Not sure what you mean with that. Do you mean "which party introduced
the wedge strategy"? That features prominently inter alia in the expert
testimony of Barbara Forrest - the author of "Creationism's Trojan
Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" and also in the testimony by
John F. Haught
>
>
>> The issue then is if a specific book, Of Pandas and People.
>
> Then the word "it" was used irregularly in "it describes ID as a religious argument."
> There is no such description involved in what you say next.
Don't understand what you mean with this.
>
>> The book was printed by the Foundation for Thought and
>> Ethics, who had given it the remit of ""sensitively written to present
>> both evolution and creation". It's original working title was "Creation
>> Biology Textbook Supplements", and only in later versions was the word
>> "creation" clumsily replaced by "ID",
>
> There was nothing clumsy about it.
Using the "replace" function in word processor but then not doing a
proper proofreading and in this way creating the new term "Cdesign
Proponentsists" is as clumsy as it gets I'd say. And absolutely nothing
in these later versions of the book added any test that would have
distinguished the earlier "creationism" version from the "ID" version
As I told Mark Isaak, the book
> had a lot of raw material in the form of scientific data.
> I don't know whether the book mentioned the case of the
> Pacific golden plover that I described in the reply to jillery that I posted
> soon after the one to which you are replying. If it did not,
> it was a most incompetent oversight.
>
>
>> while internal papers made it
>> clear that this was always intended as a way to circumvent the law.
>
> The law against teaching creationism in the public schools, that is.
Yes, and your point?
> ID is a completely different issue, when it adheres to standard
> scientific methodology.
>
>
>> That is the movement the decision talks about, and the only one that matters
>> given the facts under litigation.
>
> The movement is a big tent,
Not as far as the case is concerned, where the term as used by the
defendant is the one that matters,
> and to call it "religious" is a half-truth:
> it is both religious and scientific. Hence my next comment:
>
>>> And he is further conflating that embryo with the ID science that,
>>> as practiced by the most knowledgeable WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE,
>>> Behe and Minnich, scrupulously adheres to the methodology
>>> of science that the National Academy of Sciences [NAS]
>>> considers to be definitive.
>
>> Yet neither shows in their testimony an actual science of ID.
>
> Minnich and his graduate students performed sixty or more laboratory
> experiments that showed that each and every part of the flagellum
> that they studied was irreducibly complex (IC) with respect to the
> function of swimming.
>
> Minnich's long, detailed description of those experiments is in the
> official transcript of the proceedings. Judge Jones evidently
> didn't read that part, and was unable to recall it from the testimony
> that went on right under his nose.
No, he largely ignores it because none of it has bearing on the case.
Which is exactly the problem. All this is parasitic on the ToE, it does
not establish anything like a theory of ID. At best, if given the
greatest possible leverage and taken at face value, it shows: there are
some interesting challenges for the ToE. There is no logical connection
whatsoever from there to "and therefore design", let alone one that
meets the standards of a naturalistic inference.
>
> IC is an integral part of the science of ID: the more parts an
> example has, the bigger the challenge to anti-ID scientists
> to show how it could have evolved by individual mutations
> and natural selection.
>
> Jillery, for whom you have an inordinate amount of respect,
> characterized a paragraph of the same sort as the above thus:
>
> "The above question is of the "it seems impossible" and "I don't
> understand" type of question you insisted you don't provide."
>
>
>> They do not show an active research program, even in embryonic form, taht could
>> answer the most obvious questions for a design theory, i.e. "who
>> designed, when and how and for what purpose"
>
> This is a criterion invented by anti-ID propagandists. They give no credible argument
> for why it is a necessary component of ID science.
Well, lots of reasons. Firstly a number of the high profile proponents
of the movement draw explicitly comparisons to history, archeology,
forensic science. Dembski is a prime example of course, and given his
involvement with P&P a much more on point representative to boot. And of
course all these disciplines answer these questions all the time. Or do
you think in a murder investigation, the investigators at one point say:
Yup, way too unlikely that he just fell into the knife, must have been
done by an intelligent agent (which may have been himself, or some other
human, or a supernatural demon, who knows, or cares) case closed, let's
hit the pub?
Secondly simple word meaning. an Intelligent design theory should have
theory about intelligent design.
And building on form that, this is how theories are evaluated against
each other and eventually replaced. The new theory must explain all the
data of the old theory at the same level of detail and content, AND then
add some value. That's how historians of science describe scientific
theories and their change, and more importantly, for legal purposes that
is required to overcome any "entanglement risk". In order to be a
teachable alternative or supplement despite the danger that it is seen
as an endorsement of a monotheistic deity, having some naturalistic
features is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement. It needs to be
a viable alternative that s as productive as the theory it is in
competition with.
Compare:
>
> Who designed The Voinich manuscript, when and how and for what purpose?
> Nobody knows the answer to these questions.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
>
> More importantly, these questions are totally irrelevant to the obvious fact that it was
> intelligently designed. So is the fact that it was written on paper.
And how does this help your case? On the same wiki page, you find at
least nine proposed authors. Each of these hypothesis leads to testable
predictions, other things we should find, or must not find, if the
theory is true. This leads to ongoing discussion, research and progress.
Nobody says: well, it was probably a human, that's all there is to is.
Absolutely nobody says: We tried to figure out who the author is since
1644 (much longer than the ToE) and no conclusive proof, this means
natural science has failed and we should assume it was a demon from
another dimension.
So the moment ID folks start to behave like the Voinichean research
community, we are talking. But of course they are not even trying.
Nobody requires that they give strong evidence of a specific designer
right now, but what they have to do is to show what methods, tests etc
they propose to eventually answer these questions, as a bare minimum.
Possible interesting side issue: At least if you look at the text only,
the "ID interpretation" may well be false. Both the hoax theory and the
glossolalia theory argue the text is meaningless gibberish resulting
from random processes, not intelligent planning
> If geologists had found a pile of rocks with scratches from which its contents
> (minus irrelevant details like coloring) could have been reconstructed by suitable arrangement,
> it would still be obvious that it was intelligently designed.
An you think they stop there? Of course that is the start for them - and
even this bare minimum makes some claims about the designer: human, tool
user (which gives you a lower time limit) etc etc
>
>
>>
>> The problem that Behe and Minnich create for their client is not that
>> they don;t use naturalistic methods, the problem is that
>
> Yes? how did you intend to finish that sentence?
I had moved this further up and forgotten I left something out. The
problem is that nothing of what they do with the naturalistic part of
their analysis has no bearing on the issue of design or a theory of
design. it is this inference, from "here is a problem" to "therefore
design" that has to be naturalistic - and that means it has to lead to
testable hypothesis about the designer, their methods and intentions.
So the overall effect of their testimony is "and that's the best you
got?" Oh dear...