Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Welcome Rren, looks like we can keep each others posts going!
Looks like nobody else wants to play with us
Got a little game of tetherball
going here. (link provided for any un-sophisticated Brits not hip to the game)
And the papers you have posted are scientific, however they are just attacking current theories, rather than providing any positive evidence to
I would have to strongly disagree with your statement here. These papers do
deal with specific IDT claims, what exactly are you looking for
If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific
We've already covered some
of the problems IDTists have with getting their papers published(over in
). But i believe it's only a matter of time before this changes. And
Dawkins isn't exactly approaching this from an unbiased purely scientific position. He and most of the other more vocal opponents to IDT(Miller et
al) have philosophical
objections more-so than scientific one's, imo anyway.
I won't pretend I've read the papers (and I don't reckon you have either), so I can only comment on their titles:
You're correct that i have not read these papers, i do try to search for free online copies of papers(via google scholar) but most of the time i
can't follow them(or find for free), WAY
over my head, especially Dembski which is alot of mathematics. Not that i'm any more "fluent" in
Biology either. As a layman i have to rely on the conclusion/summary of the experts in the respective field(s). You can almost always find an
explanation or rebuttal written in layman's language. We'll go through these four examples again and i'll provide some additional info for you
beyond the titles. Which imho, do
seek to provide positive evidence(and/or essential refuting of evolution) for IDT. If an already
established theory is contrary to your own, then you must also attempt to falsify the competing theory/hypothesis, no? Perhaps not positive evidence
for IDT, but still a necessary component is it not?
-“Investigating a General Biology” by John Bracht, Complexity 8(3):31-41 (2003) (critiquing models of self-organization for the
origin of biological complexity)
an abstract by Bracht on this paper(actually looks like a review of
another book, (taken from the ISCID board tho). As is the case with most published papers, best i can tell, you have to either put up some dough or
have a particular affiliation to read the actual paper. I'm not sure what constitutes a published paper(peer reviewed), seems to me to be a book
review although they're calling it a "paper". Maybe one of our resident scientists can explain this for us.
from ISCID forum board(by Bracht)
"While we have, it seems, adequate concepts of matter, energy, entropy, and information, we lack a coherent concept of organization, its emergence,
and self-constructing propagation and self-elaboration." In his quest, Kauffman hopes to arrive at a general biology which encapsulates this defining
essence of life itself: consistent with the usual subjects of scientific investigation like physical laws, matter, and energy, yet somehow
transcending those categories and able to act on its own behalf. The essence of life, Kauffman argues, is bound up in the idea of an autonomous agent,
a conglomeration of matter that can carry out work cycles and reproduce itself.
And here's Bracht's "paper", a five page .pdf file
Kauffman's book). Seems Kauffman's book is the "meat and potatoes" of the argument("fish and chips" if you prefer)
A quote from the full review(.pdf file):
Notwithstanding the vast sweep of the overall book, I will focus here on
the core proposition the characterization of autonomous agents. It seems
to me that Kauffman's proposal here certainly is a novel one, and deserves
to be explored in much greater depth. Equally, and not surprisingly at this
early stage, some caution is surely necessary.
a paper on the "Evolvable Model of Development for Autonomous
Agent Synthesis", not an IDT paper but relevant to understanding autonomous agent(i didn't know myself, not sure if you were already familiar).
This is a prime example of what i mean by papers, for the most part, being over my head. But i'm trying.
a link to Kauffman's
In the tradition of Schrodinger's classic What Is Life?, this book is a tour-de-force investigation of the basis of life itself, with conclusions
that radically undermine the scientific approaches on which modern science rests-the approaches of Newton, Boltzman, Bohr, and Einstein
Ok that's enough about that one, although i think i'm gonna have to give that book a go, hopefully it's wriiten in lay ease
- “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories” by Stephen C. Meyer, Proceedings of the Biological Society
of Washington 117(2):213-239 (2004) (explicitly advocating that intelligent design is the best explanation for the origin of biological
information in the Cambrian explosion)
(emphasis mine) seems to be positive evidence(or pursuit there-of) for IDT to me here's some more info, what will it take?
This paper got alot of attention in the scientific community apparently, so Dr. Meyer made it available in .html format
An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally
adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian
animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists
continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa.
Ok let's move on now to my next example:
-Michael Behe and David W. Snoke,-“Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,”
Protein Science, 13 (2004). (testing for irreducible complexity among protein-protein binding sites)
I don't see any mention in the title of attemting to provide positive evidence for IDT. I'm still waitng for the paper titled "Evidence in
support of IDT".
(emphasis mine) How is "testing for irreducible complexity"( a central claim of IDT) not positive evidence? This is
"evidence in support of
IDT" as best i can see it, whether titled as such or not.
Here we model the evolution of such protein features by what we consider to be the conceptually simplest route—point mutation in duplicated
We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 108 generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more
amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 109.
Perhaps your argument that this is not positive evidence for IDT but instead evidence against naturallistic origins is possibly
showing the inadequacy of (undirected) natural mechanisms for biological origins(and subsequent evolution) is still important and essential to IDT,
based of course on my limited understanding of Biology. Falsifing claims of evolutionary theory that directly contradict IDT is also the job of the
IDT proponent, wouldn't you atleast agree with that? And in fairness here's a rebuttal from
dealing with the evidence presented in "IDT papers".
-Jonathan Wells, -“Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?,” Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, 98:71-96 (2005). (using
explicitly ID assumptions to elucidate the behavior of centrioles—with potential applications to cancer research)
Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes that they are holistically
designed to be turbines.
Making a hypothesis(assumption) and then testing that (model), is exactly what a scientist does in pursuit of validating a scientific theory is it
not? read this page
about Wells' paper.
In his recent paper in Rivista di Biologia, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?”, Jonathan Wells makes the following
testable predictions regarding his hypothesis that the centrioles of cells generate a polar ejection force:
He adds, “If the hypothesis presented here withstands these and other experimental tests, then it may contribute to a better understanding not only
of cell division, but also of cancer.”
(emphasis mine) Wells says his assumptions are "testable predictions", how is this unscientific or not
positive evidence for IDT? And also
may have usefullness outside of proving that "GOD dun it" (as opponents would have us believe IDT is all about). I'd say the argument that IDT is
un-scientific, un-testable pseudoscience is the notion that's being "utterly demolished".
I'll say it again: Most IDT opponents(Dawkins,
Miller et al) have mainly philosophical objections to IDT and not scientific one's imo. Here's
a great article, imo, about the "battle" betwwen IDT proponents and theistic evolutionists.(i believe it's from the UK too
from the articleThe Intelligent Design Movement.
I hope this article will enable people to get a handle on what is being said for much that is reported in the public arena can only give the
impression that the argument has degenerated into igonorant abuse from those opposed to Intelligent Design. This though would only be true of some on
that side of the argument.
I am purely concerned (in this post anyway) with whether IDT is a science or not.
I would say you are being stubborn as to what's science and what is not. You can disagree with the assumptions and/or conclusions of IDT without
reducing it to pseudoscience. You say that you disagree with Big Bang Theory, do you also view it as un-scientific?
A scientific theory, or predications based upon it, should be falsifiable
I believe i have provided you with adequate examples that fit Popper's definition, if not i'm at a loss.
fatherlukedukeThis kind of default reasoning leaves completely open the possibility that, if the bacterial flagellum is too complex to
have evolved, it might also be too complex to have been created. And indeed, a moment's thought shows that any God capable of creating a bacterial
flagellum (to say nothing of a universe) would have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically improbable, entity than the bacterial
flagellum (or universe) itself - even more in need of an explanation than the object he is alleged to have created.
I don't know how many different ways to say this. IDT basically says that we can detect and test the fact that organisms are designed. That
statement is different from who or how it was designed. The who(GOD for me) is certainly philosophical, the how may be simply beyond our current
understanding. You can't discard a theory based on the possible
implications. That, imo, is unscientific. IDT seeks to detect design
, honestly i don't know how to simplify or ellucidate that further.
Well, it's bit of a cheat this one to be honest. What I didn't tell you was that I'm in the circus as the "Human Garbage Disposer". I regularly
swallow hats, coats, shoes and umbrellas from the audience. I once ate a light helicopter for a bet.
...I love the circus, i am, however, gonna need some positive evidence. Of course only if i win the bet, that 'snapshot' from the vid. is gonna
be my new avatar.
BTW, not to toot my own horn, but my tetherball to IDT/Theistic evolution debate analogy was genius...toot toot
*hello is this thing on*
Oh and P.S.
Sorry for the long post but defending IDT is a tough job but somebody(around here) has to do it.