Intelligent Design???

[leroy]

If your literate read

for yourself. There are also a number of peer reviewed articles available that deal with this. I am through spoon feeding you. Do your own homework.

Ok, so you are avoiding answers…..why?

 

[Bear Wild]

Really, ? Can you quote the exact mutations that occured ?....... No so stop lying, nobody has spotted the mutations necessary to build a flagellum. Nobody knows if there is a viable path of benefitial mutations* that would lead to a flagellum.

Ok ok you can add a few neutral steps but not too many, the path Is suppose to be mainly positive......agree?


Granted, behe and I do not deny the fact that flagellum a came from ancestral systems.

The claim is that the process of random mutation + NS by themselves can't account for the origin of the flagellum.

Of coarse they can and remember there are other natural ways that the genetic code is altered. What is clear is that there is no intelligent designer actively altering the genetic code. There is no hand of a supernatural being actually cutting and splicing genetic material for new combinations. Thus time and selection create complex variations including flagella. No other explanation with any factual evidence explains in any other way.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, so you are avoiding answers…..why?

You refuse to make any effort to understand science. In fact, your agenda is Fundamentalist Christian as cited concerning the Discovery Institute, which you support, and it is also an anti-science agenda. You coach your question to justify your agenda and not a genuine interest to understand science as science.

From: My Role in Kitzmiller v Dover

I had two responsibilities as a witness: (1) to present and analyze empirical data that would demonstrate to Judge Jones that ID is merely a new strain of creationism and, as such, a religious belief; and (2) to show that Of Pandas and People is a creationist textbook. These tasks were not difficult; ID creationists had provided me with excellent resources such as the Wedge strategy. Walking the judge through this document, I explained its major points, which establish that ID is not merely religion in a general sense, but sectarian Christian apologetics. I quoted relevant statements such as this one: "Alongside a focus on influential opinion makers, we [ID creationists at the CSC] also seek to build up a popular base of support [for ID] among our natural constituency, namely Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars." I produced evidence showing that ID leaders themselves understand ID as both creationism and sectarian religion. Phillip Johnson, who developed the Wedge Strategy, defines ID as "theistic realism" or "mere creation". William Dembski, one of the strategy’s chief executors, defines it as "the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

But the "smoking gun" — as NCSE’s Nick Matzke put it — was Pandas. The NCSE archivist’s discovery in a 1981 creationist newspaper of an ad by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) seeking authors for a textbook that would be "sensitively written to present both evolution and creation" was an auspicious find. Interpreting the ad as a tip that FTE, publisher of Pandas, might have kept early drafts, plaintiffs’ attorneys subpoenaed all documents related to the book. Among the thousands of pages FTE produced were a 1983 and a 1986 draft, and two 1987 drafts, all written in blatantly creationist language. Beginning with the 1986 draft, "creation" was defined using the classic creationist concept of "abrupt appearance": "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." The 1989 and 1993 published versions preserve this definition verbatim, except that "intelligent design" and "agency" are substituted for "creation" and "creator", respectively.

My analysis of the drafts brought a memorable "Eureka" moment. Working late one night, I discovered a crucial difference between the two 1987 drafts: one was written before the Supreme Court’s 1987 Edwards v Aguillard decision outlawing creationism in public schools, and the other was obviously written afterwards. The first version contained blatant creationist terminology. In the second, creationist terminology had been deleted and replaced by "intelligent design" and other ID terms. A new footnote in the latter version referenced the Edwards decision, indicating a conscious attempt to circumvent the Edwards ruling in the revised manuscript that would become Pandas. The "search and replace" operation must have been done in a hurry: in the post-Edwards manuscript, "creationists" was not completely deleted by whoever tried to replace it with "design proponents". The hybrid term "cdesign proponentsists" now stands as a "missing link" between the blatantly creationist earlier drafts and the post-Edwards versions of Pandas.

Knowing that my testimony would make all of this information part of the legal record, the TMLC tried to have me excluded from the case. When they failed, the saviors of modern science at the Discovery Institute tried to discredit me with ridicule by posting on their website a fake interview of Dr "Barking" Forrest by a fictitious radio host. When I saw this unbelievable silliness prior to departing for the trial, I could only hope that Judge Jones was also consulting DI’s website in his preparation for the case."

 

[Bear Wild]

Religious Naturalism is more a philosophy believed by many different belief systems including the Baha'i Faith.

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=rel.....69i57j0l5.7111j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

'Religious Naturalism is a philosophy, or a set of attitudes and beliefs, that combines an appreciation of perceptions and values commonly associated with religions with a naturalistic understanding of the world (grounded in findings from science, and not including anything supernatural that may exist or act in ways ...

Charles Darwin was a religious naturalist.

It is also an association Religious Naturalist Association – encouraging awareness of the religious naturalist orientation

Have you read Donald Crosby's books on Religious Naturalism ( not the mistake of using David Crosby- sorry about that just typing too fast)? If you have what is your objection with his presentation of Religious Naturalism as a non ambiguous religion? . He makes clear arguments for symbols, metaphysics, ethics, morals, dealing with good and evil, and other questions that a religion would ask. It just seems you are not familiar with presented concepts of Religious Naturalism as an acceptable religions.

 

[shmogie]

A fair question. As the context is ID, which claims to be a science, I'm referring to evidence acceptable in science. You will be familiar with the concepts of repeatability and reproducibility in forensic evidence, I expect. That's what I'm taking about: observation that can be repeated by different observers under different conditions and which still gives a consistent outcome.

I would be happy to admit that, strictly speaking, in human activity, there is no unimpeachable yardstick of total objectivity. There remains inevitably a subjective element to the observations of the most scrupulous experimentalist But reproducibility of observations is the means by which science tries to get as close to true objectivity as possible.

I define it as objective verifiable evidence of our physical existence:

From: Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Verifiability and predictability are important in the scientific methods. Verifiable evidence is evidence that supports an experiment and research so that if the experiment or research is repeated the same result will be achieved. Predictability is the value of theories, hypothesis, and theorems to make predictions and have them confirmed by future research and discoveries.

Objective: From:Scientific Objectivity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The idea of this first conception of objectivity is that scientific claims are objective in so far as they faithfully describe facts about the world. The philosophical rationale underlying this conception of objectivity is the view that there are facts “out there” in the world and that it is the task of a scientist to discover, to analyze and to systematize them. “Objective” then becomes a success word: if a claim is objective, it successfully captures some feature of the world.

In this view, science is objective to the degree that it succeeds at discovering and generalizing facts, abstracting from the perspective of the individual scientist. Although few philosophers have fully endorsed such a conception of scientific objectivity, the idea figures recurrently in the work of prominent 20th century philosophers of science such as Carnap, Hempel, Popper, and Reichenbach. It is also, in an evident way, related to the claims of scientific realism, according to which it is the goal of science to find out the truths about the world, and according to which we have reason to believe in the truth of our best-confirmed scientific theories.

A fair question. As the context is ID, which claims to be a science, I'm referring to evidence acceptable in science. You will be familiar with the concepts of repeatability and reproducibility in forensic evidence, I expect. That's what I'm taking about: observation that can be repeated by different observers under different conditions and which still gives a consistent outcome.

I would be happy to admit that, strictly speaking, in human activity, there is no unimpeachable yardstick of total objectivity. There remains inevitably a subjective element to the observations of the most scrupulous experimentalist But reproducibility of observations is the means by which science tries to get as close to true objectivity as possible.

So, observation, and reproducability are elements of scientific evidence, as is statistical analysis.

Are there circumstances within science where the absence of evidence, is evidence ?

 

[exchemist]

So, observation, and reproducability are elements of scientific evidence, as is statistical analysis.

Are there circumstances within science where the absence of evidence, is evidence ?

I don't see why not in principle, though it would only be rather weak evidence of course, since it might simply be that the observations have not been thorough enough. Obviously one could never prove a hypothesis false merely by failing to find evidence in support of it. But one could quite reasonably set aside as not useful a hypothesis for which no evidence could be found. That would just be applying Ockham's Razor.

A case in point is the magnetic monopole. Dirac predicted that if charge is quantised - which it is, apparently - then monopoles should in principle exist. But nobody has ever found one. So either there is something wrong with the current theories or we have not looked hard enough. This is one of those cases in which the absence of evidence raises question marks about our current models. As it happens, the theories that predict these thing are highly successful in other respects so they have not been set aside. But the failure to find them is a salutary reminder that our models remain, well, models.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, observation, and reproducability are elements of scientific evidence, as is statistical analysis.

Are there circumstances within science where the absence of evidence, is evidence ?

In simple terms no, the absence of evidence is not evidence. The scientific methods of Methodological Naturalism require objective verifiable evidence to falsify theories, hypothesis, and theorems. Because, scientific methods cannot falsify claim concerning other worlds and existence of God outside our physical existence is there is a lack of objective falsifiable evidence, therefore science cannot make conclusions concerning God and worlds beyond our physical world.

 

[Polymath257]

So, observation, and reproducability are elements of scientific evidence, as is statistical analysis.

Are there circumstances within science where the absence of evidence, is evidence ?

Absolutely.

For example, if a theory predicts a certain phenomenon is guaranteed to happen in a situation to the extent it would be observable, and if actual observations fail to see that phenomenon, that is taken as evidence against that theory.

As an easy example, if there was an elephant in my room, I would be able to see it. Since I do not see it (absence of evidence), I can conclude there is no elephant in my room (evidence of absence).

One of the most famous experiments in physics was important because it *failed* to detect an expected phenomenon: the Michelson-Morley experiment. That failure lead to a revolution in physics: special relativity.

I can come up with a list of cases if you really want, but the simple answer to your question is a resounding *yes*. The conditions, though, are that evidence is *expected* and not actually seen.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't see why not in principle, though it would only be rather weak evidence of course, since it might simply be that the observations have not been thorough enough. Obviously one could never prove a hypothesis false merely by failing to find evidence in support of it. But one could quite reasonably set aside as not useful a hypothesis for which no evidence could be found. That would just be applying Ockham's Razor.

A case in point is the magnetic monopole. Dirac predicted that if charge is quantised - which it is, apparently - then monopoles should in principle exist. But nobody has ever found one. So either there is something wrong with the current theories or we have not looked hard enough. This is one of those cases in which the absence of evidence raises question marks about our current models. As it happens, the theories that predict these thing are highly successful in other respects so they have not been set aside. But the failure to find them is a salutary reminder that our models remain, well, models.

The reason this is only weak evidence is that there are no conditions where we *expect* to see monopoles with high certainty. If such conditions existed and we still failed to see mono[oles, *that* would be evidence against monopoles that would be strong.

 

[Polymath257]

In simple terms no, the absence of evidence is not evidence. The scientific methods of Methodological Naturalism require objective verifiable evidence to falsify theories, hypothesis, and theorems. Because, scientific methods cannot falsify claim concerning other worlds and existence of God outside our physical existence is there is a lack of objective falsifiable evidence, therefore science cannot make conclusions concerning God and worlds beyond our physical world.

Well, part of the difficulty with detection of deities is that there are no conditions where we *expect* with high confidence to conclusively detect such things. But that is an issue for the theists to come up with appropriate tests.

 

[shunyadragon]

Absolutely.

For example, if a theory predicts a certain phenomenon is guaranteed to happen in a situation to the extent it would be observable, and if actual observations fail to see that phenomenon, that is taken as evidence against that theory.

As an easy example, if there was an elephant in my room, I would be able to see it. Since I do not see it (absence of evidence), I can conclude there is no elephant in my room (evidence of absence).

One of the most famous experiments in physics was important because it *failed* to detect an expected phenomenon: the Michelson-Morley experiment. That failure lead to a revolution in physics: special relativity.

I can come up with a list of cases if you really want, but the simple answer to your question is a resounding *yes*. The conditions, though, are that evidence is *expected* and not actually seen.

I disagree and will respond in more detail later.

 

[exchemist]

Really? Care to copy-pase the exact portions of the article that provide an answer to my question?......why are you avoiding a direct answer? Honestly my questions could be answered in 1 or 2 words.

Perhaps because he does not have a day to waste, ploughing through Behe, and then Behe's critics, just to respond to arbitrary questions from creationists on the internet. You really think he can be expected to have rebuttals of any detailed question you care to dream up, at his fingertips? Perhaps he has a life.

The plain fact is Behe and his ideas have been wholly discredited, ever since the Kitzmiller trial in 2005. You can hold onto these ideas if you like, but you won't convince scientifically literate people with them, whether they are religious believers or not. It's like homeopathy.

 

[exchemist]

The reason this is only weak evidence is that there are no conditions where we *expect* to see monopoles with high certainty. If such conditions existed and we still failed to see mono[oles, *that* would be evidence against monopoles that would be strong.

Yes, I suppose so. But I think I might quibble with your example of the Michelson-Morley experiment, as I would not call that "absence of evidence" for a hypothesis. I would call that presence of evidence in favour of one of two alternative hypotheses. A positive null result is not what I would call absence of evidence, I don't think.

But let's see what Shmogie is getting at and we may be clearer.....

 

[leroy]

Perhaps because he does not have a day to waste, ploughing through Behe, and then Behe's critics, just to respond to arbitrary questions from creationists on the internet. You really think he can be expected to have rebuttals of any detailed question you care to dream up, at his fingertips? Perhaps he has a life.

The plain fact is Behe and his ideas have been wholly discredited, ever since the Kitzmiller trial in 2005. You can hold onto these ideas if you like, but you won't convince scientifically literate people with them, whether they are religious believers or not. It's like homeopathy.

In fact I didn't ask him to refute Behe, I simply asked him specific questions about his personal view

 

[exchemist]

In fact I didn't ask him to refute Behe, I simply asked him specific questions about his personal view

No, you asked him to copy/paste exact portions of someone else's piece of written work.

 

[shmogie]

Absolutely.

For example, if a theory predicts a certain phenomenon is guaranteed to happen in a situation to the extent it would be observable, and if actual observations fail to see that phenomenon, that is taken as evidence against that theory.

As an easy example, if there was an elephant in my room, I would be able to see it. Since I do not see it (absence of evidence), I can conclude there is no elephant in my room (evidence of absence).

One of the most famous experiments in physics was important because it *failed* to detect an expected phenomenon: the Michelson-Morley experiment. That failure lead to a revolution in physics: special relativity.

I can come up with a list of cases if you really want, but the simple answer to your question is a resounding *yes*. The conditions, though, are that evidence is *expected* and not actually seen.

So then, an unobserved, unreplicated, proposed phenomenon, based upon an unknown environment and unknown operational features must de facto be declared non existent. No evidence is evidence of non existence, correct ?

 

[Jose Fly]

So then, an unobserved, unreplicated, proposed phenomenon, based upon an unknown environment and unknown operational features must de facto be declared non existent. No evidence is evidence of non existence, correct ?

FYI, not directly observing or replicating an event does not preclude us from concluding that it happened. No one has directly observed or replicated the earth completely orbiting the sun, yet we're pretty sure it does.

 

[leroy]

You refuse to make any effort to understand science. In fact, your agenda is Fundamentalist Christian as cited concerning the Discovery Institute, which you support, and it is also an anti-science agenda. You coach your question to justify your agenda and not a genuine interest to understand science as science.

From: My Role in Kitzmiller v Dover

I had two responsibilities as a witness: (1) to present and analyze empirical data that would demonstrate to Judge Jones that ID is merely a new strain of creationism and, as such, a religious belief; and (2) to show that Of Pandas and People is a creationist textbook. These tasks were not difficult; ID creationists had provided me with excellent resources such as the Wedge strategy. Walking the judge through this document, I explained its major points, which establish that ID is not merely religion in a general sense, but sectarian Christian apologetics. I quoted relevant statements such as this one: "Alongside a focus on influential opinion makers, we [ID creationists at the CSC] also seek to build up a popular base of support [for ID] among our natural constituency, namely Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars." I produced evidence showing that ID leaders themselves understand ID as both creationism and sectarian religion. Phillip Johnson, who developed the Wedge Strategy, defines ID as "theistic realism" or "mere creation". William Dembski, one of the strategy’s chief executors, defines it as "the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

But the "smoking gun" — as NCSE’s Nick Matzke put it — was Pandas. The NCSE archivist’s discovery in a 1981 creationist newspaper of an ad by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) seeking authors for a textbook that would be "sensitively written to present both evolution and creation" was an auspicious find. Interpreting the ad as a tip that FTE, publisher of Pandas, might have kept early drafts, plaintiffs’ attorneys subpoenaed all documents related to the book. Among the thousands of pages FTE produced were a 1983 and a 1986 draft, and two 1987 drafts, all written in blatantly creationist language. Beginning with the 1986 draft, "creation" was defined using the classic creationist concept of "abrupt appearance": "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." The 1989 and 1993 published versions preserve this definition verbatim, except that "intelligent design" and "agency" are substituted for "creation" and "creator", respectively.

My analysis of the drafts brought a memorable "Eureka" moment. Working late one night, I discovered a crucial difference between the two 1987 drafts: one was written before the Supreme Court’s 1987 Edwards v Aguillard decision outlawing creationism in public schools, and the other was obviously written afterwards. The first version contained blatant creationist terminology. In the second, creationist terminology had been deleted and replaced by "intelligent design" and other ID terms. A new footnote in the latter version referenced the Edwards decision, indicating a conscious attempt to circumvent the Edwards ruling in the revised manuscript that would become Pandas. The "search and replace" operation must have been done in a hurry: in the post-Edwards manuscript, "creationists" was not completely deleted by whoever tried to replace it with "design proponents". The hybrid term "cdesign proponentsists" now stands as a "missing link" between the blatantly creationist earlier drafts and the post-Edwards versions of Pandas.

Knowing that my testimony would make all of this information part of the legal record, the TMLC tried to have me excluded from the case. When they failed, the saviors of modern science at the Discovery Institute tried to discredit me with ridicule by posting on their website a fake interview of Dr "Barking" Forrest by a fictitious radio host. When I saw this unbelievable silliness prior to departing for the trial, I could only hope that Judge Jones was also consulting DI’s website in his preparation for the case."

Interesting but irrelevant, i am.simply asking simple questions regarding your personal view but for some reason you don't what to provide direct and clear answers

Why ?

 

[shmogie]

In simple terms no, the absence of evidence is not evidence. The scientific methods of Methodological Naturalism require objective verifiable evidence to falsify theories, hypothesis, and theorems. Because, scientific methods cannot falsify claim concerning other worlds and existence of God outside our physical existence is there is a lack of objective falsifiable evidence, therefore science cannot make conclusions concerning God and worlds beyond our physical world.

I am not speaking of gods and other worlds. If a DA charges that defendant A committed a robbery, but cannot produce evidence that he did, then the absence of evidence is evidence that defendant A did not commit a robbery.

If scientist A proposes a theory, that is initiated by an unproven hypothesis;

Does the absence of evidence for the beginning critical factor void the entire theory ?

Does impeaching counter evidence, i.e. evidence that leads to the conclusion that the hypothesis is wrong, have significant weight in voiding the entire theory ?

 

[leroy]

So then, an unobserved, unreplicated, proposed phenomenon, based upon an unknown environment and unknown operational features must de facto be declared non existent. No evidence is evidence of non existence, correct ?

What we call "Evidence" covers a wide range of possible paths, observation and replication are just 2 out of many other examples.