Daily Campus

Daniel, I find you points interesting.........could you post the questions about the validity of evolution which Dr. Wise is advoiding to explain.....I am neutral and would like to learn more about the weaknesses of evolutionary theory!! Thanks

Originally posted by

Daniel S.

As a layman, my question to you is this... Why do you continue to use smear tactics, ad hominem attacks, and refuse to address the actual valid scientific arguments?

What about the 600+ supporters listed at http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ ???

Many of these individuals, I am sure, have a much higher degree of scientific knowledge and understanding (as well as peer review and respectability) than yourself.

A quote from the site...

>>> ...over 600 scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names. The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.<<<

It seems to me that your reliance upon distinctly UN-scientific sources to back your assertions and even when you do refer to the science behind your "beliefs" or convictions (in other writings) you to seem refer to those that bolster your position, and yet, always seem to refuse to respond directly to the arguments of those from the opposing quarters when they rebut your position.

Invariably, evolutionists such as yourself, degrade the debate into mockery and name calling. Quite evidently, and almost entirely without exception.

Everybody has beliefs, and everybody will use supporting information to bolster their case, scientific or not.

Until you can respond directly to the leading opposing arguments in a public forum (such as the one you denied to attend), then your own arguments are based on nothing more than your own "religious faith" in evolution.

There is valid scientific dissent from many quarters. Are they (over 600), I suppose that they are all "...politically furthering the religious beliefs of creationism and Intelligent Design." ?????

I think not.

"An intelligent man will regard very closely the arguments of his opponents when they bring to light the previously unknown (to himself) flaws in his claims. He will confront these honestly and courageously, for better or for worse, and with integrity, and thus adjust his position accordingly, either to admit his error or to rebut his opponents on equal grounds from which they speak."

Lastly, (and this is a separate argument) if ones belief in a supernatural designer disqualifies scientific their inquiry then perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the following facts.

Do you..

>>>"...misunderstand(s) the philosophical origins of modern science. The Scientific Revolution emerged within, and only within, Judeo-Christian civilization, and nearly all of the scientists who gave us modern science---Copernicus, Pascal, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Leibniz, Harvey, Vesalius, Linnaeus, Lavoisier, Mendel, Pasteur, as well as Faraday and Maxwell, were devout Christians who inferred design in all of nature. They worked entirely from the design inference."<<< ?

You do certainly do not have the last word on wisdom, knowledge and understanding...

Whoso loveth instruction ( reproof, warning or instruction; also restraint:) loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof (correction, refutation, proof) is brutish. (brutishness, stupidity)
-Proverbs 12:1

Does your quote from a book written when people were horribly uneducated somehow give you credence? Can I quote from the Koran and get taken as both intelligent and open-minded too? Come on, dude. You are a believer only through fear... nothing else.

I can say THERE IS NO GOD! And sleep well tonight. Can you?

whew....

While I cannot speak for Dr. Wise, I might suggest that one reason he hasn't addressed "the actual valid scientific arguments" in favor of intelligent design is, in short, there are none. Nor does Daniel S., the author of the e-mail to which I am responding, cite any. Instead he accuses Mr. Wise of engaging in ad hominem attacks before launching into just such an attack himself.

Daniel S. might gain insight into the question of the scientific basis of intelligent design by reading a portion of the cross-examination during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial of the defendant's expert witness Prof. Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University and the leading, and virtually only, legitimate scientist lending his voice in support of the theory of intelligent design. (There are other scientists in the intelligent design camp, but none with Prof. Behe's academic qualifications, and his, while respectable, are not awesome. He is not, for example, a member of the National Academy of Sciences.) The questioner was Eric Rothschild, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs and a partner in the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamiltion LLP. The point at issue is the oft-repeated claim from the intelligent design crowd, especially from the Discovery Institute, the think-tank that is the primary architect and promulgator of the theory of intelligent design, that there are peer-reviewed scientific papers published in legitimate academic journals supporting the theory. Prof. Behe is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute. For convenience of reference, I have attached the relevant portion of the transcript:

"Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct? [Repetitive exchange omitted.]

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, 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, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes."

Permit me to reiterate. Prof. Behe (the prize fellow of the Discovery Institute and one of the very few legitimate scientists of any reputation whatsoever willing to give credence to the origins theory known as intelligent design) said, under oath, that there are no peer-reviewed articles by anyone (as in nobody ever) advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how the intelligent design of any biological system occurred!" Let me beat this dead horse some more: None! Zero! Nada! Bubkes! Zippola! Behe said under oath that there is no genuine scientific support for the theory of intelligent design.

But how can this be? All along the Discovery Institute has claimed (which claims continue to this day despite Prof. Behe's unequivocal admission) that there are a plentitude of such articles. Can it be that these claims are nonsense!? Absolute nonsense! Don't they believe even the sworn testimony of their own star fellow? Could it be that they are just flat lying? Surely not. They're Christians after all.

Regarding Daniel S.'s pointing to the list of 600+ alleged scientists who signed the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" document, it should be made clear that the overwhelming bulk of the list are not bioligical scientists and of those that are, virtually none are in the field of evolutionary biology. Nonetheless, this rather pathetic list is all the Discovery Institute has been able to scrape together from the thousands upon thousands of practicing scientists in the world.

The one statement in Daniel S.'s rather unpleasant screed that appears to be unassailably accurate is that he is a layman.

Originally posted by

Daniel S.

As a layman, my question to you is this... Why do you continue to use smear tactics, ad hominem attacks, and refuse to address the actual valid scientific arguments?

What about the 600+ supporters listed at http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ ???

Many of these individuals, I am sure, have a much higher degree of scientific knowledge and understanding (as well as peer review and respectability) than yourself.

A quote from the site...

>>> ...over 600 scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names. The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.<<<

It seems to me that your reliance upon distinctly UN-scientific sources to back your assertions and even when you do refer to the science behind your "beliefs" or convictions (in other writings) you to seem refer to those that bolster your position, and yet, always seem to refuse to respond directly to the arguments of those from the opposing quarters when they rebut your position.

Invariably, evolutionists such as yourself, degrade the debate into mockery and name calling. Quite evidently, and almost entirely without exception.

Everybody has beliefs, and everybody will use supporting information to bolster their case, scientific or not.

Until you can respond directly to the leading opposing arguments in a public forum (such as the one you denied to attend), then your own arguments are based on nothing more than your own "religious faith" in evolution.

There is valid scientific dissent from many quarters. Are they (over 600), I suppose that they are all "...politically furthering the religious beliefs of creationism and Intelligent Design." ?????

I think not.

"An intelligent man will regard very closely the arguments of his opponents when they bring to light the previously unknown (to himself) flaws in his claims. He will confront these honestly and courageously, for better or for worse, and with integrity, and thus adjust his position accordingly, either to admit his error or to rebut his opponents on equal grounds from which they speak."

Lastly, (and this is a separate argument) if ones belief in a supernatural designer disqualifies scientific their inquiry then perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the following facts.

Do you..

>>>"...misunderstand(s) the philosophical origins of modern science. The Scientific Revolution emerged within, and only within, Judeo-Christian civilization, and nearly all of the scientists who gave us modern science---Copernicus, Pascal, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Leibniz, Harvey, Vesalius, Linnaeus, Lavoisier, Mendel, Pasteur, as well as Faraday and Maxwell, were devout Christians who inferred design in all of nature. They worked entirely from the design inference."<<< ?

You do certainly do not have the last word on wisdom, knowledge and understanding...

Whoso loveth instruction ( reproof, warning or instruction; also restraint:) loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof (correction, refutation, proof) is brutish. (brutishness, stupidity)
-Proverbs 12:1

Originally posted by

Daniel S.

As a layman, my question to you is this... Why do you continue to use smear tactics, ad hominem attacks, and refuse to address the actual valid scientific arguments?

Intelligent Design, IS NOT science. Its Philosophy. Its something people think about and believe is the reason why were all in existence, but face it, its just another name for creationism, which is religion. Intelligent Design is nothing more then Religion and Philosophy and has no place in Science.

Originally posted by

Daniel

As a layman, my question to you is this... Why do you continue to use smear tactics, ad hominem attacks, and refuse to address the actual valid scientific arguments?

What about the 600+ supporters listed at http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ ???

Many of these individuals, I am sure, have a much higher degree of scientific knowledge and understanding (as well as peer review and respectability) than yourself.

A quote from the site...

>>> ...over 600 scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names. The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

--snip--


"An intelligent man will regard very closely the arguments of his opponents when they bring to light the previously unknown (to himself) flaws in his claims. He will confront these honestly and courageously, for better or for worse, and with integrity, and thus adjust his position accordingly, either to admit his error or to rebut his opponents on equal grounds from which they speak."

Lastly, (and this is a separate argument) if ones belief in a supernatural designer disqualifies scientific their inquiry then perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the following facts.

Do you..

>>>"...misunderstand(s) the philosophical origins of modern science. The Scientific Revolution emerged within, and only within, Judeo-Christian civilization, and nearly all of the scientists who gave us modern science---Copernicus, Pascal, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Leibniz, Harvey, Vesalius, Linnaeus, Lavoisier, Mendel, Pasteur, as well as Faraday and Maxwell, were devout Christians who inferred design in all of nature. They worked entirely from the design inference."<<< ?

You do certainly do not have the last word on wisdom, knowledge and understanding...

Whoso loveth instruction ( reproof, warning or instruction; also restraint:) loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof (correction, refutation, proof) is brutish. (brutishness, stupidity)
-Proverbs 12:1

If you really tried, you could probably find at least 600 scientists out of the hundreds of thousands in this country alone who believe in alien abductions or any other sort of unscientific weirdness. Not to mention that the actual statement:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

is one that could be embraced by most evolutionary biologists, as there remains significant debate over what other (natural) mechanisms operate in evolution- e.g. sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. You might also notice that many of the names are in disciplines outside biology, including a "Research Meterologist" and several computer science professors- I trust you don't go into biology class expecting the professor to teach you all about computer programming. If lists are really that impressive to you, try a google search on "Project Steve."

While many great scientists have been Christians, that does not change the fact that the methods they used involved solely investigating the natural world. As the writer of the article points out, their philosophical and religious beliefs were a separate issue.

But if you're so convinced that ID can actually contribute something to science, then I'll ask the same question ID's critics have been asking over and over and over again, even in the comments of other articles in the SMU paper, with no answer whatsoever from ID advocates:

By what reliable method can science investigate the supernatural?

Originally posted by

Daniel

As a layman, my question to you is this... Why do you continue to use smear tactics, ad hominem attacks, and refuse to address the actual valid scientific arguments? //////////////////
Snip

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You do certainly do not have the last word on wisdom, knowledge and understanding...

Whoso loveth instruction ( reproof, warning or instruction; also restraint:) loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof (correction, refutation, proof) is brutish. (brutishness, stupidity)
-Proverbs 12:1

Boo replied: "If you really tried, you could probably find at least 600 scientists out of the hundreds of thousands in this country alone who believe in alien abductions or any other sort of unscientific weirdness. Not to mention that the actual statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.'"
"

This is a strawman, Boo, these scientists specifically dissent from Darwinism. They aren't supporters of alien abductions (well, some of them could be), but the point is that Darwinism is not necessarily scientific itself. Natural selection is a philosophical position based upon methodological naturalism. It is not scientific. You have to go beyond the raw data to say that natural selection is at work. This is what these 600+ scienteists recognize. The problem also persists becuase Darwinists define science as methodological naturalism. This is problematic, because Darwinists are using a tautology to define science.

Boo continues: "is one that could be embraced by most evolutionary biologists, as there remains significant debate over what other (natural) mechanisms operate in evolution- e.g. sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. You might also notice that many of the names are in disciplines outside biology, including a "Research Meterologist" and several computer science professors- I trust you don't go into biology class expecting the professor to teach you all about computer programming. If lists are really that impressive to you, try a google search on 'Project Steve.'"

Another strawman. These scientists are specifically against random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. I.e., they are not Darwinists. Most Evolutionary biologists who accept Darwin's account, would not agree with the Dissent From Darwinism statement.

Futhermore, Boo, numbers don't account for truth. The number of scientists who do accept Darwin's ideas far outweighs the number of his dissenters. But the fact is that there are numbers (the number really doesn't matter - it could be ten, or it could be one million) of practicing scientists who work with data and do experiments and write peer reviewed papers and teach science to others, who do not accept that random mutation and natural selection account for complex biological systems. It doesn't matter also if they are all biologists (many of them are).

Biology does not hold the key here. What holds the key is the ability to deal with data empirically. Not all Darwinists are involved with dealing with data empirically.

Boo continues: "While many great scientists have been Christians, that does not change the fact that the methods they used involved solely investigating the natural world. As the writer of the article points out, their philosophical and religious beliefs were a separate issue."

I don't think that their religious beliefs were a separate issue at all. They beleived in a reasonable God. Therefore, they believed that they could find order and reasonableness in nature. The design inferrence was questioned by Darwin, Huxley, and others after. It started in philosophy largely by Hume a hundred years before Darwin, and continued to develop so that theistic ideas were eventually abandoned in other disciplines as well. But there continued to be a remnant of scientists who held a design inferrence.

"But if you're so convinced that ID can actually contribute something to science, then I'll ask the same question ID's critics have been asking over and over and over again, even in the comments of other articles in the SMU paper, with no answer whatsoever from ID advocates:

By what reliable method can science investigate the supernatural?'"

I am convinced that ID can contribute something to science by the scientific method: not by methodological naturalism as the basis for scientific investigation, but by allowing evidence beyond nature. When I say beyond nature, I don't necessarily mean "supernatural." What I mean is that we don't assume that the sphere of nature is all there is. That's all. If we allow that there might be a sphere beyond nature, that might be detected by the scientific method, then we lose nothing. We don't go assuming that such a sphere does exist, and explain things by that sphere if we don't understand something. All we do is allow the sphere.

Now ID theorists are saying that there is such a sphere that has been detected by the scientific method. That sphere is information. It's nothing new. We've been living with information since time began. But there is a sphere from which information comes, and it is not the natural sphere. It cannot be. If you can explain the existence of complex specified information by methodological naturalism, then this debate about Intelligent Design would not be necessary.

DNA contains information. Our philosophical interpretation of the fact that DNA contains information has to allow that the information came from intelligence. We have to abandon the practice of forcing our philosophical assumptions upon that evidence, and countering the evidence to avoid making design inferrences. This is what Darwinists do with the evidence. Dawkins, for example, in his book THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, states that biological systems give the appearance of design. But he avoids making a design inferrence. This is not because natural selection explains the appearance of design; it doesn't. It is because he doesn't want to see design. His philosophical assumptions do not allow him to see it. He explains it away by natural selection, but ultimately natural selection cannot explain it. It can't account for the information in DNA. It can't account for the IRREDUCIBLE complexity in functionally complex biological systems.

Furthermore, Darwinists seem to misunderstand what Behe refers to as "irreducible." They seem to think that something that functions a certain way can evolve to function a different way in biology. They fail to see that when we talk about irreducibly complex systems, their functional component parts (the ones that form a specific function) cannot be changed to form new functions. Until Darwinists begin to understand what "irreducible" means - not just the definition, but the reality of what is going on in commplex biological systems, they will fail to understand what ID theorists are saying.

Randy

Mr. Hanson, please see below.

Originally posted by

Reed Hanson

If you're going to keep out ID, you'd better kick Evolution out of the classroom as "accepted science." I'd venture to say that, in my experience, proponents of Darwinian evolution are more religious in their zeal than any ID Christian could ever be. I'd venture to say that, in my experience, proponents of Darwinian evolution are more religious in their zeal than any ID Christian could ever be. The zeal they display and the fact that even if evolution were true they couldn't explain the origin of the first life (a case presented rather impressively by Dr Meyer at the recent conference) intimates to me that what these scientists are really trying to do is make the science fit their rejection of the possibility of God.

Why should evolution be kicked out of science? You seem to propose it is because of the behavior of some people and not the idea itself. Attacking "evolutionists" as religious does nothing to evolutionary theory.

Yes, Dr. Meyer is persuasive, and he doesn't come across as arrogantly as most scientists do. Which is a main reason Intelligent Design receives such support: it fallas in line with preconceived notions, it comes in nice marketable bits ("Teach the Contraversy" is an example), and it's main proponents are charasmatic.

Yet, ID is a philosophy not inline with scientific methods. Truths in science, are tentative- that is they change with new evidence. "Irreducible complexities in life could only have been casued by a designer" is not tentative it is absolute. This leaves no room for the theory to adapt when recent studies and evidence shows that complexities (ones that we thought were irreducible) have been reduced.

Furthermore the link between the complexity and the designer is not testable. This is important for making scientific conclusions.





[QUOTE id="084164bb-7ddd-4661-afba-8ebfdbd681de"]As a Christian, I don't reject science. I think God gave us science to more fully experience His glory. The idea that Christians are rejecting science by believing in a Creator is simply partisan rhetoric designed to distract from the real issues.[/QUOTE]

It's not a coincidence that the Dover lawsuit followed recent failed attempts to get creation science taught in the classroom. Intelligent design may not have originated from Christian fundamentalism, but the recent Intelligent design "movement" sure has.


[QUOTE id="084164bb-7ddd-4661-afba-8ebfdbd681de"]Why do I vehemently oppose the teaching of evolution? Because of the way it is being used. It is used as a way of explaining away everything as the result of naturalistic processes. If science postulated evolution and then stayed silent on what made evolution occur in the first place, I think the debate would be significantly less. But science has chosen, in some cases, to claim that evolution is in fact evidence against God.[/QUOTE]

Directly false. As a student of science, I have never once been taught that "science has chosen......to claim that evolution is evidence against God." This is one of the biggest misconceptions of science.

You will have people- scientists who are atheists, Christians, etc.- state that their examinations of the world supports their beliefs in no god, in the God, in a god, etc. These conclusions are not science, they are perceptions from individuals.

[QUOTE id="084164bb-7ddd-4661-afba-8ebfdbd681de"]And we are leading our youth astray in the process. I have several friends who might be more willing to explore faith in God were it not for the brainwashing about evolution they received as children. That is why it bothers me. It strays into areas it was never intended to enter. I'm trying to talk to people about Jesus, and here comes the science crowd mocking me and my fellow believers as if what we believed was a bunch of hocus pocus. That's why I can sum up the real issue that drives evolutionary theory in one word: pride.[/QUOTE]

I am a little more concerned about anyone who is brainwashed(this is not a personal accusation). They could be a creationist, ID proponent, especially if they are an evolutionist (after all I can't stand seeing someone who I agree with who doesn't know what they are talking about), scientists, laypeople, politicians, the server at Cafe Brasil, the business student who will run a future major corporation- any of these people.

One of the fundamental principles of a scientific mind is skepticism. This can be exteremely helpful in any field- yet it is barely taught. Why? Science is watered down in our public school system, because of alarmist views like the one I am responding to.
Teachers are afraid to teach science -as it is- because of the potential for community outcry (who do not agree or over extend with the scientific conclusions). Yet many of these principles are the foundation of many sciences. How can we expect the future generations to be any smarter than us, if we continue to do this.
ID is out there- it's been out there for many centuries. No one will stop it as a philosophy (again it just isn't science).
Teaching a dumbed down version of evolution in schools is fueling the brainwashing for both sides of the argument

Originally posted by

Neil Johnson

Wben Professor Wise tells us that "science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces", does he mean to exclude endeavors such as the search for extra terrestrial intelligence, archaeology, and forensics?

Certainly science can tell us whether or not an intelligent agent has acted, albeit with varying degrees of certainty.

The intelligent agent of SETI is no more accessible than the intelligent agent of ID. So when we apply design detection methods to a signal from outer space, we are doing science, because we assume the intelligence is a biological entity, but when we apply design detection methods to biology, we are not doing science, because we assume that the intelligence is a supernatural entity. Please explain how the design detection methods succeed or fail based on what is assumed about the nature of the intelligence.

"Wben Professor Wise tells us that "science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces", does he mean to exclude endeavors such as the search for extra terrestrial intelligence, archaeology, and forensics?"

This is because Wise is involved in the natural sciences, and he thinks the natural sciences are the only legitimate ones - or at least this is what he implies in his statement. You have an excellent argument for why he is dead wrong.

Randy

Originally posted by

Neil Johnson

Wben Professor Wise tells us that "science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces", does he mean to exclude endeavors such as the search for extra terrestrial intelligence, archaeology, and forensics?

Certainly science can tell us whether or not an intelligent agent has acted, albeit with varying degrees of certainty.

The intelligent agent of SETI is no more accessible than the intelligent agent of ID. So when we apply design detection methods to a signal from outer space, we are doing science, because we assume the intelligence is a biological entity, but when we apply design detection methods to biology, we are not doing science, because we assume that the intelligence is a supernatural entity. Please explain how the design detection methods succeed or fail based on what is assumed about the nature of the intelligence.

Neil, ancient civilizations and forensics are certainly governed by natural forces. I don't understand where you come up with the idea that Prof. Wise is trying to exclude them.

SETI is not looking for supernatural clues for another civilization out there. They're looking for the same kinds of footprints we ourselves leave: radio signals in a pattern. We have experience that this could mean intelligence. We have also found that some natural phenomena emit radio signals in a pattern, so we actually have evidence that pattern - or design, if you prefer - does not, after all, necessarily indicate intelligence. Kinda ironic, huh?

Originally posted by

Joshua Caleb

you mention something about science being different from philosophy, i would agree with that. However, what most "scientists" don't realize is that Scientific Naturalism (which many if not most scientists hold to) is a philosophical stance, NOT a "scientific" stance. It is an absolute category error to define science as "searching for materialistic explanations for phenomena". THAT definition itself is NOT supported by materialistic evidences but rather an atheistic or agnostic worldview, it is therefore philosophy, thus the category error. Hello?! any clear thinkers out there?!?

Don't be silly. Of course they know. Why scientists seek only natural explanations is Science 101. Nothing is ever learned is one assumes magic. Especially since there has never been any evidence for the existence of magic, much less any effects from it.

Originally posted by

Randy

Wise: "Science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces. Miracles are extra-ordinary events; gods are super-natural beings.

"Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made for the existence of God? Certainly. Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made that God does not exist? Yes. Is there scientific evidence that answers either of these great questions one way or another? None that holds up to close scrutiny. Collins has no more scientific evidence that God exists than Dawkins has that God does not. Their evidence is philosophical, not scientific. Philosophy can encompass these issues, science cannot.

"This actually matters and is important. If we call ID science, we will have to redefine science to include supernatural causes and effects."

The problem with this argument is that ID is not trying to conclude supernatural causes and effects. It is trying to allow supernatural effects not to be ruled out. We cannot know about supernatural agency through science, but if supernatural agency is real, we should be able to detect its effects on nature. ID posits that the possible effects of "supernatural" agency are found in complex specified information found in DNA. Given this, ID provides an excellent framework for beginning further empirical investigation into the nature of complex biological systems.

Thus, to not allow this in science, is to force science into a tautology. The methodology becomes philosophical, not empirical. Methodological naturalism is in fact, a metaphysical position, not an empirical one.

So Wise is correct that the supernatural agency should not be allowed in science, but the effects of supernatural agency - so far as supernatural agency can effect nature should be allowed an empirical inquiry. But then again - it is premature to say that unexplained effects that can be detected scientifically are necessarily supernatural. ID does not force this conclusion as far as I have come to understand it.

Philosphy is important. Wise allows philosophical arguments for the existence of God. ID implies an inferrence based on evidence that allows one to philosophically conclude (combined with other arguments) that God exists. But those conclusions go beyond scientific empiricism. One must also have other philosophical arguments to arrive at the God of the scriptures. ID does not provide those arguments.

Wise asks and concludes: "Is there scientific evidence that answers either of these great questions one way or another? None that holds up to close scrutiny." This is an opinion that appears to be based on methodological naturalism - a tautological position.

Randy

Isn't it fortunate, then, that we have the Discovery Institute to rescue us? While science is following its dumb ol' methodological naturalism materialism thingy and getting all locked up in its silly little tautology and getting absolutely nowhere, the DI is following the excellent framework for beginning further empirical investigation into the nature of complex biological systems that the study of ID provides. This is great news! They should have a major breakthrough, oh, just about any day now. Real soon. That'll show those dumb ol' "scientists."

GalapagosPete stated: "Isn't it fortunate, then, that we have the Discovery Institute to rescue us? While science is following its dumb ol' methodological naturalism materialism thingy and getting all locked up in its silly little tautology and getting absolutely nowhere, the DI is following the excellent framework for beginning further empirical investigation into the nature of complex biological systems that the study of ID provides. This is great news! They should have a major breakthrough, oh, just about any day now. Real soon. That'll show those dumb ol' "scientists."


Wonderful hyperbole. Where's your argument?

Randy

Sarah Levy and Anika Smith wrote: "It is a remarkable thing when your opponents make your points for you . . . ." Well, Richard Dawkins should be very happy; for Levy, Smith, Daniel, Randy, Hanson, Johnson, Caleb, and Bilbo all provide numerous confirmations of Dawkins' contention that anyone who rejects evolution is either stupid, ignorant, or dishonest.

Here are some examples.

Levy (who claims to be a law student) implies that firing a scientist for demonstrated incompetence, as in the Nancy Bryson case, is "certainly" a violation of said scientist's First Amendment rights. In reality, the First Amendment guarantees only the right to believe and speak as one pleases, not the right to a particular job. After Bryson was fired, she was still free to believe and speak as she pleased, so there was no First Amendment violation. Whatever law school Levy is attending, perhaps they ought to tighten up their admissions policies. Or perhaps Levy thinks that admissions policies are also First Amendment violations.

Also, is Levy unaware that ID-iot spokesmen from the Discovery Institute enthusiastically endorsed a lawsuit (Caldwell v. Caldwell) trying to force the University of California to remove part of its website dealing with evolution? Apparently, ID-iots have a very flexible view of what constitutes "free speech." (The lawsuit, BTW, was thrown out on motions. Apparently, the ID-iots' legal arguments are no stronger than their scientific arguments.)

Levy and Smith accuse Wise of introducing a red herring in suggesting that we don't have to choose between religion and science. Levy and Smith claim, "No one was suggesting any such thing." I suggest that Levy and Smith read some of ID "scholars" such as Dembski, Pearcey, Wells, and Johnson, who make exactly the suggestion that Levy and Smith claim never occurs. I suggest that Levy and Smith familiarize themselves with the writings and statements of the many other prominent ID-iots, such as Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, and the school board members from Dover, who made exactly the suggestion that Levy and Smith say never occurs. I suggest that Levy and Smith familiarize themselves with the statements of the members of the Kansas Board of Education, who made exactly that suggestion while advocating pro-ID policies a couple of years ago. I suggest that Levy and Smith familiarize themselves with the statements of the numerous politicians who have advocated teaching ID in public school science classes and who have repeatedly and explicitly made exactly the suggestion that Levy and Smith say never occurs. "No one was suggesting any such thing???" You've got to be kidding!

Boo-hoo-hooing over the Bryson episode, Levy and Smith describe Darwinism as an "undirected process." In the very next paragraph, they claim that Behe was simultaneously a Catholic and a Darwinist. Since Catholic dogma holds that God created the universe and initiated (gave direction to) and continuously sustains all of its processes, including natural selection, a Catholic cannot be a "Darwinist" in the atheistic sense that Levy and Smith used in the Bryson paragraph. Expecting consistency from creationists is probably asking too much, but couldn't Levy and Smith keep their arguments straight for at least two consecutive paragraphs? Sigh.

Levy and Smith say, ". . . high levels of specified and complex information is a hallmark indicator that an intelligent agent was at work. Design theorists then hypothesize that if an intelligent agent was at work, we will find high levels of complex and specified information in biology." Even apart from the poor grammar, that's a pretty ignorant statement. Behe and Dembski have both pointed out that intelligent designers can create any kind of design they want. That being the case, complexity cannot be said to be a logically derived prediction of intelligent design. In fact, in the real world, simplicity of design may be a better indicator of intelligence than complexity. The ID-iots' argument (at least, as presented by Levy and Smith) is illogical.

Levy and Smith claim, "Scientists can test for such information, and . . . thus come to the tentative conclusion that biological structures like the flagellum were designed." That argument is also illogical. There are two distinct issues involved: first, the existence of information; second, the origin of that information. It is (or should be) obvious, that the mere existence of information does not necessarily imply anything about its origin. Levy and Smith's claim that mere existence implies intelligent origin is obviously a non sequitur. A simple example shows how ignorant Levy and Smith's claim is. A randomly dealt bridge hand contains a fairly large amount of information. A long series of such bridge hands contains an unimaginably large amount of information, far more than required to meet Behe's and Dembski's typical examples, and yet there was no intelligence involved. Furthermore, Behe himself, in discussing Rev. Paley's work, pointed out that many of the information-rich complexities that Paley attributed to design are now known to have natural causes. Levy and Smith's argument that high levels of information necessarily imply intelligence is not only illogical, it flies in the face of what Behe himself has said. One of the irritating things about debating creationists is that, like Smith and Levy, they are frequently as ignorant about creationism as they are about evolution.

Smith and Levy accuse Wise of a logical fallacy, a sort of "ad hominem" argument, which in Wise's case consisted of his appeal to scientific authority. Well, appeals to authority are not "logical" in the classical sense of being deductively true, but that is not the same thing as being improper. Consider: when Smith and Levy get sick, do they go to an M.D., or do they simply consult the first ignoramus they meet on the street? If the former, how is that different from Wise's appeal to authority? Smith and Levy's "ad hominem" complaint, which BTW was endorsed by several other ID-iots, is simply ignorant for failing to recognize that common sense frequently trumps pure logic.

Smith and Levy claim that Edwards v. Aguillard does not apply to ID, "[b]ecause intelligent design does not try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer . . . ." But William Dembski has stated that ID is nothing but "the Logos theology of John's Gospel translated into the language of information theory." I think John's Gospel is pretty specific about the identity of the designer.

Furthermore, even disregarding Dembski's embarrassing statement (and the hundreds of similarly embarrassing statements from other ID-iots), Smith and Levy's argument rests on the idea that merely substituting the words "intelligent design" for "creation science" somehow magically immunizes ID from constitutional challenges. In legal circles, playing such shallow word-games is called "elevating form over substance." It is generally viewed with disfavor.

Finally on this point, if Smith and Levy want to resort to nitpicking technicalities, then they should at least pay attention to the specific technicality they rely on. It turns out that the legislation that was the subject of the Edwards case did not specifically identify the creator either, and yet the Supreme Court had no problem in declaring that legislation unconstitutional. How could Smith and Levy have overlooked that fact in their oh-so technical argument?

Smith and Levy claim, "Intelligent Design scientists use the scientific method." For all practical purposes, that's a blatant falsehood. In the context of evaluating competing theories, the scientific method essentially consists of comparing the predictive power of the competing alternatives; and while ID-iots may use the scientific method to test evolutionary hypotheses, they never -- repeat, never -- use the scientific method to test hypotheses specifically related to ID. Dembski himself has said that ID principles do not and cannot generate positive, empirically testable hypotheses; and Behe spent three whole days on the witness stand and was unable to provide a single example of ID principles being used in science. If ID principles do not generate positive, testable hypotheses, then how can it be subjected to the scientific method? Answer: it can't. Smith and Levy's claim is a complete falsehood.

Daniel S. asks why evos "refuse to address the actual valid scientific arguments?" Daniel's question presupposes the existence of "actual valid scientific arguments." Perhaps Daniel could take a course on critical thinking, where he might learn to avoid question-begging assumptions.

Daniel also cites 600+ scientists who signed a statement expressing doubt about "the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." The statement implies that evolutionary processes are limited to random mutation and natural selection, but in reality evolution also includes symbiosis, lateral gene transfer, self-organization, and neutralism, among other processes. In other words, Daniel's argument is a straw-man based on a misleading caricature of evolution.

And, as henry berry pointed out, Daniel criticizes Wise for using an ad hominem argument, but Daniel's very next paragraph, about the 600 + scientists, is itself an ad hominem argument. Again, no one expects deep thinking from creationists, but is it really too much to ask that they maintain consistency for two consecutive paragraphs?

Daniel also argues, "Until you can respond directly to the leading opposing arguments in a public forum . . . then your own arguments are based on nothing more than your own 'religious faith' in evolution." Apparently Daniel is unaware that a public debate has already been going on for 150 years. The debate has been conducted in professional scientific societies and in the professional scientific literature. In that debate the most knowledgeable experts in the world have had 150 years to separate the wheat from the chaff. Bad news, Daniel. ID failed miserably, and evolution succeeded brilliantly. How could anyone be so ignorant as to be unaware of that.

In that regard, it is interesting to note that creationists are fond of public debates, perhaps because they attract large numbers of Bible-thumping science-illiterates. Creationists' superficial arguments seem to go over pretty well in front of such poorly educated audiences. For some reason, however, creationists fare very poorly in professional journals, where their work is subjected to the more demanding scrutiny of knowledgeable experts. Creationists also fare very poorly in court, where they are under oath, subject to searching cross-examination, again by knowledgeable experts, and where prior inconsistent statements, such as Dembski's and Behe's inconsistent definitions and other statements can be quite difficult to reconcile. (William Dembski and Stephen Meyer were scheduled to testify as expert witnesses in Dover, but chickened out at the last minute. I wonder if Daniel is aware of ID's heroes ducking out of such an important, public forum.)

Randy claims, "Natural selection is a philosophical position based upon methodological naturalism. It is not scientific." What Randy means by that is anybody's guess. Whatever he was trying to say, the fact remains that centuries of experience have taught scientists that the best way to confirm theories and hypotheses is to use the principles of those theories and hypotheses to generate meaningful, positive, empirically testable predictions, and then determine through observation if those predictions are confirmed or not. Evolutionists have done that, and have been enormously successful. ID-iots have not done that, because ID, by its very nature, is a sterile hypothesis which does not generate positive, testable hypotheses. Is natural selection a "philosophical position," as Randy claims? Well, if so, then it is a philosophical position that has generated mountains of confirmed predictions. So what's wrong with that?

In another bizarre paragraph Randy continues, "The problem also persists becuase (sic) Darwinists define science as methodological naturalism. This is problematic, because Darwinists are using a tautology to define science." Poorly educated people sometimes try to impress others by using fancy words, like "tautology." Better educated people aren't impressed. In reality, a tautology is just "the simplest, deductively true statement." For example, "All red roses are red" is a tautology. If Randy's complaint is meaningful, then it must mean that: 1) the definition of "science" is in fact a tautology; and 2) using a tautology in this case leads to error. Randy's argument does not seem to satisfy either one of those requirements, so his criticism is meaningless at best; if not actually false on both counts, which seems pretty likely. Logically flawed and factually wrong. Nice argument, Randy.

Randy continues, "I am convinced that ID can contribute something to science by the scientific method . . . " Well, the fact is that in its 2300 years of existence, ID has so far proven absolutely sterile. How much longer are we supposed to wait? Evolution on the other hand, has been one of the most fruitful theories in all of science. Why abandon an enormously successful theory for one with a 2300-year record of utter worthlessness?

Randy also makes a big deal out of "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity." claiming that evos misunderstand the concepts. According to Randy, "[Evos] seem to think that something that functions a certain way can evolve to function a different way in biology. They fail to see that when we talk about irreducibly complex systems, their functional component parts (the ones that form a specific function) cannot be changed to form new functions." Unfortunately Randy's argument flies in the face of both Dembski's and Behe's own statements. When parts of one system are "hijacked" to construct a different system with a different function, that's known as "exaptation." In "No Free Lunch" Dembski specifically acknowledges the possible role of exaptation in the formation of irreducibly complex systems, and in "Traipsing Through Evolution," Behe's essay implicitly does the same. In other words, Randy's accusation reveals a fairly dreadful lack of understanding on his own part. Doesn't it ever occur to creationists that before they complain about how little the evos understand about creationist concepts, it might be a good idea for the creationists themselves to learn about those concepts?

Randy also makes the critical mistake of thinking that specified complexity and irreducible complexity have a fixed meaning in ID circles. In fact, both terms are extremely flexible, and different ID-iots use the terms in different, mutually inconsistent ways. Dembski himself has multiple, shifting definitions of specified complexity, which he arbitrarily deploys depending on what answer he wants to arrive at; and Behe has given at least two mutually incompatible definitions of irreducible complexity. In 2002 Behe admitted that he couldn't define irreducible complexity in a scientifically meaningful way, and he admitted in his testimony that he still hadn't figured it out. Behe was one of the primary contributors to "Of Pandas and People," but that book itself makes claims about irreducible complexity that are radically inconsistent with what Behe later wrote in "Darwin's Black Box." In other words, Randy is claiming a status for ID concepts that even their originators have amended, contradicted, or recanted. And then Randy has the nerve to accuse evos of misunderstanding? Amazing.

Hanson claims that in his experience proponents of Darwinian evolution are more religious in their zeal than any ID Christian could ever be, and he cites a talk by Meyer. I wonder if Hanson is aware that Meyer teaches at a conservative Christian school that requires its faculty to take a sworn oath to uphold Christian doctrine as a condition of their employment. Christian ideologues love to point out the transgressions of others, while being blind to their own, much greater transgressions.

BTW, I wonder if Levy and Smith, those staunch defenders of free speech, are aware of that condition of employment. It makes the ID-iots' boo-hoo-hooing about poor Nancy Bryson look pretty hypocritical, doesn't it.

Hanson also references the difficulties in explaining the origin of life, as if that strengthened his argument. In fact it does the opposite, because that particular issue helps illustrate the stark difference between mainstream science and ID-iocy. Mainstream scientists acknowledge problem areas and try to resolve them by empirical research. Whether they are successful or not, at least they tried, and they keep on trying. Edison, for example, reported tried over a thousand different models before finding an acceptable light bulb. ID-iots on the other hand, simply throw up their hands in defeat at the first sign of a problem, saying, "Well, it's pretty complex, so let's just say that God must have done it." Why anyone would think that's a productive way of doing science is just baffling.

In another example of creationist "thinking," Hanson says in his first paragraph: "The zeal [evolutionists] display . . . intimates to me that what these scientists are really trying to do is make the science fit their rejection of the possibility of God." Two paragraphs later, Hanson says: "Why do I vehemently oppose the teaching of evolution? Because of the way it is being used . . . [as] evidence against God." The hypocrisy seems fairly obvious. (And so much for ID being based on science, not religion.)

Neil Johnson implies that ID is no different than SETI, archaeology, and forensics. Is that so? All three of those mainstream disciplines are intensely interested in identifying the intelligent actors involved, while ID-iots specifically and emphatically (and dishonestly) deny that ID can be used to identify the intelligent actor involved. The three mainstream sciences generate numerous, positive, testable hypotheses. ID, on the other hand, generates no -- repeat, no -- positive, testable hypotheses. The three mainstream sciences deal with "natural" objects, i.e., objects within the known universe; while ID specifically posits a "transcendent" designer, i.e., something outside the known universe. Only someone completely ignorant of ID and science would believe that they are equivalent. In reality, ID is no more equivalent to science than Mohammed Atta was to an airline pilot.

Joshua Caleb claims, "It is an absolute category error to define science as 'searching for materialistic explanations for phenomena'. THAT definition itself is NOT supported by materialistic evidences but rather an atheistic or agnostic worldview, it is therefore philosophy, thus the category error." Caleb obviously has no clue about what a category error is. A category error is an error in which an attribute is assigned to an object which could not possibly have that attribute. "The green idea sleeps furiously" is a common example of a category error, in which a physical attribute, color, is assigned to an immaterial object, an idea, which logically cannot possess such physical attributes. Since it is not logically impossible for the definition of science to possess the attributes in question, it is not a category error. Theoretically, it could be a factual error, but that's not what Caleb said, and there's serious problems even with that possibility. Trying to use fancy terms that he obviously doesn't understand, Caleb shows how ignorant creationists are.

The fundamental problem with Caleb's argument is that it implies that definitions must possess the same characteristics as the object being defined. That's just dumb. The definition of a 40-story building does not need to be 40-stories high, the definition of fire does not itself need to be hot, and the definition of turd does not itself need to stink. One would think that would be pretty obvious, but creationists apparently are capable of ignoring even the obvious. (BTW, I have seen some very prominent ID-iots, including Angus Campbell and Francis Beckwith, use the same argument as Caleb. That shows how dumb even the most prominent ID-iots can be.)

And to top it all off, after all that gibberish, Caleb has the nerve to ask: "Hello?! any clear thinkers out there?!?" Amazing.

Bilbo argues that ID is unfairly ruled out ahead of time. That's ridiculous. ID has been around for over 2300 years and has never -- repeat, never -- led to any worthwhile, confirmed predictions. ID has indeed been ruled out, but it has been ruled out because of its 2300-year record of utter worthlessness. ID wants to be treated like every other scientific theory? Fine. Then let the ID-iots go out and start doing some actual scientific research, applying traditional scientific methods to specifically ID principles. If the ID-iots fail to do that, then they have no cause for whining.

So, let me finish where I started: Sarah Levy and Anika Smith wrote: "It is a remarkable thing when your opponents make your points for you . . . ." Well, Richard Dawkins should be very happy; for Levy, Smith, Daniel, Randy, Hanson, Johnson, Caleb, and Bilbo all provide numerous confirmations of Dawkins' contention that anyone who rejects evolution is either stupid, ignorant, or dishonest.

Tim Beazley stated: "anyone who rejects evolution is either stupid, ignorant, or dishonest."

And the above quote is the precise reason why ID will eventually win out in the intellectual debate. It's detractors have absolutely no argument outside of hyperbole and attacking their opponent's character.

If this is the attitude of Darwinists, then we owe Darwinism a final good riddance.

Randy

I wrote a lengthy critique of several of the ID-iots' comments. In response to that lengthy critique, Randy's entire response was:

"Tim Beazley stated: 'anyone who rejects evolution is either stupid, ignorant, or dishonest.' And the above quote is the precise reason why ID will eventually win out in the intellectual debate. It's detractors have absolutely no argument outside of hyperbole and attacking their opponent's character. If this is the attitude of Darwinists, then we owe Darwinism a final good riddance."

That's it, folks, that's his entire response.

Well, in my response to Randy, let me return to what Sarah Levy and Anika Smith wrote: "It is a remarkable thing when your opponents make your points for you . . . ." Randy's response quite nicely confirms Richard Dawkins' contention that ID-iots who reject evolution are either stupid, ignorant, or dishonest.

First, notice that Randy's argument is factually incorrect. I myself did not call anti-evolutionists stupid, ignorant, and dishonest (though I do in fact believe that); rather the statement actually comes from Richard Dawkins, a point that I explicitly made, not once, but twice, in my original post. If Randy can't get even the simplest facts straight, then he can hardly complain if people think that tends to confirm Dawkins' comment about the anti-evolutionist "intellect."

Second, notice that Randy's argument contains an unwarranted assumption. Randy implies that I am a "Darwinist." In fact, I am not a Darwinist at all, rather I am an evolutionist. As Judge Jones pointed out in his Kitzmiller decision, only ID-iots think that those two terms are equivalent. ID-iots like Randy who base their arguments on unwarranted assumptions can hardly complain if people think that tends to confirm Dawkins' comment about the anti-evolutionist "intellect."

Third, notice that Randy's key argument, the "precise reason" stated in his response, is a falsehood. The fact of the matter is that I had numerous arguments that were entirely factual or purely logical in nature. Randy's statement that my entire argument contained nothing but hyperbole and name-calling is an obvious falsehood. People like Randy who rely on falsehoods can hardly complain about being thought dishonest.

Fourth, notice that Randy's argument is brazenly hypocritical, because many of the heroes of ID-iocy, like William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Nancy Pearcey, Kent Hovind, John Calvert, Casey Luskin, Larry Caldwell, and others too numerous to mention, are at least as uncivil as I am. Only a complete ignoramus would argue that ID is going to triumph "precisely" because of its superior manners!

Finally, I question whether "intellectual debates" are ultimately decided solely on the issue of manners in any case. History contains many examples of scientists and philosophers far more irascible than I who were also acknowledged intellectual giants, so I suspect that only an ignoramus would make the argument Randy made.

In short, Randy's response is typical of ID, which is the precise reason why ID is doomed to failure. Randy knew that he could not possibly answer the numerous substantive points I made and so he took the coward's way out and chose to engage in the histrionics that other ID-iots, like Sarah Levy, Anika Smith, and Casey Luskin, have employed about this issue, dissolving in tears and crying like a little baby over a perceived insult. If such pusillanimous mewling is the best that the ID-iots can do, no wonder that Dawkins (along with millions of other scientists and also several federal courts) thinks ID-iots are stupid, ignorant, and dishonest.

GalapagosPete stated: "Isn't it fortunate, then, that we have the Discovery Institute to rescue us? While science is following its dumb ol' methodological naturalism materialism thingy and getting all locked up in its silly little tautology and getting absolutely nowhere, the DI is following the excellent framework for beginning further empirical investigation into the nature of complex biological systems that the study of ID provides. This is great news! They should have a major breakthrough, oh, just about any day now. Real soon. That'll show those dumb ol' "scientists."


And Randy replied: Wonderful hyperbole. Where's your argument?

Randy


And I reply: You ask for evidence. Fair enough. Of course, the evidence is far too much to fit in the comment field, so you'll have to do some research. I shall point the way.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

This will get you started. Then, as you progress, you can use the search feature to learn more. It's really an excellent resource. It explains evolution, explains why ID and creationism are the same thing, and why both are non-scientific.

But there's a catch. It's science, and science takes work. IDC requires only faith. Good luck. If you are an honest man, you will benefit.

Originally posted by

Bilbo

Mike Gene has addressed Wise's essay at our blog, Telicthoughts, here:
http://telicthoughts.com/john-wise-and-id/

I agree with Mike's comments. Wise has assumed that ID invokes supernatural causes. It doesn't. It invokes intelligent causes. And right now, we wouldn't be able to tell if the intelligent causes are natural or supernatural. The real question is: Can ID hypotheses lead to insights in biology that we may otherwise have missed, or been delayed in discovering? Perhaps such hypotheses will help. Perhaps they won't. But ruling them out ahead of time is the real science stopper.

If Wise is at fault then so is Michael Behe, who admitted that IDC is as scientific as astrology.

The supernatural is implied because of the explicit claim of _intelligent_ creation. Where does this creator come from? If it's an alien (race), then where did they come from? And so on. At some point you either have abiogenesis or a supernatural creator. Unless you have a third option.

Right now, we have consistent, natural explanations for many things we once thought were magic. Our experience tells us that the things we don't yet understand will also have natural explanations.

IDC is the original science-stopper. The whole reason scientists decided to seek natural explanations was because they had discovered that attributing everything to "God" gained them nothing. And that philosophy has served science well for hundreds of years. Before science would accept the possibility of the supernatural (and that's what it is) there wold have to be evidence of the supernatural, and there is none. And no, complexity, in and of itself, is not evidence of intelligence.

Originally posted by

Bilbo

Mike Gene has addressed Wise's essay at our blog, Telicthoughts, here:
http://telicthoughts.com/john-wise-and-id/

I agree with Mike's comments. Wise has assumed that ID invokes supernatural causes. It doesn't. It invokes intelligent causes. And right now, we wouldn't be able to tell if the intelligent causes are natural or supernatural. The real question is: Can ID hypotheses lead to insights in biology that we may otherwise have missed, or been delayed in discovering? Perhaps such hypotheses will help. Perhaps they won't. But ruling them out ahead of time is the real science stopper.

Mike Gene is once again using a v.weak argument and making no difference at all. Wise does not assume that ID invokes supernatural agents (not causes), that is what ID spinmeisters talk about. And that is why the ID-janata peddles this meme about intelligent causes. The term intelligent itself means nothing other than 'human' and if extended further non-human-animal. That is the only 'intelligent' things we know. And everyone of them is natural, nothing unnatural/supernatural about it. And if there is something supernatural, there is by definition no natural - scientific - way of detecting it. So considering it or ignoring it makes no difference at all. SETI assumes that ETs act like humans broadcasting EM signals, using technologies similar to ours, wit motives similar to ours. In short SETI is the search for people like us. ID isn't anything like that or foreensics for that matter. Forensics is the search for human/animal/natural agents behind crime. ID is the search for rubes and dubious folk who will believe anything.

Boo stated: "Natural selection is a hypothesis confirmed by observation, based on methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is how all of science has been done since any science was ever done."

Boo, your first statement is true. Darwinism is based on methodological naturalism. Your second statement that methodological naturalism is how science is done, is simply false. It is only those who strongly support (and distort I might add) the ideas of Darwin, who equate methodological naturalism with the scientific method.

Natural selection based in methodological naturalism is neither rigorous nor falsifiable. Darwinists keep coming up with new "just so" stories to explain problems with natural selection. This is because they begin with natural selection (methodological naturalism) as you have done above, and then explain the data by natural selection (methodological naturalism). Then they say "See, natural selection does work." This is not the scientific method. It is in fact a tautological circle.

There is a difference between explaining phenomenological data by one's philosophy, and allowing the data to speak for itself. ID is ignored by a mojority of scientists not because it isn't science, but because it does not fit within the framework of methodological naturalism. ID is willing to look at the data provided by complex specified information and see a phenomoenon that contradicts natural selection. So Darwinists ignore this data because it contradicts their philosophy.



Randy

Boo answered Randy: "This is a strawman, Boo, these scientists specifically dissent from Darwinism. They aren't supporters of alien abductions (well, some of them could be), but the point is that Darwinism is not necessarily scientific itself. Natural selection is a philosophical position based upon methodological naturalism. It is not scientific. You have to go beyond the raw data to say that natural selection is at work. This is what these 600+ scienteists recognize. The problem also persists becuase Darwinists define science as methodological naturalism. This is problematic, because Darwinists are using a tautology to define science."

Boo: "Natural selection is a hypothesis confirmed by observation, based on methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is how all of science has been done since any science was ever done.

I pointed out in a previous post that this is an example of how methodological naturalism begs the question. You cannot logically base science on a method and then prove the method based on itself. If methodological naturalism is the process whereby science is done, science cannot base arguments on methodological naturalism. There must be something that shows methodological naturalism to be the method for scientific inquiry. Methodological naturalism is a tautology (as I stated earlier) because it in effect states: "The scientific method is based in the idea that only natural causes are measurable because we cannot observe supernatural causes. We cannot observe supernatural causes because supernatural causes are not observable; therefore, only natural causes are measurable." It argues in circles. It is not a good basis for how science should be conducted, no matter how long it has been employed. When Antony Flew based his switch from atheism to a belief in the existence of God, he stated that he decided to go where the evidence led him, and he found that the design argument was the most pursuasive. While he is not a scientist, Flew has given us an excellent example of how science should be done. Go where the evidence leads, and leave behind all philosophical and religious assumptions about how science should be done.

Boo continues: "If ID advocates want to complain about it being a philosophical position that arbitrarily excludes other methods of doing science, the burden is on them to actually demonstrate that it is possible to do science by other methods.

It has already been demonstrated. Methodological naturalism is the basis for how Darwinists who assume that natural causes are all that can be detected, do science. It is not how all scientists do science.

this they have never done. Methdological naturalism is not a tautology at all. It states that science is based on what can be reliably observed and measured.

Again, you are confusing methodological naturalism with the scientific method. They are not one and the same. One assumes that natural causes are all that can be measured. The scientific method on the other hand does not offer an opinion either way. It simply looks at data. MN interprets data to assume a natural explanation for everything that exists. This is what is a tautology. It still begs the question.

Boo: "If you know of any other way to do science, once again, please tell us about it."

Based on my last paragraph, this is another one of your strawmen.

Randym (from an earlier post): "Another strawman. These scientists are specifically against random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. I.e., they are not Darwinists. Most Evolutionary biologists who accept Darwin's account, would not agree with the Dissent From Darwinism statement."

Your confusion may result from the weird strawman version of evolution and Darwin's role in it that ID advocates propogate. Evolutionary biology has gone far beyond Darwin

They quite often fail to pay any attention to Darwin, and this is the problem. Darwin understood the limits of his theory. Darwinist apparently do not. They think they can explain everything by it.


Boo: "and science does not operate from the idea of revealed truth. "

And neither does ID.

The actual scientific debate about evolution, as opposed to the fake one ID advocates keep trying to claim exists, is over what other mechanisms besides random mutation are involved in the process.

This is because the idea that random mutation is the mechanism that is involved has turned out to be lacking in any rigourous support. Darwinists are desperate to find other ways that evolution could have occured via purely natural unplanned and purposeless processes.


Boo: "I gave some examples of them already, and if you actually bothered to do some research on the topic, you would see that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists do not believe that debates over mechanism stopped with RM+NS."

Again - this does not offer any hope of resolving the issue for those who support ID. The idea that since RM+NS are inadequate, we need to find other natural explanations is great. However, I think that it's time for Darwinists to examine their own philosophical assumptions. Wishful thinking in finding other naturalistic explanations might only lead to other dead ends.


Randy: "Futhermore, Boo, numbers don't account for truth. The number of scientists who do accept Darwin's ideas far outweighs the number of his dissenters. But the fact is that there are numbers (the number really doesn't matter - it could be ten, or it could be one million) of practicing scientists who work with data and do experiments and write peer reviewed papers and teach science to others, who do not accept that random mutation and natural selection account for complex biological systems. It doesn't matter also if they are all biologists (many of them are)."

Um... I'm not the one who brought up the numbers game to begin with. That was Daniel. I just pointed out that if he wanted to go there, he should recognize that the numbers are vastly against him.

Agreed.

It's the DI who likes to try and spin things out of numbers.

I don't find that happening at all. The only number list I have seen is the Dissent from Darwin list. This list is important not because of the numbers, but because it allows those who do dissent to understand that they are not alone. There is a price to pay for dissenting from the Darwin religion.

Boo: "And as I said, most evolutionary biologists do not accept that RM+MS is the entire story behind biological diversity. The difference, and this is the key point where ID advocates keep falling down, is that those who believe that supernatural or "designing" forces or whatever you want to call it play a role have no reliable method of testing their beliefs. (Or if they do they've never bothered to tell anyong about it.)"

You've obviously never read Dembski's THE DESIGN INFERRENCE, or his INTELLIGENT DESIGN. He offers a rigourous peer reviewed argument in THE DESIGN INFERRENCE. You should read it.



Randy: "I don't think that their religious beliefs were a separate issue at all. They beleived in a reasonable God. Therefore, they believed that they could find order and reasonableness in nature. The design inferrence was questioned by Darwin, Huxley, and others after. It started in philosophy largely by Hume a hundred years before Darwin, and continued to develop so that theistic ideas were eventually abandoned in other disciplines as well. But there continued to be a remnant of scientists who held a design inferrence."

Boo: "All of which is irrelevant to the scientific process. It is not necessary to believe in God in order to believe that one can find order and reasonableness (however one defines that part) in nature, as evidenced by all the nontheist scientists who do so."

But Christianity is the most influential religion in the Western world, if not the world itself. It had an impact on how humans think. Most of our understanding from science comes from this influence. Therefore, it is relevant to the scientific process. If Christianity had not arisen in the West, we might not have developed a scientific method, because we might not have had the background belief in the reasonableness of the creator and of His creation. The scientific method owes much to this dynamic.

Boo: "The beauty of the scientific method is that it works for anyone who is willing to apply it, no matter what religious or philosophical background they come from."


Agreed.


"I am convinced that ID can contribute something to science by the scientific method: not by methodological naturalism as the basis for scientific investigation, but by allowing evidence beyond nature. When I say beyond nature, I don't necessarily mean "supernatural." What I mean is that we don't assume that the sphere of nature is all there is. That's all. If we allow that there might be a sphere beyond nature, that might be detected by the scientific method, then we lose nothing. We don't go assuming that such a sphere does exist, and explain things by that sphere if we don't understand something. All we do is allow the sphere."

Boo: "Methodological naturalism says if you can observe it and measure it, and can be reasonably sure that someone else observing and measuring it would get the same results, it's in."

Again, you are confusing methodological naturalism with the scientific method. They are not the same. This distinction is the crux of why we are having this discussion.

Boo's new strawman: "The reason science doesn't make conclusions about what may be "beyond nature" is that no one's ever managed to reliably observe or measure anything "beyond nature." If you ever manage to do so, publish and collect your Nobel Prize. Now as a Christian, I think it's quite likely that God actually did send 10 plagues on Egypt and part the Red Sea to allow the Israelites passage. But I'm not going to demand that this be taught in science class since I have no scientifically reliable way to confirm that belief."

"Now ID theorists are saying that there is such a sphere that has been detected by the scientific method. That sphere is information. It's nothing new. We've been living with information since time began. But there is a sphere from which information comes, and it is not the natural sphere. It cannot be. If you can explain the existence of complex specified information by methodological naturalism, then this debate about Intelligent Design would not be necessary."

Boo: "Information in biology is a metaphor for molecules that catalyze chemical reactions."

Really? I think information is outside the simple makeup of molecules and chemical reactions. Molecules and chemical reactions are merely the conduits of information, not the information themselves. DNA contains information, but again, it is a conduit for the information, not the information itself - in the same sense that the computer I am using, and the bites and megabites are conduits of the information, but the information itself is given to the computer by my thoughts. The thoughts coming from my brain, which itself is merely a conduit for that information. Certainly molecules and chemical reactions can influence the way in which that information is organized, but the actual information remains separate.

Boo: "That's matter and energy. That's nature."

Not a good explanation for where the information comes from in the first place.

Boo: "The scientific answer to where it all came from originally is, at this point, we don't know."

Begging the question again - do we know or don't we? I think that it is safe to say that information does not come from random and unplanned natural selection. It does not come from the conduits that hold information. It comes from intelligence. Pure and simple. Everytime we look at complex systems that are conduits to complex specified information, whether man made or natural, I believe that it is safe to say that they came from intelligence. This is what ID states.



Boo: "If someone wants to posit that there is a) a supernatural source for the universe AND b) this source is empirically detectable, the burden of proof is on them. The rule is exactly the same for someone who wants to posit a naturalistic source, or claim that there was no source. And btw, no one has ever successfully performed any calculation that demonstrates that any biological organism or structure contains "complex specified information,"

Again, I don't think you have read Dembski.


even assuming that term isn't complete gibberish.

"DNA contains information. Our philosophical interpretation of the fact that DNA contains information has to allow that the information came from intelligence. We have to abandon the practice of forcing our philosophical assumptions upon that evidence, and countering the evidence to avoid making design inferrences. This is what Darwinists do with the evidence. Dawkins, for example, in his book THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, states that biological systems give the appearance of design. But he avoids making a design inferrence. This is not because natural selection explains the appearance of design; it doesn't. It is because he doesn't want to see design. His philosophical assumptions do not allow him to see it. He explains it away by natural selection, but ultimately natural selection cannot explain it. It can't account for the information in DNA."

DNA contains nucleotides, sugars, and phosphate groups.

DNA is a conduit of complex specified information.


Boo: "The problem for ID advocates is their data cupboard is currently bare."

Again, you haven't read or understood their arguments.

"It can't account for the IRREDUCIBLE complexity in functionally complex biological systems.

Furthermore, Darwinists seem to misunderstand what Behe refers to as "irreducible." They seem to think that something that functions a certain way can evolve to function a different way in biology. They fail to see that when we talk about irreducibly complex systems, their functional component parts (the ones that form a specific function) cannot be changed to form new functions. Until Darwinists begin to understand what "irreducible" means - not just the definition, but the reality of what is going on in commplex biological systems, they will fail to understand what ID theorists are saying."

Boo: "Scientists think that something that functions a certain way can evolve to function a different way because they've got good data to back up that idea."

Well, not really. They have bones and fossils. Bones and fossils and "just so" stories are not evidence for functions evolving into new functions. There are no well documented evidences or interpretations of the data to show this. If you know of one, I would like to know.

Randy

Boo:"Weren't you talking about tautologies a little way back? How do we know the system is irreducibly complex? Because the components couldn't have changed function. How do we know the components didn't change function? Because the system is irreducibly complex.

If that is indeed the way that IDers are relaying their arguments, then you would be correct in calling the argument tautological. However, this is not how they are arguing, so your statement above is just another strawman, but I expected that.

We don't know that they are irreducibly complex because they couldn't have changed function. That is not the argument. The argument is that they have functions that are specified enough that there could not be an intermediary function that is also specified that led to their current function. The idea is absurd. It is absurd because one would have to have an infinite regression of intermediary functions from the primordial stage to the current in order to arrive at their current function. We know that this is impossible because infinte regressions are impossible in logic and also in reality. Specified functions are just that; specified for a purpose. So the naturalistic explanation is tautological, but the intelligence argument is logically not tautological. Behe is correct.

Now if we want to get onto what this implies for adaptation, fine. Most of what we have evidence for in adaptation, such as the finch beak enlargements that were observed in the Galapagos, are not examples of functional changes, but changes due to climate changes. The beaks still functioned in the same way, but they adapted to serve the survival purpose that changed due to the climate change. But the beak is not an example of an irreducibly complex biological system. It is more an example of a biological tool used in much the same way as the human finger.

All of this has nothing to refute intelligent design.

Randy

Originally posted by

Sarah in Riverside

Wben Professor Wise tells us that "science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces", does he mean to exclude endeavors such as the "search for extra terrestrial intelligence, archaeology, and forensics? "


I would really like to know what Wise has to say about excluding such endeavors...

While I can't speak for Professor Wise, I would think the most obvious answer is that there is no need to exclude any of those, because they have nothing to do with ID. Each endeavor you list relies on what is already known about how human beings affect their environment (SETI searches for the kind of artificial signals that humans put out), whereas ID for political reasons has refused to specify anything about the Designer's design methods (not that they had much choice, "God went poof" isn't much of a scientific explanation). For ID to work as those other disciplines work, we would need to have experience of what an "undesigned universe" and a "designed universe" would each look like to compare the two. Feel free to ask the SETI people if their work relies in any way on ID principles, they should be glad to correct any misconceptions you may have.

Originally posted by

Sarah in Riverside

Wben Professor Wise tells us that "science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces", does he mean to exclude endeavors such as the "search for extra terrestrial intelligence, archaeology, and forensics? "


I would really like to know what Wise has to say about excluding such endeavors...

Sarah: What about excluding: geology, biology, physics, and chemistry?

Archeology uses the sciences to enhance the study of human culture.
Forensics uses the sciences to make identifications and to understand events in legal cases. SETI provides important scientific results, and does not exist upon the presence of extraterrestrial intelligence.

Intelligent Design currently suffers because the main premise 'an intelligent cause' is too vague to offer any explanatory power. Arguments for design often attack biological evolution, yet ID appears to explain the origin of life, not the evolution of life.

For ID to hope to be taken seriously by the scientific community (i.e. be accepted in peer-reviewed journals) it needs to be defined clearly, and it needs to promote the experiments and results which supports it. Lastly, ID must distance itself from the fundamentalist Christians, whose arguments regularly add to the confusion of what ID is, and undermines the efforts of the Discovery Institute, etc.