Well, Les, true to form, you’ve beaten me to the punch again.  Nice work.
Myxyzptlk (man, that’s hard to type)- I will only add this to what Les said:
You seem to be impressed by Dembski’s and Behe’s scientific credentials, even though they aren’t in biology, as Les points out.  If sheer numbers of accredited scientists spin your wheel, check out this, a list of more than 600 (and growing) scientists against ID named Steve.

Of course, science is not a democracy.  As I’ve mentioned before here at SEB, I was in the first generation of junior high students to have plate techtonics in their textbooks.  Only fifty years ago, most scientists did not believe in plate techtonics.  But the evidence in favor of it accumulated, and it was eventually accepted.  Perhaps the case of ID is similar?

No.  The only “evidence” for ID is negative: the argument from incredulity: “I don’t understand/can’t explain how such and such a feature (flagellum, blood clotting) could have evolved.  Therefore it must be Designed”.  There is no positive evidence for ID.

But the main problems with ID as a scientific theory, in my opinion, are that ID is not falsifiable, makes no predictions, and simply begs the question of the origin of order which it claims to explain.  All of these are characteristic of religion, but not of science.

Additionally, if you claim to want to put out all competing theories, ID is
very low on the list of alternatie theories out there as far as support
goes.

But apparently, and by your own admission, it’s ON the list. Except in places where some people feel they ought to exclude it.  Like public schools.

So why should we give
privledge to something that’s not actually a theory and has a factor of
10,000 times less support than MOND?

The reason is that it’s not a scientific debate. It’s religion trying to
wear sheeps skin.

Another mischaracterization.  Not everyone who believes in ID does so on religious grounds.

If you want to be completely honest, gravity has a much more accepted and
tested opponent that actually IS a theory. It’s called Modified Newtonian
Dynamics (MOND).

Funny you should mention Newton.  There seem to be some laws he noticed about nature, one of which raises serious questions about a “Big Bang�? theory.  Something about objects at rest tending to remain at rest.

Is there now? Perhaps you’d like to elaborate on that statement. I’m not
personally aware of any “middle” which offers “a combination of the
two.”

Then take the time to actually dialogue with someone besides “fundies�? and you will find the “middle�? I speak of.  I’m not talking about any incontrovertible evidences, I’m simply stating that there are a lot of people whose beliefs are formulated in a way that embraces both evolution and creation.  Saying “God created�? does not automatically put one in diametric opposition to evolutionists.

Interesting to note that Dembski is a mathematician, philosopher,
theologian, and psychologist, but not a BIOLOGIST. Hmmmm.

Even more interesting to note that you choose to address these and totally ignore the recognition he has as a scientist, from scientific organizations.  Hmmmm.

Anyone associated with the Discovery Institute Center is pretty much
immediately suspect.

Okay, so you knock the Discovery Institute.  “Interesting�? that you ignore the part about the National Science Foundation.  Even more interesting is the NSF’s slogan:  “National Science Foundation: Where DISCOVERIES Begin.�?

Weren’t you just bitching in another thread about
using sources that have an axe to grind?

No, I was simply pointing out for those who may be unaware of the nature of the sources you quoted, that an atheist quoting an atheist may feel he/she has answered definitively, but it falls under the category someone has already mentioned about numerical arguments.  If a position is true, it matters not how many people see it is true, it is not “more true�? as a result, nor is it even thereby proven to actually BE true. 

The folks at Discovery have been grinding a really big axe for a really long time. Play by the rules you’re insisting others play by or go home.

No “insistences�? here.  Seems to me Discovery is doing a good job of approaching the issue from the ground rules people in the scientific community have laid out.  But of course, the scientific community doesn’t think so, and as with anyone they disagree with, then begins the old “death of a thousand qualifications�? (which has already surfaced here as well, I see from some of the responses being offered). 

Now I know you’re on crack. Behe is a joke of a scientist. His hef="http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3219281" title="Behe backs off
'mechanisms' - York Daily Record">performance during the Dover Panda
Trial in Pennsylvania was a laugh riot

And now I know you simply want to discredit his work by whatever means you find at your disposal.  Your chosen method (and theirs, quite obviously) of reduction to the absurd is considered invalid argument, by the way.

Or maybe you’ve forgotten that science has its own “Piltdown Man?” Are we then supposed to invalidate all conclusions of science based on the one case that brought them embarrassment?

How anyone can take Behe seriously on the validity of Intelligent Design
after the fool he made of himself in Dover is beyond me. The fact that you
seem enamored with him just gives me every reason to write you off as
another lost cause.

Thank you.  I can only marvel at the irony of you doing so.

Bully for you and your brother, but I fail to see how that makes Dembski or
Behe’s thoughts on the issue any more relevant.

I never claimed it did.  I was addressing the one-dimensional focus of the responses so far, which characterize anyone who accepts ID as either ignorant or “fundie�? or both.

And no one ever said there had to be a huge chasm between science and faith.

They didn’t have to, implied remarks often speak more loudly than outright declarations.  It has been an almost unanimous presupposition throughout the thread.

I personally know a lot of people of faith who have no problems with science
in general or Evolution in particular.

I think I just said that.  And up until you just stated it, I haven’t seen anyone else come close.

Of course your choice of the word “unprovable” shows your ignorance of
science. Proofs exist only in mathematics, everything else is just a theory.
Evolution, Gravity, Electromagnetic Radiation, none of it’s proven beyond a
shadow of a doubt, they’re all “just theories.”

Now there’s a hoot.  As if consistently repeated outcomes don’t constitute “proof.�?  I’ll quit believing in gravity the next time I drop something and have to grab it quick before it floats away.  Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there—kinda lke a Creator.

Yes, we’ve discussed that supposed study here not too long ago.  Too bad it turned out to be a fraud

You gotta like it.  I make one comment about a prayer study and you automatically know which one I’m referring to?  Exactly where did you miss my comment about it being “five years ago?” The course I was taking was in Fall of 2000.  The study you mentioned was in 2001.  I’ll let you do the math on that one.  *heh*

There are numerous studies out there, and with similar results.  Scientists are slowly but begrudgingly beginning to acknowledge “there is something there.�?

So far there haven’t been any major studies that show a significant link between prayer and health, though there may be something to it. Then again many doctors think just having a positive attitude is enough to affect your health for the better.

That’s where you’re mistaken, there are plenty of them, unless you have your head buried too far in the sand to see them.  A good place to start would be the archives at http://www.stnews.org/index.php They have published news about many of them. But of course, once you’ve seen the information, then there will be the inevitable parsing of the information so that it can be dismissed and/or disqualified on one technicality or another that “explains” why it isn’t good enough, and supposedly thereby “invalidated.”

But the main problems with ID as a scientific theory, in my opinion, are that ID is not falsifiable, makes no predictions, and simply begs the question of the origin of order which it claims to explain.  All of these are characteristic of religion, but not of science.

But at least not self-contradictory, as some of the scientific theories that are contrary even to the laws of science.

Can we cut through the creationist crap, please?

Yes, ID is a theory and there are more creation theories than I can shake a stick at. What the ID proponents have yet to show is that it’s a scientific theory. What does ID contribute to our knowledge? How long has it been around, how many peer-reviewed ID papers have been published in the relevant fields of science? If ID wants to be recognized at science, it has to play be the established rules and it has to stand and fall on its intellectual merit. There is no special pleading for transparently religiously motivated objections to science.

Yes, there are many flavors of creationism, ranging from the flat earth folks, young earth creationism, old earth creationism, theistic evolution, and plain old biological evolution. Not every creationist is a fundie, but almost everybody trying to push pseudo-science on the curriculum is.

You feel the Discovery Institute, Behe, Dembski, and whoever are being slighted? No problem, show us the science. What alternate explanation does ID have for the crushing body of evidence and observations in support of evolution? What mechanism does it propose? What predictions does it make? How can it be falsified? What experiments does it propose? How does ID enrich our knowledge about nature? How is it intellectually enriching?

But apparently, and by your own admission, it’s ON the list. Except in places where some people feel they ought to exclude it.  Like public schools.

No. I don’t admit that ID is a theory. Again, it’s only a hypothesis. It has to undergo testing before it can be counted as a theory. Oh, wait. It has undergone testing and it’s failed. I guess it’s not really even a good hypothesis anymore.

Another mischaracterization.  Not everyone who believes in ID does so on religious grounds.

I’ve never claimed this. However, people such as yourself that claim to believe it on other grounds, ie scientific, have only been hoodwinked by liars like Behe, Dembski, the Discovery Institute, et al.

Seems to me Discovery is doing a good job of approaching the issue from the ground rules people in the scientific community have laid out.

Again, ID fails to make any testable predictions. Thus, it would fail any peer review that would ever take place. But let’s also remember that the DI knows this which is precisely why they haven’t written any scientific journal articles and instead write things for the common person that can easily have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Or maybe you’ve forgotten that science has its own “Piltdown Man?�?

How could we forget. Ignorant people won’t let us live it down. However, perhaps you should realize who it was that discovered the hoax: scientists. We have our rules that are meant to discover such hoaxes, and as the Piltdown man demonstrates, we do a good job at uncovering them. If there were really the vast gloabal conspiracy to make such hoaxes, then why would scientists betray their own hoax?

Meanwhile, the Piltdown man doesn’t really have a huge effect on whether or not evolution stands or falls. There’s a gigantic mountain of other information out there supporting it. If the Piltdown man were true, then it would only be another boulder on the mountain.

However, with ID, there’s barely a small tree in comparison. Behe’s tesimony takes out the trunk. What’s left is a few disconnected branches of nonsense that aren’t tied together in any respectable way. Why? Because ID isn’t science.

implied remarks often speak more loudly than outright declarations.  It has been an almost unanimous presupposition throughout the thread.

You seem to want to believe this, but there’s never been any such implications. This seems to be the persecution complex hard at work. But remember, there’s been a statement signed by over 16,000 religious and scientific officals stating that science & religion don’t need the great divide.

As if consistently repeated outcomes don’t constitute “proof.�?

Amazing how little you know about science. No. Consistenly repeated outcomes do not constitute “proof”. The theory of gravity said every time you drop something it will fall. Can you really test every instance? Of course not. Thus, you can’t have “proof”. You can only attempt to approximate it by testing as often as possible.

However, let’s take a look at ID again. What tests has it done? None. Can it even do tests? Of course not. It doesn’t make predictions.

Apropos: A Roguish Chrestomathy - The Wrathful Dispersion controversy: A Canadian perspective

Linguists here in Canada have been following closely, with a mixture of amusement, bemusement, and, it must be admitted, a little trepidation, the deliberations of our neighbours to the south, who are currently considering, in a courtroom in Pennsylvania, whether “Wrathful Dispersion Theory,” as it is called, should be taught in the public schools alongside evolutionary theories of historical linguistics. It is an emotionally charged question, for linguistics is widely and justifiably seen as the centrepiece of the high-school science curriculum—a hard science, but not a difficult one to do in the classroom; an area of study that teaches students the essentials of scientific reasoning, but that at the same time touches on the spiritual essence of what it means to be human, for it is of course language that separates us from our cousins the apes.

The opponents of Wrathful Dispersion maintain that it is really just Babelism, rechristened so that it might fly under the radar of those who insist that religion has no place in the state-funded classroom. Babelism was clearly rooted in the Judeo-Christian story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11: 1–9); it held that the whole array of modern languages was created by God at a single stroke, for the immediate purpose of disrupting humanity’s hubristic attempt to build a tower that would reach to heaven: “Let us go down,” God says to Himself, “and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”

I think this beats The Onion’s Intelligent Falling…

I just gotta say to Myxyzptlk, it looks like you’re really jumping through whatever available hoop in the hope that it’ll defend your argument. You’ve been playing on words, criticising others statements instead of taking the criticisms of your statements in tow, and in general failing to understand the nature of the conversation. No offence, but they had you at ‘ID is a failed hypothesis, not a credible theory’. Leave this thread be, and come back when you’ve got stronger arguments for ID. I’d be glad to hear any good ones (as they’d be the first - I’d be part of something actually sorta significant).

I saw two copies of Philip Johnson’s book, Darwin On Trial on one of my co-worker’s desk yesterday.  We talk about lots of stuff; he’s very religious and I’m waiting for him to tell me where I’m going wrong.  Should be fun.

Sigh.  Mxyzptlk, I should know better, but I can’t let this stand.  In addition to all your misapprehensions about the nature of scientific theories, ably pointed out by Les, elwed, voija, and arc above (arc’s advice about doing some research about what ID has contributed to science and coming back with some data is good), we had this exchange.  I said…

But the main problems with ID as a scientific theory, in my opinion, are that ID is not falsifiable, makes no predictions, and simply begs the question of the origin of order which it claims to explain.  All of these are characteristic of religion, but not of science.

...to which you replied

But at least not self-contradictory, as some of the scientific theories that are contrary even to the laws of science.

Okay.  First- which scientific theories are “contrary to the laws of science”?  Please think of something more entertaining than that old fundie favorite of evolution being at odds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And second- You didn’t contest my characterization of ID as not being falsifiable, not making predictions, and begging the question of the origin of order.  You merely said that ID is “at least not self-contradictory”.  Fine.  Now we know what your criteria for a scientific theory are.

That puts ID right up there with theories like “Les is a doodie-head”.  The LDH theory is not self-contradictory, not falsifiable (barring a formal definition of “doodie-head"), makes no predictions (doodie-head behavior?  No way to know), and does not explain the origin of this condition (Les is a doodie-head because a DoodieBird doodied on him? Maybe this is what the Book of Doodie says, but it can’t be empirically established).

He’s back to babble some more…

Then take the time to actually dialogue with someone besides “fundies�? and you will find the “middle�? I speak of.  I’m not talking about any incontrovertible evidences, I’m simply stating that there are a lot of people whose beliefs are formulated in a way that embraces both evolution and creation.  Saying “God created�? does not automatically put one in diametric opposition to evolutionists.

I have no control over who comes to my site and engages in conversation here. If the majority of people who show up are Fundies then the majority of people I’m going to end up talking to are Fundies. Most of the folks who are believers who aren’t Fundies that show up here seem to accept Evolution without needing any middle ground theories about it. You’re the first to even propose that such things exist, though you haven’t actually elaborated on what they might be.

Even more interesting to note that you choose to address these and totally ignore the recognition he has as a scientist, from scientific organizations.  Hmmmm.

I didn’t ignore the recognition at all. Being a scientist in one field, however, doesn’t mean you’re automatically qualified in every other field. Again I ask you a simple question: Do you seek out medical advice from Cosmologists? Questions about the relevancy of someone’s field of expertise are legitimate concerns when judging the quality of their research.

Okay, so you knock the Discovery Institute.  “Interesting�? that you ignore the part about the National Science Foundation.  Even more interesting is the NSF’s slogan:  “National Science Foundation: Where DISCOVERIES Begin.�?

So now you’re claiming that because the NSF has the word “discoveries” in their slogan that this means the Discovery Institute is a perfectly legitimate science organization because it has the same word in it’s title? Again I have to wonder what you’ve been smoking.

No, I was simply pointing out for those who may be unaware of the nature of the sources you quoted, that an atheist quoting an atheist may feel he/she has answered definitively, but it falls under the category someone has already mentioned about numerical arguments.  If a position is true, it matters not how many people see it is true, it is not “more true�? as a result, nor is it even thereby proven to actually BE true.

Bullshit, you were trying to imply that because the source was an atheist that made it immediately suspect. Therefore the same logic should hold true for anything dealing with the Discovery Institute and ID. Nobody was using the argument from numbers fallacy.

No “insistences�? here.  Seems to me Discovery is doing a good job of approaching the issue from the ground rules people in the scientific community have laid out.  But of course, the scientific community doesn’t think so, and as with anyone they disagree with, then begins the old “death of a thousand qualifications�? (which has already surfaced here as well, I see from some of the responses being offered).

You’ll pardon me if I question your sense of judgment with regards to the job the Discovery Institute has done in playing by the rules of the scientific community. I’ve read the entire site and have yet to see anything from them that fit the definition of a proper scientific theory.

And yes, qualifications are important if you’re going to speak as an authority on something. Again I ask if you would seek out a Cosmologist to give you a diagnosis of an ailment you’re suffering from. If not, why not? By your logic they should be just as qualified as any doctor simply by virtue of being a fellow scientist.

Which isn’t to say that they may not have something to contribute to the conversation, but that anything they propose that flies in the face of accepted scientific theories should be heavily questioned if they are not actually active in the field they are attempting to change.

And now I know you simply want to discredit his work by whatever means you find at your disposal.  Your chosen method (and theirs, quite obviously) of reduction to the absurd is considered invalid argument, by the way.

I don’t have to discredit his work. He’s doing a fine enough job of it himself. Read the trial transcripts for yourself. He looks like a friggin’ idiot especially when he’s being cross-examined. At one point Behe was presented with a plethora of peer-reviewed papers that offered explanations of how both blood clotting and bacterial flagellum developed via natural selection and his response was to dismiss them out of hand:

HARRISBURG - Surrounded by stacks of thick books and more than 50 peer-reviewed articles on the subject of the evolution of the immune system, Michael Behe, a leading intelligent-design expert, was asked repeatedly whether he thought scientists had produced written works on the subject.

Eric Rothschild, plaintiffs’ attorney in the trial against the Dover Area School District, piled the material onto the witness stand in order to challenge the Lehigh University biochemist’s statement in his 1996 book, “Darwin’s Black Box,” that the “scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.”

But Behe sat steadfast.

He remains unaware of any evidence of work done “in a detailed, rigorous fashion” detailing “how immune systems or their irreducibly complex components could have arisen through natural selection and random mutation,” he said.

Kinda like what you’re doing here when asked to demonstrate how ID qualifies as a legitimate scientific theory. So I suppose this means you don’t have a problem with redefining what a “scientific theory” is just so you can fit your pet cause under the umbrella even if it means including long debunked nonsense such as Astrology? How convenient. I hear they’re trying to do that in Kansas as well. Hey, if you can’t beat ‘em then just change the definition until you can join ‘em.

Or maybe you’ve forgotten that science has its own “Piltdown Man?�? Are we then supposed to invalidate all conclusions of science based on the one case that brought them embarrassment?

So then you admit that Behe is an embarrassment who doesn’t really know what the hell he’s talking about? That’s a step in a positive direction.

Yes, scientists have been fooled by hoaxes before. They also managed to figure out the hoax and correct themselves in the process. It’s not like the same isn’t true in reverse.

Another famous “Dr.”, Kent Hovind, latched onto an 1999 April Fools prank by scientists as proof that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. The sad part is this prank is still showing up as “proof” on various pro-ID/Creationist websites.

And that’s one of the big differences between the Evolution camp and the ID/Creationist camp. The Evolutionists abandoned Piltdown Man as soon as it was clear it was a hoax, but Onyate Man keeps showing up as proof for the true believers. You can’t find an Evolutionist who doesn’t admit that Piltdown Man hoodwinked the scientists, but you’ll still find plenty of IDers who will insist that Onyate Man is a real fossil that proves their point.

Thank you.  I can only marvel at the irony of you doing so.

You’re welcome. Everyone needs more irony in their diet.

I never claimed it did.  I was addressing the one-dimensional focus of the responses so far, which characterize anyone who accepts ID as either ignorant or “fundie�? or both.

Ignorant of current Evolutionary Theory, not ignorant in general. A distinction that has been made previously. Scott Adams is a very intelligent person, but he freely admits to being ignorant of current Evolutionary Theory and that immediately calls into question the validity of any judgments he makes about it. There is a difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. You can have as many of the former as you wish, but I’ll take you more seriously if you have more of the latter. The moment someone shows up here to argue for ID without using the same old tired arguments that have already been beaten to a pulp I’ll dance a little jig. You certainly haven’t managed to do so what with pulling out the old favorites of blood clotting and the like, issues that indicate you haven’t been keeping up with the science.

And I’ve yet to meet a Fundamentalist who wasn’t firmly in the ID/Creationist camp. I suppose it’s possible there are some out there somewhere, but I’ve yet to come across one myself.

They didn’t have to, implied remarks often speak more loudly than outright declarations.  It has been an almost unanimous presupposition throughout the thread.

If you say so, I don’t see it and there are plenty of regulars here who represent the demographic of believers who don’t have a problem with science. You’re new to the site, though, so I’ll give you the benefit of unfamiliarity.

I think I just said that.  And up until you just stated it, I haven’t seen anyone else come close.

Perhaps not in this thread, but there are over 3500 threads here. Again the difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. Try not to judge everyone based on the content of one or two threads until you’ve had the chance to read some of the other stuff that’s been written. You might be able to avoid repeating dead arguments that way as well.

Now there’s a hoot.  As if consistently repeated outcomes don’t constitute “proof.�? I’ll quit believing in gravity the next time I drop something and have to grab it quick before it floats away.  Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there—kinda lke a Creator.

This paragraph demonstrates that you don’t really understand the scientific method or the nature of scientific theories. Allow me to enlighten you:

As noted above, in common usage a theory is defined as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is not considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

Emphasis mine. Theories are never proven and all are vulnerable to being falsified. The best theories stand the test of time and repeated experimentation, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be upended should some new data come to light. Continuing from the Wikipedia entry:

In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,
4. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
5. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam’s Razor.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; those that meet only several or none at all, cannot be said to be scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Given the above, please (once again) demonstrate how ID qualifies as a valid scientific theory.

You gotta like it.  I make one comment about a prayer study and you automatically know which one I’m referring to?  Exactly where did you miss my comment about it being “five years ago?�? The course I was taking was in Fall of 2000.  The study you mentioned was in 2001.  I’ll let you do the math on that one.  *heh*

There are numerous studies out there, and with similar results.  Scientists are slowly but begrudgingly beginning to acknowledge “there is something there.�?

You’re right, I jumped the gun on that one and for that I apologize.

Considering that the best you can do is mention some study you vaguely recall from five years ago without any sort of a reference, you’ll pardon me if I find your claim specious at best. Who are these scientists who are “begrudgingly” beginning to acknowledge the effect of prayer? What studies are you referring to? Where are the supporting references for your claim? Why should I just accept your word on it when I don’t even know who the hell you are?

That’s where you’re mistaken, there are plenty of them, unless you have your head buried too far in the sand to see them.  A good place to start would be the archives at http://www.stnews.org/index.php They have published news about many of them. But of course, once you’ve seen the information, then there will be the inevitable parsing of the information so that it can be dismissed and/or disqualified on one technicality or another that “explains�? why it isn’t good enough, and supposedly thereby “invalidated.�?

I find it amusing that you’re quick to dismiss links that point to resources that disagree with your view and then when you do finally provide a reference you immediately qualify any response we might give as being unworthy of your consideration. You seem quite willing to swallow whole claims that agree with your worldview while dismissing out of hand those that disagree as being from sources with an axe to grind.

But any reference is better than no reference. I’ll see if I can’t dig up a few of the studies to look over and consider. I won’t bother with trying to find rebuttals as you’ll just dismiss them anyway.

But at least not self-contradictory, as some of the scientific theories that are contrary even to the laws of science

What the hell are you talking about now? If you’re going to make a claim like that and don’t want to be considered an idiot then you should really take the time to back it up with some sort of a reference.

Thanks for the link to Onyate Man, Les.  I didn’t know the story and I almost wet myself…

Les, I wish I had an informed opinion agreeing with ID, as I would very much like to witness your jig. Sadly, I don’t even have an opinion agreeing with ID, as I believe to be entirely unscientific and most probably incorrect.

Also, I would like to second your insistence that to trust a scientist’s claims on subject x, we should make sure his or her degree is in subject x.

As an example, consider Serge Lang. Lang was a brilliant mathematician and wrote one of the three major graduate texts in Abstract Algebra. If Lang were to claim the truth of a mathematical theorem, I would trust him without bothering to scour his proof. However, I wouldn’t trust his opinions on medicine - until the day he died (2 or 3 months ago, I think) he believed that AIDS was not, in fact, caused by a virus.

I’d just like to mention before the silly boy with the unspellable username posts again, I’m a junior in college working on a dual major in astronomy and physics.

If he’s having problems swallowing what everyone’s saying, I recommend he take a gram of arsenic after dinner. It’ll clear that indigestion right up. And let’s remember, I’m a medical expert by his definition…

TO VOIJARISA:

No. I don’t admit that ID is a theory. Again, it’s only a hypothesis. It has to undergo testing before it can be counted as a theory. Oh, wait. It has undergone testing and it’s failed. I guess it’s not really even a good hypothesis anymore.

Oh, man, how are we going to break the news to zilch?  He seems to think one of its main problems is that it’s “not falsifiable.�?

However, people such as yourself that claim to believe it on other grounds, ie scientific, have only been hoodwinked by liars like Behe, Dembski, the Discovery Institute, et al.

So one person says they’re “suspect,�? another says they’re disproven, and somehow we follow this line of illogic to the infallible conclusion that they have become “liars???�?

And I never said what grounds I believed it on, so you’ve made your own assumption.  I just stated it has proponents who are approaching it from that angle.

But let’s also remember that the DI knows this which is precisely why they haven’t written any scientific journal articles and instead write things for the common person that can easily have the wool pulled over their eyes.

More likely, it is because the scientific community has ways of shunning those who won’t toe their line and chant their mantra.  So they take it to the larger audience. 

If there were really the vast gloabal conspiracy to make such hoaxes, then why would scientists betray their own hoax?

Jeez, don’t have a cow!  Vast global conspiracy?  Where did you ever get that by my offering one example? 

We have our rules that are meant to discover such hoaxes, and as the Piltdown man demonstrates, we do a good job at uncovering them.

Yes, a very good job.  That particular one only took 41 years.

However, with ID, there’s barely a small tree in comparison. Behe’s tesimony takes out the trunk.

You haven’t refuted a man’s observations on molecular biological processes by backing him into a corner on a basically unrelated statement about astrology.  And so far that’s been about the main counter to his position.

You seem to want to believe this, but there’s never been any such implications. This seems to be the persecution complex hard at work.

Well, for one, I don’t consider myself a fundie at all, mainly because there are enough issues on which I’ve dialogued with fundies and they all call me a liberal.  And secondly, just because you don’t see them doesn’t mean they are non-existent.  For example:

A spy in the discussion group forwards it to fundies and news outlets across the state demonstrating how Christians are being “persectued�?.

(Now who’s paranoid?  This was, after all, your comment)

If you doubt the identification of ID with creationism, read the Wedge Document, an outline for the use of ID as a “wedge�? to introduce fundamentalist Christian thought into public school curricula.

I look at PZ’s cynicism as a foil to the odious “wedge strategy�? of the IDers, the attempt to insert their parochial brand of fundamentalist belief into American public schools.

(This one is pretty direct—attributing “fundamentalist beliefs�? to “IDers�?)

I could go on, but you get the point.  And that covers less than halfway down the thread, and is not even a comprehensive list (or this would be an awfully long post), the rest is all just more of the same.

The theory of gravity said every time you drop something it will fall. Can you really test every instance?  Of course not. Thus, you can’t have “proof”.  You can only attempt to approximate it by testing as often as possible.

Oh, this is too easy.  With a lifetime of dropping things, which I seem to be developing more of a propensity for with each new day, I’d say 53 years of observing that 100% of things I have dropped have confirmed gravity, that’s pretty safe grounds to “prove�? it exists.  But then, of course, I’ve never taken a ride on a space shuttle.  But that would take me outside the gravitational field, making it inapplicable anyway. 

However, let’s take a look at ID again. What tests has it done? None. Can it even do tests? Of course not. It doesn’t make predictions.

And what tests have evolutionists done on hypotheses like, for instance, descent with modification?  None.  Can it even do tests?  Of course not, descent with modification allegedly occurs over too large a time span to even be testable (or so they claim, even against obstacles like the Cambrian explosion). 

Some people deny it, but this is the place evolutionary theories eventually come to, an attempt to connect the dots to make an observable phenomenon of change within species somehow also turn into a theory with cosmological significance.  But as such, it is fraught with enough difficulties that it has been rejected by many scientists. 

But by many others, what is called a theory is purported to be established fact.  For instance, Ernst Mayr states:

No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact.

He makes the statement without any delineation of his understanding of “theory of evolution"--is it the observable form or the speculative and unverified notions that are an expansion of it?

If he’s having problems swallowing what everyone’s saying, I recommend he take a gram of arsenic after dinner. It’ll clear that indigestion right up. And let’s remember, I’m a medical expert by his definition…

Another one of those “reducibles,” I see.  The weapon of choice here apparently, reduction to the absurd.  But if it’s all the same with you, I think I’ll get a second opinion on the diagnosis.  I don’t figure I’ve got 41 years to wait around for the results.

And I’ve yet to meet a Fundamentalist who wasn’t firmly in the ID/Creationist camp.

That’s just it. It seems to me that this is simple induction--while not all adherents or simple believers in ID may not be religious fundamentalists, I personally have yet to meet a religious fundy who does not adhere to ID. The correlation seems, for the most part, positive. That’s what is so pernicious about the movement to undermine the (well-backed) theory of evolution in public schools. Despite some admittedly sound arguments from non-fundamentalist proponents of ID, I don’t think one can argue that the teaching ID in schools is not a Religious Wrong endeavor.

And I never said what grounds I believed it on, so you’ve made your own assumption.

Really? So are you being deliberately obtuse then?

If you don’t believe it on religious grounds then you must believe it on some sort of “scientific” grounds. Thus, I and others have debunked nearly every one of the “scientific” claims that have been made.
But if we haven’t gotten the right one, please tell us what it is that makes you believe so we can subject it to critical analysis. Unless of course, you’re afraid to subject your reasoning to such scrutiny. Either that or you don’t really have a reason and are just pretending you do now to try to save face.

More likely, it is because the scientific community has ways of shunning those who won’t toe their line and chant their mantra.  So they take it to the larger audience.

Again, you have no evidence for this. In fact, quite the opposite. Scientists frequently publish things in peer reviewed journals that don’t go along with the mainstream. There is a physicist at the University of Missouri Rolla (UMR) that has a theory that the sun is actually made of iron. His stuff is still published dispite being blatantly against the mainstream.

Vast global conspiracy?  Where did you ever get that by my offering one example?

It’s based on your assumption that scientists are somehow trying to hide the fact that their pet theory is in trouble. If that’s not a conspiracy, I’m not sure what is. Given that scientists across the globe nearly unanimously support evolution, that makes it one hell of a conspiracy.

Now who’s paranoid?  This was, after all, your comment

Yes, that was my comment. And I’m not paranoid in the least. Given that the mole outed himself, I don’t call that an unreasonable suspicion. Yours is simply paranoid delusion.

Oh, this is too easy.  With a lifetime of dropping things, which I seem to be developing more of a propensity for with each new day, I’d say 53 years of observing that 100% of things I have dropped have confirmed gravity, that’s pretty safe grounds to “prove�? it exists.

Again, the only thing that’s easy is your continued proof that you are completely clueless as to how science operates. Having things work 100% of the time thus far only shows that it’s worked for that range of possibilities. But how do you know gravity isn’t a function of time that takes 100,000 years and then reverses itself? We don’t. Which is why gravity is “just a theory”. You can’t test every case. We can be pretty damn sure, but never positive. The same is true for Evolution. EVERY test for it has been successful. That doesn’t prove it, but it makes it pretty damn well supported.

But as such, it is fraught with enough difficulties that it has been rejected by many scientists.

If you wish to claim that a few dozen is “many scientists” out of the several hundreds of thousands, you should really relearn some high school math.

That’s about as intellectualy honest as saying “many christians believe the rapture will happen this decade” because there’s a few delusional ones out there.

The weapon of choice here apparently, reduction to the absurd.

You’ve done a good job of doing that to your own argument.

Look, let’s cut to the chase. We’re not vested in evolution, so instead of bickering what whatshisnick about why evolution isn’t, ask him to put up or shut up and tell us why ID is right.

So:

What is the theory of ID?

How does it explain the body of fact and observations that evolution currently does?

What mechanisms does it propose?

How we can we falsify the so-called theory of ID?

Are there any lab experiments that we can conduct to prove or disprove ID?

Until such time as whatshisnick ceases to evade answers to these questions, it’s a waste of time going round and round points that have been refuted far too many times already.

Mxyzptlk- what elwed said.  You support ID.  And ultimately, ID must be judged on its merits, not on the ratio of scientists or creationists for and against it.  If you want to participate in a logical discussion about the status of ID as a scientific theory, answer elwed’s questions.  Otherwise we stay on the merry-go-round of “my source is better than your source”.  And some of us have spent lots of time on this particular ride, and it’s not as entertaining as it once was.

That said, I will respond to particulars of your post that involve me.  First: VoijaRisa said

No. I don’t admit that ID is a theory. Again, it’s only a hypothesis. It has to undergo testing before it can be counted as a theory. Oh, wait. It has undergone testing and it’s failed. I guess it’s not really even a good hypothesis anymore.

to which you replied

Oh, man, how are we going to break the news to zilch?  He seems to think one of its main problems is that it’s “not falsifiable.�?

I’m not sure exactly what VoijaRisa meant by “failed”, but I suspect (correct me if I’m wrong, VR) he or she was referring to, not the failure of the basic premise of ID, i.e. that some features of living organisms evince design that could not have evolved, but rather to the particular failures of ID’s poster boys- the flagellum and blood clotting (already cited by Les).  The unfalsifiability of the basic premise remains.

Second: you seem eager to disavow the creationist underpinnings of ID.  True, there are a few flying saucer IDer’s out there, but not many.  But the motivation for the invention of ID was, and remains, the penetration of fundamentalist ideas into public school science classes.  Have you read the Wedge Document?  If you haven’t, please don’t complain about our equating ID with Christian fundamentalism.

Mxyzptlk- what elwed said.  You support ID.  And ultimately, ID must be judged on its merits, not on the ratio of scientists or creationists for and against it.  If you want to participate in a logical discussion about the status of ID as a scientific theory, answer elwed’s questions.  Otherwise we stay on the merry-go-round of “my source is better than your source�?.  And some of us have spent lots of time on this particular ride, and it’s not as entertaining as it once was.

Don’t count me out just yet.  I spent a considerable amount of time last night responding to two separate posts, and after getting it completed, hit the submit button and it totally vanished.  Hitting “back” did not bring it back, and at that point I was too tired to continue.  I do have a real life and can’t respond as quickly as I would like, and may not get back to this until tonight, so bear with me.

Thanks for the links, that at least gives me some substance to work with.  The general tenor of the response so far has been “everybody accepts evolution, what’s wrong with you?” which leaves me thinking, “No, not everybody does, and why don’t you have anything to go on by way of response other than ‘Dembski’s an idiot, Behe’s an idiot, and you’re an idiot to believe them?’”

It just seems that the general approach I’ve faced here is, to lay back and wait for me to provide something so critics can take potshots at it.  And when I’ve asked for someone’s estimation of Behe’s work, I get a general sense that no one has actually read it.  So the link is helpful, even though it still is not someone’s direct estimation of Behe from an informed stance of having read his work.  But I will see what they have to say, and I have a bit more to add from Behe’s work itself, which certainly does not rise or fall on the flagellum issue.

I have an idea. Let’s revisit a question of David’s from a year or two ago.

How does ID explain that the grass is green?

In any lengthy reply I’d recommend copying the final result to the clipboard prior to hitting submit. The net is a wee bit unpredictable at times so it’s better to be safe.

As for Dembski and Behe, I’ve read their work. Dembski doesn’t strike me so much as an idiot as much as just misled. Behe strikes me as an idiot, especially after seeing some of his lectures (which almost always end up being non-step attacks on Evolution rather than an explanation of how ID supposedly works) and his antics in the Dover Panda Trial.

You’re quite right, however, to say that not everyone believes in Evolution. We’re well aware of the fact that the majority of Americans don’t believe in it. That’s the problem as there’s quite simply an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of it and no one has come up with a better theory to replace it with. IDer’s keep claiming there’s this big controversy among scientists over the issue and there really isn’t. There’s a handful of scientists, mostly from fields unrelated to biology, who object to it.

In the end you can believe whatever you want, but then I’m free to believe you’re an idiot for your beliefs as well.

. . .Behe’s work itself, which certainly does not rise or fall on the flagellum issue.

Of course it doesn’t.  Behe doesn’t claim that NO forms of life are the products of natural selection, he merely claims that SOME forms of life are products of design.

Here’s how it works.

Behe “Wow.  That’s waaaaay too complicated to have evolved.”

Scientists.  “Shit. There he goes again.  Now we have to abandon the search for a cure for cancer, and spend eight years doing research to establish an evolutionary pathway for the flagellum.”

[Cue Jeopardy theme]

Scientists [with angry frowns]. “Here it is, you fuck.  Now leave us alone.”

Behe.  “Oh.  Well, I suppose I might have been mistaken about =this particular example=.  But, look over there, now THAT’s super-ultra-complicated.  No WAY that one evolved! “

Scientists [with frowns turning slowly to irritated comprehension] “Ok.  Nice one.  You made us look.  Don’t think we’re gonna fall for it again, though.”

Behe’s claims can never be disproven, because he acknowledges that -some- complexity is the product of evolution.  He can, therefore, always ‘move the goalposts’ once one of his ‘proof’ examples has been dispensed with.

Hence, Behe’s ‘theory’ is so poorly articulated that it lacks 1)predictive power and 2) falsifiability.

It has -explanatory- power, but so does “it sprang from the end of his noodly appendage.”

It just seems that the general approach I’ve faced here is, to lay back and wait for me to provide something so critics can take potshots at it.

There’s a couple of reasons for that Mixy.  One is that we’ve had the discussion, right here on this board, numerous times.  David’s just one example of a proponent of ID and, despite his other tics, probably one of the more articulate.  Frequently, the people who show up to rant about ID are people who can’t spell ID.  Nor do they know what IC is, or why it’s the cornerstone [and a crumbly one, at that] of what Behe is claiming.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794;jsessionid=aaadwu3j1rLbqZ?fulltext=true

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml
[if you scroll down on this page, you get about seventy links that address flaws in Behe’s work, from the general to the very specific, from IC to the blood clotting cascade in vertebrates.]

Bear in mind, Mixy, that it’s not uncommon for IDers to show up crowing “you sheep!  I have discoverd the trooth!  Ewe are all sheep, and are just beleeving the Ziontists becuz yu are sheep!”
The truth is that very few people on this board have NOT read at least some of Behe’s arguments, and I’d lay money that even more people have read numerous critiques of it.  I’d be cautious, if I were you, before I started making claims that people ‘just don’t understand’ Behe’s arguments.

zilch, you’re precisely right as to what I meant when I said the few “tests” that could actually classify ID as a science have failed.

Let’s recall that Behe continuously posits that such objects could not arise naturally. A scientist should test this. But when asked, on the stand at Dover, if he had ever bothered to test his hypothesis, he replied with a big, fat “no”. Now you tell me, Mxyzptlk, how does this make Behe a good scientist that we should be trusting?

why don’t you have anything to go on by way of response other than ‘Dembski’s an idiot, Behe’s an idiot, and you’re an idiot to believe them?’�?

Perhaps you could give us another way to go by providing something to actually critique. I believe this is the third time I’ve had to ask you for this.

And when I’ve asked for someone’s estimation of Behe’s work, I get a general sense that no one has actually read it.

I too have read some of his work. But he continually relies on the assumption of “irreducible complexity”. Given that his two poster child systems for irreducible complexity have turned out to be, well, not irreducible, I don’t find him having much of an argument anymore given that’s the underlying supposition to everything.

This would be like an astronomer assuming that gravity works on all scales, having someone prove that it doesn’t work for thing the size of galaxies, but the astronomer keep saying that galaxies were held together by gravity. He’s been proven wrong.

So why do you seem to think he’s such a credible source when he can’t even be enough of a scientist to complete the scientific method and modify his hypothesis when it’s been shown to be wrong?

I have a bit more to add from Behe’s work itself, which certainly does not rise or fall on the flagellum issue.

I look forward to seeing it. However, if it still rests on the platform of irreducible complexity, that puts it on extremely shaky ground.

nowiser,

Here’s how it works.

Concise version: God in the alleged gaps.

Elwed.
Oh sure.  Go with succinct.  I’m a teacher, I’m -supposed- to be verbose.

(Besides, the mental image of a bunch of scientists realizing that they’ve had a huge prank played on them made me laugh.  I had to share).

Oh.  This is cute, by the way.  I had to share it as well.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec96.html