Ph.D. in Geology, tell me, the layman: no sound reasons to question the hypotheses of evolutionary theory? All of the objections raised by members of the scientific community should be ignored?

As you'll see if you read the post you responded to (about 2 lines before your comment) my PhD is in Physics, not Geology. It's funny how those who appeal to their reading comprehension skills, as you did, routinely shoot themselves in the foot shortly afterwards. :smile:

I don't claim to be familiar with "all of the objections" raised to evolutionary theory. (That's why I've asked you which objections impress you - they might be ones I am not familiar with.) The ones I've been presented with on this board seem to me to be unsound. Rather than being ignored, their flaws should be (and are) regularly exposed for all to see.

Like all propositions claiming to be scientific, the worth of any new objections will be judged by the scientific commnunity.

[chickenman]

hypotheses of evolutionary theory tested and verified
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

a hypothesis generated from the theory of evolution and tested:

1: Nature. 2004 Apr 8;428(6983):617-24. Epub 2004 Mar 07. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Kellis M, Birren BW, Lander ES.

The Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA. manoli@mit.edu

Whole-genome duplication followed by massive gene loss and specialization has long been postulated as a powerful mechanism of evolutionary innovation. Recently, it has become possible to test this notion by searching complete genome sequence for signs of ancient duplication. Here, we show that the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae arose from ancient whole-genome duplication, by sequencing and analysing Kluyveromyces waltii, a related yeast species that diverged before the duplication. The two genomes are related by a 1:2 mapping, with each region of K. waltii corresponding to two regions of S. cerevisiae, as expected for whole-genome duplication. This resolves the long-standing controversy on the ancestry of the yeast genome, and makes it possible to study the fate of duplicated genes directly. Strikingly, 95% of cases of accelerated evolution involve only one member of a gene pair, providing strong support for a specific model of evolution, and allowing us to distinguish ancestral and derived functions.

PMID: 15004568 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Cleombrotus]

As you'll see if you read the post you responded to (about 2 lines before your comment) my PhD is in Physics, not Geology. It's funny how those who appeal to their reading comprehension skills, as you did, routinely shoot themselves in the foot shortly afterwards. :smile:

Touche.
(Even if it is a technicality.)




I don't claim to be familiar with "all of the objections" raised to evolutionary theory. (That's why I've asked you which objections impress you - they might be ones I am not familiar with.) The ones I've been presented with on this board seem to me to be unsound. Rather than being ignored, their flaws should be (and are) regularly exposed for all to see.

Doc, c'mon. Seriously. "this board"?




Like all propositions claiming to be scientific, the worth of any new objections will be judged by the scientific commnunity.

Does it not interest you that the objections are coming from members of that same community? And not merely from fringe group fanatics?

[Cleombrotus]

hypotheses of evolutionary theory tested and verified
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

a hypothesis generated from the theory of evolution and tested:

While having a somewhat limited understanding of the technical terms and principles presented, it appears to me that what you have presented is an example of micro-evolution, of which there is no controversy. In such cases as this, every Theist I know could be considered an "evolutionist".

One of the problems encountered in discussions such as we are having is that the terms are not clearly defined and when an evolutionist says "evolution" and presents evidence for it, he is very often addressing micro-evolution, that is changes within the type under study, for which there are ample proofs and there are no objections.
But those who object to the claims of the theory of evolution are usually intending those claims which touch upon transformations and adaptations between species, that is, macro-evolution, and the implications that necessarily follow, for which there is scant, if any, evidence, yet are taught as fact.

[geochron]

Doc, c'mon. Seriously. "this board"?



Yep, this is the only place I hear about such things. ID vs evolution is a long way from my professional interests.




Does it not interest you that the objections are coming from members of that same community? And not merely from fringe group fanatics?



The theory that the sun is a supernova remnant comes from members of the community of solar system scientists with solid track records, but they understand they have to convince the community as a first step.

Whoever makes the objections, if they didn't interest me I wouldn't be asking you about the theory. Teaching them in schools has to come after getting them accepted by the mainstream, however. And that will depend on the content you are so reluctant to discuss.

Your opinion that this stuff should be taught in schools is clearly grounded in your belief that it is valid (I'm sure you wouldn't want incorrect things taughtin school). I'm surprised you aren't interested in discussing the content and hearing why other people don't agree that it's valid. Your position seems to be that objections to evolution should be taught in schools, valid or not, but your belief in id should not be exposed to criticism. There's a lack of a universal principle here.

[Cleombrotus]

Yep, this is the only place I hear about such things. ID vs evolution is a long way from my professional interests.

Yet you seem to have taken a position on the subject. Curious.


The theory that the sun is a supernova remnant comes from members of the community of solar system scientists with solid track records, but they understand they have to convince the community as a first step.

Whoever makes the objections, if they didn't interest me I wouldn't be asking you about the theory. Teaching them in schools has to come after getting them accepted by the mainstream, however. And that will depend on the content you are so reluctant to discuss.

The content is out there for anyone interested enough to look. Just don't look for them in high school textbooks in the public school system.


Your opinion that this stuff should be taught in schools is clearly grounded in your belief that it is valid (I'm sure you wouldn't want incorrect things taught in school).

Gee, where did you ever get that idea? :smile:


I'm surprised you aren't interested in discussing the content and hearing why other people don't agree that it's valid. Your position seems to be that objections to evolution should be taught in schools, valid or not, but your belief in id should not be exposed to criticism. There's a lack of a universal principle here.

(Valid or not?)

But I have, in fact, offered an example of one of the objections I find compelling. Let those who disagree marshal their defenses. But I would suggest they do it with another molecular biologist rather than with me. Imagine me trying to disagree with you about something in Physics. I think we all know what it's like to be on the wrong side of a debate with someone on the wrong side of an issue.
Have you read Michael Behe by any chance? Or any of the other critics?
It seems to me that if Galileo or Copernicus had as many scientists of their day behind them as the IDers have with them, we wouldn't have had to wait quite as long to reject outdated and erroneous theories and the consequences of those errors.

Regards,
Cleombrotus

[geochron]

And so we come full circle. I started out asking why you were so certain ID should be taught in schools given that you say you're not an expert. You're quite sure that the criticisms of ID are valid even though experts in relevant fields disagree with you. In fact, you're quite sure that these experts only disagree because they have a bias. While you're entitled to your opinion, as everyone is, it seems to me that your certainty contrasts with your limited knowledge of the arguments. Is it not possible that ID is rejected on sound scientific grounds? For some reason you think not.

As for irreducible complexity, we've been over that ground on this board several times. It seems to me that the position can usually be summed up thus.

1. ID proponents assert that it is theoretically possible to identify a subset of complex systems that cannot have evolved in principle -the probability of their arising by chance + natural selection alone is exactly zero. It follows that evolution is testable. The problem is that any system has a very small chance of arising spontaneously; and since the size of the universe is unknown, the argument cannot go to completion.

2. Neglecting the above demonstration of futility. ID proponents present various natural systems and assert that they are examples or irreducibly complex systems. I've found the examples I've been shown so far unconvincing. Experts in the various fields have also found them unconvincing.

So what, one might ask? Well, ID ought to be convincing the molecular biology (and other relevant) scientific communities by doing research. Having failied to convince their peers, their strategy now is to appeal to the public at large, painting themselves as Galileo-types. In effect, they want treating as a special case that doens't have to go to the bother of convincing the mainstream before being promoted in schools. At this point the opinions of ordinary punters (in this debate) like me are relevant.

Also, of course, for every Galileo there are thousands of Velikovskys. If the scientific community weren't fairly resistant to novelty we would have chased who knows how many red herrings?

Cheerio.

:smile:

[kuboes1831]

And so we come full circle. I started out asking why you were so certain ID should be taught in schools given that you say you're not an expert. You're quite sure that the criticisms of ID are valid even though experts in relevant fields disagree with you. In fact, you're quite sure that these experts only disagree because they have a bias. While you're entitled to your opinion, as everyone is, it seems to me that your certainty contrasts with your limited knowledge of the arguments. Is it not possible that ID is rejected on sound scientific grounds? For some reason you think not.

As for irreducible complexity, we've been over that ground on this board several times. It seems to me that the position can usually be summed up thus.

1. ID proponents assert that it is theoretically possible to identify a subset of complex systems that cannot have evolved in principle -the probability of their arising by chance + natural selection alone is exactly zero. It follows that evolution is testable. The problem is that any system has a very small chance of arising spontaneously; and since the size of the universe is unknown, the argument cannot go to completion.

2. Neglecting the above demonstration of futility. ID proponents present various natural systems and assert that they are examples or irreducibly complex systems. I've found the examples I've been shown so far unconvincing. Experts in the various fields have also found them unconvincing.

So what, one might ask? Well, ID ought to be convincing the molecular biology (and other relevant) scientific communities by doing research. Having failied to convince their peers, their strategy now is to appeal to the public at large, painting themselves as Galileo-types. In effect, they want treating as a special case that doens't have to go to the bother of convincing the mainstream before being promoted in schools. At this point the opinions of ordinary punters (in this debate) like me are relevant.

Also, of course, for every Galileo there are thousands of Velikovskys. If the scientific community weren't fairly resistant to novelty we would have chased who knows how many red herrings?

Cheerio.

:smile:

Excellent points geochron. I would like to know how ID can be applied more generally, say to glaciers and galcial scenery. I s a moraine intelligently designed?
Also why did BEHE argue that haemoglobin (correct spelling) is not designed and came about naturally but blood clotting is intelligently designed.
This hit me in the Alps some 6 years ago when I was climbing up a moraine at 10,oooft at considerable speed. The O2 interchange in my haemoglobin was working wonderfully and I was not out of breath at all and I thought "All that was not designed by God" I then looked down the headwall of the relic glacier and thought "Whoops if I slipped I would be shredded - and then the intelligent design of blood clotting would come into play"

ID is not only scientific nonsense wrapped up in superficially clever philosophical arguments it is also a theological nonsense as you end up with a two-tier creation with part designed and part not (see an essay in Debating Darwin CUP 2004 ed Ruse and Dembski)

[George Murphy]

Excellent points geochron. I would like to know how ID can be applied more generally, say to glaciers and galcial scenery. I s a moraine intelligently designed?
Also why did BEHE argue that haemoglobin (correct spelling) is not designed and came about naturally but blood clotting is intelligently designed.
This hit me in the Alps some 6 years ago when I was climbing up a moraine at 10,oooft at considerable speed. The O2 interchange in my haemoglobin was working wonderfully and I was not out of breath at all and I thought "All that was not designed by God" I then looked down the headwall of the relic glacier and thought "Whoops if I slipped I would be shredded - and then the intelligent design of blood clotting would come into play"

ID is not only scientific nonsense wrapped up in superficially clever philosophical arguments it is also a theological nonsense as you end up with a two-tier creation with part designed and part not (see an essay in Debating Darwin CUP 2004 ed Ruse and Dembski)The criticisms of ID here are quite correct. But I should note that Cleombrotus achieves his purpose as long as this thread, with the title "Darwinists squelching ID debate" remains active and visible to everybody who looks at this forum. The claim in that title has been shown to be questionable at best, and Cleombrotus has shown that he knows no science and has no business talking about it. I suggest that those who want to deal with the realities of the matter should start a thread with a more accurate title.

Shalom,
George

[Cleombrotus]

And so we come full circle. I started out asking why you were so certain ID should be taught in schools given that you say you're not an expert. You're quite sure that the criticisms of ID are valid even though experts in relevant fields disagree with you. In fact, you're quite sure that these experts only disagree because they have a bias. While you're entitled to your opinion, as everyone is, it seems to me that your certainty contrasts with your limited knowledge of the arguments. Is it not possible that ID is rejected on sound scientific grounds? For some reason you think not.

As for irreducible complexity, we've been over that ground on this board several times. It seems to me that the position can usually be summed up thus.

1. ID proponents assert that it is theoretically possible to identify a subset of complex systems that cannot have evolved in principle -the probability of their arising by chance + natural selection alone is exactly zero. It follows that evolution is testable. The problem is that any system has a very small chance of arising spontaneously; and since the size of the universe is unknown, the argument cannot go to completion.

2. Neglecting the above demonstration of futility. ID proponents present various natural systems and assert that they are examples or irreducibly complex systems. I've found the examples I've been shown so far unconvincing. Experts in the various fields have also found them unconvincing.

So what, one might ask? Well, ID ought to be convincing the molecular biology (and other relevant) scientific communities by doing research. Having failied to convince their peers, their strategy now is to appeal to the public at large, painting themselves as Galileo-types. In effect, they want treating as a special case that doens't have to go to the bother of convincing the mainstream before being promoted in schools. At this point the opinions of ordinary punters (in this debate) like me are relevant.

Also, of course, for every Galileo there are thousands of Velikovskys. If the scientific community weren't fairly resistant to novelty we would have chased who knows how many red herrings?

Cheerio.

:smile:

Heh heh. Can't resist, can you? You have an awful lot invested in Darwinism being true, don't you?

[Cleombrotus]

Excellent points geochron. I would like to know how ID can be applied more generally, say to glaciers and galcial scenery. I s a moraine intelligently designed?
Also why did BEHE argue that haemoglobin (correct spelling) is not designed and came about naturally but blood clotting is intelligently designed.
This hit me in the Alps some 6 years ago when I was climbing up a moraine at 10,oooft at considerable speed. The O2 interchange in my haemoglobin was working wonderfully and I was not out of breath at all and I thought "All that was not designed by God" I then looked down the headwall of the relic glacier and thought "Whoops if I slipped I would be shredded - and then the intelligent design of blood clotting would come into play"

ID is not only scientific nonsense wrapped up in superficially clever philosophical arguments it is also a theological nonsense as you end up with a two-tier creation with part designed and part not (see an essay in Debating Darwin CUP 2004 ed Ruse and Dembski)

Thanks for the editorial, Mr. kuboes. Your opinion has been noted.

[Cleombrotus]

The criticisms of ID here are quite correct. But I should note that Cleombrotus achieves his purpose as long as this thread, with the title "Darwinists squelching ID debate" remains active and visible to everybody who looks at this forum. The claim in that title has been shown to be questionable at best, and Cleombrotus has shown that he knows no science and has no business talking about it. I suggest that those who want to deal with the realities of the matter should start a thread with a more accurate title.

Shalom,
George

George, I hate to rock your worldview but this controversy is not limited to the pages of TWeb. Nor will it be settled here. An increasing number of accredited scientists are questioning the assumptions that ideologues such as yourself draw from the theory of evolution and are exposing their inability to effectively masquerade their dogma in scientific garb.
But, not to worry, there will always be something else to fight about as this conflict goes far beyond the scientific realm. Or haven't you been noticing for the last 2,004 years?

Regards,
Cleombrotus

P.S. the easiest way for this thread to die is for those who are threatened by it to simply ignore it.

[geochron]

Heh heh. Can't resist, can you? You have an awful lot invested in Darwinism being true, don't you?

Can't resist what? You seemed to want to discuss irreducible complexity, I summarised why I'm not convinced by it. Looks like you don't have an answer, which is why your conviction it should be taught in school carries so little weight.

I have very little investment in Darwinism - apart from picking holes in ID and othe creationist arguments hereabouts for fun I hardly ever think about it. It's not my fault your opinions are based on such shaky ground.

[Cleombrotus]

Can't resist what? You seemed to want to discuss irreducible complexity, I summarised why I'm not convinced by it. Looks like you don't have an answer, which is why your conviction it should be taught in school carries so little weight

I have very little investment in Darwinism - apart from picking holes in ID and othe creationist arguments hereabouts for fun I hardly ever think about it. It's not my fault your opinions are based on such shaky ground.


No, Doc, you want to argue about irreducible complexity.

I have accomplished what I wanted and that was merely to post an article on the continuing struggle between those who think Darwinism is the last word on the subject and those who do not.
If you are threatened by that situation, I suggest you look into the reasons why.

[George Murphy]

P.S. the easiest way for this thread to die is for those who are threatened by it to simply ignore it."those who are threatened by it" is an absurd misrepresentation. But yes, my point was that kuboes1831, geochron & others who actually know something about the relevant science stop wasting their time and giving you free publicity.

I should note, however, that the publicity you get here is a 2-edged sword. Anyone who actually reads the posts will see that you know nothing about the subject.

Shalom,
George

[kuboes1831]

"those who are threatened by it" is an absurd misrepresentation. But yes, my point was that kuboes1831, geochron & others who actually know something about the relevant science stop wasting their time and giving you free publicity.

I should note, however, that the publicity you get here is a 2-edged sword. Anyone who actually reads the posts will see that you know nothing about the subject.

Shalom,
George

Is Cleombrotus Intelligently designed?

[geochron]

Is Cleombrotus Intelligently designed?

Could be - his opinions about ID seem to be irreducibly complex. :wink:

[Cleombrotus]

"those who are threatened by it" is an absurd misrepresentation. But yes, my point was that kuboes1831, geochron & others who actually know something about the relevant science stop wasting their time and giving you free publicity.

I should note, however, that the publicity you get here is a 2-edged sword. Anyone who actually reads the posts will see that you know nothing about the subject.

Shalom,
George

Is that important to you, George? What people think about you?

[kuboes1831]

Is that important to you, George? What people think about you?

A good physicist and a good sound Christian theologian.

P.S. We dont always agree!!!!

[Cleombrotus]

A good physicist and a good sound Christian theologian.

P.S. We dont always agree!!!!


We should.

[rogero]

We should.


Huh?

[Cleombrotus]

Huh?


On something as critical as this is, we should agree. Why we do not is the real issue here.

[rogero]

On something as critical as this is, we should agree. Why we do not is the real issue here.


Yes, I think I see what you mean. All Christians (and most theists for that matter) believe in Creation by a Creator, so all things are ultimately "intelligently designed" at the highest level, but the disagreement appears to be with the Dembskian-type ID that is putatively detectable and distinguishable in some statistical sense from the results of natural processes. At least that is the way I see the disagreement, no one is denying God's ultimate design and action, just the particular manner that God carries this out and whether God's action is separable from the action of nature (which is held by us to be Creation.)

I hope this rambling response made a little sense. :wink:

[Cleombrotus]

Yes, I think I see what you mean. All Christians (and most theists for that matter) believe in Creation by a Creator, so all things are ultimately "intelligently designed" at the highest level, but the disagreement appears to be with the Dembskian-type ID that is putatively detectable and distinguishable in some statistical sense from the results of natural processes. At least that is the way I see the disagreement, no one is denying God's ultimate design and action, just the particular manner that God carries this out and whether God's action is separable from the action of nature (which is held by us to be Creation.)

I hope this rambling response made a little sense. :wink:



Where you come up with the idea that the disagreement has to do with "Dembskian-type ID" I do not know. As I have offered earlier, we were talking past each other. Now, that may have been by design; I don't know.

:wink: yourself.

p.s. The mistake that Theistic evolutionists make is in thinking that there is some compromise that they can reach with naturalistic evolutionists but that's merely an evasion of the issue and not a solution. Evolutionists are dead set on there being any intelligence behind the processes.

[rogero]

Where you come up with the idea that the disagreement has to do with "Dembskian-type ID" I do not know. As I have offered earlier, we were talking past each other. Now, that may have been by design; I don't know.

:wink: yourself.


I'm sorry then, but I truly don't understand what the "disagreement" is then. I thought the IP was about teaching ID (which I take to mean the Dembski variety -- IC, CSI, and the EF -- as developed in the past decade) in public schools?

If I'm wrong, please correct me, and please explain what you think the disagreement is. The only way to avoid talking past each other is to stop and carefully explain one's meaning.

R


P.S. I see you added the following postscript in an edit. This does explain things a bit.




p.s. The mistake that Theistic evolutionists make is in thinking that there is some compromise that they can reach with naturalistic evolutionists but that's merely an evasion of the issue and not a solution. Evolutionists are dead set on there being any intelligence behind the processes.

[rogero]

Where you come up with the idea that the disagreement has to do with "Dembskian-type ID" I do not know. As I have offered earlier, we were talking past each other. Now, that may have been by design; I don't know.

:wink: yourself.

p.s. The mistake that Theistic evolutionists make is in thinking that there is some compromise that they can reach with naturalistic evolutionists but that's merely an evasion of the issue and not a solution. Evolutionists are dead set on there being any intelligence behind the processes.


Then we do have a basic disagreement, since I don't believe TEs are "compromising" with naturalistic evolutionists anymore than they compromising with nuclear physicists. You're basically repeating Jorge's "core" issue, and such a debate has proved to be fruitless. And this really doesn't match the original post. I strongly disagree with the bolded sentence above.

R

[Cleombrotus]

Then we do have a basic disagreement, since I don't believe TEs are "compromising" with naturalistic evolutionists anymore than they compromising with nuclear physicists. You're basically repeating Jorge's "core" issue, and such a debate has proved to be fruitless. And this really doesn't match the original post. I strongly disagree with the bolded sentence above.

R


It should have read: "Naturalistic evolutionists are dead...etc." If you still disagree, then may I suggest that you do not understand the premise of naturalistic evolution.

I understand that it does not "match the original post". Your comments weren't about the original post. They were about the disagreement. It was what we call an "aside", to aid you in clarification.

[geochron]

Naturalist evolutionists think there is no evidence of intelligent interference in evolution and so see no reason to believe in such interference. ID proponents assert (incorrectly afaics) that there is compelling evidence of intelligent interference. Would it be fair to say theistic evolutionists believe there was intelligent guidance of evolution but accept that there is no scientific evidence of it?

[Cleombrotus]

Naturalist evolutionists think there is no evidence of intelligent interference in evolution and so see no reason to believe in such interference. ID proponents assert (incorrectly afaics) that there is compelling evidence of intelligent interference. Would it be fair to say theistic evolutionists believe there was intelligent guidance of evolution but accept that there is no scientific evidence of it?

Well, not exactly. It's a bit more "nuanced" than that.

Naturalistic evolution (NE) has as its stated goal to establish that there is no intelligent interference; IDers propose to to defeat this goal, not by showing intelligence, since that is an article of faith, but, rather, by showing intelligent evidence of the flaws in the theory. Theistic evolutionists (TEers) have already lost the battle by accepting the premise of the NEers.

Once again we see the double standard applied by the existentialists. The NEers wish to not be held accountable vis a vis their position on the question of God and insist that it is only the interest of science that informs their ideology whilst they demand that the IDers' arguments be viewed strictly on their position on the question and not on any scientific validity.

The large white elephant in the middle of the room is the fact that NE revolves around and gets its energy from the question of the existence of God; not science. The TEers are either blissfully unaware of this or choose to ignore it.