[heinz_1966]

So, then....it should be easy for you to cite (as I asked) numerous examples of ID correcting its errors?

I'll look into it for you.

[Sadsidioribre]

I've always been a bit discombobulated with the notion of Irreducible Complexity. I realize that this theory got ripped apart during the Dover trial, but I never understood the idea that life is too complex to have a natural beginning. I get what they are saying, but how then does God fit in. He was just so complex that he conveniently always existed? God had no beginning, is infinite and has infinite wisdom, yet its the million dollar jackpot that life formed under the right conditions in a window of almost 1 billion years? Doesn't make sense to me. If one person per country bought a lottery ticket for 900 million years I am sure someone would win.. right?

I would love to get schooled on this. 12 years of Sunday School and this issue was constantly side-stepped.

[mr.memo]

I get what they are saying, but how then does God fit in. He was just so complex that he conveniently always existed?

Now, now. It's "a designer," not God. It's never been about God, just ask Geoff's friend, Dembski.

I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God. See, it's not about....wait....wha?

The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program. So, by Dembski's own admission, he starts with a preconceived notion, and is trying to build a scientific program specifically to validate it. It sounds like someone really doesn't understand how science works.

[MP+4]

We should let SETI know this. Fortunately, they are losing their funding, at least for the time being.

A convincing-sounding misrepresentation of SETI, but a misrepresentation nonetheless.

SETI is more a practical application of the cosmological constant (isotropy) which of course offers a solid logical basis for thinking we aren't the only intelligent lifeform out there, and the Drake equation, which is the rundown of what conditions have to be fulfilled to have sentient lifeforms on a planet. It's science mainly because it's falsifiable.

Humber was a lot better at this...but even so, there is a reason no real scientist will accept ID, ever, short of God Himself coming down and saying it's real (because that would be empirical evidence)...because it ain't falsifiable. What that means is that there is no test you could ever devise to invalidate the theory. That means prove it wrong. Popper argues that it is impossible to test whether a theory is right...sound science rests on being able to say something is wrong. There is no way that ID can ever provide a prediction that can ever be made to be counterfactual, which (by Popper's terms) means that it cannot be scientific, because all scientifically valid theories have predictions that may one day be shown to be counterfactual. Newton's theory, after all, was eventually shown to be counterfactual in a number of ways, which is why it had to be superseded by Einstein's.

[casinoboneerer]

Neighbors design radio signals. Intelligent Design, as a general framework, is about detecting design. It doesn't claim to jump from the detection of design to the identity of the one doing the designing. That is left for philosophy or theology to work out.

But in terms of SETI, that's just applying the principles of Intelligent Design.

I love the way creationists try to handwave their way past the basic issues.

ID assumes a creator. It has to. The so called "proof" of design rests on no more than its adherents' inability to conceive of human beings existing without the intercession of a supernatural being. As such it is at best "negative evidence." Irreducible complexity is nether complex nor irreducible, except in the minds of its believers.

"Historical sciences" are neither more nor less empirical than any other sciences.

Anyway, it looks like we have a new Humber...minus the outsized ego, one hopes. But with the same propensity for arcane and circular arguments that assume their own conclusions...

If you want to see how geoffrobinsion's argument will unfold, see the comments on the following page:

Christianity Today article placing creationism in opposition to ID | Uncommon Descent

...including...

I understand ID’s official position. But as a philosopher/apologist/presuppositionalist, I would come in and say that the only way ID, science, the laws of logic, rationality, etc. make any sense is if Christianity is true.

So ID makes no claims of who the designer would be. But I can take their groundwork and run with it. As ID people say, that’s a second-order question. And that’s OK. and

Before Christianity came about in 30 AD or so? Sure. Before Jesus existed? Well, He always existed. and

You are indeed correct. They employ logic, rationality, induction, etc. When materialists employ those things, they aren’t being consistent with their own worldview. They have to borrow from theism. Other theists who aren’t Christians can, but they run into other issues different from those above.
...
So when materialists complain that ID requires the supernatural (which it doesn’t in the way they mean), I would require them to give up rationality, induction, beliefs in universals, and language if they want to totally get rid of the supernatural. In other words, they can’t speak or argue and be consistent materialists. In case you're wondering what a "peresuppositionist" is, it's someone who thinks they can defend Christianity by pointing out the flaws in everyone elses beliefs while "presupposing" the literal truth of the Bible. Which of course, doesn't work in the real world.

So just how many angels CAN dance on the head of that pin?

[medshop]

Anyway, it looks like we have a new Humber...minus the outsized ego, one hopes.

Now, now. The only thing that made Humber interesting was the outsized ego. Without that, he was just another guy with silly ideas, and that's not very entertaining at all.

One thing that I've noticed over a few decades of beating this creationist crap around is outsized egos seem to be part of the deal. I guess they spend so much time with the Pentateuch they miss out all that meekness and humility that came later on.

Let's hope there is a bit more respect for the ToS and copyright laws this time, though.

[Affiltavajefe]

let's hope there is a bit more respect for the tos and copyright laws this time, though.

lol

This looks like the same sort of philosophical ***gering, though. The idea that ration and logic make science "supernatural" is laughable. To say that reason and logic are no better than faith as method, is the most simplistic kind of relativism. All in all, it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in "geoffrobinson."


(edit: why did it asterisk "j.i.g.?")

[F1grandprix]

Is ***ger an insult?

I'l take two ***gers of Jack on the rocks.

[Yifnvmzp]

I'll look into it for you.

I'm still waiting. And (unusual for me) I'm not trying to be a dick about this. I've looked, and can't find a single case of ID being self-correcting. Anyone who has spent any time studying biology and natural selection can rattle off numerous examples of science getting it wrong, and correcting its mistakes. Surely not every claim of ID has been validated. Hell, I doubt, most have (or can be) tested. So, I ask again. Examples of ID correcting its errors. Please.

[AnetTeilor]

So, then....it should be easy for you to cite (as I asked) numerous examples of ID correcting its errors?

I'll look into it for you.

I'm still waiting. And (unusual for me) I'm not trying to be a dick about this. I've looked, and can't find a single case of ID being self-correcting. Anyone who has spent any time studying biology and natural selection can rattle off numerous examples of science getting it wrong, and correcting its mistakes. Surely not every claim of ID has been validated. Hell, I doubt, most have (or can be) tested. So, I ask again. Examples of ID correcting its errors. Please.

If I presuppose that you'll be waiting for a very long time, would that make me a "presuppositionist"?

Science self corrects as scientists refine models and paradigms through experiment.

Religions always figure they have it right already. I guess they conveniently "presuppose" it.

[Angeheade]

I'm still waiting. And (unusual for me) I'm not trying to be a dick about this. I've looked, and can't find a single case of ID being self-correcting. Anyone who has spent any time studying biology and natural selection can rattle off numerous examples of science getting it wrong, and correcting its mistakes. Surely not every claim of ID has been validated. Hell, I doubt, most have (or can be) tested. So, I ask again. Examples of ID correcting its errors. Please.

Well I wouldn't call it SELF-correcting. Too bad the only alternative was perjury.

"Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Some of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe's cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defence. Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify. Earlier during his direct testimony, Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems. Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that "the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond" and that "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years... could be produced over three and half billlion years."

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[nancywind]

"Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that "the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond" and that "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years... could be produced over three and half billlion years."

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"ID" advocates have never been able to come to terms with gradualism. They would like everything to begin with the "Cambrian explosion."

In a 2003 book, Professor Andrew H. Knoll, Fisher Professor of Natural History and Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences
at Harvard, traced the biochemical evidence for the development of life. Evidence from the relationships between presently living microorganisms suggests a long history of development. Geobiology, which examines the chemical signatures left in certain rocks as well as microscopic evidence of the organisms themselves, particularly in cherts, indicates that stromatolites and cyanobacteria extend to 1,5 billion years BP, more than 900 million years before the Cambrian explosion.

In fact, the progressive geological evidence for the development of more complex forms of life indicates that eukaryotes, life made up of cells with nuclei, goes back to 1.2 billion years. Red algae is documented by visible fossils at that time, followed by dinoflagellates (through chemical signatures) by 1.1 billion years, heterokonts (brown algae and diatoms) from fossil evidence by 1 billion years. In a sort of "pre-Cambrian explosion," scientists find green algae, i.e, plants, and testate amoebae from fossil evidence at about 750 million years. There are chemical signatures for ciliates at about the same time. Finally, at about 598 million years ago, the first fossil evidence of animals appears (Knoll 2003:152).

How do creationists (a broad category of "presuppositionists" who by geoffrobinson's own admission must include "ID" partisans) explain this evidence away? They can only do it by throwing out all science, and adopting a bizarre concept of God. As Knoll put it:

Creationists commonly target evolutionary biology as science's boogeyman, but the account of early evolution presented in earlier chapters [of his book] necessitates that the biblical literalist be catholic in his rejection of scientific understanding. He must reject geology because its confluence of pattern and process cannot be accommodated by a biblical timetable. Physics and chemistry must go too., because they explain the radioactive decay that dates zircons as millions or billions of years old. And astronomy and astrophysics? Don't even think about them. Indeed, the biblical literalist, passing Permian brachiopods, Cambrian trilobites, and 1.7-billion-year-old schist as she hikes down the grand Canyon, can only conclude that the appearance of age and order in stratigraphic successions is an elaborate ruse part of a great cosmic charade to trap the unfaithful. what sort of god would do that? One who can be petty and vengeful, who may love His creation but doesn't trust it. A God, in other words, much like ourselves. In his zeal to know the mind of God, the creationist finds only a mirror (Knoll 2003:245; emphasis in original). Logically, the creationist should reject modern medicine as well. Less hypocrisy among their ranks would thin those ranks considerably.

The sort of baloney "geoffrobinson" espouses may play well among the Answers in Genesis crowd. After all, that is a special world where mathematicians masquerade as biologists, explaining how the world of numbers--a human abstraction--renders evolution "mathematically impossible," civil engineers masquerading as physicists will tell you that well-documented scientific facts violate Newtonian physics, and are therefore impossible, and "information theorists" masquerading as microbiologists will go on about how "information theory"--a human abstraction-- makes the creation of "new information" (code for "evolution") impossible. That one should find among such clowns a theologian masquerading as a philosopher of science, claiming that science itself is impossible, should come as no particular surprise.

Nor is it a surprise that such a person seems incapable of dredging up even modest evidence that "intelligent design" meets any of the standards that characterize a scientific endeavor.

Reference: Knoll, A.H. (2003) Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Evolution on Earth. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Note: I believe, and all of the evidence shows, that mathematics, civil engineering, theology, and even "information science" are all legitimate fields of endeavor, and their practitioners may be legitimate scholars, as long as they speak to their areas of competence and don't go around claiming that a narrow view of their own fields can be used to invalidate established research in another field.

[Caluabdum]

So, then....it should be easy for you to cite (as I asked) numerous examples of ID correcting its errors?

I'll look into it for you.

I guess he must still be "looking into it." If he hasn't found anything in two weeks, I venture to say that he never will...

[gopsbousperie]

I guess he must still be "looking into it." If he hasn't found anything in two weeks, I venture to say that he never will...

Actually, I got the necessary information a couple of weeks ago I just have been extremely busy.

[vypusknye]

"ID" advocates have never been able to come to terms with gradualism. They would like everything to begin with the "Cambrian explosion."

Do you really want to go down that route? Life pops up almost as soon as conditions are conducive around 3.8 billion years ago. And concepts like punctuated equlibrium have to be appealed to.

Furthermore, there is a wide diversity within the Intelligent Design movement. While you may like to tag everyone as a Young Earth Creationist, that tag doesn't apply to tons of people. There are a lot of ID people who believe in common descent for instance, like Michael Behe.

[hujdrftgkas]

Logically, the creationist should reject modern medicine as well.

This comment couldn't be more off-base. I assume you are referring to the typical canard that evolution can be seen to provide drug resistance or changes in viruses. Therefore, if we reject the mechanism of evolution we must reject what we know about medical science.

This argument is based on being ignorant of what we actually argue. We don't think that the mechanism doesn't exist. We just don't think the mechanism can increase information inside the system. In other words, it can take a walk down the block but it can't build a rocket ship to the moon, no matter how much time you give the mechanism to operate.

[flueftArete]

I've always been a bit discombobulated with the notion of Irreducible Complexity. I realize that this theory got ripped apart during the Dover trial, but I never understood the idea that life is too complex to have a natural beginning. I get what they are saying, but how then does God fit in. He was just so complex that he conveniently always existed? God had no beginning, is infinite and has infinite wisdom, yet its the million dollar jackpot that life formed under the right conditions in a window of almost 1 billion years? Doesn't make sense to me. If one person per country bought a lottery ticket for 900 million years I am sure someone would win.. right?

I would love to get schooled on this. 12 years of Sunday School and this issue was constantly side-stepped.

Irreducible Complexity isn't just complexity. It is complexity and simultaneity.

So the argument is that evolution acts on changes/mutations in a step by step fashion and changes that give an advantage survive and propagate.

So A->AB->ABC->ABCD. But what if ABCD confers an advantage but nothing before that does? That is the challenge Irreducible Complexity brings against evolution. Step-by-step won't work since you need to have leaps if there is an irreducibly complex structure.

[Borrinas]

Actually, I got the necessary information a couple of weeks ago I just have been extremely busy.

And... ?

[enactolaelant]

Irreducible Complexity isn't just complexity. It is complexity and simultaneity.

So the argument is that evolution acts on changes/mutations in a step by step fashion and changes that give an advantage survive and propagate.

So A->AB->ABC->ABCD. But what if ABCD confers an advantage but nothing before that does? That is the challenge Irreducible Complexity brings against evolution. Step-by-step won't work since you need to have leaps if there is an irreducibly complex structure.

Exaptation blows that so-called "challenge" out of the water, though. Behe has never been able to address it. Better luck next time.

[xADMlNx]

We don't think that the mechanism doesn't exist. We just don't think the mechanism can increase information inside the system. In other words, it can take a walk down the block but it can't build a rocket ship to the moon, no matter how much time you give the mechanism to operate.

The "no new information" bit is a canard. Evolution creates new information all of the time. This is why each of us has has unique DNA , a portion of which we share with our parents, and with organisms even further removed in our evolutionary history, and a portion of which is unique to each of us. Examination of the DNA of living animals alone is sufficient to prove evolution as a scientific fact.