"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
It's difficult to decipher sarcasm from text. I thought you were serious until you mentioned the extraterrestrial. It might be useful to add a note at the end of your comment to save people the time of seriously respondingcoldblood wrote:sandy_mcd wrote:
“Are you serious?”
What took you so long to ask?
KBCid wrote: Intelligent agents are working with most every aspect of replication and adaptation. It is now only a matter of time before the bottom up design of life will begin. Then how will you be able to tell the difference between the imaginary natural and designed?
It was not intended to prove anything about the origin or change of assumed 'natural' lifeforms. What it does do is blow away the usual anti-watch arguments which is exactly what I had referred to on the subject;sandy_mcd wrote:So, soon intelligent agents [aka people] will be able to build lifeforms which are indistinguishable from natural ones. This doesn't prove anything about about the origin and change of natural lifeforms.
Have done so but it will take them time to do their part and until they can implement it I will do my part to spread the understanding which so far has not been touched on by any appreciable debate. If that is any indicator I would think you should be worried about the future of your beliefs.Pierson5 wrote:So you are obviously involved directly in the academic community. If you honestly think (and I believe you do) that you have solid evidence for ID, or even evidence against evolution, could you not present this evidence to some of your colleagues? If your evidence is truly solid and convincing enough for the scientific community, your colleagues will jump at the chance to revolutionize the foundations of biology. This is the stuff scientific dreams are made of. They would be fools to turn down the Nobel prize, fame and fortune. Unless of course, the evidence is flawed in some way... Which I'm sure they would have no problem explaining to you. There is much to gain and nothing to lose. Have you thought about this before?
I honestly do not follow the logic here.KBCid wrote:KBCid wrote: Intelligent agents are working with most every aspect of replication and adaptation. It is now only a matter of time before the bottom up design of life will begin. Then how will you be able to tell the difference between the imaginary natural and designed? ... What it does do is blow away the usual anti-watch arguments which is exactly what I had referred to on the subject;
Pierson5 wrote:
It's difficult to decipher sarcasm from text. I thought you were serious until you mentioned the extraterrestrial. It might be useful to add a note at the end of your comment to save people the time of seriously responding
KBCid wrote: Intelligent agents are working with most every aspect of replication and adaptation. It is now only a matter of time before the bottom up design of life will begin. Then how will you be able to tell the difference between the imaginary natural and designed? ... What it does do is blow away the usual anti-watch arguments which is exactly what I had referred to on the subject;
Here is why you are not following the logic presented.sandy_mcd wrote:I honestly do not follow the logic here. In the past we could distinguish some (and only some) man-made objects from "natural" ones because some man-made objects had characteristics not found in nature. Now (or in the very near future) man can make very complicated objects which are indistinguishable from natural ones.
This is where the scientific method comes into play. You design tests for these things to remove what you are unsure of. If you can't test it then you have no scientific basis to form an assertion from. This leaves only belief.sandy_mcd wrote:So some objects which are designed are indistinguishable from objects whose design status we are unsure of.
What is the cause of design? The concept that ID is the only causal mechanism that can produce specifiable types of information should be easy to understand. Looking for those same indicators of design in our observable environment also shouldn't be too hard to understand.sandy_mcd wrote:I don't see how this advances the cause of design at all. Isn't there some simple way of stating the implications of man's ability to mimic nature? The only conclusion i can guess at is: if two complicated things are very similar and we know one is designed then the other must be designed. And I do not see the logic leading to this conclusion. If there is some other conclusion, what is it? Anyone want to hazard a guess?
As a scientist in training, I am not "worried" about the future of my beliefs. I will get behind what the evidence supports. Good luck on revolutionizing the human race's understanding of biology. Could you give us any more insight as to the type of research/experiments being performed by you and your colleagues?KBCid wrote: Have done so but it will take them time to do their part and until they can implement it I will do my part to spread the understanding which so far has not been touched on by any appreciable debate. If that is any indicator I would think you should be worried about the future of your beliefs.
Evolution by natural selection is a pretty well established cause. I haven't heard anyone use irreducible complexity in a while. From what I have seen, the Discovery Institute doesn't use that one anymore.KBCid wrote:Have you thought about this;
What cause have you seen that can form an irreducibly complex precision system that spatiotemporally controls the arrangement of matter to allow for replication of 3 dimensional form? Remember... no replication, no evolution.
Evolution may account for variation but not origination. You've pointed out the challenge and I've yet to see it answered, just more red herrings. "But if so, why hasn't the science world caught on?" Ad populum. Mocking. They supress the truth in unrighteousness.Fair enoughcoldblood wrote:Pierson5 wrote:
It's difficult to decipher sarcasm from text. I thought you were serious until you mentioned the extraterrestrial. It might be useful to add a note at the end of your comment to save people the time of seriously responding
I was paraphrasing without intending to be sarcastic. I felt compelled to comment regarding your being faulted for bias. Sometimes the best way to state the obvious is to state its opposite. Drawing a serious response can be exactly the desired effect. I think sandy_mcd understands.
It's not an ad populum argument! I've addressed this on the very first page. I guess the research done by the scientific community is a giant conspiracy to "suppress truth" and spread fairy tales. Do you not realize how ridiculous that sounds? A community made up of people from different backgrounds, religious affiliations, etc.. all over the world have examined the evidence, using the same scientific methods and equipment used by geologists, doctors, physicists, etc... and have come to the same conclusion. You can call it mocking if you want, it's a legitimate question. Don't you find it funny that the scientific illiterate American public come to a completely different conclusion than the scientific community? Whenever you make an argument like this, ask yourself if it would still sound reasonable if it was applied to something like HIV denialism. E.g. That's just an ad populum argument, you can't explain a specific part of "x" therefore it's false!, etc... etc...jlay wrote:K,
You've done an admirable job, but you are dealing with people who are religiously committed to their worldview. I've read through the last few pages of the thread and all I've seen it boil back down to is ad populum fallacy and ignoring their own fallacious reasoning. For exampl,e one mocked that we shouldn't point out that loss of information doesn't account for arrival information. I guess repeating the sames fallacies over and over gives them merit??
For what it is worth, the creationist side allows for material causes and intelligent causes. Pierson, Sandy and CB and the other mockers will ONLY consider material causes, and have NO room for intelligent cause. Which is utterly hypocritical sense the very discussion requires immaterial thought to do so, and a material world can't account for immaterial information. They expect ID scientist to be able to present their info, when they have FULLy demonstrated in this thread that they are 100% religiously committed to making sure that never happens in their own minds.
. As I have stated before, there is room for intelligent cause. You CAN test for these things, the problem is with the lack of evidence. Go back to this post:When I refer to scientific community, I refer to the scientific community as whole. Just as you can find a few scientists who don't accept HIV as the cause of AIDs, you can also find a couple who don't accept the theory of evolution. The DI put together a lovely list of such scientists. The scientific community, as a satire, did the same, but with a twist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SteveGman wrote: Here is some of the evidence brought forth by the ID proponents.. Of course when you say "scientific community" I detect that it can only be "scientific" IF it conforms to the "belief" in Darwinian evolution. Therefore much of what you are saying is biased since not all scientists agree with Darwinian evolution. Of course many agree with micro-evoultion but not the fairly tales of macro-evolution where miracles abound.
http://www.faithandevolution.org/topics ... for-id.php
This list from the Discovery Institute is entitled – “Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)”
At first glance it does indeed appear to be a long list of scientific publications that support their position, but wait hang on a moment, what exactly do we have in this list:
We find Books. They claim they are peer-reviewed, but in the context of book publication, the concept of peer-review has no meaning. The fact that books have been published does not in any way prove anything. There are books out there written by astrologers that have been read by other astrologers, should we also consider those to be peer-reviewed publications and so start paying attention to astrology … I think not. Publishers print what sells, not what is true.
We have articles that are from “Peer-reviewed scientific anthologies”. What the heck is a Peer-reviewed scientific anthologies, this is not a recognised standard.
Then we have terms such as Peer-Edited and Editor-Reviewed articles. Nope, those don’t count either and are not recognised terms
So, if we filter all this out, do we have anything left? Actually yes we do, we apparently have a list of 12 Peer-reviewed articles from Scientific journals that are claimed to support intelligent design. Is this finally it? Well, lets take a look.
Article 1 – A.C. McIntosh, “Information and Entropy — Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems?,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(4):351-385 (2009
The International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics is a fringe publication of the featherweight Wessex Institute of Technology, in other words its not a real scientific journal, this is simply a vanity journal that publishes papers written by its own editors. McIntosh is on their Editorial Board, and one of their other editors is the young earth creationist Stuart Burgess – Fail
Article 2 – William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39 (5):1051-1061 (September, 2009)
What do others have to say about this, do they find it credible as an ID paper? Nope, see reviews here, and here, and here.
Dembski has, for years, been pushing an argument based on some work called the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorems. The NFL theorems prove that average over all possible search landscapes, no search algorithm can outperform a random walk. The NFL theorems are true and correct – they’re valid math, and they’re even useful in the right setting. In fact, if you really think about it, they’re actually quite obvious. Dembski has been trying to apply the NFL theorems to evolution: his basic argument is that evolution (as a search) can’t possibly produce anything without being guided by a supernatural designer – because if there wasn’t some sort of cheating going on in the evolutionary search, according to NFL, evolution shouldn’t work any better than random walk – meaning that it’s as likely for humans to evolve as it is for them to spring fully formed out of the ether. This doesn’t work for a very simple reason: evolution doesn’t have to work in all possible landscapes. Dembski always sidesteps that issue.
So yes, this is an appropriate publication in its context, and the maths is OK, but claims that it supports ID when applied to Evolution are not in this paper. Nor can that claim be substantiated by any data from either here or anywhere else
Status as a paper that supports ID – Fail.
Article 3 – Ø. A. Voie, “Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006
Sigh! … Well its a real journal, another maths one, and what we have here is an attempt to take Gödel’s theorem and try to apply it to something other than formal axiomatic systems … oh thats such a bad idea. This is a journal for fractals, so its no shock that the reviewers had the wool pulled over their eyes. If they were familiar with Gödel and information theory it would not have been published. Here is a link to an appropriate Subject matter expert who attempts to digest this and ends up spitting it out.
So in summary, its not just a paper out of context, its a bad paper that does not hold together – Fail
Article 4 – David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228
This has been falsified – Fail
Article 5 - John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005)
This is a non-peer reviewed, proprietary journal. The article was only published here after the DI sponsored it – no regular journal would have it. However, it was recognised, and did indeed win an award, it was voted “crankiest” on crank.net – Fail.
Article 6 – S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004)
All we actually have here is an very bad attempt to reorganize already existing information. This article was not peer-reviewed according to the standards of the Biological Society of Washington, but rather slipped into the journal by an editor without proper review. The publisher repudiated the article; – Fail.
Article 7 - M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004)
This article was indeed peer-reviewed according to the normal procedures. The conclusions, however, were rapidly and voluminously disputed by others in the field, and the controversy was addressed by the editors. It argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005). – Fail
Article 8 – D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004)
This article does not support Intelligent design theory, that fact was established during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, you can read the testimony here that proves this. If that’s not enough, then here is a detailed analysis of the paper. – Fail
Article 9 – W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002)
Annual Review of Genetics does not publish new research results; it publishes review articles, which summarize the current state of thinking on some topic. Although the thrust of the article is in opposition to the modern evolutionary picture, nowhere does it mention “design”. It references Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out. – Fail
Article 10 – D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002)
Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis. – Fail
Article 11 – M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002)
Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law. – Fail
Article 12 - D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000)
Axe finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe’s paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42). – Fail.
Conclusion
Thats it then … nada, zilch, nothing, not one jot.
There are hundreds of papers published each month whose authors find evolution useful in explaining their results. One would think that, if “intelligent design” has any scientific merit, there would be a significant number of papers each month presenting evidence of supernatural intervention by an intelligent designer. Surely the many religious scientists, in particular, wouldn’t fail to publish results that turn out to support intelligent design, even if that wasn’t the original focus of their research.
There is indeed a claim that there are credible peer-reviews papers that support ID, but when looked at, all we find are incandescent vapors and reflective materials … that’s “Smoke And Mirrors” to you and me. Anybody not familiar with the conversation will be easily fooled, so please learn to be skeptical and don’t be among that number, because there is indeed no credible evidence that supports any form of supernatural intervention.
One Final Thought
How should we respond to stuff like this, should we respect it, or respect the authors behind this nonsense? Nope.
Cute.. Now you are trying to equate anyone who doesn't believe in macro-evolution as a scientists (or an advocate for ID) who doesn't accept HIV as the cause of AIDs..Pierson5 wrote: When I refer to scientific community, I refer to the scientific community as whole. Just as you can find a few scientists who don't accept HIV as the cause of AIDs, you can also find a couple who don't accept the theory of evolution. The DI put together a lovely list of such scientists. The scientific community, as a satire, did the same, but with a twist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
The link you provided has a few review articles, but I think what we would all be interested in, is the list of peer-reviewed publications found here: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
http://www.skeptical-science.com/religi ... er-review/
I don't know how you came to that conclusion... The similarities in the lines of reasoning are very easy to see, which I was trying to point out. Apply your line of reasoning to other aspects not accepted by the scientific community. For example:Gman wrote:Cute.. Now you are trying to equate anyone who doesn't believe in macro-evolution as a scientists (or an advocate for ID) who doesn't accept HIV as the cause of AIDs..Pierson5 wrote: When I refer to scientific community, I refer to the scientific community as whole. Just as you can find a few scientists who don't accept HIV as the cause of AIDs, you can also find a couple who don't accept the theory of evolution. The DI put together a lovely list of such scientists. The scientific community, as a satire, did the same, but with a twist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
The link you provided has a few review articles, but I think what we would all be interested in, is the list of peer-reviewed publications found here: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
http://www.skeptical-science.com/religi ... er-review/
You could post all the scientific information in the world for ID and it will never be accepted into certain so called "scientific communities." Why? Becuase they think it's just another form of creationism. Therefore it will never be accepted. Ever. Automatically it has to be rejected.... By default.
Spare me the rhetoric. I am not a banner waver for the DI.Also, be careful using statements like "creationist side." The discovery institute tries to be as coy as they can about keeping the identity of the designer a mystery . As I have stated before, there is room for intelligent cause. You CAN test for these things, the problem is with the lack of evidence. Go back to this post:
NaturalFlawedIntellect wrote:Um, question. It seems that Sandy and KCB are arguing from different definitions of "nature." Is it okay for me to ask that both of you define nature? Or has this already been done?