"The value of Intelligent Design does not lie in its scientific capacity to prove anything."

Fair enough on that part, but "blustering incoherence" also firmly belongs in the ID camp. The theory of evolution is far from incoherent and does not need to bluster, since it is confirmed by scientific work on an ongoing basis, while ID has yet to achieve a coherent hypothesis of any kind.

That's not to say that ID is incapable of doing so at some point, but as it stands, it only consists of a couple of critiques of the modern synthesis which can be addressed appropriately.

creeper:

I think you would make a very good pope. You have a rare talent for pronouncing ex cathedra.

ID at its best is analagous to a good defense lawyer. It challenges darwinism and reveals its implausibilities and forced conclusions. But in terms of explaining the history of life, it can't prove anything for the same reasons darwinism can't. Nor will it ever live up to the promise of its name, which I imagine was coined in an admirable but incautious spirit of defiance. The most it will ever be able to do is present facts and invite people to infer that darwinism is incomplete and there must be something else driving life. That's extremely important and useful, but a long way from what most people envisage in the words intelligent design.

But of course you believe objections to darwinism (as a self-contained explanation) have been addressed "appropriately". That's because you test the world against the theory rather than the other way around.

"But of course you believe objections to darwinism (as a self-contained explanation) have been addressed "appropriately". That's because you test the world against the theory rather than the other way around."

Or because critiques of science generally demand something scientific to back them up with.

"ID at its best is analagous to a good defense lawyer."

Not really. Darwinism has had holes poked in it from inception onwards. ID is not offering anything new that hasn't been considered before. It's just PC creationism being pushed because of the culture wars.

A group of penguins standing upright looks like co-operation, but in fact the ones on the outside are struggling to get in and those on the inside are trying to stand their ground ... This statement isn't correct. The narrator in the film specifically said that the penguins rotate their positions inside and outside the huddle. They seem to have worked out an equitable way for them all to survive.

The film was wonderful both for its remarkable footage and its even more remarkable lack of leftwing claptrap. The only place where my PC Attack Alert Meter started buzzing was when the female penguins allegedly ganged up on a female who lost her chick and tried to steal a live one from another. That flurry of activity seemed so at odds with the surrealistic stoicism of the penguin's absolute determination to conserve their energy for their single minded mission, the survival of their egg.

I don't know why anyone cares what interpretation religious people or secular scientists for that matter give to the behavior of these penguins who, for whatever reasons, have figured out a way to propagate their species.

Luc Jaquet, the film's director, is to be commended for making a film so remarkably free of leftwing claptrap, especially since he, himself, is so full it. Jaquet added, It's obvious that global warming has an impact on the reproduction of the penguins. Really? Obvious to whom? The penguins?

Ali:

...or because critiques of science generally demand something scientific to back them up.

That's fair is you mean the critique must show how or why the science is faulty or incomplete, but it is wrong if you mean to imply that the critic of a scientific theory must propose an alternative verifiable scientific theory to have any credibility, which is the fallacy many darwinists are clinging to these days.

C'mon, I don't know where ID starts and stops these days, but its most serious advocates are using genetics and mathematical probability theory to argue natural selection cannot plausibly account for the evolution of life in the time periods claimed. The fine details of that argument are largely inaccessible to all but professional geneticists and mathematicians, so the rest of us must simply try and follow the logic of the principles behind the arguments. Are you saying that Berlinski's attack on the logic of Dawkins' typing monkeys or those who say genetic evolution is too complex to sustain a darwinist explanation are just "PC creationists"? That's no better than dismissing darwinism because you suspect all the fossils were faked.

Forget the Malaria virus. It, at least, still roams freely over of a portion of its original natural range.

Pity instead the poor small pox virus.

Like the majestic California condor a few years ago, it has been reduced by the regretable and inhumane actions of man to a few pitiful survivors kept alive in captivity.

But, unlike the condor, there are inexplicably no breeding programs established to reintroduce this beautiful animal into the wild....or at least none that we haven't already bombed into smithereens.

"I think you would make a very good pope. You have a rare talent for pronouncing ex cathedra."

Hardly rare around here, from what I've seen...

I somewhat agree with your assessment, in so far as ID is no more than a handful of challenges to the theory of evolution. The image of the "good defense lawyer" who will say anything to get his client off, regardless of the facts, also seems apt.

How successful ID's challenges are is to be resolved on a scientific level, which is what I meant by "appropriately": if a conceptual challenge of the theory of evolution is attempted, it can be resolved on a conceptual level. If an IDer wishes to claim that a specific thing is irreducably complex (ie. could not be reduced to smaller functional elements), then the response need only be to show that it could.

"That's because you test the world against the theory rather than the other way around."

The theory of evolution is tested against the world all the time, and quite successfully.

"That's fair is you mean the critique must show how or why the science is faulty or incomplete, but it is wrong if you mean to imply that the critic of a scientific theory must propose an alternative verifiable scientific theory to have any credibility, which is the fallacy many darwinists are clinging to these days."

Not a fallacy, and no clinging required.

To challenge the theory of evolution, no alternative theory is required - just a genuine challenge on scientific grounds. This will either succeed, in which case the existing theory needs to be adapted or scrapped and replaced by another hypothesis/theory, or it will fail, hence strengthening the acceptance of the existing theory.

To claim that there is an alternative theory - say, a theory of Intelligent Design - it would behoove its proponents to actually have at least a scientific hypothesis on hand. And such a thing does not, at this time, exist.

creeper:

Actually I was thinking more of the good defence lawyer who successfully shows the plainitff's or state's story is a bunch of nonsense. But as you can't get beyond believing ID'ers are dishonest, I'm not surprised you prefer the shyster image.

If an IDer wishes to claim that a specific thing is irreducably complex (ie. could not be reduced to smaller functional elements), then the response need only be to show that it could.

That is silly. Are you saying that science is now in the business of "proving" what could have happened as opposed to what did happen? You have just validated every just-so story excited anthropologists ever dreamed up.

And besides, the argument is not just what happened but what caused it and whether that cause explains it by itself. Plausibility is very much fair game.

> The idea that the life of a penguin is any more beautiful than that of a malaria virus is absurd.

I have to say, if you're going to sneer at people for their scientific ignorance, you ought to know that malaria is caused by a single-celled parasite, not a virus.

Damn! Bob H. beat me to calling them on the "malaria virus" thing. Good job.

Now let me explain why we prefer penguins to malaria.

Penguins are preferable from our point of view, and that is what counts. God created us, just as He created Penguins and malaria, but He put us in charge, leaving even the naming of penguins and the naming of malaria to our discretion.

When we see an error, and denial of the relationship of humanity to the rest of creation is such an error, we must mark and refute it, lest, over generations, it comes to be accepted. I suggest that we really would not want to live in a climate of moral equivalency of ourselves with malaria.

"But as you can't get beyond believing ID'ers are dishonest, I'm not surprised you prefer the shyster image."

Most IDers and creationists that I've seen in forums such as these happen to be dishonest. For starters, honest IDers should stop pretending that there is an ID "theory" on the same level as there is a scientific theory of evolution.

"That is silly. Are you saying that science is now in the business of "proving" what could have happened as opposed to what did happen?"

Read carefully. If the challenge itself is purely on the basis that something could not have happened, then a sufficient response is to show that it could. This is certainly not meant as a general principle, but is appropriate given the nature of that specific challenge.

creeper:

So do you agree that the argument between darwinists and IDers is about what could have happened?

Lou:

But most Darwinists and leftist academics distinctly prefer equating man to the malaria bug - it relieves them of any need or desire to consider the uniqueness of mankind. They don't have to trouble themselves with any moral impetus or guilt; they can be as selfish as they want and not fear. At least, for 70 years or so.

What else drives the thinking of someone like Richard Dawkins or Peter Singer?

"So do you agree that the argument between darwinists and IDers is about what could have happened?"

Let's not escape into vague, distorting generalizations. You've argued reasonably honestly so far, let's keep it that way. The actual challenge of ID to the theory of evolution - namely that of irreducible complexity and specified complexity – is about what theoretically could not have happened, to which the response has been that theoretically it could.

"most Darwinists and leftist academics distinctly prefer equating man to the malaria bug"

Like who?

You've argued reasonably honestly so far.

High praise indeed.

So, can I take that as a yes? IDers are saying it couldn't have happened theoretically and darwinists answer: "Yes, theoretically it could have." Right?

So why is one of those assertions science and the other not?

"C'mon, I don't know where ID starts and stops these days, but its most serious advocates are using genetics and mathematical probability theory to argue natural selection cannot plausibly account for the evolution of life in the time periods claimed. The fine details of that argument are largely inaccessible to all but professional geneticists and mathematicians, so the rest of us must simply try and follow the logic of the principles behind the arguments. Are you saying that Berlinski's attack on the logic of Dawkins' typing monkeys or those who say genetic evolution is too complex to sustain a darwinist explanation are just "PC creationists"? That's no better than dismissing darwinism because you suspect all the fossils were faked."

Pointing out weaknesses in Darwinism is all well and good. Going from there to saying that God or some other designer must have shaped life as we know it is a stretch to say the least.

Having been a biotech major, I'd say Darwinism offers a decent theory as to how life on Earth came to be. I believe in God and a Creator but matters of faith simply do not belong in science classes.

Peter,

"High praise indeed."

My apologies if this strikes you as mild praise, and hence insulting. It's just that honesty is not necessarily a given around here when it comes to this subject. I do think that you and David are to be respected in attempting an honest dialogue.

"So, can I take that as a yes?"

As a generalization, no, which is what you seem to be doing in the rest of your comment ("it couldn't have happened theoretically" [emphasis mine]). I don't know if you're looking for some generalization out of ID, but I don't see it being the case.

"So why is one of those assertions science and the other not?"

Darwin's (and Wallace's) theory of evolution was highly controversial and challenged for many years by Lamarckianists and others (including brands of creationists); none of these challenges were successful in falsifying the theory, in return and as a result simply strengthening the theory. The modern synthesis essentially confirmed Darwin's theory, finding its basic findings confirmed while expanding on it in the fields of genetics, molecular biology etc. Today, scientific work routinely confirms predictions made by the theory of evolution a.k.a. the modern synthesis. The current theory of evolution represents the best of our scientific understanding of how life evolved.

The challenge that ID has posed was to examine a specific instance of a specific aspect of the theory of evolution and to say that this is theoretically impossible. This is the important distinction that you may be missing, Peter. The two main thrusts of ID - irreducible complexity and specified complexity - do not falsify the theory of evolution, i.e. no actual evidence has been found that contradicts the theory of evolution. The challenge is on a theoretical level, which is why they are addressed on a theoretical level - or, as you already said: "The value of Intelligent Design does not lie in its scientific capacity to prove anything."

The theory of evolution covers a lot of ground. ID pinpoints a few instances and says that this is theoretically impossible; the response is that it is not theoretically impossible. Unless these challenges prove insurmountable (which, being no more than theoretical, they need to be), this does not affect the overall scientific understanding of the theory of evolution.

Ali,

"I believe in God and a Creator but matters of faith simply do not belong in science classes."

You and most Americans.

Ali, you can't have Science without Faith. Look back to your first day in class, and maybe you will
remember the fundamental truths that would be built
on, to make your scientific framework(Newton's Laws, etc). First Faith, then Science. You knew that, but forgot. It happens.

Robert, don't obfuscate.

faith Audio pronunciation of "faith" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth) n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

And Stop Capitalizing Unnecessarily.

It does not require the "theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will" to embark on an attempt to understand the world naturalistically.

Mr. Creeper, Thank you for your response. I am being clear. Parallel lines don't meet. If you can prove that, you will be quite famous. An object in motion, baring external forces, remains in motion. An object at rest, baring external forces, remains at rest. It is true, but there is no proof. Day one in class, I learned the postulates of geometry, physics, and math. That's a nice latin word for unprovable truths. That makes it faith according to your def.(#2).

Mr. Mitchell Jr.,

"That makes it faith according to your def.(#2)."

Yes, def. (#2)... not def. (#4), which is the standard anti-evolutionist obfuscation and conflation of terms. Science does not rest on defs. #4 or #5.

creeper:

It makes no sense to talk about anybody falsifying anything. Or verifying for that matter. You and I might disagree on why Rome fell or who won the battle of Salamis. We can each marshall evidence in our favour and invite the other to concede. We can each point out inconsistencies and gaps in the other's evidence. We can each amass supporters among professional historians. But at no point can we ever say that one of us has "falsified" the other's theory. That doesn't mean that one of us isn't being thick-headed or unreasonable. It means we are not in the realm of objectively verifiable fact. We can't re-run the battle.

The famous quote from Mayr that Orrin keeps throwing at you to your great indignation admits this. Mayr certainly did go on to proclaim evolution a fact--every few pages if memory serves. He was wrong and it is hard not to believe he wasn't cutting corners. All the historical evidence in the world and a widespread consensus don't add up to a fact in the scientific deductive sense. You have to test the hypothesis through repeated experimentation for that. You can infer or induce it and you may have good grounds to do so, but you don't get a scientific nihil obstat for induction.

Darwinism is an historical account of the mechanics of evolution and an assertion that that is all there is to it (the second being far more defiantly and tenaciously clung to than the first.) Bully for darwinism. You can present all the evidence you want to defend it but you can't prove it scientifically anymore than you can prove who Jack the Ripper was. And if your evidence in favour of this or that candidate for Jack the Ripper is challenged, it stands of falls on its merits as evidence in favour of your candidate. It doesn't become more persuasive just because the challenger can't name another likely candidate.

If darwinism does it for you, creeper, that's great. Many agree with you and many think it is absurd, especially in the realm of human affairs. But you really should ask yourself why you and your fellow darwinists are so quick to mock, disdain and hurl charges of dishonesty at anyone who disagrees with you. Stick with stupidity if you must. And please stop this nonsense about how defenders of darwinism are backed by verifiable science while dissenters aren't. They are both looking at the same historical evidence.

And Stop Capitalizing Unnecessarily.

That really tells you everything you need to knoiw about creeper[sic] right there.

Posted by: Timothy Goddard at September 18, 2005 10:39 PM

"It makes no sense to talk about anybody falsifying anything. Or verifying for that matter. "

I happen to think it does. The theory of evolution makes predictions that are tested in ongoing scientific work, and when those predictions come true, it means the theory is confirmed as a matter of course; if something runs counter to those predictions, the theory would be falsified.

There are some who claim that ID is a competing, alternative theory; in order for it to be that, it would have to make predictions that can verify or falsify it. Until it is that, ID is not even a hypothesis.

Depending on the specifics, a hypothesis regarding Rome or the identity of Jack the Ripper could also be falsified.

"The famous quote from Mayr that Orrin keeps throwing at you to your great indignation admits this."

I'm not indignant about the quote - it makes perfect sense - but about the way in which Orrin misrepresents it, claiming that Mayr's mention of the "philosophy of biology" (in the same sense as "philosophy of science") means that biology is a philosophy, not a science. Which, given the plain meaning of Mayr's words as well as everything we know about his life and work, is simply nonsense.

"Mayr certainly did go on to proclaim evolution a fact--every few pages if memory serves. He was wrong and it is hard not to believe he wasn't cutting corners."

The fact of evolution is that populations of organisms change gradually over time, which is only disputed by literal creationists and/or anybody who thinks that dinosaur fossils were placed there by God as some kind of cosmic practical joke; the theory of evolution concerns itself with the mechanisms that could account for evolution.

"All the historical evidence in the world and a widespread consensus don't add up to a fact in the scientific deductive sense. You have to test the hypothesis through repeated experimentation for that."

... and/or repeated observation and verification.

"Darwinism is an historical account of the mechanics of evolution and an assertion that that is all there is to it (the second being far more defiantly and tenaciously clung to than the first.)"

The second is simply the nature of science. It does not include the supernatural.

"But you really should ask yourself why you and your fellow darwinists are so quick to mock, disdain and hurl charges of dishonesty at anyone who disagrees with you."

I do not hurl those charges at anyone who disagrees with me, I hurl them at people who argue dishonestly, and only after they have done so. There is no reason for me to ask myself why I do something that I don't actually do.

"And please stop this nonsense about how defenders of darwinism are backed by verifiable science while dissenters aren't. They are both looking at the same historical evidence. "

And based on that evidence, ID does not challenge the vast majority of the theory of evolution. It has mounted a handful of theoretical challenges and can not move outside that into a hypothesis actually backed by verifiable science.

"That really tells you everything you need to knoiw about creeper[sic] right there."

Whatever, Timothy. Thanks for stopping by.

"That really tells you everything you need to knoiw about creeper[sic] right there."

Trolling really isn't necessary.

"Parallel lines don't meet. If you can prove that, you will be quite famous. An object in motion, baring external forces, remains in motion. An object at rest, baring external forces, remains at rest. It is true, but there is no proof. Day one in class, I learned the postulates of geometry, physics, and math. That's a nice latin word for unprovable truths. That makes it faith according to your def.(#2)."

I remember doing some fairly basic experiments involving trolleys, rulers and stopwatches which did at least purport to verify Newton's Laws.

"Darwinism is an historical account of the mechanics of evolution and an assertion that that is all there is to it (the second being far more defiantly and tenaciously clung to than the first.)"

That's the same complaint as the one about capitalism being a flawed system because it doesn't consider morality. It's not meant to.

Darwinism does not equate to atheism.

And you're really glossing over a very substantial body of experimental work if you simply call it a historical account.

I happen to think it does. The theory of evolution makes predictions that are tested in ongoing scientific work, and when those predictions come true, it means the theory is confirmed as a matter of course; if something runs counter to those predictions, the theory would be falsified.

Well creeper, old swot, what you happen to think may or may not be worthy of respect, but it isn't the definition of objectively verifiable fact. What predictions are you talking about? Got a bead on our next exciting mutation?

I suspect what you mean is that, as natural evolution is a theory that purports to explain everything, it will be substantiated whenever a scientist makes a discovery and explains how it could be explained by the theory. You have many problems with that, starting with the fact that the same could be said about creationism. The historical nature of the evidence makes testing impossible and thus verification/falsification simply becomes a "does so/does not" argument. And that is not what the word "prediction" means.

Everything can be explained by darwinism, mainly because darwinists tend to avoid issues of plausibility and simply repeat general shibboleths about the huge bodies of evidence that underlie their theory or stick their noses in everyone's faces and yell: "Got a better natural scientific theory? Do ya?". A good example is the purported evolution of man from the common ancestor. The argument that man evolved away from survival capability is much more persuasive than the one that says he evolved in response to survival imperatives, but the average darwinist will simply dream up a logical connection and invent a just-so story to make it all work (eg. man "traded off" his natural protection against the elements for a bigger brain to harness fire; or man's difficult childbirth was because he stood up to look over the grass and hunt better.)That isn't prediction, it is ex post facto justification, the kind that marxists and freudians and Johnny Cochran revelled in. Because they are so sure they know exactly how little icky things became slightly bigger icky things, darwinists simply project onto the rest of experience and claim they are verifying predictions. It is not the factual history that is important as much as the desperate attempt to show that that is all there was behind it. So it is meaningless to talk about things that run counter to predictions because the theory is tailor-made to encompass everything--nature's successes, nature's failures and the ties in between. That is why David Cohen argues it is more banal than wrong and Orrin that it is a faith. They're both right.

BTW, you do realize, I trust, that there is no such thing as Science.

Ali:

Do you mean experimental work that substantiates genetic mutation as the building blocks of life or experimentation that substantiates the modern synthesis as a complete and self-contained explanation for everything? I assume you mean the former, with which I have no problem (to the extent I understand it).

If more darwinists were prepared to argue with you that the theory doesn't explain everything and is not inconsistent with faith, then the debate would change dramatically and become a true scientific dialogue. Unfortunately, the mainstream seems unwilling to do so. Look what happened to Gould when he tried.

Well Peter, I hope you enjoyed your little squabble with your strawman. Great to see you come out on top, too. No, that wasn't what I was going to say at all (though I hope you realize that in a historical science you're obviously going to run into explanations that are ex post facto).

The predictions that I am talking about are predictions of findings. "If this theory is correct, then we expect to find X; if instead we find not-X, then the theory is false." You can find quite a few of these predictions here.

It is simply not true that anything can be made to fit into the theory of evolution. Finding evidence of man living at the same time as the dinosaurs, for example, would falsify and pretty much annihilate the theory of evolution.

On the other hand, anything can be made to fit into a creationist theory, since an all-powerful, irrational, sometimes benevolent, sometimes cruel, sometimes mindbogglingly intelligent, sometimes blunder prone supernatural entity can account for pretty much anything, even fake dinosaur fossils planted in rock strata.

But for some reason, this incoherent entity came up with something that we find the more we look can be explained by natural processes. And as Orrin so wisely put it, if the design looks just like nature, isn't it nature? Why should nature be at odds with God? If nature is God's creation, then why should a believer come to the conclusion that nature's mechanisms deny God?

"BTW, you do realize, I trust, that there is no such thing as Science."

Why, what does Science with a capital 'S' mean? Because 'science' to me sure seems to be a 'thing'.

Peter,

The theory of evolution doesn't explain everything and is not intended to, and it is not inconsistent with faith. Actually, more than two-thirds of Americans find accepting the theory of evolution compatible with a belief in God.

Thank you for your response, Mr. Choudhury. If you check your physics notes, I think you will find that the experiments you performed were using Newton's laws to find the gravitational constant. Finding an enviroment without external forces acting on it is a trick we haven't mastered yet.
Creeper, Animal husbandry(ie ID) is closer to science then evolution as far as most people understand the term. I have yet to encounter a prediction made by the Evolutionary scientests before the fact. I have seen many accolates given
after the fact. I have seen many frauds accepted for too long by the Evolutionary community. I haven't seen any frauds for ID yet. Please point one out. Also, your example of finding a man in the time of the great reptiles has not yet come true, but we did find some ugly fish which was supposed to be extinct for some 100+ million years. The discovery was greeted with excitement, not dispair. I don't think that your thought experiment would be seen as disproving evolution.

Robert,

Wow.

"Animal husbandry(ie ID) is closer to science then evolution as far as most people understand the term."

Animal husbandry is not synonymous with ID, though you could say it is an example of intelligent design, not Intelligent Design - big difference. Proponents of ID have not (yet) claimed that microevolution is manipulated by an Intelligent Designer/Creator.

"I have yet to encounter a prediction made by the Evolutionary scientests before the fact."

Nobody's stopping you from looking it up. Again, the predictions are predictions of future findings.

"I have seen many accolates given after the fact."

In a historical science, everything is after the fact.

"I have seen many frauds accepted for too long by the Evolutionary community."

All duly exposed, and the theory of evolution does not depend on them.

"I haven't seen any frauds for ID yet. Please point one out."

Why? Do you think I claimed that ID was based on fraud?

"Also, your example of finding a man in the time of the great reptiles has not yet come true,"

Correct.

"but we did find some ugly fish which was supposed to be extinct for some 100+ million years."

Which has exactly zero impact on the theory of evolution. If you think it should, please explain why.

"The discovery was greeted with excitement, not dispair."

For good reason.

"I don't think that your thought experiment would be seen as disproving evolution."

Finding undeniable fossil evidence of humans living at the same time as the dinosaurs would constitute a sensational find, and would indeed be seen as disproving the theory of evolution as it stands.