Dembski vs Behe
Dick
Having just finished the re-read of Behe's, "Darwin's Black Box," I am
struck by the difference in characters.. Behe is cautious and
speculates, also makes a clean break with Christianity.
Imagine my surprise after reading Behe's Forward for Dembski when I
started Dembski's Introduction. What a difference, I was bristling
from the start. He is so arrogant and so embracing with ideas I would
only consider, not promote, but he brags about funding and support
from the "Discovery Institute," further bragging "....Steve Meyer, who
directs the center, have a well-conceived strategy for bringing
intelligent design into the cultural mainstream."
I like ID as a concept, I like Behe and Denton display of what is
known, but Dembski is going to be rough riding.
dick
Dr.GH
Rather than waste time with Dembski, read any of the following;
Mark Perakh
2003 "Unintelligent Design" New York: Prometheus Press
Niall Shanks and Richard Dawkins
2004 "God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design
Theory" Oxford University Press
Robert T. Pennock (Editor)
2001 "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical,
Theological, and Scientific Perspectives" MIT Press
Matt Young, Tanner Edis (Editors),
2004 "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New
Creationism" Rutgers University Press
Barbara Carroll Forrest, Paul R. Gross
2004 "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design"
Oxford University Press
Frank J
Again, I hope you balance your reading of pro-ID with that of their
critics, particularly the theists who have no problem with "design in
the general sense" (MIller, Pennock, Haught, etc.)
Dembski certainly comes across more cocky than Behe, but that's just
his style. Behe is "smoother" but seems to be just as aware as Dembski
that he is pulling a slick bait-and-switch. But again, find out for
yourself. As for "rough riding," how about having to abandon a concept
that was not just superficially attractive, but also one's own original
idea? That's exactly what I had to do 25 years go in my own research.
But I had to follow the evidence where it led.
Ron O
Check out this article:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0605/discovery-darwin.php
Philip Johnson the purported godfather of the ID/wedge scam just
admitted that there never was any science worth mentioning supporting
ID.
This is the ID scam that you are coming in and talking about, but you
don't know it as a scam, you seem to have the ignorant impression that
it was legit. Haven't you ever heard of the Ohio State board fiasco or
Dover Penn?
If you have been wondering why people view what you write with
skepticism it is because you are coming in and talking about people
that have been running a creationist scam for a decade and have been
caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They have blamed the
victims of their scam for blowing it and Johnson is pointing the finger
at his compatriots like Dembski and Meyer that didn't hold up their end
of the scam.
For the guys at the Discovery Institute ID has been a scam since, at
least, 1999 when they dropped it as the Wedge for the old creationist
obfuscation scam, but they don't mention why they are obfuscating and
they don't even mention that ID ever existed in the replacement scam.
The guys in Ohio fell for the ID scam and claimed that they were going
to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design, but they found
out that they had been lied to, but took the replacement scam from the
same guys that had lied to them about ID. That is the current state of
creationists scams at this time. The same perps that lied about ID are
perpetrating the replacement scam. They are even claiming that the new
scam is not ID. How badly off can anyone be that wants to be conned by
them again?
Ron Okimoto
Dick
I sure see Behe differently than you. He wastes a lot of space on
analogies which only clutter his more direct discussions, but I never
found anything dishonest or slick in his statements.
Until I read an acceptable reckoning with IC complex organs evolution,
none of the other evolution ideas will fit for me. "Common Descent"
cuts for either perspective. Arguments of frayed membranes becoming
wings flys beyond my imagination.
Beyond Darwin's challenge of finding complex organs, I would also
like to see how complex systems can be evolved. Not just feathers,
but skeleton, muscles, lungs, heart, wings and feathers. Not just
eyes, but the whole visual system: lens, retina, optic nerve, optical
cortex and the blood supply to all plus the feedback loop which adjust
the eye muscles.
For me, complexity is the issue.
IC is a list of complex organs which need to be tested against
Darwin's challenge.
ID explains nothing, predicts nothing, has no specific designer
designated.
Christian extremist may use the concepts for their political ends, but
I am just interested in IC and ID as concepts, IC being the most
valuable.
Dembski's Specified Complexity doesn't mean much to me, perhaps after
re-reading I will see if differently.
dick
Frank J
Read about HOX genes and "redundant complexity."
Hint: For the 1st 4 years of my interest in the subject I spent a lot
of time on the TO archive and its links, including anti-evolution
sites. I did not feel ready to post regularly until 2001.
>
> Beyond Darwin's challenge of finding complex organs, I would also
> like to see how complex systems can be evolved.
What's the altenative to "evolved"? I thought you only had a problem
with Darwinian mechanisms. Are all "evolved" mechanisms now
"improbable" in your mind - Lamarckian, etc? And if not "evolved" do
you think "saltation" has any more evidence going for it?
> Not just feathers,
> but skeleton, muscles, lungs, heart, wings and feathers. Not just
> eyes, but the whole visual system: lens, retina, optic nerve, optical
> cortex and the blood supply to all plus the feedback loop which adjust
> the eye muscles.
>
> For me, complexity is the issue.
But complexity - indeed, IC if you choose to define it that way - was
there with the first cell. Replication, metabolism, the whole 9 yards.
And that cell had no competition, and plenty of adaptive landscape
ahead of it.
Ironically, I think Behe was partly correct regarding his "1st cell".
It had more *potential* than anything since. I even think that he got
the idea after reading "Origins of Order." Sadly, Behe chose to sell
out to incredulity instead of actually following up on what might have
been an interesting new concept. Perhaps he could have expanded on
Kauffman's ideas about the Cambrian explosion vs. the Permian
quiescience.
Since you seem to be impressed more by bulk morphological features than
the underlying molecular biology, think of it this way: Here in the
Holocene, in a few generations, direct observations have been made for
morphological changes that are 1000s of X faster than would be seen as
"instataneous" in geologic time. Now translate that to Precambrian
biochemical systems with more potential, less competition, and/or more
promising fitness landscapes ahead than anythink has now, either in the
lab or in the wild. Once life and all its biochemical complexity was
established, "the sky was the limit", and probably still is, even if it
doesn't seem so in most experiments with modern organisms. Don't even
get me on Behe's misrepresentation of the E. coli lactose operon work.
>
> IC is a list of complex organs which need to be tested against
> Darwin's challenge.
And as I and others have said, no IDer has ever tried to *test* them
against Darwin's challenge.
>
> ID explains nothing, predicts nothing, has no specific designer
> designated.
>
> Christian extremist may use the concepts for their political ends, but
> I am just interested in IC and ID as concepts, IC being the most
> valuable.
Then forget ID (the strategy if not belief in a designer) and be the
first to actually test IC as a reason to come up with another mechanism
- either non-Darwinian evolutionary, or non-evolutionary.
You can do what I did in my own research in '81. That is, state and
test a hypothesis (*how* and *when* the design was actuated), and
graciously abandon it if the evidence does not support it. Or you can
do what the IDers have been doing for more than a decade. That is,
cleverly avoid testable hypotheses, spin incredulity, quote mine,
switch defintions, choose another IC system to ponder each time your
favorite one becomes too-well explained by evolution.
>
> Dembski's Specified Complexity doesn't mean much to me, perhaps after
> re-reading I will see if differently.
Again, read for yourself, but if you are truly open minded you will
conclude that its another semantic bait-and-switch. Wolpert, whose "No
Free Lunch" theorems were co-opted by Dembski, called the latter's
treatment "written in Jello".
Again, are you reading any of the rebuttals other than newsgroup
replies?
>
> dick
Dick
The whole field of molecular biology is fresh and interesting.
Hox genes may express functions, but how such genes manage to control
large gatherings of differentiated genes is hard for me to understand.
DNA hold information, but what controls sequencing and timing?
Perhaps Junk codes are not junk, perhaps they do control the DNA's
functioning, so much to learn.
Redundancy is sure revealing how difficult it is to make a meaningful
change to an organism.
Neither selection nor design satisfy me. Both supporters argue beyond
what I see as the evidence. I argue with Natural selection because of
the throat hold that position has on research, but I am just as
alarmed by Christian efforts to teach natural theology. I want an
open field. I think the grocery bag called IC is full of interesting
challenges to Darwin. However, I don't think we yet know enough to
run the tests. I have high hopes that molecular and microbiology will
provide more information. However, usually new answers usually lead
to more questions.
>Hint: For the 1st 4 years of my interest in the subject I spent a lot
>of time on the TO archive and its links, including anti-evolution
>sites. I did not feel ready to post regularly until 2001.
>
Is that your nature, not revealing your position? I learn when I say
things, just as you reminded me of the HOX gene exploration.
Sometimes I find I just misunderstood. For me, lurking has never been
an option. I remember few of things said by my father, but one phrase
stands out, "shut up and listen." I wasn't a bad kid in Elementary
school, but I did end up in the Principle's office. I would finish
the assignment or test before time was up and start talking to
someone.
I really enjoy talk.origins and other newsgroups I visit. No surprise
there. I would just explode if I only listened as you say you did!
>>
>> Beyond Darwin's challenge of finding complex organs, I would also
>> like to see how complex systems can be evolved.
>
>What's the altenative to "evolved"? I thought you only had a problem
>with Darwinian mechanisms. Are all "evolved" mechanisms now
>"improbable" in your mind - Lamarckian, etc? And if not "evolved" do
>you think "saltation" has any more evidence going for it?
>
>> Not just feathers,
>> but skeleton, muscles, lungs, heart, wings and feathers. Not just
>> eyes, but the whole visual system: lens, retina, optic nerve, optical
>> cortex and the blood supply to all plus the feedback loop which adjust
>> the eye muscles.
>>
>> For me, complexity is the issue.
>
>But complexity - indeed, IC if you choose to define it that way - was
>there with the first cell. Replication, metabolism, the whole 9 yards.
>And that cell had no competition, and plenty of adaptive landscape
>ahead of it.
>
>Ironically, I think Behe was partly correct regarding his "1st cell".
>It had more *potential* than anything since. I even think that he got
>the idea after reading "Origins of Order." Sadly, Behe chose to sell
>out to incredulity instead of actually following up on what might have
>been an interesting new concept. Perhaps he could have expanded on
>Kauffman's ideas about the Cambrian explosion vs. the Permian
>quiescience.
>
I am sure Behe lives with his own idiosyncrasies as we all do. He
could have done more.... or less. However, he stirred up my curiosity
and I am grateful. What I do or don't believe doesn't amount to a
mouse turd in the world. If that was my only belief, I would really
suffer, but I am a hedonist and believe my happiness does count for
something. Whether it is present because of natural selection or
design I am me. I see others I envy and others I feel sorry for. I
kind of like the way I am
>Since you seem to be impressed more by bulk morphological features than
>the underlying molecular biology, think of it this way: Here in the
>Holocene, in a few generations, direct observations have been made for
>morphological changes that are 1000s of X faster than would be seen as
>"instataneous" in geologic time. Now translate that to Precambrian
>biochemical systems with more potential, less competition, and/or more
>promising fitness landscapes ahead than anythink has now, either in the
>lab or in the wild. Once life and all its biochemical complexity was
>established, "the sky was the limit", and probably still is, even if it
>doesn't seem so in most experiments with modern organisms. Don't even
>get me on Behe's misrepresentation of the E. coli lactose operon work.
>
I don't understand the significance of the acceleration except those
pesky bacteria resisting our antibiotics. I wonder if one day a
mechanism will be located which can use learned information to alter
the sex gene (I forget what it is called, but I am sure you know.
>>
>> IC is a list of complex organs which need to be tested against
>> Darwin's challenge.
>
>And as I and others have said, no IDer has ever tried to *test* them
>against Darwin's challenge.
>
>>
>> ID explains nothing, predicts nothing, has no specific designer
>> designated.
>>
>> Christian extremist may use the concepts for their political ends, but
>> I am just interested in IC and ID as concepts, IC being the most
>> valuable.
>
>Then forget ID (the strategy if not belief in a designer) and be the
>first to actually test IC as a reason to come up with another mechanism
>- either non-Darwinian evolutionary, or non-evolutionary.
>
I am in this for the fun. I live in a very small town in west texas,
alone with my pets. I am happy to find the usenet as a way to
enjoyably spend my time. I don't know where the Eureka insights come
from, but even if enlightenment hit me, I would lack the vocabulary or
credibility or a platform to represent the enlightenment to the world.
Besides who wants to listen to a speaker that has to go pee every half
hour?
>You can do what I did in my own research in '81. That is, state and
>test a hypothesis (*how* and *when* the design was actuated), and
>graciously abandon it if the evidence does not support it. Or you can
>do what the IDers have been doing for more than a decade. That is,
>cleverly avoid testable hypotheses, spin incredulity, quote mine,
>switch defintions, choose another IC system to ponder each time your
>favorite one becomes too-well explained by evolution.
My mind doesn't think as yours does. I don't like details and don't
like doing dishes. I don't see anything in the concept of ID that
could me tested. Dembski's whole chapter on "Signs" turned me off. I
don't expect a mighty voice to yell great ideas into my head so I can
get by wondering if there is a designer and if so what qualities might
it have. My theories blossom and fade. I write them down in my text
files and move on to more day dreaming. "Testable, spin, incredulity,
quote mine, switch definitions," etc. sound like war trumpets to me
rather than useful tools to explore with. Not my cup of tea.
>>
>> Dembski's Specified Complexity doesn't mean much to me, perhaps after
>> re-reading I will see if differently.
>
>Again, read for yourself, but if you are truly open minded you will
>conclude that its another semantic bait-and-switch. Wolpert, whose "No
>Free Lunch" theorems were co-opted by Dembski, called the latter's
>treatment "written in Jello".
>
>Again, are you reading any of the rebuttals other than newsgroup
>replies?
>>
>> dick
I guess not, I don't know what you mean. Such as? You mean other
threads? If they sound like attack threads and not interesting by
title probably not. I hate name calling and high sounding rhetoric.
I do enjoy chasing down links and trying understand what they say.
One question, why do you think people like insulting each other so
much. I recall reading something one time and the author said that
there is a lot of name calling in scientific gathering. Not arguing
on content, but just name calling or placing other's opinions in
negative categories. The often used argument from incredulity for
instance. It strikes me that everyone finds the other point of view
incredulous. What value is there is using the phrase?
dick
Desertphile
> Behe is cautious and
> speculates, also makes a clean break with Christianity.
Because he's a liar.
jimme...@sbcglobal.net
Dick wrote:
> One question, why do you think people like insulting each other so
> much. I recall reading something one time and the author said that
> there is a lot of name calling in scientific gathering. Not arguing
> on content, but just name calling or placing other's opinions in
> negative categories.
What you have to realize is that NO ONE (except perhaps for
one or two 'secular saints') is posting here to provide information
or enlightenment. We post here to feel smart - or at least smarter
than the people we are posting against. Some people feel smart
when they provide information and argument, but many feel
smart when they get off a 'clever' insult. As to why different people
have different styles, I suspect that it is a matter of how other
people gained status against them when they were impressionable
children. The ones who were insulted and humiliated as children
figure that now it is THEIR turn.
Richard Forrest
Most genes control other genes, not the development of biological
systems.
> DNA hold information, but what controls sequencing and timing?
DNA. Genes are activates mainly by other genes, but also by the
environment in which the organism developes. That's why ingestion of
certain substances during pregnancy can have a devastating effect on
the development of the child.
> Perhaps Junk codes are not junk, perhaps they do control the DNA's
> functioning, so much to learn.
We can remove most of that junk DNA from the genomes of mice, and the
resultant embryos grow normally and breed normally as far as we can
tell. Junk DNA may have a function in providing raw material from which
mutations can arise which can lead to novels systems. However, there is
a huge range in the amount of DNA in living organisms which seems
completely unrelated to their evolutionary success or complexity. Rice
plants have more genes than human beings.
>
> Redundancy is sure revealing how difficult it is to make a meaningful
> change to an organism.
I have no idea what you mean by this. If DNA is redundant, it's
redundant and play no further role in evolution.
>
> Neither selection nor design satisfy me. Both supporters argue beyond
> what I see as the evidence. I argue with Natural selection because of
> the throat hold that position has on research,
If you think that I suggest that you take the time to familiarise
yourself with modern evolutionary science. Natural selection is a very
powerful theory which explains how evolution happens, but it is only a
part of the theoretical basis of evolutionary theory.
> but I am just as
> alarmed by Christian efforts to teach natural theology. I want an
> open field. I think the grocery bag called IC is full of interesting
> challenges to Darwin.
You may think that, but if you do you have been misled by the
proponents of ID. They have no scientific challenge to Darwin. The very
concept of there being a "challenge to Darwin" is faintly ridiculous.
Evolutionary theory may be in part built on Darwin's insights, but it
goes far beyond Darwin's limited understanding.
ID is not science, as even it's proponents conceede. They are
attempting to attack not just biology, but all science by their
insistence that the ground rules of science should be changed to
accomdate the supernatural.
> However, I don't think we yet know enough to
> run the tests. I have high hopes that molecular and microbiology will
> provide more information. However, usually new answers usually lead
> to more questions.
The glamourous field in evolutionary biology, and the one which is
yielding a whole new set of insights into the processes of evolution is
referred to as "Evo/Devo", and is research into the complex
interrelationship between genetics, embryology, development and
evolution. If you want to find out where the evolutionary sciences are
heading, and where the challenges to accepted theories are comming from
this is where to look, not ID.
RF
Ernest Major
Richard Forrest <ric...@plesiosaur.com> writes
>>
>> Redundancy is sure revealing how difficult it is to make a meaningful
>> change to an organism.
>
>I have no idea what you mean by this. If DNA is redundant, it's
>redundant and play no further role in evolution.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006
Frank J
The porblem is that you want a complete explanation, and there's no
such thing in science. "Selection" (Darwinian evolution) has an
incomplete but *growing* explanation, which is just starting to cross
the boundary from a "biology level" explanation to a "chemistry level"
explanation. Behe, a biochemist was keenly aware of this - and as I
mentioned I think that the sheer difficulty of providing a detailed
"chemistry level" explanation as shown by Kauffman probably motivated
him even more - but sadly chose to peddle incredulity instead of
actually working on the problem.
"Design", unlike say Kauffman's unusual approach, provides absolutely
nothng scientifically worthwhile - it doesn't even state a "best
candidate" alternative (given that Behe has backpedaled frm his and no
one else has either run with it or challenged it) let alone provide an
iota of evidence to support it.
I ask a 3rd time: Doesn't the double standard bother you?
> I argue with Natural selection because of
> the throat hold that position has on research, but I am just as
> alarmed by Christian efforts to teach natural theology.
Please tell Kauffman that "NS has a throat hold on reserarch". Ask him
who funded his numerous publications. Then ask Behe, Dembski et al why
they decline all invitations to propose, test and publish. BTW, I
undersand (correctly?) that the PR campaign of the DI is largely funded
by Christian Reconstructionists, which is one of the more radical
fundamentalist gruops. IOW radical fundamentalists aren't just "ripping
off" the DI's ideas, and even if they were the DI is not the least bit
upset about it.
> I want an
> open field. I think the grocery bag called IC is full of interesting
> challenges to Darwin.
But not one scientifc challenge. Not only not positive evidence for
their own (unspoken) alternative, but not even an attempt at the 29+
potential falsifiers offered by Theobald.
> However, I don't think we yet know enough to
> run the tests. I have high hopes that molecular and microbiology will
> provide more information. However, usually new answers usually lead
> to more questions.
>
> >Hint: For the 1st 4 years of my interest in the subject I spent a lot
> >of time on the TO archive and its links, including anti-evolution
> >sites. I did not feel ready to post regularly until 2001.
> >
> Is that your nature, not revealing your position?
My postion was clear from the early occasional post, and has "evolved".
Given all the time you spend posting and reading Denton, Behe, Dembski,
I have yet to hear which books and articles critiquing ID you have read
and understood. How about "Finding Darwin's God", whoch takes on ID,
classic creationism *and* the spin put on evolution by Dawkins (which
ironically helps anti-evolution activists).
But it's not an "either or" between "design" and NS - that;s a false
dichotomy. If it turns out that life is designed, barring any other
theory or falsification (and none are in sight), its *still* evolution.
IDers are clever enough to know that, even if classic creationists
aren't. OTOH, if someone (& it won't be an IDer *by their own choice*)
comes up with a redically new mechanism for the origin of biochemical
or morphological features, it won't provide any more support for a
"design inference" than evolution does now.
>
> >Since you seem to be impressed more by bulk morphological features than
> >the underlying molecular biology, think of it this way: Here in the
> >Holocene, in a few generations, direct observations have been made for
> >morphological changes that are 1000s of X faster than would be seen as
> >"instataneous" in geologic time. Now translate that to Precambrian
> >biochemical systems with more potential, less competition, and/or more
> >promising fitness landscapes ahead than anythink has now, either in the
> >lab or in the wild. Once life and all its biochemical complexity was
> >established, "the sky was the limit", and probably still is, even if it
> >doesn't seem so in most experiments with modern organisms. Don't even
> >get me on Behe's misrepresentation of the E. coli lactose operon work.
> >
> I don't understand the significance of the acceleration except those
> pesky bacteria resisting our antibiotics. I wonder if one day a
> mechanism will be located which can use learned information to alter
> the sex gene (I forget what it is called, but I am sure you know.
Lamarckian? If that's what you mean, AIUI, a few groups actually still
contend that it occurs in some prokaryotes. But that's the kind of
healthy debate that goes on in science. Those groups too are not
banned, or even discouraged from funding.
To show that it doesn't contribute anything to science. And in the case
of evolution - which is grossly misunderstood by most people, myself
included in my early lurking days - it not only adds nothing but
contributes to the misinformation.
>
> dick
I'm at my original computer now, where I can more easily access my
files. In an upcoming post I'll list links to my favorite critques of
ID. Even there I don't agree with every word the critic says, but when
it all adds up, it paints a bleak picture of the ID strategy. But the
good news is that I can still take on faith that life is designed.
Frank J
Dick wrote:
(snip)
Pardom the 2nd reply to the same post, but since I promised links here,
why not place them here - and not resist a few more friendly comments.
> >
> The whole field of molecular biology is fresh and interesting.
> Hox genes may express functions, but how such genes manage to control
> large gatherings of differentiated genes is hard for me to understand.
> DNA hold information, but what controls sequencing and timing?
> Perhaps Junk codes are not junk, perhaps they do control the DNA's
> functioning, so much to learn.
As I said before, even the first cell had it all. As for "junk" I have
heard it defined as something awaiting a future use, as opposed to
"trash." Much of what you desire to know in detail is a subject for
abiogenesis, not evolution. Ironically it is "evolutionists" eho are
working on it while IDers are content to conflate it with evolution.
>
> Redundancy is sure revealing how difficult it is to make a meaningful
> change to an organism.
Actually, redundancy explains (if not in complete molecular detail) the
"nonfunctional intermediate" problem. As a gross oversimplification,
one set of genes is retained, while a mutated copy awaits a further
use, so the organism survives the "gap."
An interesting idea that Kauffman noted, but surprisingly (to a chemist
at least) rarely mentioned is that of the universal enzyme tool kit. It
turns out that in the (order of 10^100) protein sequences, only order
of ~10^8 is needed to catalyze nearly all biochemical reactions. Given
the size and shape (& malleability?) of proteins, it is in retrospect,
not surprising. I think that this will be a "big thing" for evolution
in future decades - further supporting and detailing evolution in
general, but challenging conventional wisdom enough to impress you - if
not those making careers misrepresenting evolution.
(snip)
Anyway, here's the list I promised. It deliberately emphasizes Behe
over the other IDers (Wells and Nelson may be too "creationist" for
your taste). I even have one of Behe's own articles (though don't
think any help his case):
How to falsify "macroevolution" (Theobald):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Concise, referenced answers to ID (and classic creationist) claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
Do anti-evolutionists even believe what they preach?:
http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml
Redundant Complexity:
Why ID is not science:
http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/coyne.html
Scientific and theological problems of ID:
http://www.asa3.org/evolution/irred_compl.html
A real promising alternative?
http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/shapiro.html
More early critiques of Behe:
http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/doolittle.html Doolittle
http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/ruse.html Ruse
http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/futuyma.html Futuyma
http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html Orr
Orr reviews Dembski:
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR27.3/orr.html
Behe responds to John Haught.
Note that he asks him to accept evidence of ID - NOT against
evolution:
http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article.asp?3090
What IDers do instead of science:
The main links:
http://www.talkdesign.org
http://www.talkorigins.org
I can do ID too!:
Dick
Behe has back pedaled or Denton?
>one else has either run with it or challenged it) let alone provide an
>iota of evidence to support it.
>
>I ask a 3rd time: Doesn't the double standard bother you?
>
I don't answer because I don't know what you mean?
If you mean ID is not held to testability, I could only say I don't
see it as a theory, it is only conjecture. IC, is a category
containing examples thought to be a challenge to Darwin's own test of
his theory. Neither concepts are theories so far as I can see.
>
>> I argue with Natural selection because of
>> the throat hold that position has on research, but I am just as
>> alarmed by Christian efforts to teach natural theology.
>
>Please tell Kauffman that "NS has a throat hold on reserarch". Ask him
>who funded his numerous publications. Then ask Behe, Dembski et al why
>they decline all invitations to propose, test and publish. BTW, I
>undersand (correctly?) that the PR campaign of the DI is largely funded
>by Christian Reconstructionists, which is one of the more radical
>fundamentalist gruops. IOW radical fundamentalists aren't just "ripping
>off" the DI's ideas, and even if they were the DI is not the least bit
>upset about it.
DI = Discovery Institute?
What is Behe doing now? I have googled his name but nothing recent
showed up, same with Denton.
>
>> I want an
>> open field. I think the grocery bag called IC is full of interesting
>> challenges to Darwin.
>
>But not one scientifc challenge. Not only not positive evidence for
>their own (unspoken) alternative, but not even an attempt at the 29+
>potential falsifiers offered by Theobald.
>
>
>> However, I don't think we yet know enough to
>> run the tests. I have high hopes that molecular and microbiology will
>> provide more information. However, usually new answers usually lead
>> to more questions.
>>
>> >Hint: For the 1st 4 years of my interest in the subject I spent a lot
>> >of time on the TO archive and its links, including anti-evolution
>> >sites. I did not feel ready to post regularly until 2001.
>> >
>> Is that your nature, not revealing your position?
>
>My postion was clear from the early occasional post, and has "evolved".
>Given all the time you spend posting and reading Denton, Behe, Dembski,
>I have yet to hear which books and articles critiquing ID you have read
>and understood. How about "Finding Darwin's God", whoch takes on ID,
>classic creationism *and* the spin put on evolution by Dawkins (which
>ironically helps anti-evolution activists).
>
You didn't take my question in the context of the paragraph where you
say "1st 4 years.... I did not feel ready to post...."
I just read a bit about the Dover trial, previously I just read what
Fox or Cnn had to say. I now understand why NS people are crowing.
However, I don't like to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Guilt by association is not convincing to me. I now see Behe is
closer to DI than I thought, so he is a Christian, so he accepts that
belief is the under pining of his ideas, that doesn't mean the ideas
are worthless. At least, not to me.
I am beginning to think I am more dedicated to ID than I thought.
I just can't imagine any sequence of steps that can explain the items
considered IC. My belief in some designer is influenced by much more
than IC of course. I have a life time of coincidences. I question
the survival benefits from art or music talents. Love seems counter
productive compared to lust, etc.
dick
>
>I'm at my original computer now, where I can more easily access my
>files. In an upcoming post I'll list links to my favorite critques of
>ID. Even there I don't agree with every word the critic says, but when
>it all adds up, it paints a bleak picture of the ID strategy. But the
>good news is that I can still take on faith that life is designed.
I understand. My life has been so complex that some kind of
intervention seems to have been at work. I have never had a belief in
Jesus. When I read the NT I find much of what Jesus says as so self
serving as I would expect of an itinerant preacher, but a god, some
kind of force has always seemed real.
dick
Dick
<desert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Oh no, not a liar. Dover shows he is a truthful man. He did not
share all of his thoughts in "Darwin's Black Box." However, he did
not say he was not a Christian. I think his concepts of ID and IC are
important. But, he hasn't lied as I understand the word.
dick
Marc
jimme...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Dick wrote:
> > One question, why do you think people like insulting each other so
> > much. I recall reading something one time and the author said that
> > there is a lot of name calling in scientific gathering. Not arguing
> > on content, but just name calling or placing other's opinions in
> > negative categories.
>
> What you have to realize is that NO ONE (except perhaps for
> one or two 'secular saints') is posting here to provide information
> or enlightenment. We post here to feel smart - or at least smarter
> than the people we are posting against.
Keep speaking for yourself, dude.
(signed) marc
.
jimme...@sbcglobal.net
Thank you for enlightening me.
Earle Jones
jimme...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
*
And this was "YOUR turn".
earle
*
Dick
Thanks, I have saved the list as a file for reference.
dick
Dick
Frank have you read "Treasures in the Trash"?
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2005/1212/092.html?partner=rss
Trash DNA may have control information.
dick
ErikW
Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <1153770554....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Forrest <ric...@plesiosaur.com> writes
> >>
> >> Redundancy is sure revealing how difficult it is to make a meaningful
> >> change to an organism.
> >
> >I have no idea what you mean by this. If DNA is redundant, it's
> >redundant and play no further role in evolution.
> >
> I think he means epistasis.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Actually no, he really means redundancy. He has this idea that since
there is redundancy in the genome, it's very difficult for mutations to
change something and therefore he doesn't believe that mutations can
cause evolution. (He must referring to redundancy found in knock out
studies.)
Dick
>
>Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <1153770554....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard Forrest <ric...@plesiosaur.com> writes
>> >>
>> >> Redundancy is sure revealing how difficult it is to make a meaningful
>> >> change to an organism.
>> >
>> >I have no idea what you mean by this. If DNA is redundant, it's
>> >redundant and play no further role in evolution.
>> >
>> I think he means epistasis.
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
>Actually no, he really means redundancy. He has this idea that since
>there is redundancy in the genome, it's very difficult for mutations to
>change something and therefore he doesn't believe that mutations can
>cause evolution. (He must referring to redundancy found in knock out
>studies.)
>
Of course it is not my idea. I am restating Denton, Mature's Destiny:
"The greater the degree of redundancy, the greater the need for
simultaneous mutation to effect evolutionary change..."
"a group of researchers at Yale who changed one protein conformation
into another quite different structure....required changing
twenty-eight amino acids.... all the changes were made
simultaneously..."
I read a summary of a cancer research team that were using "knock out"
studies to engineer gene changes and they specifically mentioned the
need for simultaneous changes in order to see the changes because the
redundant proteins would hide the individual expression.
I have looked for several days to find the medical report without
luck. Denton is addressing the same problems as I read him.
dick
Frank J
Behe says that he never took his "first cell" hypothesis, and while he
still admits common descent, he is mostly "don't ask, don't tell" about
*how* species originate. That's of course to maintain the big tent.
>
> >one else has either run with it or challenged it) let alone provide an
> >iota of evidence to support it.
> >
> >I ask a 3rd time: Doesn't the double standard bother you?
> >
> I don't answer because I don't know what you mean?
>
> If you mean ID is not held to testability, I could only say I don't
> see it as a theory, it is only conjecture.
But the ID promoters do. They play games about it not being a
"mechanistic theory," because they know well that they have nothing.
"Evolutionists" need to fill in every last detail, but they can just
whistle along with their word games, and their "theory" is "complete."
That's what I mean.
By saying that you just think ID is "conjecture" you might be on the
first steps to seeing how vacuous it is. Then again, many IDers
(Nelson, Johnson) have admitted (if not advertised) just that. So why
not just take the step and admit that it's still evolution, if not the
"Darwinism" caricature.
> IC, is a category
> containing examples thought to be a challenge to Darwin's own test of
> his theory. Neither concepts are theories so far as I can see.
Evolution is a theory, meaning a well confirmed, growing explanation
that makes predictions that get fulfilled. For the last time, no one
has *demonstrated* anything that would make "Darwin's theory," or the
current version, "break down".
>
> >
> >> I argue with Natural selection because of
> >> the throat hold that position has on research, but I am just as
> >> alarmed by Christian efforts to teach natural theology.
> >
> >Please tell Kauffman that "NS has a throat hold on reserarch". Ask him
> >who funded his numerous publications. Then ask Behe, Dembski et al why
> >they decline all invitations to propose, test and publish. BTW, I
> >undersand (correctly?) that the PR campaign of the DI is largely funded
> >by Christian Reconstructionists, which is one of the more radical
> >fundamentalist gruops. IOW radical fundamentalists aren't just "ripping
> >off" the DI's ideas, and even if they were the DI is not the least bit
> >upset about it.
>
> DI = Discovery Institute?
Yes.
>
> What is Behe doing now? I have googled his name but nothing recent
> showed up, same with Denton.
My "talk.design" link in the other post can point you to Behe and other
DI fellows, if not Denton.
They could have been very valuable as a *complement* to evolution. But
they are promoted as an alternative "theory", and one that compares
itself only to evolution - and a caricature of it to boot.
>
> I am beginning to think I am more dedicated to ID than I thought.
> I just can't imagine any sequence of steps that can explain the items
> considered IC.
But ID needs to propose and test the steps that comprise it's (unnamed)
alternative mechanism, or just admit that evolution is the default
explanation. "Evolutionists" have proposed and successfully tested
pathways, even if it's virtually impossible to reconstruct detailed
molecular processes in Precambrian organisms.
> My belief in some designer is influenced by much more
> than IC of course. I have a life time of coincidences. I question
> the survival benefits from art or music talents. Love seems counter
> productive compared to lust, etc.
Then please read what theistic "evolutionists" have to say. John
Haught, Howard Van Till, Denis Lamoreaux, Kenneth Miller. You might
find tht it is the IDers who thow the baby out with the bath water.
Frank J
'd bet that most DNA, RNA proteins, and even many small molecules have
some function. Cells tend to get rid of matter that has no function.
That's a selective advantage. Maybe it was "looser" in the early
Precambrian. Don't confuse "function" with "purpose," which is a
teleological idea, and not (yet?) amenable to scientific testing.
Ron O
Willful ignorance, and prevarication is lying when the perp has done it
for a decade. You can claim the insanity defense, but what good does
that do? It doesn't change the fact that it is willful ignrance and
prevarication.
You may be a troll. I haven't made up my mind. You have put forward
some pretty bonkers notions, but you could be serious. Your problem is
that you are coming in at the bottom of a pyramid scam. The bait and
switch ploy has already been run and the ID perps have gone with a new
scam called "teach the controversy." The godfather of the ID/Wedge
scam (Philip Johnson) has acknowledged that there never was any science
worth teaching in ID.
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
You are trying to support the old ID creationist scam citing the guys
that know that they came up short. This is pretty stupid.
Sure there are serious people that may be looking into the notion of
intelligent design in nature, but they aren't the ones that you depend
on for your information. The guys that scammed you have moved on to a
new scam.
Philip Johnson is claimed to be the architect of the ID/Wedge scam by
the ID scam artists like Dembski and Meyer and even Behe. Read what he
claims about ID in the above article. It is typical Johnson
prevarication, and he doesn't say when he came to his conclusions, but
it probably happened half a decade ago when they started the "teach the
controversy" replacement scam, but forgot to tell the rubes what they
were doing. Johnson is claiming that his political scam worked. This
is true, you just have to see the activity in legislation and school
boards to know that the ID con worked and the rubes were fooled. The
problem is that there never was any science to back up the political
scam and when it ran into reality it collapsed. He blames the guys
like Dembski, Behe, and Meyer for the failure of the ID scam. Read it.
He claims that it was up to the science side of the scam to
demonstrate ID and they never did it.
So, what are you trying to do?
Ron Okimoto
Dick
Nobody has yet shown step by step creation of the eye, wing, celia.
That doesn't mean NS is useless, it just means there is room for
continued research.
I have no way to discuss matters that you want to argue, when those
positions have nothing to do with my interest. Find someone who is
out to get into the school system with Bible study or believes all
truth is in Bible. I just am so frustrated getting replies that have
nothing to do with me.
>> I am beginning to think I am more dedicated to ID than I thought.
>> I just can't imagine any sequence of steps that can explain the items
>> considered IC.
>
>But ID needs to propose and test the steps that comprise it's (unnamed)
>alternative mechanism, or just admit that evolution is the default
>explanation. "Evolutionists" have proposed and successfully tested
>pathways, even if it's virtually impossible to reconstruct detailed
>molecular processes in Precambrian organisms.
>
If ID is seen as a testable theory, right you are. I certainly see no
way to test for an Intelligence, but I sure see lots of reasons to
suspect there has been application of design in the evolution from
Singularity to Universe.
>> My belief in some designer is influenced by much more
>> than IC of course. I have a life time of coincidences. I question
>> the survival benefits from art or music talents. Love seems counter
>> productive compared to lust, etc.
>
>Then please read what theistic "evolutionists" have to say. John
>Haught, Howard Van Till, Denis Lamoreaux, Kenneth Miller. You might
>find tht it is the IDers who thow the baby out with the bath water.
>>
I don't care what any one else does. I have my own take on things.
Discussing my ideas with others, helps me clarify my own thoughts.
>>
>> dick
>> >
>> >I'm at my original computer now, where I can more easily access my
>> >files. In an upcoming post I'll list links to my favorite critques of
>> >ID. Even there I don't agree with every word the critic says, but when
>> >it all adds up, it paints a bleak picture of the ID strategy. But the
>> >good news is that I can still take on faith that life is designed.
>>
>> I understand. My life has been so complex that some kind of
>> intervention seems to have been at work. I have never had a belief in
>> Jesus. When I read the NT I find much of what Jesus says as so self
>> serving as I would expect of an itinerant preacher, but a god, some
>> kind of force has always seemed real.
>>
>> dick
Frank, do you see any reason to continue this thread? We seem to be
going around in a circle.
dick
Dick
Did you notice Michael.Palmer's post this morning about "A Code Beyond
Genetics"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25dna.html
I looked for talk.design, even refreshed by list, not found. Is it
new? Perhaps I can ask Giganews to add it.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> > large gatherings of differentiated genes is hard for me to understand.
> > DNA hold information, but what controls sequencing and timing?
> > Perhaps Junk codes are not junk, perhaps they do control the DNA's
> > functioning, so much to learn.
> As I said before, even the first cell had it all.
The concept of a "first cell" may be nonsense. There may have been
something hardly like a cell at all which evolved to be more cell-like
until eventually we had something we'd classify as a true cell. But
there was probably no firm boundary between not-cell and cell, hence no
first cell.
As for early cells: They probably didn't have DNA at all, more likely
RNA or something even earlier. They probably lacked many of the
regulatory features we take for granted now. But at present we have no
clear evidence what early cells were like, so it's all speculation,
both your claim above and my alternative ideas here.
> Actually, redundancy explains (if not in complete molecular detail) the
> "nonfunctional intermediate" problem. As a gross oversimplification,
> one set of genes is retained, while a mutated copy awaits a further
> use, so the organism survives the "gap."
Or, according to some recent research, it may work the other way
around: First there's a mutation that confers an advantage, but
unfortunately the unmutated gene confers a different advantage, so the
two allelles are constantly in competition with each other. But then a
duplication happens, allowing each allelle to persist in a different
copy of the gene, ending the competition between them.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> into another quite different structure....required changing
> twenty-eight amino acids.... all the changes were made
> simultaneously..."
Assuming there's no one-change-at-a-time path that offers better
fitness at each step, this would seem to be a case of an
irreducibly-complex change, which is feasible by deliberate engineering
but not by natural selection. Such an example does not refute natural
selection, rather it simply shows that natural selection isn't
omni-potent, that natural selection does what it can but doesn't do
what it can't. There may be many such IC changes that would be very
advantageous if only they could happen, but they can't by natural
selection, so life is forever deprived of such changes.
Frank J
And evolution does not *claim* to have a "step by step creation" of
anything. What does that mean anyway, documenting every mutation for
every generation of the ~40 x that eyes independently originated? But
ID doesn't even have *one* step of the origin of *any* biological
system. *That's* the double standard I keep referring to.
But yes, you're right, there's no reason to continue the discussion
until you get a better background on evolution and the nature of a
scientific explanation. Of course even then you could become like Behe,
and knowingly and willingly sell out to pseudoscience.
(snip)
Frank J
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
> > > Hox genes may express functions, but how such genes manage to control
> > > large gatherings of differentiated genes is hard for me to understand.
> > > DNA hold information, but what controls sequencing and timing?
> > > Perhaps Junk codes are not junk, perhaps they do control the DNA's
> > > functioning, so much to learn.
> > As I said before, even the first cell had it all.
>
> The concept of a "first cell" may be nonsense. There may have been
> something hardly like a cell at all which evolved to be more cell-like
> until eventually we had something we'd classify as a true cell. But
> there was probably no firm boundary between not-cell and cell, hence no
> first cell.
I know. I was trying to simplify it. By "had it all" I meant
replication, metabolism, and the capacity to evolve. And in the last
sense, the earliet organisms mmay have had the best potential.
Frank J
That's more like it. And this is just the beginning. If only IDers
would stop trying to peddle their pseudoscience in schools and the
media and do some research like that, they could conceivably find a
better theory.
Not sure why the link didn't work. Try this:
Dick
I can't speak for anyone but myself. For many reasons outside science
I believe there is Intelligence guiding the Universe. The nature of
that Intelligence is wide open for speculation.
NS may be showing some patterns of evolution, but fails to explain the
mechanics. If I was to believe the artifacts formed a pattern or
sequence in life, then I would want it to enter into the discussion of
how the NS logic applies to the Big Bang. I would like it to explain
how we go from carbon, oxygen, nitrogen molecules to a "living" cell
that reproduces and organized eventually to have a conscious view of
its own environment. I would like some survival benefits to be shown
to "love" (not lust), beauty, music, higher mathematics, interest in
the universe, etc.
Personally, I don't see how any theories could flow from a concept of
design by intelligence. If you are satisfied that NS can explain how
we got here, great. NS doesn't come close to satisfying my quest.
I think IC short changes the real question by letting Darwin's
standard regarding organs. The organs are the least of the
complexity. IDers talk about the complexity of the feather. Indeed a
fascinating object, but how about the simultaneous departure from
earth bound to flight enabled? Heart, brain, lungs, skeleton,
muscles, et al need to change in concert. Hoc genes come nowhere
close to representing system changes.
I like to play with ideas of what a designer might be like. Not only
do I suspect the designer is young and learning, but I suspect it is
not "it", but they. I choose the word "godlets," to suggest youth and
inexperience. I can imagine complete organisms being developed only
with mature guidance, operating manual and intent, probably modeled on
a super computer which provides for simultaneous DNA changes. We now
are learning to model and enact multiple simultaneous changes.
As to how such interventions could happen, I think String theory and
Entanglement suggest that we don't yet know the limits to means for
intervention using strange physical phenomena.
It really gets complex to play with ideas concerning "intent." We
might be a vast "reality show" for the amusement of the "supers." We
might be a vast lab experiment or a competition of teams. We might be
a morals test to see if man can find a moral way of life. We might be
a adventure vacation trip.
My great frustration with the ID arguments is how they miss/avoid the
greater questions.
dick
Dick
Simple, I thought you were refering to a "Newgroup."
dick
Frank J
Evolution is a lot more than NS. True, most of the popularizers
overemphasize it, and many of the misrepresenters exploit that in theor
bait-and-switch. Which is why you need to read not just what you want
to read, but "the rest of the story."
> If I was to believe the artifacts formed a pattern or
> sequence in life, then I would want it to enter into the discussion of
> how the NS logic applies to the Big Bang.
BB is far outside the scope of biological evolution. Again, only the
misrepresenters and the sloppiest or most "agendized" popularizers
would imply otherwise.
> I would like it to explain
> how we go from carbon, oxygen, nitrogen molecules to a "living" cell
> that reproduces and organized
That's abiogenesis, and guess who's working on it and guess who's
merely sitting back and conflating it with evolution?
> eventually to have a conscious view of
> its own environment. I would like some survival benefits to be shown
> to "love" (not lust), beauty, music, higher mathematics, interest in
> the universe, etc.
Who wouldn't want to see a comprehensive theory that includes
abiogenesis and evolution down to every molecular detail. But evolution
does not *claim* to have any of that. You are taking the
misrepresenters' (& some popularizers') opinions at their word. Can't
you spare at least little critical analysis of them?
>
> Personally, I don't see how any theories could flow from a concept of
> design by intelligence. If you are satisfied that NS can explain how
> we got here, great. NS doesn't come close to satisfying my quest.
Again, *evolution* does not *claim* to explain it all. And evolution is
a lot more than NS. I will give some defense of the language that reads
like "NS is everything", however, and that is because we know a lot
more about the NS part, and are just beginning to catch up on the
intricate molecular choreography that is often dismissed as
"mutations". Unlike anti-science activists (e.g. IDers) scientists like
to talk more about what we do know than what we don't know.
>
> I think IC short changes the real question by letting Darwin's
> standard regarding organs. The organs are the least of the
> complexity. IDers talk about the complexity of the feather. Indeed a
> fascinating object, but how about the simultaneous departure from
> earth bound to flight enabled? Heart, brain, lungs, skeleton,
> muscles, et al need to change in concert. Hoc genes come nowhere
> close to representing system changes.
Actually IDers retreated to cellular biochemistry because they know
that evolutionary explanations of bulk morphological features are
adequate. In that way, ID can never lose, because once adequate detail
is explained (IIRC, they completely gave up on the vertebrate blood
clotting cascade), they can always pick another "IC" system. For the
same reason, ID will never be a theory.
>
> I like to play with ideas of what a designer might be like. Not only
> do I suspect the designer is young and learning, but I suspect it is
> not "it", but they. I choose the word "godlets," to suggest youth and
> inexperience. I can imagine complete organisms being developed only
> with mature guidance, operating manual and intent, probably modeled on
> a super computer which provides for simultaneous DNA changes. We now
> are learning to model and enact multiple simultaneous changes.
>
> As to how such interventions could happen, I think String theory and
> Entanglement suggest that we don't yet know the limits to means for
> intervention using strange physical phenomena.
>
> It really gets complex to play with ideas concerning "intent." We
> might be a vast "reality show" for the amusement of the "supers." We
> might be a vast lab experiment or a competition of teams. We might be
> a morals test to see if man can find a moral way of life. We might be
> a adventure vacation trip.
>
> My great frustration with the ID arguments is how they miss/avoid the
> greater questions.
We'll I'm glad that you are starting to have frustrations about the ID
argument. If it were merely an expression of awe of nature and
speculation of designers (e.g like Kenneth Miller's approach), I'd have
no problem with it. But it pretends to be an alternative to evolution,
as well as a "big tent" "theory" that acommodates all long-debunked
creationist accounts as well as "virtual evolution." And it's bad
theology to boot.
>
> dick
> >But yes, you're right, there's no reason to continue the discussion
> >until you get a better background on evolution and the nature of a
> >scientific explanation. Of course even then you could become like Behe,
> >and knowingly and willingly sell out to pseudoscience.
> >
Sorry for the abrasiveness. I', continuing the discussion because I
don't think that you are on the road to selling out, as most of those
who come here to rave about ID are.
> >(snip)
Dick
Dear FRank, I get so frustrated by your responses that suggest I
parrot some party line. I have many times been surprised to find Behe,
Denton or Dembski say something that reminds me of my own thoughts.
When I read I look for ideas. I freely use a high lighter, but I
don't memorize arguments.
I have read other sources, but the anti ID forces mostly argue against
ID. Reading their material to learn anything is like listening to
Howard Dean to understand what the Bush administration is trying to
do. IDers are always representing NS ideas to show their weaknesses.
I don't want to read more justification of Common Descent until
biology can find "how" the DNA mechanism can explain how major changes
could happen and how non life became lift thus starting CD.
Having read NS before ID I have some understanding. I find both camps
lost in their own attacks. Whereas the field of biological research
is revealing exciting new views into the mechanisms which must be
included in any answer. I am so grateful to Michael.Palmer and his
continual sharing of new ideas.
NS has practically created a theology and seem to feel it necessary to
attack any one that differs. There is no justification for attacking
the notion of "design" small "d". Before Darwin, before Behe, design
was accepted as an alternative to Natural evolution. I wish we could
return to the uneasy peace of the past. I suppose "conflict" is one
of the "Natural state" of things. I don't like arguments, the
emotional part, arguments as in "discussion" of ideas excites my
mind.
dick
Frank J
Dick wrote:
>
> Dear FRank, I get so frustrated by your responses that suggest I
> parrot some party line.
For the record, I don't think that you parrot the "party line," or I
would have given up long ago. I think that you are beginning to tire of
the ID approach, as you suggest about Dembski.
>I have many times been surprised to find Behe,
> Denton or Dembski say something that reminds me of my own thoughts.
> When I read I look for ideas. I freely use a high lighter, but I
> don't memorize arguments.
But they don't frame their arguments as ideas, either for future
research, or even personal speculation that is yet untestable. They try
to sell it as an alternate theory, and one that does not need to be
tested to be taught in schools. The latest ID scam is not to teach ID
either, and thus to exempt what few testable statements they make from
critical analysis. More double standard.
>
> I have read other sources, but the anti ID forces mostly argue against
> ID. Reading their material to learn anything is like listening to
> Howard Dean to understand what the Bush administration is trying to
> do.
Many anti-ID arguments do tend to have more of an interest in promoting
liberalism or atheism. But there is no way to honestly portray ID and
sugar-coat it at the same time. It simply misrepresents evolution, an
offers nothing scientific in it's place. I think that you have already
conceded the latter.
> IDers are always representing NS ideas to show their weaknesses.
If by NS you mean EB (evolutionary biology), ID says that EB can't
explain X, so it is "weak." But if EB does not *claim* to explain X, it
is not "weak," but *misrepresented.*
> I don't want to read more justification of Common Descent until
> biology can find "how" the DNA mechanism can explain how major changes
> could happen and how non life became lift thus starting CD.
CD is fully supported even without a theory to explain species change.
IDers know that, and either concede it or "wink, nudge" against it.
That said, EB needs to (1) stop implying that eveey new discovery is
CD's "smoking gun" (2) stop implying that all IDers deny CD, and get
IDers to come clean and separate their views on CD, abiogenesis, and
mechanisms, instead of conflating their ideas for the sake of the big
tent.
>
> Having read NS before ID I have some understanding. I find both camps
> lost in their own attacks. Whereas the field of biological research
> is revealing exciting new views into the mechanisms which must be
> included in any answer. I am so grateful to Michael.Palmer and his
> continual sharing of new ideas.
>
> NS has practically created a theology and seem to feel it necessary to
> attack any one that differs.
Again, that's a problem with many popularizers. Maybe it's because I
have been reading scientific articles for 30+ years I learned to edit
out the unwarranted commentary.
> There is no justification for attacking
> the notion of "design" small "d".
Then you should admit that many (most?) "evolutionists" also have no
problem with "small d design", including some of the chief critics of
"big D" Design (what I call ID strategy).
> Before Darwin, before Behe, design
> was accepted as an alternative to Natural evolution.
What is "Natural evolution"? Do you know the difference between
methoological and philosophical "Naturalism", and how IDers insist on
conflating the 2?
> I wish we could
> return to the uneasy peace of the past. I suppose "conflict" is one
> of the "Natural state" of things. I don't like arguments, the
> emotional part, arguments as in "discussion" of ideas excites my
> mind.
Great. Then read how scientists have heated but healthy disagreements
among themselves. And see how ID tries to have it both ways - the
disagreements are a problem for evolution, and that scientists are
hiding their disagreements in some "conspiracy" (neither is true).
>
> dick
Dick
wrote:
>I just started re-reading Dembski, "Intelligent Design," 1999.
>Having just finished the re-read of Behe's, "Darwin's Black Box," I am
>struck by the difference in characters.. Behe is cautious and
>speculates, also makes a clean break with Christianity.
>
>Imagine my surprise after reading Behe's Forward for Dembski when I
>started Dembski's Introduction. What a difference, I was bristling
>from the start. He is so arrogant and so embracing with ideas I would
>only consider, not promote, but he brags about funding and support
>from the "Discovery Institute," further bragging "....Steve Meyer, who
>directs the center, have a well-conceived strategy for bringing
>intelligent design into the cultural mainstream."
>
>I like ID as a concept, I like Behe and Denton display of what is
>known, but Dembski is going to be rough riding.
>
>dick
I finally closed Dembski's book, "Intelligent Design." I closed it
because I couldn't stomach his effort to bring theology in as some
kind of equivalent source of information with science. Anyone who has
read my posts knows I believe in "intelligent design" small i, small
d. However Dembski, unlike Behe and Denton actually tries to
find equivalence in standing between science and theology.
Theology is entrenched dogma. There is no research possible, only a
defense of dogma. To make matters worse, Dembski says theology, but
it is clear he means Christianity. He just ignores the existence of
the world's other theologies.
Further he tries to equate scientific mis-takes with Biblical
miss-interpretation failing to see that science is self correcting by
its nature. It may take a long time, but science requires examination
of proof.
I just had to roar, yelling in my living room just didn't take away my
anger at having read such illogical stuff from an, apparently, well
educated, intelligent man. I get angry with things I read from the NS
camp, but that is usually due to an equally dogmatic position not
willing to look beyond the beginning of life nor the limitations of
Darwin's observations. At least, I am sure, time will set things out
in the scientific camp. Theists depend on repetition, propaganda and
politics to support their views. The fundamentalist theologian, can
never allow new information to alter his interpretations.
dick
Alexander
Welcome to ID - obfuscation comes as standard
Dick
>
>Dick wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear FRank, I get so frustrated by your responses that suggest I
>> parrot some party line.
>
>For the record, I don't think that you parrot the "party line," or I
>would have given up long ago. I think that you are beginning to tire of
>the ID approach, as you suggest about Dembski.
I am sorry that ID is linked to theology. My introduction was Behe a
couple of years ago. Neither he nor Denton write about any theology.
Not to say they aren't religious, but they didn't push it down
anyone's throat, so I read their ideas any thought "id" was a good
concept. To me it says, "keep an open mind."
Dembski, is a blatant theocrat. He is upfront, but he has tainted the
concept for me. I don't like having to be attacked through
association.
>
>>I have many times been surprised to find Behe,
>> Denton or Dembski say something that reminds me of my own thoughts.
>> When I read I look for ideas. I freely use a high lighter, but I
>> don't memorize arguments.
>
>But they don't frame their arguments as ideas, either for future
>research, or even personal speculation that is yet untestable. They try
>to sell it as an alternate theory, and one that does not need to be
>tested to be taught in schools. The latest ID scam is not to teach ID
>either, and thus to exempt what few testable statements they make from
>critical analysis. More double standard.
>
ID is just saying there are 2 ways to explain creation: an
intelligent agent or cause and effect. Neither can be proven at this
time. I just will not be drawn into your arguments with the IDers.
>
>>
>> I have read other sources, but the anti ID forces mostly argue against
>> ID. Reading their material to learn anything is like listening to
>> Howard Dean to understand what the Bush administration is trying to
>> do.
>
>Many anti-ID arguments do tend to have more of an interest in promoting
>liberalism or atheism. But there is no way to honestly portray ID and
>sugar-coat it at the same time. It simply misrepresents evolution, an
>offers nothing scientific in it's place. I think that you have already
>conceded the latter.
>
>
>> IDers are always representing NS ideas to show their weaknesses.
>
>If by NS you mean EB (evolutionary biology), ID says that EB can't
>explain X, so it is "weak." But if EB does not *claim* to explain X, it
>is not "weak," but *misrepresented.*
My understanding of Natural Selection is the morphological
explaination. Darwin has no knowledge the cell. I believe biology
gives us a better view of how any changes can take place.
>
>> I don't want to read more justification of Common Descent until
>> biology can find "how" the DNA mechanism can explain how major changes
>> could happen and how non life became lift thus starting CD.
>
>CD is fully supported even without a theory to explain species change.
>IDers know that, and either concede it or "wink, nudge" against it.
>That said, EB needs to (1) stop implying that eveey new discovery is
>CD's "smoking gun" (2) stop implying that all IDers deny CD, and get
>IDers to come clean and separate their views on CD, abiogenesis, and
>mechanisms, instead of conflating their ideas for the sake of the big
>tent.
>
I know you are satisfied, I am not. I don't wink, or nudge. I don't
think drawing a tree of life proves anything.
You seem to believe getting your foes to admit something is going to
change the world. I don't care what "IDers" say, I form my own
opinions. I hope most people, scientists or IDers do not follow a
"party line."
>
>
>>
>> Having read NS before ID I have some understanding. I find both camps
>> lost in their own attacks. Whereas the field of biological research
>> is revealing exciting new views into the mechanisms which must be
>> included in any answer. I am so grateful to Michael.Palmer and his
>> continual sharing of new ideas.
>>
>> NS has practically created a theology and seem to feel it necessary to
>> attack any one that differs.
>
>Again, that's a problem with many popularizers. Maybe it's because I
>have been reading scientific articles for 30+ years I learned to edit
>out the unwarranted commentary.
>
By attacking the notion of intelligent agent/s, you limit yourself. I
don't think this is the time to conclude we are alone our destiny only
decided by cause and effect.
>
>> There is no justification for attacking
>> the notion of "design" small "d".
>
>Then you should admit that many (most?) "evolutionists" also have no
>problem with "small d design", including some of the chief critics of
>"big D" Design (what I call ID strategy).
>
I am in no position to know what "most" people believe of any
persuasion. Most people (IMO) do not bother to battle politically
correct ideas, I think most people just do their work and don't worry
about teleological implications. Most people go to church because
their family and friends do. Any notion I have about "most people" is
wild conjecture. Just as poles fail to get useful information.. Exit
interviews don't reveal actual votes cast. One of my favorites ask
how people feel the economy is doing, poorly. Asked how their
personal finances are, doing fine.
>
>> Before Darwin, before Behe, design
>> was accepted as an alternative to Natural evolution.
>
>What is "Natural evolution"? Do you know the difference between
>methoological and philosophical "Naturalism", and how IDers insist on
>conflating the 2?
>
>
>> I wish we could
>> return to the uneasy peace of the past. I suppose "conflict" is one
>> of the "Natural state" of things. I don't like arguments, the
>> emotional part, arguments as in "discussion" of ideas excites my
>> mind.
>
>Great. Then read how scientists have heated but healthy disagreements
>among themselves. And see how ID tries to have it both ways - the
>disagreements are a problem for evolution, and that scientists are
>hiding their disagreements in some "conspiracy" (neither is true).
>>
>> dick
Again, you use me to attack ID. I may not answer you in the future if
you continue to not talk about my ideas. I neither want to attack
"Natural Evolution" nor "Intelligent Evolution." I follow my own
drummer, quite often outside mainstream thinking.
dick
Free Lunch
Dick <remd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<i9rnc2toqrtv61btr...@4ax.com>:
>On 29 Jul 2006 09:54:14 -0700, "Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Dick wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear FRank, I get so frustrated by your responses that suggest I
>>> parrot some party line.
>>
>>For the record, I don't think that you parrot the "party line," or I
>>would have given up long ago. I think that you are beginning to tire of
>>the ID approach, as you suggest about Dembski.
>
>I am sorry that ID is linked to theology.
Since there is no ID without theology, are you sorry that ID was
invented?
Dick
wrote:
Technically you pose a question that my use of the word would not
pose.
I think of theology in terms of established religions, dogmas. It
took most of my life to escape the box of one religion, one God. It
is hard to come up with words that escape reference to the orthodoxy
of Christian beliefs.
I am not sorry that ID was "invented." I am sorry that its parent is
so closely identified with Christian extremism.
My use of "id" does not relate to any religious dogma, nor to any
monotheism or pluralistic "ism." I use the thought to leave open the
question of source of universe. Natural evolution seems to start at
the boundary of life, no life and doesn't yet have an answer to how
life from non life. The question of "origins" must include
beginnings. It is not enough to declare "laws of nature" which is
equivalent to "means of a designer."
A discussion about the nature of a designer is philosophy. Discussion
about beginnings, nature or design, cannot yet be determined, but that
is no reason to eliminate one possibility.
I think the question can be posed as "Is the universe never ending" or
"was there a beginning". If there was a beginning, then how were the
laws of nature formed? A "never ending Universe" still allows for a
never ending, never beginning intelligence. To go from nothing to
something requires energy and information.
Science is just a small part of human experience. It does provide
very valuable tools for mankind to create and destroy. At this time,
with current findings, I see no way to conclude there is or is not a
designer. "Nature" is only a euphemism that science often invokes to
avoid a designer. If the universe is in lock step with the "laws of
nature", where did they come from?
Sorry for the rambling. Such a huge question and I am continue to put
my mind around it. My underlying argument, don't close off a
potential answer to how the universe works without absolute evidence.
dick
Free Lunch
Dick <remd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<mevoc2p5guiakbr8a...@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:54:12 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:45:52 -0500, in talk.origins
>>Dick <remd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>><i9rnc2toqrtv61btr...@4ax.com>:
>>>On 29 Jul 2006 09:54:14 -0700, "Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear FRank, I get so frustrated by your responses that suggest I
>>>>> parrot some party line.
>>>>
>>>>For the record, I don't think that you parrot the "party line," or I
>>>>would have given up long ago. I think that you are beginning to tire of
>>>>the ID approach, as you suggest about Dembski.
>>>
>>>I am sorry that ID is linked to theology.
>>
>>Since there is no ID without theology, are you sorry that ID was
>>invented?
>
>Technically you pose a question that my use of the word would not
>pose.
>
>I think of theology in terms of established religions, dogmas. It
>took most of my life to escape the box of one religion, one God. It
>is hard to come up with words that escape reference to the orthodoxy
>of Christian beliefs.
>
>I am not sorry that ID was "invented." I am sorry that its parent is
>so closely identified with Christian extremism.
What should it be identified with? We know that it has nothing to do
with science. We know that the only people trying to sell it are the
people who are closely identified with Christian extremism or with other
forms of anti-science extremism.
>My use of "id" does not relate to any religious dogma, nor to any
>monotheism or pluralistic "ism." I use the thought to leave open the
>question of source of universe. Natural evolution seems to start at
>the boundary of life, no life and doesn't yet have an answer to how
>life from non life. The question of "origins" must include
>beginnings. It is not enough to declare "laws of nature" which is
>equivalent to "means of a designer."
If all you are positing is a designer who starts the ball rolling with
life, you are opposed to the Intelligent Design under discussion,
though, of course, there is neither evidence for a designer nor the need
of a designer at that point.
>A discussion about the nature of a designer is philosophy. Discussion
>about beginnings, nature or design, cannot yet be determined, but that
>is no reason to eliminate one possibility.
But why add possibilities that are not implied or required by the
evidence?
>I think the question can be posed as "Is the universe never ending" or
>"was there a beginning". If there was a beginning, then how were the
>laws of nature formed? A "never ending Universe" still allows for a
>never ending, never beginning intelligence. To go from nothing to
>something requires energy and information.
We already know that the universe, as we know it, had a beginning, but
to the best of our knowledge it did not arise from nothing, nor is
infomration, in any standard sense, necessary.
>Science is just a small part of human experience. It does provide
>very valuable tools for mankind to create and destroy. At this time,
>with current findings, I see no way to conclude there is or is not a
>designer. "Nature" is only a euphemism that science often invokes to
>avoid a designer. If the universe is in lock step with the "laws of
>nature", where did they come from?
It is how the processes work. It is not some outside control.
Frank J
Dick wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2006 09:54:14 -0700, "Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Dick wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Dear FRank, I get so frustrated by your responses that suggest I
> >> parrot some party line.
> >
> >For the record, I don't think that you parrot the "party line," or I
> >would have given up long ago. I think that you are beginning to tire of
> >the ID approach, as you suggest about Dembski.
>
> I am sorry that ID is linked to theology. My introduction was Behe a
> couple of years ago. Neither he nor Denton write about any theology.
> Not to say they aren't religious, but they didn't push it down
> anyone's throat, so I read their ideas any thought "id" was a good
> concept. To me it says, "keep an open mind."
If you define "open mind" such that astrology should be taught in
physics class, OK. But that's not how the phrase is normally defined.
>
> Dembski, is a blatant theocrat. He is upfront, but he has tainted the
> concept for me. I don't like having to be attacked through
> association.
Is your mind open enough to accept the fact that I complemented you on
not following the party line? Same for Denton? Behe, however, has
completely sold out, and deserves all the verbal attacking he gets. To
put things in perpsective, I wish no harm on any of these people. I
even was saddened to learn that Dembski's son was autistic. But those
creationists who are "open minded" enough to rationalize flying planes
into buildings are a whole nother story.
> >
> >>I have many times been surprised to find Behe,
> >> Denton or Dembski say something that reminds me of my own thoughts.
> >> When I read I look for ideas. I freely use a high lighter, but I
> >> don't memorize arguments.
> >
> >But they don't frame their arguments as ideas, either for future
> >research, or even personal speculation that is yet untestable. They try
> >to sell it as an alternate theory, and one that does not need to be
> >tested to be taught in schools. The latest ID scam is not to teach ID
> >either, and thus to exempt what few testable statements they make from
> >critical analysis. More double standard.
> >
> ID is just saying there are 2 ways to explain creation: an
> intelligent agent or cause and effect. Neither can be proven at this
> time. I just will not be drawn into your arguments with the IDers.
>
And to do that they misrepresent evolution and pretend that ID is
science. If they ackowledged that cause-and-effect is the only method
that works - and is always incomplete - and framed ID as a
*complementary* idea, few scientists would have a problem.
But it's a cover up. IDers know that CD is settled (though still
falsifiable). The only reason that they pretend othewise is that even
the "second best" alternative is infinitely weaker than "CD by *some*
evolutionary mechanism."
>
> You seem to believe getting your foes to admit something is going to
> change the world. I don't care what "IDers" say, I form my own
> opinions. I hope most people, scientists or IDers do not follow a
> "party line."
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Having read NS before ID I have some understanding. I find both camps
> >> lost in their own attacks. Whereas the field of biological research
> >> is revealing exciting new views into the mechanisms which must be
> >> included in any answer. I am so grateful to Michael.Palmer and his
> >> continual sharing of new ideas.
> >>
> >> NS has practically created a theology and seem to feel it necessary to
> >> attack any one that differs.
> >
> >Again, that's a problem with many popularizers. Maybe it's because I
> >have been reading scientific articles for 30+ years I learned to edit
> >out the unwarranted commentary.
> >
> By attacking the notion of intelligent agent/s, you limit yourself. I
> don't think this is the time to conclude we are alone our destiny only
> decided by cause and effect.
Where do I attack the notion of an intelligent agent? I even said
several times that I think that an intelligent agent is ultimately
responsible for life. What I "attack" is how IDers mostly refuse to say
what the IA did/does with respect to biological systems. I refuse to be
"open minded" enough to allow them that double standard. Especially
when they demand every last molecular detail fro mainstream science.
Frank J
I wrote:
(snip)
> Is your mind open enough to accept the fact that I complemented you on
> not following the party line? (snip)
I meant "complimented."
>
> And to do that they misrepresent evolution and pretend that ID is
> science. If they ackowledged that cause-and-effect is the only method
> that works - and is always incomplete - and framed ID as a
> *complementary* idea, few scientists would have a problem.
There, "complementary" is what I meant. Ironically it is some of the
chief critics of the ID *strategy* who promote a scientifically
acceptable notion of ID.
(snip)