Originally posted by truthseeka
OK, my mere opinion may not sway you. Let's see if I get some support...

No worries mate your opinion is the least of my concerns. I am aware of the opposition and indeed it has been well represented in this thread right here by some thoughtfull and intelligent members. It obvious you have still chosen not to read it or the related information. You could have chosen to respond to my last post, which imo addressed everyone of your concerns.

Please don't post your Google search results or the adds from the right-hand side of the page in this thread...please(FYI you're not fooling anyone). This is a discussion board not a chat room and if you can't add anything to the conversation then please step aside... we all know how to 'google', thanks.

I'm sorry, but with a list of scientists that long who assert that ID is not a theory, plus my own understanding of what a theory is, leads one to believe that ID is not a theory.

Opinion noted, thanks.

And, honestly, since proponents claim it's scientific, it can't hold evolution's jock until it becomes a theory.

You had no idea how ID contradicted NDT until i'll told you a couple hours ago, now i should accept your learned opinion...*check*

Opinion noted, thanks.

Don't let the door hit ya, where the good Lord split ya.

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Rren]

Oh, I see...

Well, Byrd pretty much said all the stuff I would have said. You agree that ID can't make predictions, no? And, for the flagellum example, the "core" is not present in all flagella/cilia. There's a mutation in bacteria, I think, pf 14 or something like that, when the flagellum is missing at least one protein. But, under the right conditions or on the right genetic background, it still works.

Besides, what's the point of saying something is designed but not identifying the designer? And, how do we quantify design, or even intelligence? Intelligence is hard enough to quantify with us mere mortals, much less a powerful designer above humans. And, as for design, we humans are pretty good at finding patterns, so good, in fact, that we often see patterns where there are none. Based on this, how do we arbitrarily identify design?

Originally posted by truthseeka
Well, Byrd pretty much said all the stuff I would have said.

Interestingly enough, Byrd hasn't responded to even a single one of my rebuttals.

You agree that ID can't make predictions, no?

That's correct. IDT offers the same level of prediction as Neo-Darwian Theory.

And, for the flagellum example, the "core" is not present in all flagella/cilia. There's a mutation in bacteria, I think, pf 14 or something like that, when the flagellum is missing at least one protein. But, under the right conditions or on the right genetic background, it still works.

Nice try, but you'll need to be a little more specific. "I think, pf 14" doesn't cut it. Please back up your assertions with references.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Nice try, but you'll need to be a little more specific. "I think, pf 14" doesn't cut it. Please back up your assertions with references.

Aight...

The organism is a species of Chlamydomonas, not a bacterium. The mutant IS called pf 14, though. In this mutant, radial spoke 3 in the flagellum fails to assemble. It's a point mutation, to be specific; a premature stop codon (ochre, to be specific ) forms in the protein-coding region of the gene.

AND, like I said earlier, this flagellum will function under the right conditions. As for organisms with flagella that lack the center protein complex altogether, the eel sperm cell is an example. This flagellum even lacks the outer dynein proteins on its microtubules .

So, does this observational example provide evidence that Behe is wrong about the IC here? Remember, he said that if any ONE component was missing, the entire structure would not work.

Originally posted by truthseeka
The organism is a species of Chlamydomonas, not a bacterium.

Okay... awesome... a large portion of my graduate work was on Chlamy. BTW, chlamy is a eukaryote, and while the flagellum maintains significant homology to bacterial flagella, the eukaryotic version is signifcantly more complex, and thus actually includes many more unessential proteins than in prokaryotes.

The mutant IS called pf 14, though. In this mutant, radial spoke 3 in the flagellum fails to assemble. It's a point mutation, to be specific; a premature stop codon (ochre, to be specific ) forms in the protein-coding region of the gene.

By the way, this is not a reference. A reference refers specifically to your SOURCE of info. I can't tell where you got this info from.

Fortunately, I am familiar enough with Chlamy to have heard of this.

And you're wrong. The pf mutants, pf 14, pf 15 and pf 19 are called paralyzed mutants. Do you think this is because their flagella are in tact? Yes, the flagella DO in fact assemble, but as the decription 'paralyzed mutants' indicates, their flagella don't function in anything resembling a normal manner.

Care to try again?

AND, like I said earlier, this flagellum will function under the right conditions. As for organisms with flagella that lack the center protein complex altogether, the eel sperm cell is an example. This flagellum even lacks the outer dynein proteins on its microtubules .

Under the "right conditions," what conditions are these? The scientists were wrong to name this mutant paralyzed. What's the source of this info?

So, does this observational example provide evidence that Behe is wrong about the IC here? Remember, he said that if any ONE component was missing, the entire structure would not work.

Based on the description 'paralyzed mutant,' I'd say, No this does nothing to prove Behe is wrong. First of all Behe, said nothing about eukaryotic flagella, he said the bacterial flagellum specifically. Again, based on the 'paralyzed' description, I'd say, this example does nothing to refute Behe.

[edit on 17-12-2005 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by mattison0922

In any case, it does bring a relevant point to light, IDT isn't well accepted by the scientific community at large. I suspect this will change, as younger professors obtain tenure, and IDTists are less concerned about losing their jobs. Either way the point should be addressed, and now is just as good a time as any.

Mainstream science unfortunately is very resistant to change, especially change that seems to go against a long believed well supported idea. Let's examine some previous examples of this.
{snip}
These examples perfectly illustrate that the mainstream science communities rejection of ideas as unscientific, is not necessarily related to their actual scientific merit. Often times new, revolutionary, and important ideas are met by the scientific community not only with skepticism, but with downright hostility.

And if ID were aScientific Theory you'd actually have point.
But as other's have allready pointed out it isn't.

And Not because it's not accepted by the mainstream scientific community.
While it'a theory in that it'a speculation, it's not scientific.

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
And if ID were aScientific Theory you'd actually have point.
But as other's have allready pointed out it isn't.

And Not because it's not accepted by the mainstream scientific community.
While it'a theory in that it'a speculation, it's not scientific.

Thanks for your well thought out, informative, and well documented post.

You've added so much to the discussion.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
And if ID were aScientific Theory you'd actually have point.
But as other's have allready pointed out it isn't.

I don't think people are giving it a fair shake. How much data did Darwin have with his "theory" when it was proposed?

Actually, have you ever considered, why people "aren't giving it a fair shake" as you put it?
Did it ever occur to you that there was just MIGHT be a good reason for this?

Like the fact that ID starts with a conclusion, and then tries to claim that "problems" in another theory prove that ID is correct?

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Like the fact that ID starts with a conclusion, and then tries to claim that "problems" in another theory prove that ID is correct?

Wrong.

IDT assumes nothing more or less than NDT. It assumes something different, but is NOT guilty of operating from presumed set of events.

IDTists do not claim that IDT is proven by default as you suggest; it simply serves as a different basis for hypothesis formation.

Of course you'd know this if you'd ever bothered to investigate it for yourself.

It's astonishing to me that on a site where pretty much no one believes what the media says about the war, politics, 911, aliens, area 51, etc. People are willing to wholeheartedly swallow Connie Chung's analysis of IDT. WTF

Originally posted by mattison0922
IDT assumes nothing more or less than NDT. It assumes something different, but is NOT guilty of operating from presumed set of events.

First I do not mean to say that they claim it is proven by default,
but the whole point of ID is that there is higher intelligence guilding Evolution. Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is itself evidence of a higher being at work.
In fact, William Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."

And the Theory of evolution makes no assumtion of whether or not their is a higher power, it doesn't talk about one at all.

Of course you'd know this if you'd ever bothered to investigate it for yourself.

It's astonishing to me that on a site where pretty much no one believes what the media says about the war, politics, 911, aliens, area 51, etc.

Actually, I think you'd be surprised by the number of skeptics this site draws to it.
This site has done some of the best debunking of some theory's I've ever seen. The whole, "it wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon theory" for instance.

People are willing to wholeheartedly swallow Connie Chung's analysis of IDT. WTF

It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that some people have learned to think for themselves, looked at the argument for and against id and decided it was cr@p on their own.

But then your whole argumetnfor ID seemto be based onthe idea that anyone not believing in it is incaple of original thought and is jsut parroting what other have to say. Unless they don't provide links, in which case they are guilty of not having "documents" to back them up.

Pretty nice catch-22 ya got going their, nicely avoids having to actually defend ID.

[edit on 26-12-2005 by I_AM_that_I_AM]

[edit on 26-12-2005 by I_AM_that_I_AM]

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Do you?
I've yet to see one post(anywhere, by anyone) that actually contains an "original" idea.

Hmmm.... I'm not sure why you put the word original in quotes, since nowhere I my post did I use that word.

Hmm, you are correct. Not sure why I put that in quotes. Though I used the term because you kept on( both w/me and others in this thread) about having thought's of our own.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Well gee, thanks for the current events lesson truthseeka. Once again, the irony of your handle is apparent for all to see. Truthseeka's definition of seeking the truth apparently amounts to reading refutations of a theory instead of actually reading the theory for himself and evaluating it. Instead of thinking critically about something, it's abundantly clear that you would rather be told what to think. Sad, really.

In any case, it does bring a relevant point to light, IDT isn't well accepted by the scientific community at large. I suspect this will change, as younger professors obtain tenure, and IDTists are less concerned about losing their jobs. Either way the point should be addressed, and now is just as good a time as any.

Mainstream science unfortunately is very resistant to change, especially change that seems to go against a long believed well supported idea. Let's examine some previous examples of this.

[bunch of examples]

I noticed that you only included examples of people who were successful in
getting their theories excepted evetually, as you hope ID will.

You didn't include examples of people who failed to get them included.

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
First I do not mean to say that they claim it is proven by default,

Hmmmm.... okay.... I'm not sure what you meant when you said:

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Like the fact that ID starts with a conclusion, and then tries to claim that "problems" in another theory prove that ID is correct

But I guess I'll have to take your word that you didn't mean what you wrote.

but the whole point of ID is that there is higher intelligence guilding Evolution.

There are no statements in IDT that say a higher intelligence is 'guiding evolution.' This is your own spin on the basis of the theory.

Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is itself evidence of a higher being at work.

Thus far, it DOES in fact appear that life itself is IC. This demonstrated perfectly via a multidisciplinary analysis of biology, physics, abiogenesis, and fundamental organic chemistry. Thus far abiogenesis theories, have yielded pretty much nothing in terms of elucidating natural laws that would permit the formation of life from simple organic molecules.

In fact, William Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."

Hey Congratulations!!! You actually took the time to investigate something for yourself [claps]. It's a good feeling, huh? My next suggestion: Actually read an entire book. While there is some info in the definition you cited, books actually contain descriptions, justifications, examples, and references. It's the logical next step for you.

And the Theory of evolution makes no assumtion of whether or not their is a higher power, it doesn't talk about one at all.

Ummm.... okay. No one ever said anything about evolution assuming there is a higher power. Stop putting words into my mouth, please.

While evolution makes no claim re: a higher power, evolution DOES assume that there is in fact a naturalistic explanation for biological origins. ID makes no such assumption. While it is not touted as such, in my own mind, ID theory lacks such a presupposition. Maybe there is a naturalistic explanation for biological origins, and maybe there isn't. In either case, the ID proponents are willing to explore alternatives to currently accepted theories, and like it or not, new bases for hypotheses if often what drives science forward. I'm sorry that change is troubling for you. But as a scientist, I have no choice but to encourage change, and be willing to accept ideas that fall within the realm of methodological, but not necessary metaphysical naturalism, irrespective of my personal opinion about them.

Of course you'd know this if you'd ever bothered to investigate it for yourself.

Actually, I think you'd be surprised by the number of skeptics this site draws to it.
This site has done some of the best debunking of some theory's I've ever seen. The whole, "it wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon theory" for instance.

Ummm... that was my point. Everyone is such a skeptic here, and everyone wants to 'Deny Ignorance,' yet this bunch of well informed debunkers is seemingly completely unwilling to open a book and read about the theory they're debunking. Reading a refutation of Dembski is NOT the same as reading Dembski. Getting information off the Talk Origins website is not studying evolutionary theory. If you want to debunk IDT, for crying out loud read an ID book and make some coherent arguments of your own. Not one person who has ever posted in the O & C forum against IDT appears to ever have read, Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Wells, Spetner, etc. In fact, it's doubtful that most have even read Darwin, Gould, Mayr, etc. Yet people want to come off as an authority about things they know nothing about, and don't even have a basis to form their opinion. I regularly call people on this, and NO ONE has ever come back and said, Yes I read Behe, and these points in particular are BS and here's why. The best the debunkers can come up with here is "ID isn't science," and a bunch of linked quotes from people who feel the same as them. [sarcasm]Oh yeah, that's objective[/sarcasm].

Just to finish the thought, and in anticipation of any rebuttals: Yes, in addition to having read Behe, Dembski, Johnson, etc. I have read Darwin (got a beautiful leather bound copy of the 'Origin' actually), Gould, Mayr, etc. This is of course in addition to the literally thousands of primary research articles I've read, and maintain in my files.

What about you, I am, what books, articles, etc. re: IDT OR evolutionary theory have YOU read... besides your Bio100 text that is?

It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that some people have learned to think for themselves, looked at the argument for and against id and decided it was cr@p on their own.

Ummm... yes it does. That's why I ask them what books, articles, etc. about IDT have they read.

Should we ask this question again of you, despite your continued avoidance?

Okay, what books, articles, etc. did you read when looking at the argument for yourself? Thus far, it looks like you've not read ANY IDT, and despite your assertion that you and others make informed opinions, there is no evidence of it.

So, yes it has occured to me that people "learned to think for themselves, looked at the argument for and against id and decided it was cr@p on their own..." I just don't see any evidence of it.

And once again to clarify exactly how well informed YOUR opinion about IDT is: Which books, articles, etc., written by IDTists have you read when making YOUR opinion about IDT?

[crickets]

But then your whole argumetnfor ID seemto be based onthe idea that anyone not believing in it is incaple of original thought and is jsut parroting what other have to say. Unless they don't provide links, in which case they are guilty of not having "documents" to back them up.

Hmmm... my back-and-forth with you hasn't actually been able to delve into the realms of support for ID. Thus far, I've spent all my time with you, noting how incredibly uninformed you are, and correcting your inaccurate paraphrasing of my posts. The only people I've accused of parroting what they've heard are the people that appear to be parroting what they've heard. Interestingly enough, YOU'RE complaining about my attacking your position of complete ignorance about this topic, yet you do nothing to dispell the notion that you are completely ignorant about the topic. Do you see how this just further supports what I am saying?

And what's this about providing links, and then claiming I say "they are guilty of not having 'documents' to back them up." I've done nothing of the sort. I can't imagine what you're talking about, because you've pretty much offered nothing in terms of links. You did offer one link, but this link doesn't refute IDT, it's just the opinion of people that don't support ID. Offering up the opinion of others does nothing to further the discussion. If you provide some information that actually refutes ID and care to explain your opinion on it, then we can discuss it. Otherwise, we can just keep going back and forth like this: me accusing you of being totally ignorant about this topic, and you doing nothing to dispell, with the exception of trying to make me look ignorant. It's an interesting strategy, I'll give you that, but it's not likely to earn you much respect here in the long run.

Pretty nice catch-22 ya got going their, nicely avoids having to actually defend ID.

Thus far, you've given me nothing to defend against. How could you? You've not read even a shred of material about the topic. It's pretty hard to defend against non-existant arguments and rebuttals.

So, which books, articles, etc. about IDT have you read?

Hmm, you are correct. Not sure why I put that in quotes. Though I used the term because you kept on( both w/me and others in this thread) about having thought's of our own.

Yes, I do do this. But quotes are reserved for times when someone actually spoke, or in this case wrote the quoted words. At no time did I use the term original. Thus it is inappropriate for you to quote me asking for "original" ideas. Because I didn't do this.

I asked if you had any thoughts of your own about this.

Do you have any thoughts of your own? Really? Based on what?

I noticed that you only included examples of people who were successful in
getting their theories excepted evetually, as you hope ID will.

You didn't include examples of people who failed to get them included.

I actually have no vested interest in ID being accepted by the mainstream scientific community. It doesn't affect my work at all. The only place I am willing to speak openly about IDT is pretty much here in this forum, as I am untenured. Whether or not IDT is accepted won't affect me personally. But I do feel the need to correct the extreme misinformation that surrounds this topic and the origins of the discipline in general. I further feel the need to point out the logical fallacies that exist in describing NDT as science and IDT as being unscientific, as they two bases for hypotheses appear to be methodologically equivalent.

I didn't include examples of people's whose work "failed to be included" because it's not relevant. The point of that post was to demonstrate that new and revolutionary ideas are often not accepted by the science community, but later are accepted and become important. The point was that the peer-review process and that attitude that exists in the science community often prevents important ideas from gaining acceptance when they are first introduced. What would be the point of talking about every rejected paper that ever came back. Every scientist, myself included, has a bunch of rejected papers. Rejected papers are not the issue, the issue is sound scientific ideas that are initially rejected by the science community. My point was to show that science is often unwilling to change, even when presented with sound scientific data that just happens to go against their presuppositons.

What's your point?