Intelligent Design Research: "Corinthian Leather"

[Sunstone]

I wish I could believe ID was finished in America, but though dead, I fear it will be back again and again, a zombie. The problem here is not that the idea has any merit to make it enduring, but that it has been institutionalized. That is, enduring institutions have been created and well funded to propagate it no matter how much otherwise it's defeated. These institutions promise to outlive any one generation of us. The only thing that could really kill ID would be if the funding for those institutions were cut off. Maybe that will happen someday. I hope so.

A bit off topic, but you should know, if you don't already, that the institutionalization of bad ideas so that they can never really be defeated by ordinary and honest means has been commonplace now in America for all sorts of bad ideas -- but mainly bad political, economic, and social ideas that are in fact weapons of the uber-rich for changing things in their favor. The "other side" -- if you want to consider today's liberal elites a genuine opposition (but I don't see them as especially well aligned with the poor, nor even really with the middle class) -- does it too, but the institutes the liberal elite create are not even close to being as well funded institutions, nor as numerous.

 

[exchemist]

I am not aware of any ID hypotheses that they have tested in the field of biology. At best, they try to argue against evolution, but that isn't ID research. That is evolution research.

Yes, that was a point that was amply made in the Kitzmiller trial (I've just re-read the judgement to find a quote for Subduction Zone).

All the arguments rested on what was termed a "contrived dualism", whereby if an evolutionary explanation is not forthcoming the the answer MUST be ID. All their effort was put into picking holes in evolution rather than asserting any positive evidence for ID.

 

[exchemist]

I wish I could believe ID was finished in America, but though dead, I fear it will be back again and again, a zombie. The problem here is not that the idea has any merit to make it enduring, but that it has been institutionalized. That is, enduring institutions have been created and well funded to propagate it no matter how much otherwise it's defeated. These institutions promise to outlive any one generation of us. The only thing that could really kill ID would be if the funding for those institutions were cut off. Maybe that will happen someday. I hope so.

A bit off topic, but you should know, if you don't already, that the institutionalization of bad ideas so that they can never really be defeated by ordinary and honest means has been commonplace now in America for all sorts of bad ideas -- but mainly bad political, economic, and social ideas that are in fact weapons of the uber-rich for changing things in their favor. The "other side" -- if you want to consider today's liberal elites a genuine opposition (but I don't see them as especially well aligned with the poor, nor even really with the middle class) -- does it too, but the institutes the liberal elite create are not even close to being as well funded institutions, nor as numerous.

I think myself that ID will die back to the point that only the uneducated believe it - in fact that may already have happened. But you're right, once you reach that point it joins quantum woo, homeopathy and astrology as a charlatanic, zombie, pseudo-science to appeal to the already converted. From that point on it probably will never die, as it meets a need in those communities to believe, regardless of the lack of evidence for it. What one hopes is that the battle to keep it out of the science classroom has been won.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I think myself that ID will die back to the point that only the uneducated believe it - in fact that may already have happened. But you're right, once you reach that point it joins quantum woo, homeopathy and astrology as a charlatanic, zombie, pseudo-science to appeal to the already converted. From that point on it probably will never die, as it meets a need in those communities to believe, regardless of the lack of evidence for it. What one hopes is that the battle to keep it out of the science classroom has been won.

School boards are the only battle they really ever picked. There has been no concerted effort in doing ID research and submitting their work to the scientific community. For the rest of science, it starts in the scientific community and then ends up in science textbooks and high school science classes. The ID/creationist crowd has it completely backwards.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ah, so no more attempts to get state laws changed to permit it, in say, Kansas or somewhere? If true then that's good.

No, I don't expect to see any genuine attempts to mandate the teaching of ID creationism. Every few years a state rep will submit a bill that does something like that, but the bills are just for show (for their fundamentalist constituents), aren't taken seriously, and invariably die in committee.

As SZ noted, Louisiana has a law that allows for "outside materials" to be brought in, and given that it's the south it's a safe bet that some teachers are using that law to bring creationist books and such into classes.

But overall, ID creationism has the same status as young-earth creationism.....it's not officially taught, isn't taken at all seriously by science, and is just something fundamentalist Christians believe in and advocate online.

 

[Jose Fly]

I wish I could believe ID was finished in America, but though dead, I fear it will be back again and again, a zombie. The problem here is not that the idea has any merit to make it enduring, but that it has been institutionalized. That is, enduring institutions have been created and well funded to propagate it no matter how much otherwise it's defeated. These institutions promise to outlive any one generation of us. The only thing that could really kill ID would be if the funding for those institutions were cut off. Maybe that will happen someday. I hope so.

In order to get it officially included in science classes, you'd have to overturn or supersede the Kitzmiller ruling. And honestly, I don't see that happening. Most likely, it'll stick around in the same way as astrology and other ideas, i.e., as something that some people believe in, but in terms of mandated teaching in science classes? Nah. That's just plain dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I don't expect to see any genuine attempts to mandate the teaching of ID creationism. Every few years a state rep will submit a bill that does something like that, but the bills are just for show (for their fundamentalist constituents), aren't taken seriously, and invariably die in committee.

As SZ noted, Louisiana has a law that allows for "outside materials" to be brought in, and given that it's the south it's a safe bet that some teachers are using that law to bring creationist books and such into classes.

But overall, ID creationism has the same status as young-earth creationism.....it's not officially taught, isn't taken at all seriously by science, and is just something fundamentalist Christians believe in and advocate online.

And even though Louisiana and some other areas have found cheats, they will be a dying breed. Kids are not limited to what they see in schools these days and many of them will use the internet and educate themselves if they have a teacher that teaches poorly or incorrectly. The lies and poor arguments of creationists are easily refuted regardless of which form they take. In fact in many ways they shoot themselves in the foot. They rely on old outdated science and all it takes is to defeat them is to point out how new discoveries were made since then. I still run into creationists that think that the Miller-Urey experiment is the only work that has been done in abiogenesis.

 

[Revoltingest]

I remember back in the day that "rich Corinthian leather" was widely mocked as pretentious & phony.

 

[Jose Fly]

And even though Louisiana and some other areas have found cheats, they will be a dying breed. Kids are not limited to what they see in schools these days and many of them will use the internet and educate themselves if they have a teacher that teaches poorly or incorrectly. The lies and poor arguments of creationists are easily refuted regardless of which form they take. In fact in many ways they shoot themselves in the foot. They rely on old outdated science and all it takes is to defeat them is to point out how new discoveries were made since then. I still run into creationists that think that the Miller-Urey experiment is the only work that has been done in abiogenesis.

True. As Christianity declines in the US, the likelihood of any form of creationism becoming part of the public education curricula decreases as well.

 

[Cooky]

I remember back in the day that "rich Corinthian leather" was widely mocked as pretentious & phony.

I have a pair of house slippers that are, according to the tag, lined with pure "faux fur".

 

[Etritonakin]

I have been looking for a while for this, which amused me greatly when I first came across it, over a decade ago. So I thought I should record it here with a link: The DI’s Genuine Imitation Leather Research Lab

To summarise, there are two pieces of actual research reported here, done by ID proponents. Yes I know actual ID research papers are as rare as hen's teeth but these are the real thing. Both in fact shed light on how evolution can work - which was not at all what the researchers intended to show.

The first is the 2004 Behe and Snoke paper on a computer simulation of evolution that came up in the Kitzmiller trial. I quote from the article:
" Behe was forced to admit under oath that their computer simulation had in fact concluded that an irreducibly complex protein binding site could evolve in only 20,000 years even when the parameters of the experiment were purposely rigged to make it as unlikely as possible."

The second is an actual piece of biochemistry, in which someone called Axe studied the effect of artificially introduced mutations on an enzyme's ability to function. This showed that, contrary to what ID wanted to claim, enzyme function was surprisingly robust to these potentially damaging changes. The work failed to test for other functionality being created by the same changes, though as it happens another group showed that that did in fact occur. This undermined a key contention of ID at the time, that mutations only cause damage and thus cannot be a source of beneficial change for an organism.

(You will also see, towards the end of the article, it is pointed out that the ID people claimed the Axe work showed what they had hoped, when in fact it showed the opposite.)

I don't know what research the ID people have done since in this area. Perhaps they have dropped this line of enquiry......

I don't understand why people who believe in intelligent design -and that the designer was the beginning and end -what was, is and will be -would look for evidence so late in the sequence of events.... as if the designer was everything before making all other things -made the entire universe -yet other life forms were an afterthought. That does not make sense.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I don't understand why people who believe in intelligent design -and that the designer was the beginning and end -what was, is and will be -would look for evidence so late in the sequence of events.... as if the designer was everything before making all other things -made the entire universe -yet other life forms were an afterthought. That does not make sense.

It makes sense if Intelligent Design is a religious belief where one starts with a dogmatic belief.

 

[exchemist]

I don't understand why people who believe in intelligent design -and that the designer was the beginning and end -what was, is and will be -would look for evidence so late in the sequence of events.... as if the designer was everything before making all other things -made the entire universe -yet other life forms were an afterthought. That does not make sense.

Yes I agree. What is so special about life on Earth that God had to tinker with His own creation at, say the beginning of the Cambrian, to get it going on the designed track?

You raise a good point. Maybe someone needs to start a thread to explore this a bit more. If you don't, I might, as it bothers me. I sort of understand why a biblical literalist has to object to a lot of science, but ID is weird. These people claim not to take the bible literally and to have no problem with the age of the Earth, geology or cosmogeny. And yet they have a burning need to single out the way life developed as evidence of a tinkering God. I can't think of a theological reason for wanting to make that distinction.

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes I agree. What is so special about life on Earth that God had to tinker with His own creation at, say the beginning of the Cambrian, to get it going on the designed track?

You raise a good point. Maybe someone needs to start a thread to explore this a bit more. If you don't, I might, as it bothers me. I sort of understand why a biblical literalist has to object to a lot of science, but ID is weird. These people claim not to take the bible literally and to have no problem with the age of the Earth, geology or cosmogeny. And yet they have a burning need to single out the way life developed as evidence of a tinkering God. I can't think of a theological reason for wanting to make that distinction.

One problem I have seen is that biblical literalists are not actually taking the bible literally -by what the definitions of words allow, or by referencing verses to each other even in the same books -but are actually afraid to question the ideas of others about the bible -those of church leaders, popular beliefs, etc.
It just doesn't say what many think it does.

Then there is the advice in the New Testament to "prove all things, hold fast that which is good" -which many religious people seem to think would anger God or be somehow blasphemous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One problem I have seen is that biblical literalists are not actually taking the bible literally -by what the definitions of words allow, or by referencing verses to each other even in the same books -but are actually afraid to question the ideas of others about the bible -those of church leaders, popular beliefs, etc.
It just doesn't say what many think it does.

Then there is the advice in the New Testament to "prove all things, hold fast that which is good" -which many religious people seem to think would anger God or be somehow blasphemous.

That is true enough. There are no true "literalists" even though many claim to be. If they were actual literalists they would be killing homosexuals, witches, and people that work on Saturday. They would also more than likely be flat Earth believers as well. All believers pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe. Some will fool themselves and tell themselves that their interpretation comes from God. Yet their next door neighbor with a different interpretation will believe the same thing. All sorts of fun wars have arisen from this sort of belief.

 

[David T]

I have been looking for a while for this, which amused me greatly when I first came across it, over a decade ago. So I thought I should record it here with a link: The DI’s Genuine Imitation Leather Research Lab

To summarise, there are two pieces of actual research reported here, done by ID proponents. Yes I know actual ID research papers are as rare as hen's teeth but these are the real thing. Both in fact shed light on how evolution can work - which was not at all what the researchers intended to show.

The first is the 2004 Behe and Snoke paper on a computer simulation of evolution that came up in the Kitzmiller trial. I quote from the article:
" Behe was forced to admit under oath that their computer simulation had in fact concluded that an irreducibly complex protein binding site could evolve in only 20,000 years even when the parameters of the experiment were purposely rigged to make it as unlikely as possible."

The second is an actual piece of biochemistry, in which someone called Axe studied the effect of artificially introduced mutations on an enzyme's ability to function. This showed that, contrary to what ID wanted to claim, enzyme function was surprisingly robust to these potentially damaging changes. The work failed to test for other functionality being created by the same changes, though as it happens another group showed that that did in fact occur. This undermined a key contention of ID at the time, that mutations only cause damage and thus cannot be a source of beneficial change for an organism.

(You will also see, towards the end of the article, it is pointed out that the ID people claimed the Axe work showed what they had hoped, when in fact it showed the opposite.)

I don't know what research the ID people have done since in this area. Perhaps they have dropped this line of enquiry......

ID is a science thingie. What ID factually proves is confirmation bias in science.

 

[exchemist]

ID is a science thingie. What ID factually proves is confirmation bias in science.

If by "thingie" you mean "fraud" then I agree.

 

[David T]

One problem I have seen is that biblical literalists are not actually taking the bible literally -by what the definitions of words allow, or by referencing verses to each other even in the same books -but are actually afraid to question the ideas of others about the bible -those of church leaders, popular beliefs, etc.
It just doesn't say what many think it does.

Then there is the advice in the New Testament to "prove all things, hold fast that which is good" -which many religious people seem to think would anger God or be somehow blasphemous.

The text is a something other in what it is. I could go Into talking about art but this writing style here which is literal descriptive for best analogy is like using cow dung as a pen to give an explanation of the scent of a rose. No matter what is written it's still smells like cow dung.

If by "thingie" you mean "fraud" then I agree.

Yes. It's sycophantic and irrelevant. It feeds off confusion, it ingratiates itself into the discussion and quickly it becomes. The center of attention the gate keeper to the truth. It's nonense often times arguing with syncopantic aspects in science. Is ID religion or more. Specifically the text? Absolutely not it's a nonsense commentary about fantasy using the text as an excuse.

I find ID young earth old earth creationism parasitic in its it's all about me...science is not magically immune from that.

 

[Etritonakin]

The text is a something other in what it is. I could go Into talking about art but this writing style here which is literal descriptive for best analogy is like using cow dung as a pen to give an explanation of the scent of a rose. No matter what is written it's still smells like cow dung.

Not sure what you mean.

I meant things like using the time Adam's life would have begun to date the age of the Earth -when the first few lines of Genesis not only allow for, but suggest, any unspecified amount of time between the creation of the heavens and earth and the earth becoming (not initially being) waste and ruin.

Also - the assumption that the creatures and men created at that time were the first ever on earth, when Genesis itself suggests otherwise (and other books more so) -such as Cain being able to find a wife elsewhere, worrying that other people would do him harm when cast out of Eden, etc.

 

[David T]

Not sure what you mean.

I meant things like using the time Adam's life would have begun to date the age of the Earth -when the first few lines of Genesis not only allow for, but suggest, any unspecified amount of time between the creation of the heavens and earth and the earth becoming (not initially being) waste and ruin.

Also - the assumption that the creatures and men created at that time were the first ever on earth, when Genesis itself suggests otherwise (and other books more so) -such as Cain being able to find a wife elsewhere, worrying that other people would do him harm when cast out of Eden, etc.

This is like trying to explain a song devoid of knowing music even exists. . I read the other day the well meaning and I am sure decent human but clearly confused idiot named Named NT WRIGHT a highly regarded theologian on the resurrection.

Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem

Now the structure he writes in isn't music its bs notation throwing darts here is an example of linguist "rationalizing" bs structure which the entire piece is

He clearly is delusional and high functioning. As if he has magically explained the resurrection reductive intellectually and THAT he understands the topic and nature at the same Time. Totally self deluded "normal" bs Nonsense..
This explainitory linguistic structure is bs.if it is not realized that it's limited at best..