Right Thinking From The Left Coast
No legacy is so rich as honesty - William Shakespeare

A Heavenly Glow
by Lee

There’s new info from space.

NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope may have detected the infrared glow from the very first generation of stars, a new study reports. If confirmed, the work would reveal the structure of the universe a few hundred million years after the big bang, when the galaxies that exist today were just beginning to take shape.

Astronomers have already detected light from even earlier times, when the universe was a mere 370,000 years old. It was then that radiation first escaped from a scalding primordial soup of matter and energy, and it still suffuses space today in the form of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

But infrared light also floods space in what is called the cosmic infrared background radiation. “It is a repository of the emissions of all the stars that have ever existed in the universe,” says the study’s lead author, Alexander Kashlinsky at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, US.

The discovery immediately prompted a response from Elmer Dinkley, director of the Intelligent Design Institute Of Toledo.  “These here scientist folk are willing to believe any old thing that comes along, aren’t they?  I mean, it’s obvious to me and all other non-heathen sinners that the glow in these pitchers is the divine light being cast by angel’s wings.  Seriously folks, stars from like a trillion bajillion years ago?  Pretty tough, considering the universe ain’t but 6,000 years old.  I mean, I suppose these here stars were already around when Adam and Eve were running around with the dinosaurs, right?  Sheesh, come on now.”

Posted by Lee on 12/29/05 at 12:45 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by Nethicus on 12/29/05 at 02:02 PM from United States

Ugh, Lee.  If you’re going to beat a dead horse, at least get your stuff right.

IDer’s don’t necessarily believe the universe is 6000 years old.  Those are Creationists.  IDer’s believe there’s an intelligent force driving the cosmos, or at least, one who started the cosmos.

Of course, the 6000 year old stuff is scientifically bogus, and the ID theories are unprovable.  But at least get your metaphysical labels correct.

Posted by Lee on 12/29/05 at 02:11 PM from United States

IDer’s don’t necessarily believe the universe is 6000 years old.  Those are Creationists.  IDer’s believe there’s an intelligent force driving the cosmos, or at least, one who started the cosmos.

Come on, now.  This is like discussing terrorism and drawing a distinction between Shi’ites and Sunnis.

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 02:19 PM from United States

One man’s terrorist is another man’s cab driver.

Posted by Poosh on 12/29/05 at 02:45 PM from United Kingdom

Come on, now.  This is like discussing terrorism and drawing a distinction between Shi’ites and Sunnis.

And I thought “most obnoxious blog comment” would be found at the Daily Kos…

Posted by Lee on 12/29/05 at 02:52 PM from United States

And I thought “most obnoxious blog comment” would be found at the Daily Kos…

I aims to please…

Posted by Poosh on 12/29/05 at 02:55 PM from United Kingdom

I aims to please…

I take that back. Most obnoxious comment goes to something someone said on my blog today…

Posted by SlimyBill on 12/29/05 at 03:06 PM from United States

God put the “first generation of stars” out there so he could tell who the heathens are. He made the light look old so you Pagan tools would fall for it and get yourself a first class ticket to H E double toothpicks.

Hope you like it hot, Lee.

Posted by Lee on 12/29/05 at 03:12 PM from United States

Hope you like it hot, Lee.

If there is indeed a hell its fires wait for me, of that I have no doubt.  But if there is no hell, you Christians have denied yourself an entire life full of orgies and cocaine. :)

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 03:16 PM from United States

I’m sure it has nothing whatsoever to do with finding additional funding for somebodies new pet project.

No I am certain “scientists” are above that....aren’t they.

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 03:17 PM from United States

Umm, Lee,

I’ve seen your picture and if you are involved in any orgies well:

1.  The girls (or livestock)must be on cocaine
2.  I pity the other participants
3.  I would not want to be part of that orgy.

But then again, if I were participating in an orgy, there would only be six participants, myself and five fingers.

Posted by BKAY on 12/29/05 at 03:19 PM from United States

ROFLMAO Svnadals

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 12/29/05 at 03:20 PM from United States

Star light, star bright

I wish I may, I wish I might

Smack a Creationist tonight!

Posted by Lee on 12/29/05 at 03:21 PM from United States

1.  The girls (or livestock)must be on cocaine
2.  I pity the other participants
3.  I would not want to be part of that orgy.

Indeed.  To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I wouldn’t want to participate in any orgy that would actually want me top join in. :)

Jesus, me in an orgy.  It would look like a polar bear giving birth.

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 03:24 PM from United States

ID is creationism, only with a new wrapper.

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 03:29 PM from United States

Jesus, me in an orgy.

They’ve done that already on Family Guy.
Posted by on 12/29/05 at 03:33 PM from United States

:)

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 03:58 PM from United States

Mock God at your peril.

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 04:08 PM from United States

Pseudo-intellectuals all fancy themselves atheists.

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 04:19 PM from United States

Why can’t you guys get it into your skulls that ID has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH COSMOLOGY???

Or do you guys simply enjoy parading and reveling in your abject ignorance?

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 04:24 PM from United States

When it comes to ID, you guys are just like Micheal Moore, only not as clever.

Posted by Poosh on 12/29/05 at 05:00 PM from United Kingdom

ID is interesting and all but when you claim that the designing force behind it is God you go a step too far.

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 05:11 PM from United States

The only ones here insisting that the design agent must be “Gawd” are ID’s critics, and they’re doing so only to give them an excuse to call it “reelijun”. That way, they can safely bury their heads in the sand and not bother actually trying to learn anything about it.

No, the MSM tells them everything they need to know about ID. Far be it from them to actually research it on their own and think for themselves. That would be waaay too right wing for’em.  Better to be spoon fed by the MSM.

Posted by Lee on 12/29/05 at 05:19 PM from United States

The only ones here insisting that the design agent must be “Gawd” are ID’s critics

And those Christian fundamentalist groups who are trying to get this shit taught in schools.

Posted by Lee on 12/29/05 at 05:22 PM from United States

Why can’t you guys get it into your skulls that ID has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH COSMOLOGY???

ID and Creationism are, on an intellectual level, absolutely identical.  In a discussion about science and the religious influence thereupon, there is absolutely no difference between the two whatsoever, just like how in the context of a discussion of terrorism, there is no fundamental difference between Shi’ites and Sunnis, despite the fact that Shi’ites and Sunnis are moral enemies.

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/29/05 at 05:22 PM from United States

And those Christian fundamentalist groups who are trying to get this shit taught in schools.

Sssshhhhhh. Facts will only upset him more…

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/29/05 at 05:27 PM from United States

Why can’t you guys get it into your skulls that ID has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH COSMOLOGY???

Which is why it isn’t Science.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Posted by Poosh on 12/29/05 at 05:49 PM from United Kingdom

The only ones here insisting that the design agent must be “Gawd” are ID’s critics,

A lot of people use the work of ID scientists to their own ends. ID would consist of “evidence” that genes couldn’t come about by natural means suggesting something crafted them together in the same way a watch is fixed together; or perhaps the Golden Ratio and all that jazz. That’s ID. When people suggest that ID proves that there is a God, that’s a different ball game - even if ID WAS taught in science classes, if the Christian God comes into it in any certain way you’ve stopped teaching ID (which would take, what? 20 minutes?) and moved on to a brand new topic. Evolution, bullshit or not, is a grand topic which includes hundreds of different ideas and so forth. ID as it exists to day consists of nothing but a pocket full of bits and pieces. Maybe aspects of it do call into question aspects of evolution, maybe not, the point is ID science consists of nothing but some odd things some scientists have found and studied. It’s hard to call ID even a theory.

ID and Creationism

Creationism says X created the earth and the universe as said in the Bible. ID simply says we don’t know what x is but the earth, some aspects, were designed by something. These are two very different concepts. It’s sad you’re too lacking to understand this. ID is emprical, Creationism is not.

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 06:43 PM from United States

If there is indeed a hell its fires wait for me, of that I have no doubt.

I’ve decided that I can’t go to hell because I no longer believe in it. Think I’m wrong? Fuck off!

Posted by Poosh on 12/29/05 at 07:02 PM from United Kingdom

You don’t go to Hell for minor offences!!!

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 08:40 PM from United States

You don’t go to Hell for minor offences!!!

Like masturbation? Oh thank God!

Posted by HARLEY on 12/29/05 at 08:48 PM from United States

You don’t go to Hell for minor offences!!!
Like masturbation? Oh thank God!

oh man that is a load off my mind…

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 09:05 PM from United States

You don’t go to Hell for minor offences!!!
Like masturbation? Oh thank God!
oh man that is a load off my mind…

...and into a tissue.

Posted by Aaron - Free Will on 12/29/05 at 09:41 PM from United States

The discovery immediately prompted a response from Elmer Dinkley, director of the Intelligent Design Institute Of Toledo....

We know that this quote is fake, because if Elmer were *really* from Toledo, he’d join an angry mob in burning down his neighborhood bar, then tell the media that it was the City’s fault for “letting” scientists march. “What did they *think* was going to happen?!”

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 10:26 PM from United States

...And, of course, it’s absolutely ludicrous to believe that God created anything, because he doesn’t exist.  So any person who even hints that they believe God had anything to do with the creation of the universe and the processes that brought it to its current state is to be labeled a “creationist” or “loony” because it’s obvious to all of us that God is just an invisible friend that people need for a sense of security.

Come on.  Most people believe that there is a supreme being of some kind, and that supreme being had something to do with people coming into existence.  On an intellectual level, ID is VERY different from Creationism.  It says that all that science preaches is true, just that a supreme being is a guiding force in the universe.  So what?  Let people believe in that.  I personally don’t care, as long as it’s not taught in the classroom.  Most people who believe in it aren’t anything like what you are describing anyway.  They’re everyday people that believe in a supreme being AND science.  Why do they have to be mutually fucking exclusive?  Get off the backs of people who want to believe in both science and religion.

I’m sorry if I’ve committed an unpardonable sin by trying to put my faith in both science and God.

Posted by Lee on 12/29/05 at 11:17 PM from United States

We know that this quote is fake, because if Elmer were *really* from Toledo…

Come to think of it, Tennessee might have been a better choice.  I just needed a “T” location for my acronym.

Posted by on 12/29/05 at 11:23 PM from United States

As an atheist, I can tell you that I have certainly run into a few pseudointellectuals - on both sides of the religion fence.

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/29/05 at 11:40 PM from United States

It’s hard to call ID even a theory.

On the same level as Astrology, according to the sworn testimony of Behe, the leading proponent of ID.

Posted by Poosh on 12/30/05 at 06:29 AM from United Kingdom

Astrology

I had a bad run in with that stuff. It was spot on I made me mental, I went through the whole set of star-signs pretending that each was actually mind and yet only my REAL one applied to me.

That being said a lot of it is just made up..

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 07:24 AM from United States

Why can’t you guys get it into your skulls that ID has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH COSMOLOGY???

Which is why it isn’t Science.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Medicine has absolutely nothing to do with Cosmology.

“Which is why it isn’t Science.  Quod Erat Demonstrandum”

Botany has absolutely nothing to do with Cosmology.

“Which is why it isn’t Science.  Quod Erat Demonstrandum”

A mind like a proverbial steel trap, there, Drum.

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 07:42 AM from United States

Facts will only upset him more…

Ignorant opinions masquerading as “facts” will, agreed.

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 08:36 AM from United States

ID and Creationism are, on an intellectual level, absolutely identical.

From TalkOrigins:

“Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists.”

The fundamental claim of ID:

“There exist natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural causes and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” (emphasis mine)

Claiming absolute identity between the two is absurd.

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/30/05 at 08:40 AM from United States

Still waiting for how ID is different from Evolution, if not for the addition of some sort of supernatural agent (which you still refuse to identify), and in what particulars that agent differs from ‘God’ (except in degree).

Like I’ve said all along, ID is nothing more than religion’s attempt to admit to the overwhelming mountain of evidence collected over the last few centuries, without actually admitting to the conclusions drawn by that data.

Here’s a steel trap you STILL haven’t been able to explain away, there, cb: ”falsifiability

Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the apparently paradoxical idea that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.

In what way can ID be proven false? By disproving the existence of Whom, exactly?

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/30/05 at 08:43 AM from United States

There exist natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural causes

Yeah, because really, really improbable things can’t actually happen. Isn’t that the argument? The odds against it happening are in the trillions of triilions to one against - almost as bad as being hit by lightning seven times…

Oh, wait.

that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence

So the Raelians were right, after all! Or was it the FSM?

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 08:50 AM from United States

In what way can ID be proven false?

By providing detailed and quantified models, supported by evidence (experimental or empirical), of how the machines in question might have evolved in an undirected Darwinian fashion. Once the naturalists do this, ID will be rendered utterly deflated.

Look again at ID’s fundamental claim. All ya hafta do is prove the “cannot be adequately explained” part wrong.

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 08:57 AM from United States

Yeah, because really, really improbable things can’t actually happen. Isn’t that the argument? The odds against it happening are in the trillions of triilions to one against - almost as bad as being hit by lightning seven times…

We’ve already gone over this Drum, and you continue to ignore the realities.

“Really, really improbable” != “Impossible”

Not getting hit by lightning 7 times is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more likely than getting hit 7 times by lightning.

We have no way of knowing what the actual probabilities are, but claiming the probability to be 100% based on the mere fact of the machines’ existence is circular reasoning based on an a priori assumption of that the Darwinian model is the cause of their existence.

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/30/05 at 09:08 AM from United States

“Really, really improbable” != “Impossible”

So, you’re admitting that it could happen?

Defense rests.

but claiming the probability to be 100% based on the mere fact of the machines’ existence is circular reasoning based on an a priori assumption of that the Darwinian model is the cause of their existence.

But claiming the probability (of mere evolution) to be 0% based on the mere fact of the machines’ existence is circular reasoning based on an a priori assumption of that the “Intelligent Agent” model is the cause of their existence.

Your whole argument against it being just random chance is the improbability of it, yet you have admitted that sometimes wildly improbable things DO happen, and for no apparent reasons.

There may only be one chance in a gazillion of two random atoms forging together and finding a way that works better than drifting solo, but when you have the total number of atoms that are actually interacting, the odds improve markedly. (I warned you to look up the Law of Large Numbers, did I not?) For example, the odds of winning the lottery are one in several million, but somebody wins almost every week, and I’ve never seen it go for more than a month or two without somebody - or a group of somebodies - winning.

Throw in literally quintillions of possible variants and a few hundred million years, and who knows what Random Chance can bring?

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/30/05 at 09:14 AM from United States

By providing detailed and quantified models

Funny how this isn’t a requirement to prove it true, innit?

of how the machines in question might have evolved in an undirected Darwinian fashion.

Oh, so in order to prove ID, all you have to do is identify the directing agent, right? Go ahead. I’ll wait. And wait. And wait....

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 09:22 AM from United States

So, you’re admitting that it could happen?

Defense rests.

Quit flattering yourself, Drum. I never denied it in the first place. You simply kept putting words in my mouth by telling me what my argument was.

But claiming the probability (of mere evolution) to be 0%

Which I never did, ergo, the rest of your rant is irrelevant.

The problem is more than simple probability. The problem is that arriving at the irreducible state involves a catch-22. Are catch-22’s absolutely impossible to overcome? Personally, I have no idea, but, by their very nature, it would seem to require more than the sheer dumb luck Darwinism requires.

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 09:26 AM from United States

By providing detailed and quantified models

Funny how this isn’t a requirement to prove it true, innit?

Moving the goal posts on your part noted, innit?

of how the machines in question might have evolved in an undirected Darwinian fashion.

Oh, so in order to prove ID, all you have to do is identify the directing agent, right? Go ahead. I’ll wait. And wait. And wait....

Non sequitur. ID makes no attempt at defining the agent. You’ve been told this numerous times.

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/30/05 at 09:55 AM from United States

You simply kept putting words in my mouth by telling me what my argument was.

So you’re denying that your whole argument rests on (boiled down) nothing more than “this cannot have been just the result of random chance, simply because it is so improbable that it HAD to have been designed”?

Are you denying that these things can - and have been seen to - evolve naturally?

Are catch-22’s absolutely impossible to overcome?

The problem isn’t whether they can be resolved (since they all can - the whole point being that it was too high a cost to pay willingly for the pilots in that book to solve either, thus the dilemma), it’s whether the circumstances required to end up in that situation can have naturally occured, or must they be manipulated into place by some Agent.

No one is denying that it is possible (as you so ‘umbly pointed out), the whole point is which is more probable - the existence of some Creative Force (for which there exists no physical evidence whatsoever) or....... not.

It is solely the existence of that Being that remains the argument. Since there exists no evidence for His existence, arguments over that existence do nothing but devolve into Appeals to Authority - said Authority being, by definition, an active proponent of a particular Deist philosophy.

That makes it a religion. Adding religion to science doesn’t turn the religion into a science, it turns the science into a religion.

That cult down in San Diego that offed themselves over the Hale-Bopp comet because they wanted to “hitch a ride” is the result of religion invading science. They killed themselves because they thought a chunk of rock was actually an Intelligent Agent that may have been involved in our creation and development as a species.

That’s what I mean by turning science into a religion, and that is why ID is not science, and belongs everywhere BUT a science classroom.

And that is also why debating the specific merits of ID involve nothing more than debating the merits of the religious prism through which every individual will see that “Agent” (since, by actually refusing to define it, it is left open to many individual interpretations - which isn’t science, either), and that should not be done on the taxpayer dime.

And also since it is personally interpreted, that would put the students in the uncomfortable position of having to argue through positions that have no evidentiary merit. Every single student voicing an opinion would have nothing but those Appeals to Authority on which to rest their case, and those Authorities are also being viewed through the prism of the judge. (Further, since the only remaining factor available is personal charisma, that is no basis on which to judge a debate.)

Will you now stipulate the point that there is no difference between evolution and ID but the addition of that permanently-unidentifiable Agent? If not, please detail the other specific differences.

Would you stipulate that not all “gods” have to be Omnipotent, Omniscience and Omnipresent? (For example, there were greater and lesser gods for both the Egyptians and Romans, with specifically defined “areas of Divine Responsibility” for each of them.)

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/30/05 at 10:07 AM from United States

ID makes no attempt at defining the agent.

Which is why it isn’t science. If you do not define something, it can never be disproven (always beating any attempt with “that isn’t who/what I meant").

Go check out that link on Falsifiability.

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 11:23 AM from United States

So you’re denying that your whole argument rests on (boiled down) nothing more than “this cannot have been just the result of random chance, simply because it is so improbable that it HAD to have been designed”?

Of course I deny it.

The argument is more along the lines of:

“Naturalistic Darwinism fails to provide a plausible explanation of how X came to be, X is irreducibly complex, suggesting substantial obstacles for a Darwinian model, and if X were encountered in another circumstance or context, the fact of its design would be readily apparent”.

Nowhere in that argument is there an absolute denial that Darwinian evolution could have been the cause. Like I said before, once the naturalists do provide a plausible explanation, ID is quite thoroughly undermined.

Whether you want to call ID science or not, it’s proponents do attempt a scientific approach to promoting it, said approach recognizing that we cannot argue in absolutist terms (like you are trying to pin on me).

“X is irreducibly complex, suggesting substantial obstacles for a Darwinian model” does suggest an infinitesimal probability, but it doesn’t forbid the possibility. It simply recognizes that the probability of X being the result of deliberate agency is much greater, all else being equal.

Prove that not all else is equal and you are on your way to disproving ID.

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 11:37 AM from United States

Are you denying that these things can - and have been seen to - evolve naturally?

Nothing in your cite suggests how an irreducibly complex system could be formed in the first place, with the exception of this:

“Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail.”

Some detail” Not “complete detail”, and not quantified detail.

Again, no one is disputing whether an irreducibly complex system can or does evolve once it comes into being. What is in dispute is the “comes into being” part.

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/30/05 at 11:37 AM from United States

the fact of its design would be readily apparent”.

The moment you suppose that something has been created, you must also include the being which created, and that turns it into religion. Refusing to be specific about the identity of that designer only ensures that everyone is going to come up with their own personal opinion on that Being, for which there exists no evidence whatsoever.

That makes it religion, which should not be taught in public schools.

It simply recognizes that the probability of X being the result of deliberate agency is much greater, all else being equal.

Only if you assume that there are no other possible explanations, and that the probability of your particular lemma is the inverse of the value you have assigned to the “improbability” of evolution, while still admitting that evolution is occurring.

Your argument still boils down to “isn’t it more likely that my God actually exists?” aka “it is so improbable that it HAD to have been designed” - exactly what I said above.

(Hint: try studying Semantics sometimes, and try to grasp that words have meanings.)

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/30/05 at 11:40 AM from United States

“Some detail” Not “complete detail”, and not quantified detail.

That screeching sound you hear is the sound of goalposts shifting. They give specific cites (which you can Google for more detail - I have, so I know they are out there to find), and if you want to deal with any given investigation, be specific, and we’ll talk.

I’ll be back in an hour or so…

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 12:04 PM from United States

the existence of some Creative Force (for which there exists no physical evidence whatsoever)

If an ancient civilation left “no physical evidence whatsoever” of their bodies, no graves or tombs, no fossils, etc., but left artifacts of their existence in the form of designed objects such as weapons or jewelry, we would conclude that the artifacts were evidence of their having existed in spite of the fact that there is no physical evidence of they themselves.

We would also conclude that the artifacts were indeed designed, and not products of natural Darwinian evolution.

By the same token, if ID is even close to being true, the subcellular machines in question would be the evidence of the designer’s existence.

Is there a way out of this admittedly circular argument?  I personally do not know—it’s one of the challenges ID may have to face.  Of course, we can count on some people to dismiss the possibility, while they cling to their own circular beliefs.

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 12:12 PM from United States

“Some detail” Not “complete detail”, and not quantified detail.

That screeching sound you hear is the sound of goalposts shifting.

Not quite:

In what way can ID be proven false?

By providing detailed and quantified models, supported by evidence (experimental or empirical), of how the machines in question might have evolved in an undirected Darwinian fashion.

Nice try.

Only if you assume that there are no other possible explanations, and that the probability of your particular lemma is the inverse of the value you have assigned to the “improbability” of evolution, while still admitting that evolution is occurring.

Feel free to provide that mystical third alternative.  It appears dichotomous to me—either X was designed or it wasn’t.  Feel free to provide the third possibility.

(Hint: try studying Semantics sometimes, and try to grasp that words have meanings.)

Practice what you preach.

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 12:13 PM from United States

It really is tiresome reading you prattle on about how all supporters of ID think the world is only 6,000 years old.  That isn’t the case.

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 12:19 PM from United States

Just food for thought.  It probably won’t be too much longer before people who can afford it will order designer babies - height, hair and eye color, and other attributes will be designed into the genes. 

Designed.

Would anybody be able to distinguish a “designer” person from an “evolved” person?  I personally doubt there would be anything distinguishable about them.  No matter what radical changes were made, if you were not aware of their being designed, you would assume they evolved that way.  And you’d be wrong.  Just something to think about.

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 12:23 PM from United States

I’ve decided that I can’t go to hell because I no longer believe in it. Think I’m wrong? Fuck off!

Your belief in something is not a prerequisite for its existence.  But I will say, you have quite formidable logic - hah!  sorry, couldn’t say that with a straight face.

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 12:27 PM from United States

I personally doubt there would be anything distinguishable about them.  No matter what radical changes were made, if you were not aware of their being designed, you would assume they evolved that way.

Perhaps they wont have a belly button. LOL

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 12:29 PM from United States

The only thing I have to say about your absurd Hale-Bopp/Heaven’s Gate/"Religion Invading Science” screed is, if you want to get into a pissing contest over who did the most damage, Religion or Science, I’ll simply point back to the last couple of centuries where societies built on the premise of “Science/Reason, Not God” engaged in some of the most brutal, systematic inhumanity that humanity has ever witnessed, dwarfing even such anti-religious stand-bys as the Crusades and the Inquisition.

I can also compare the American Revolution, which was in part fought to secure religious freedom, to the French Revolution, which sought to elevate Reason above all else. The former resulted in the US Constitution, which forbids the making of laws that would obstruct religious expression. The latter resulted in a bloody Reign of Terror followed by the rise of a pint-sized despot bent on delusions of Empire.

You would do yourself a favor to not even go there.

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/30/05 at 02:07 PM from United States

Nice try.

Translation: “LalalalalalaIcan’thearyouLalalala”

I’ll point it out again - those links provide clear cites of each bit of argument made, with the scientist who did the work, and the year of the study. Try Googling the dates of the studies you want to find the specific QUANTIFIED DATA you insist doesn’t exist.

Tell me which part you refuse to believe exists, and we will go over the evidence showing that it does, one study at a time.

You would do yourself a favor to not even go there.

Hey, I’m the one trying to keep religion out of this, remember? But by all means, let’s start arguing political archetypes and their relation to the Divine.

Moron.

You still have not come up with any way in which ID is nothing more than evolution with some Supreme Being involved.

Have you even bothered to look at the stipulations I mentioned above?

If not, I’ll remind you:

Will you now stipulate the point that there is no difference between evolution and ID but the addition of that permanently-unidentifiable Agent? If not, please detail the other specific differences.

Would you stipulate that not all “gods” have to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent? (For example, there were greater and lesser gods for both the Egyptians and Romans, with specifically defined “areas of Divine Responsibility” for each of them.)

Take your time. But not too much.

Would anybody be able to distinguish a “designer” person from an “evolved” person?

Q: And what is the main argument against the construction of just such a “designed person”?

A: They comes in various flavors, but they all have the phrase “playing God” in them.

Question for you in return: Would such a designed person have a soul? How can you prove it?

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/30/05 at 02:08 PM from United States

Feel free to provide the third possibility.

Just as soon as you identify the Designer.

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/30/05 at 02:12 PM from United States

either X was designed or it wasn’t.

Until you can prove that there exists such a designer (without resorting to your sole argument of “it’s too improbable to have ‘just happened’, so it must have been designed"), I’ll stick with the evidence we have.

You still can’t get around falsifiability.

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 02:15 PM from United States

dwarfing even such anti-religious stand-bys as the Crusades and the Inquisition.

I hate when people bring up these topics in this kind reference because it shows they obviously don’t know a hell of a lot about either the crusades or the inquisitions (yes, there was more than one).

Posted by on 12/30/05 at 03:25 PM from United States

Why would God create something as amazing as the human brain, and then command us not to use it?  Theres a quote, and I can’t remember who said it, that goes “Someday man will build a telescope so powerful that some astronomer will find himself looking into the eye of God. Whoever blinks first is in deep shit.” Finally, if you want ideas about intelligent design talk to a quantum physisist.

Posted by on 01/01/06 at 03:35 PM from United States

Try Googling the dates of the studies you want to find the specific QUANTIFIED DATA you insist doesn’t exist.

IOW, do your research for you?  Sorry, doesn’t work that way. If you want to prove my assertion, that there are no quantified models, to be incorrect, you provide a model.

Telling me to go find my own model won’t work.  That’s your job.

Translation: “LalalalalalaIcan’thearyouLalalala”

On your part.

My “Nice Try” response simply pointed out that I did indeed mention quantification up front, to refute your ridiculous claim that I was moving goal posts.  I provided you with a way to falsify ID, yet you expect me to go out and falsify it?

I provide you with a way to prove ID wrong, yet you keep insisting that falsifiability is linked to proving/disproving God.

“LALALALALAICANTHEARYOULALALALA”

I provide you with a way to prove ID wrong and you insist that I go out and do a Google search to prove it wrong, rather that doing it yourself.

“LALALALALALALALAICANTHEARYOULALALALA”

I tell you that ID makes no attempt to identify the agent, yet you keep insisting that the agent must be God, and that ID is therefore “religious”.

“LALALALALALALALAICANTHEARYOULALALALA”

Etcetera.

Posted by on 01/01/06 at 03:38 PM from United States

Would you stipulate that not all “gods” have to be Omnipotent, Omniscience and Omnipresent?

Just as soon as you inform the late Carl Sagan that he was advocating searching for “gods” when he was advocating SETI.

Posted by on 01/01/06 at 03:47 PM from United States

Hey, I’m the one trying to keep religion out of this, remember?

And I am simply reminding you of some of the historical consequences of “keeping religion out”.

You want to “keep religion out” Ubber Alles, and, to back up your fear-based rationalization, you pointed out that “religion-contaminated” science can lead people to kill themselves.

So What?

I simply remind you that societies built on exalting science and reason while keeping God out of the discourse has led to genocidal tendencies. So much for science/reason that is not “religion-contaminated”.

You still have not come up with any way in which ID is nothing more than evolution with some Supreme Being involved.

“Supreme Being”?

“LALALALALALALALAICANTHEARYOU!!!LALALALALA”

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/01/06 at 03:58 PM from United States

The point is that each of the points mentioned in those links is backed up with quantifiable data - the very same data you say doesn’t exist, but you dismiss them all by saying they aren’t quantified “enough” for your standards.

I ask which one you want to argue, suggesting that you look up the individual study you claim has the faulty or insufficient data, so as to decide which one you want to argue.

I suggested Googling it so you wouldn’t be caught unaware.

But unless and until ytou can show some specific ways in which those studies don’t count - with better evidence or more verifiable logic chains - then I will accept the data as given.

I’ve given the data, and you haven’t managed to disprove it, except with whines about how it doesn’t meet your vague standards.

Put up or shut up, dickhead.

You want to “keep religion out” Ubber Alles, and, to back up your fear-based rationalization, you pointed out that “religion-contaminated” science can lead people to kill themselves.

No, you’ve got it backwards. It’s science-contaminated religion. Also known as Intelligent Design.

“Supreme Being”?

“LALALALALALALALAICANTHEARYOU!!!LALALALALA”

Round of Applause for “Dodging the Question”, folks…

And you STILL haven’t done it. This grows tiresome.

Have you, in fact, got any evidence whatsoever? Or just the “Evolution by random chance is just too improbable so the universe MUST have been designed” bullshit?

Because that is like saying “being hit by lightning is just so improbable he must have been deliberately targeted by an Intelligent Sniper”. (Which you probably also believe, but that’s religion, too.)

Posted by on 01/01/06 at 04:10 PM from United States

Would anybody be able to distinguish a “designer” person from an “evolved” person?

Yes. For details on how, do some reading, namely, The Design Revolution, wherein William Dembski answers questions like the ones you are asking.

Drum, be honest with yourself. Do you REALLY want your questions on ID answered by a leading proponent of ID?  Or are your questions merely rhetorical, and are you really not the least bit interested in actually learning about a differing viewpoint?

Your responses in these threads indicate that you actively don’t want to learn about ID, but simply want to take ignorant, misinformed potshots at it, and try to ridicule anyone who doesn’t “tow the Darwinism line”.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/01/06 at 04:12 PM from United States

Just as soon as you inform the late Carl Sagan that he was advocating searching for “gods” when he was advocating SETI.

Are you pretending to ignorance of ancient pantheons or are you trying to be funny so that you don’t have to admit that you have just lost?

It doesn’t require worship of the Maker and Shaper of All of the Multiverses to count as a religion. Any of a thousand others (including the one on the Seal of Los Angeles - Pomona, the Goddess of Agriculture) will suffice to qualify as being unacceptable to be taught with tax dollars.

But you still don’t believe me.

Even if it is the Greens and the Grays from Reguloid III (which would have to be proven, btw) as your Intelligent Designers, teaching it STILL qualifies as a religion under the same kinds of liberal definitions being used by ID proponents.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/01/06 at 04:19 PM from United States

Do you REALLY want your questions on ID answered by a leading proponent of ID?

ID isn’t new. I first heard about it more than three decades ago, but it wasn’t called that back then. I studied it fairly extensively, which is why I still have questions you can’t answer.

And why you have to resort to such sophistry to avoid the point.

Your entire argument boils down to “evolution by random chance is just too improbable so it must have been Designed”. All of the evidence towards evolution is affirmed, but you are pushing out control-by-random-chance and trying to replace it with a Higher Power, while denying that the only difference is the inclusion of religion.

Come up with hard evidence supporting the actual existence of that Higher power, and we’ll talk. Until then, we’ll go with what can be proved. Fair enough? Go check out “burden of proof” and maybe you’ll understand why yours hasn’t been met.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/01/06 at 04:22 PM from United States

who doesn’t “tow the Darwinism line”

It’s “toe”. Link

Posted by Aaron - Free Will on 01/01/06 at 05:35 PM from United States

Finally, if you want ideas about intelligent design talk to a quantum physisist.

Indeed. It’s my view that the cutting edge of science is leading us to the realization that there is a conscious force behind the universe, and I think that if you catch them in their private moments, many of the personalities on the leading edge of modern physics and astronomy would tell you that that is their belief as well.

Posted by Lee on 01/01/06 at 06:50 PM from United States

Indeed. It’s my view that the cutting edge of science is leading us to the realization that there is a conscious force behind the universe, and I think that if you catch them in their private moments, many of the personalities on the leading edge of modern physics and astronomy would tell you that that is their belief as well.

And as soon as any of these personalities on the leading edge of modern physics and astronomy can come up with a test for or method of describing the form or nature of this alleged intelligence then ID will belong in a science class.  Until that time the belief in an intelligent designer is nothing more than a “gut feeling”, no matter how many sciencey-type letters someone might have after their name.

Basically, the main argument from the pro-ID folks is that since modern science doesn’t know everything about the universe, that any otherwise crackpot theory should be allowed into the science classroom, since there is a possibility, no matter how remote or unlikely, that it might explain some of the gaps in what we currently know.

Belief in an intelligent designer is not insane.  What is insane is the belief that Intelligent Design is science.

Posted by Aaron - Free Will on 01/01/06 at 07:27 PM from United States

Er, well, very well, Lee, but I really wasn’t arguing otherwise. :)

Posted by on 01/02/06 at 03:53 PM from United States

Just as soon as you inform the late Carl Sagan that he was advocating searching for “gods” when he was advocating SETI.

Are you pretending to ignorance of ancient pantheons or are you trying to be funny so that you don’t have to admit that you have just lost?

There is nothing to “admit”, but your vacuous claims of “victory” are still amusing.

ID makes no attempt to identify the intelligent agent, which could be nothing more than an extra-terrestrial. You are the one insisting that it must be some sort of “god” (which is very unscientific of you).  Again, “gods”, whether “lesser” or “greater” are still considered to be beyond flesh and blood, immortals, whereas an extra-terrestrial need be nothing more than flesh and blood (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), and not immortal, but you insist that it’s just a “lesser god”.

Well, if an ET is a “lesser god”, then SETI == “Search For Lesser Gods”.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/02/06 at 04:35 PM from United States

religion, n. - “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.”

supernatural, adj. - “not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws” (like craft that can defy gravity and inertia and speed of light limits - required for your “space aliens” able to manipulate our development)

Does ID occur on other planets? Or is that just evolution? Is their Agent/Designer the same as the one you hold in such reverence or do they have their own? How powerful is this Agent you still refuse to identify (or provide any method of testing for)?

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/02/06 at 04:38 PM from United States

There is nothing to “admit”

Which is why ID isn’t science - just like San Jose, there’s no ‘there’ there…

Are you honestly arguing that ETs were the ones who were guiding our development? Were they made in God’s image, too?

Oh, wait…

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 11:32 AM from United States

The only ones here insisting that the design agent must be “Gawd” are ID’s critics, and they’re doing so only to give them an excuse to call it “reelijun”.

Here on this thread, maybe, but the founders of ID implicitly state “Gawd”:

from talkorigins.

The ID movement is motivated by and inseparable from a narrow religious viewpoint. In the words of its founders and leaders:
There’s a difference of opinion about how important this debate [advocating intelligent design] is. What I always say is that it’s not just scientific theory. The question is best understood as: Is God real or imaginary? (Phillip Johnson, “The Search for Intelligent Design in the Universe”, Silicon Valley Magazine, 9 Jan. 2000.)
“We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator. (Phillip Johnson, “Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator”, LA Times, 25 Mar. 2001.)
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools (P. Johnson 2003).
“Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle (J. Wells n.d.).
If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient. (William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.)
“Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory (Dembski 1999, 84).
Johnson said he and most others in the intelligent design movement believe the designer is the God of the Bible (Maynard 2001).
See Poindexter (2003) for more such quotes.

Intelligent design is explicitly religious as a motive for legislative change of educational standards. Legislation introduced in Michigan attempts to add “intelligent design of a Creator” to the science standards of middle and high school (Michigan House Bill 4946).

Several books on intelligent design are published by InterVarsity Press, which says of itself,
Who is Intervarsity Press? We are a publisher of Christian books and Bible studies.
As an extension of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, InterVarsity Press serves those in the university, the church and the world by publishing resources that equip and encourage people to follow Jesus as Savior and Lord in all of life. (IVP n.d.)
The video “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” purportedly “tells the story of contemporary scientists who are advancing a powerful but controversial idea—the theory of intelligent design.” But it was produced by and promoted almost exclusively by fundamentalist Christian organizations (Evans 2003).

The ID movement attempts to hide its religious basis in order to give the appearance of secular objectivity (Branch 2002). Their attempt is dishonest propaganda. “The trend among many Christian groups these days is to camouflage their creationism as ‘Intelligent Design’ or ‘Progressive Creationism’ “ (Morris 1999). And despite their claims, the movement has no science.

Intelligent design is blatantly anti-religious if the religion is one they disagree with. For example, Phillip Johnson equates theistic evolution (which would include most of Christianity) with atheism because of its acceptance of evolution.

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 11:32 AM from United States

It’s hard to call ID even a theory.

You’ve got it right, Poosh, cause the only people calling it a theory are ID’s proponents (and not even all of them).  A hypothesis needs to withstand testing for it to become a theory.  Before anyone says anything, Evolution IS a theory, the mechanisms are still debated, however.

I’m sorry if I’ve committed an unpardonable sin by trying to put my faith in both science and God.

No need to apologize for this.  Despite what some people may think, science and religion can and do coexist.  But you’re right, know when to say when.  ID, as of yet, is unfit for the classroom.

Just food for thought.  It probably won’t be too much longer before people who can afford it will order designer babies - height, hair and eye color, and other attributes will be designed into the genes. 

Designed.

Would anybody be able to distinguish a “designer” person from an “evolved” person?  I personally doubt there would be anything distinguishable about them.  No matter what radical changes were made, if you were not aware of their being designed, you would assume they evolved that way.  And you’d be wrong.  Just something to think about.

This is actually a very good point Sean, but it’s a philosophical point, not a scientific one.  Also, many of the minor physical alterations we can concievably control in our children may not be fundamental genetic alterations as much as interrupting and altering the process as it unfolds, which is considerably more easy to do, IMHO.  The question here, though, is this a validating point for ID?  Because we think we might be able to do this in the future, does this mean someone or something else did it in the past?  Possibly, certainly, but ID doesn’t hinge on this, it hinges on the plausibility of irreducible complexity.

Note that I’m not trying to support controlling phenotypes if and when this capability comes around.  Far from it.  IMO, man’s ability to control and alter their environment has had a decidedly negative impact on the gene pool, but this is an entirely different debate.

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 12:33 PM from United States

like craft that can defy gravity

Like them there aero-planes an’ helicopters.

like craft that can defy gravity and inertia and speed of light limits - required for your “space aliens” able to manipulate our development

“Required” according to whom?  You?

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 12:55 PM from United States

ID isn’t new.

Never claimed it was.

I first heard about it more than three decades ago, but it wasn’t called that back then. I studied it fairly extensively, which is why I still have questions you can’t answer.

Based on your ignorant statements thus far, I suspect that whatever you “heard about” and “studied fairly extensively” 30 years ago wasn’t ID, “called something else” or otherwise.  It was probably “scientific creationism” or some such.

When you go around making such profoundly ignorant statements such as “The Designer of ID is by definition Supernatural”, you prove that you really have no idea what ID actually is.

What’s more, you don’t want to know, but insist on repeating your ignorant statements and non sequiturs.

Does ID occur on other planets? Or is that just evolution? Is their Agent/Designer the same as the one you hold in such reverence or do they have their own? How powerful is this Agent you still refuse to identify (or provide any method of testing for)?

I’ve already explained this, but, like the ignoramus you prove yourself to be every time you post, you obviously weren’t paying attention.

IF the designer is/was an ET, nothing says it had to have irreducible complexity or specified complexity issues in its Darwinian evolution. That’s just another one of your convenient straw man assumptions.

Oh, and your dictionary definitions were also quite itrrelevant.  And the only one holding anything in reverence (i.e. Darwinism) is you.

As I have stated several times now, my aim isn’t to prove ID, but only to illustrate the ignorance of some of its critics on this forum.

Which is why ID isn’t science

Non sequitur. I had no reason to “admit that I lost”. That has nothing to do with whether ID is science or not.  That said, it obviously isn’t science, given that science is defined as “explaining the Universe while steadfastly refusing to allow for even the possibility of a supernatural entity to be any part of said explanation”.  Granted, no textbook will show that definition, but it is the definition just the same.

Are you honestly arguing that ETs were the ones who were guiding our development?

Nope. I’m not saying anything about the agent. Speculating on the agent is your obsession, not mine.

Were they made in God’s image, too?

Non sequitur.

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 12:59 PM from United States

Just as soon as you identify the Designer.

Dodge noted.

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 01:02 PM from United States

Until you can prove that there exists such a designer (without resorting to your sole argument of “it’s too improbable to have ‘just happened’, so it must have been designed"), I’ll stick with the evidence we have.

Apparently not, given that you don’t appear to know what the evidence is.

You still can’t get around falsifiability.

Still not paying attention, I see.

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 01:11 PM from United States

There may only be one chance in a gazillion of two random atoms forging together and finding a way that works better than drifting solo, but when you have the total number of atoms that are actually interacting, the odds improve markedly.

Perhaps you should look up the Universal Probability Bound.

The point is that each of the points mentioned in those links is backed up with quantifiable data - the very same data you say doesn’t exist, but you dismiss them all by saying they aren’t quantified “enough” for your standards.

You still aren’t paying attention.

The “quantified data” those links allegedly point to are irrelevant—show me a quantified model of how Darwinian evolution could produce a flagellum, or a cilia.

“Put up or shut up” to use your choice of language.

It has nothing to do with being “quantified ‘enough’”. Has everything to do with being quantified and relevant data.

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 05:13 PM from United States

The “quantified data” those links allegedly point to are irrelevant—show me a quantified model of how Darwinian evolution could produce a flagellum, or a cilia.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the subject, but how is ID a quantified model?  Isn’t it non-quantifiable by virtue of the hypothesis, at least until the intelligent cause makes itself and its design known (assuming the cause isn’t divine)?

Besides which, I thought you had already stated that the info I posted in a previous thread is data that could be used to create a model framework.  I’ll have to do some research, but I’m willing to bet much of that data HAS been inserted into quantifiable models that a simple internet search won’t reveal.  Info like that is usually in journals and such. 

Here’s where irreducible complexity strikes me as the bastard child of science-
The hypothesis is based almost entirely on the lack of fact, and disproving one, two or three hundred examples over time will do nothing to change it’s “validity”.  As soon as scientists say, “Look, this is how flagella is created in such-and-such bacteria.” ID’ers would respond by saying ,"That’s great, but there’s still this, this and this.” No matter how many pegs we knock out, ID will still be there as the gap-filler.  As I stated above, it would take the intelligence cause somehow revealing itself in order to provide fact.

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 05:41 PM from United States

Your entire argument boils down to “evolution by random chance is just too improbable so it must have been Designed”. All of the evidence towards evolution is affirmed, but you are pushing out control-by-random-chance and trying to replace it with a Higher Power, while denying that the only difference is the inclusion of religion.

That is just so much ignorant blather.

First of all, your “boil down” is categorically incorrect—you are implying (or flat-out asserting) that ID considers all of Evolution to be “too improbable”.  Wrong.  Only certain specific machines, which I have stated several times and which you have utterly ignored several times, exhibit irreducible complexity and/or specified complexity. Trying to come up with plausible scenarios to their random chance development involves catch-22 situations. This suggests that the probability of their coming into existence is smaller than the Universal Probability Bound, which would mean that random chance is logically impossible.

This is NOT the same as saying “evolution by random chance is just too improbable” because ID only targets SPECIFIC MACHINES, and allows that ALL ELSE could indeed be the result of Darwinian Sheer Dumb Luck.

All of the evidence towards evolution is affirmed

Nope. The machines in question do not have quantified Darwinian models explaining how they came to be. There are a few bare-bones, hand-waving explanations, but that is not sufficient, given that hand-waves are no more scientific than miracles are.

but you are pushing out control-by-random-chance and trying to replace it with a Higher Power, while denying that the only difference is the inclusion of religion.

At some point, it is no longer scientific to attribute things to blind dumb luck.

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 05:55 PM from United States

I just had a form of epiphany, or at least I THINK it was an epiphany.  It might just be indigestion.

ID isn’t science, and this is why-
(bear with me, this is a logic argument)

ID uses the notion of irreducible complexity as the driving force behind its existence.  This irreducible complexity is caused/created/designed by an intelligent cause.  If the intelligent cause is supernatural, i.e. divine, then the cause defies natural law and no longer falls under the purview of science (we would most likely have to redefine science at that point).  If the intelligent cause ISN’T supernatural then the design is something that could be studied and hypothetically recreated under the right circumstances.  So, at this point, ID has done nothing to expand our understanding of natural law or described a mechanism through which the world works.  The mechanism would be HOW it was designed, not WHO designed it.  I’m not trying to say that giving names of scientists in biology class is a bad idea, what I’m trying to say is, don’t put the carriage before the horse.  People don’t get their names written into the annals of science until they’ve invented or discovered or *ahem* designed something.  So what ID’ers propose is that they’ve discovered a discoverer.  It’s no more scientific than saying Henry Ford designed the Model T.  At best, ID is a “possible history” lesson.  At worst, it’s Sunday School curriculum.

/epiphany off

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 05:57 PM from United States

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the subject, but how is ID a quantified model?

It isn’t, as far as I can discern, and I’m not claiming it is. What I am saying is that ID simply recognizes the current lack of such models for explaining certain subcellular machines.

If you want to prove ID wrong, all you need to do is cough up one such model, and back it up with some sort of evidence.

Here’s where irreducible complexity strikes me as the bastard child of science-
The hypothesis is based almost entirely on the lack of fact, and disproving one, two or three hundred examples over time will do nothing to change it’s “validity”.  As soon as scientists say, “Look, this is how flagella is created in such-and-such bacteria.” ID’ers would respond by saying ,"That’s great, but there’s still this, this and this.”

I disagree. If one such model is produced, it would be a fatal blow to ID, because it would remove all reasonable doubt that such models could be produced.  Even though the specifics would change from machine to machine, the general irreducible complexity and specified complexity issues would be the same, and if one such set of obstacles could be overcome, there is no real reason to believe that others couldn’t be.

OTOH, if resources and time are devoted to the production of such models, and if they remain elusive (i.e., they still exhibit some little grey cloud labeled “MAGIC” in them), then that would tend to strengthen ID’s position.

Either way, science would still be moving forward, as attempting the production of such models would likely lead to other insights into molecular biology, and such insights could potentially be harvested for technologies we cannot yet imagine.

Isn’t that the whole point, after all?

In this sense, ID can be legitimized, even if it is allegedly motivated by “religion”. If it can move science forward, if it can fan the debate on Origins and motivate scientists to study these machines for no other reason than to prove ID wrong, it would still make ID a useful scientific tool even if it is never considered “science” in its own right.

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 06:02 PM from United States

Oh, and by the way everyone, notice that I have yet to advocate teaching ID in public schools, so please spare me that non sequitur.

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 06:05 PM from United States

As an addition to the above, because I missed one of the dots before I connected them-

Irreducible complexity couldn’t be classified as a mechanism through which the world works, either.  It’s simply the residue left behind by other-worldly creatures, universal forces or divine influences.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/03/06 at 06:17 PM from United States

What I am saying is that ID simply recognizes the current lack of such models for explaining certain subcellular machines.

You forgot a few words - “and fills that lack with religiously-based suppositions-without-evidence.”

If you want to prove ID wrong, all you need to do is cough up one such model

Wrong burden of proof. You are pushing ID, it is up to you to prove it right, not for those opposed to prove it wrong. The simple fact that ID CANNOT be falsified proves that it is not science.

Oh, and by the way everyone, notice that I have yet to advocate teaching ID in public schools, so please spare me that non sequitur.

Then where would you suggest it be taught.

So far, you have admitted that it is not science, admitted that the only difference between ID and evolution proves that there is a religious basis to ID, and are now claiming that you don’t want it taught in schools, yet you are apparently claiming that it is the only truth you find acceptable.

Are you sure you know what you’re arguing?

You want to stop, reset and start from zero, and maybe we can actually get a few facts between your ears…

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 06:23 PM from United States

So, at this point, ID has done nothing to expand our understanding of natural law or described a mechanism through which the world works.

Perhaps, but, at this point, ID would have rekindled the debate over whether extraterrestrial intelligence exists. The debate would be over whether the agent is God or ET, and would therefore still be pseudo science. But regardless, even if totally undirected Darwinian evolution is ultimately shown to be feasible, that still doesn’t, and in fact cannot, prove that blind dumb luck didn’t getting a helping hand every now and again.

This is something that neo-Darwinists tend to forget.

Ultimately, it becomes a personal choice, a matter of faith.

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 06:40 PM from United States

You forgot a few words

No, you simply wanna put words in my mouth. Thanks for finally admitting it.

You are pushing ID, it is up to you to prove it right, not for those opposed to prove it wrong.

On the contrary, you claimed it was unfalsifiable, and now that you’ve been shown to be wrong, you try to shift the goal posts by shifting the burden of proof.

Go ahead, prove Darwinian evolution. You are pushing Darwinism, so prove it to be true.

Not “supporting evidence”. Proof.

Someone on this blog once said that science doesn’t prove anything, it only disproves. Therefore, your demands for proof are irrelevant, especially given that I have shown you how you can disprove ID.

The simple fact that ID CANNOT be falsified proves that it is not science.

You are STILL not paying attention. I have told you how it can be falsified, yet you ignore that and then demand that I prove it in spite of the fact that Darwinism has yet to be “proved”.

Then where would you suggest it be taught.

Non sequitur. I never said it should be “taught” anywhere.

All I am advocating is that ignoramus, disingenuous critics stop being such disingenuous ignoramuses and study it on their own in order to have an inkling of what they’re so zealously railing against.

So far, you have admitted that it is not science

I never claimed it was science in the first place. What I have claimed is that much of its criticism was also not scientific.

admitted that the only difference between ID and evolution proves that there is a religious basis to ID

I’ve made no such admission. You do love putting words in my mouth and erecting straw men. You appear to have the intellectual honesty of a typical liberal.

are now claiming that you don’t want it taught in schools

I never suggested teaching it in schools. You really are a master of non sequiturs.

Are you sure you know what you’re arguing?

How thoroughly ironic.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/03/06 at 06:43 PM from United States

The debate would be over whether the agent is God or ET

But you can test for the existence of extraterrestrials, and we can’t test for God.

You know, given that you have no idea what science actually is, why are you trying to argue that?

But regardless, even if totally undirected Darwinian evolution is ultimately shown to be feasible, that still doesn’t, and in fact cannot, prove that blind dumb luck didn’t getting a helping hand every now and again.

Which is why ID isn’t science. Since there is no way to prove that the FSM wasn’t messing with the results of experiments with His Noodly Appendages, that means that it is a religion, and not science.

Ultimately, it becomes a personal choice, a matter of faith.

QED.

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 06:53 PM from United States

But you can test for the existence of extraterrestrials, and we can’t test for God.

You know, given that you have no idea what science actually is, why are you trying to argue that?

I was being hypothetical, which means that I wasn’t “arguing” ANYTHING.

I do know what science is, your vacuous claim to the contrary notwithstanding. I note that you leave the realm of science over and over in your petty tirades against what I say, not that you comprehend what I say, of course.

Quite the contrary:

Which is why ID isn’t science.

Non sequitur. Again, I’m not claiming it is science. The observation you responded to simply recognized that belief in Darwinism is a matter of faith.

QED.

You are apparently not bright enough to comprehend this, but you have just admitted that you take your Darwinism on faith, which is one of the things I have been saying all along.

Posted by on 01/03/06 at 07:00 PM from United States

given that you have no idea what science actually is, why are you trying to argue that?

“The debate would be over whether the agent is God or ET, and would therefore still be pseudo science.”

What part of “would therefore still be pseudo science” did you utterly fail to comprehend?

Nice selective editing up there, btw.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/03/06 at 07:03 PM from United States

No, you simply wanna put words in my mouth.

Are you denying that ID is attempting to fill those “gaps in knowledge” with the concept of a Higher Power that had a hand in our genetic development over the millenia?

Because if you’re not, then I’m not putting words in your mouth, because that’s exactly what I said.

Of course, you could be denying it, which would mean that I’d have to go start pulling up your own words, because that’s exactly what you were saying.

You don’t like the argument, but you’re the one making it…

On the contrary, you claimed it was unfalsifiable, and now that you’ve been shown to be wrong, you try to shift the goal posts by shifting the burden of proof.

I haven’t been shown to be wrong. You cannot show that ID is falsifiable. You are, in fact, arguing that ID can never be disproven.

Don’t believe me? Then tell me who just said the following:

“But regardless, even if totally undirected Darwinian evolution is ultimately shown to be feasible, that still doesn’t, and in fact cannot, prove that blind dumb luck didn’t getting a helping hand every now and again.

Similarly, even if totally directed Designed evolution is ultimately shown to be even faintly possible, that still doesn’t, and in fact cannot, prove that blind dumb luck wasn’t the sole cause.

What I have claimed is that much of its criticism was also not scientific.

But you cannot have scientific criticism of something that isn’t science. I would have thought that was obvious, but I forgot who I was talking to. You’re right, you’re not expected to have thought that far ahead.

I’ve made no such admission.

You have had multiple explanations as to why any Being qualified enough to count as your “Agent” - yet have left no evidence of its existence whatsoever - can only be described and defined as a ‘religion’. I even gave you published definitions proving it.

Just because you refuse to reply doesn’t mean they aren’t true.

But when you use the very same words, I thought that you had accepted the facts as given.

Are you still trying to define these Beings - that can violate natural laws and manipulate both planetary environmental conditions AND individual DNA strands - as anything less than supernatural?

Or are you now arguing that your “Agent” wasn’t smart enough to know what would result from his manipulations, trusting solely in blind chance to determine the outcome? (If so, I would suggest you look up Sagan’s invisible dragon, and then tell me what the difference between a barely-better-than-human Designer that is neither Omnipotent nor Omniscient, and trusts in blind chance to reach the resultant generations and no Designer at all?

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/03/06 at 07:07 PM from United States

The observation you responded to simply recognized that belief in Darwinism is a matter of faith.

Faith in the facts, not in evidence-less suppositions based on what some religious types have told me.

Since ID is not science, and you have shown that there is no way to prove otherwise, I’m gonna quit wasting time on you.

You’ll obviously never understand.

Posted by on 01/04/06 at 10:56 AM from United States

No, you simply wanna put words in my mouth.

Are you denying that ID is attempting to fill those “gaps in knowledge” with the concept of a Higher Power that had a hand in our genetic development over the millenia?

Because if you’re not, then I’m not putting words in your mouth, because that’s exactly what I said.

Of course, you could be denying it, which would mean that I’d have to go start pulling up your own words, because that’s exactly what you were saying.

Of course I’m denying it—start pulling, Drum.

Here, let me help you . . .

All ID asserts is that certain aspects of life were designed, given the infinitesimal probability that the aspects in question (sub-cellular machines) could be the result of random selection.

cbass on 12/24/05 at 03:21 PM

Given that ID makes no claims wrt a “creator and governor of the universe” at any level whatsoever, and furthermore makes no claim of supernatural-ness, your definition quite solidly suggests that ID is, in fact, not a “product of religion”.

“By definition” or otherwise.

cbass on 12/25/05 at 03:43 PM

Well, it’s not about “filling gaps in evolutionary knowledge”, but simply explaining the observed data, which is what “science” is allegedly supposed to do.

cbass on 12/26/05 at 01:27 AM

Etcetera. Try to comprehend that the discussion hinges on probability, not on “We Don’t Know Stuff, Ergo GOD Did It”. That’s just one of the legions of straw men you have at your disposal.

You don’t like the argument, but you’re the one making it…

Nope. You are making the argument and trying to pin it on me, in typical “let’s build a straw man” fashion.

On the contrary, you claimed it was unfalsifiable, and now that you’ve been shown to be wrong, you try to shift the goal posts by shifting the burden of proof.

I haven’t been shown to be wrong.

Denial noted.

You cannot show that ID is falsifiable. You are, in fact, arguing that ID can never be disproven.

Don’t believe me? Then tell me who just said the following:

But regardless, even if totally undirected Darwinian evolution is ultimately shown to be feasible, that still doesn’t, and in fact cannot, prove that blind dumb luck didn’t getting a helping hand every now and again.

You assume that the “helping hand” absolutely must be ID, but I was speaking in terms of ID already having been discredited and proven false. That’s what the “even if totally undirected Darwinian evolution is ultimately shown to be feasible” refers to. The point of the statement is that feasibility is not proof that it actually happened, only that it could have.

Similarly, even if totally directed Designed evolution is ultimately shown to be even faintly possible, that still doesn’t, and in fact cannot, prove that blind dumb luck wasn’t the sole cause.

Congratulations, Drum. You’ve finally managed to utter a relevant and truthful statement.

Take a bow. You’ve come a long way.

That it has finally dawned on you that this argument is over probabilities and not absolutes. I’d say you’ve had an epiphany.

That being said, your statement still reflects sloppiness in your thinking, in that ID doesn’t address “evolution” in its entirety, only specific aspects of it.

And the fact that it’s “faintly possible” is a given.

What I have claimed is that much of its criticism was also not scientific.

But you cannot have scientific criticism of something that isn’t science.

Of course you can, unless you would submit that the only way to criticize ID is via emotional rants and ad hominem. If you cannot fathom a way to argue intelligently, that doesn’t mean it cannot be done, only that you cannot do it.

I would have thought that was obvious

You thought wrong, which is hardly surprising.

but I forgot who I was talking to.

You are talking to the guy who recognizes the absurdity of many of your assertions.

You’re right, you’re not expected to have thought that far ahead.

This, coming from someone who is still thinking 30 years ago.

-- Continues on next post—

Posted by on 01/04/06 at 10:57 AM from United States

--- Continued from previous post ---

I’ve made no such admission.

You have had multiple explanations as to why any Being qualified enough to count as your “Agent” - yet have left no evidence of its existence whatsoever - can only be described and defined as a ‘religion’.

And all said “explanations” were absurd, and based on what appears to be willful ignorance.

I even gave you published definitions proving it.

Your “published definitions” only prove how absurd you are:

religion, n. - “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.”

supernatural, adj. - “not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws” (like craft that can defy gravity and inertia and speed of light limits - required for your “space aliens” able to manipulate our development)

Now, the part in parenthesis is your own added nonsense that proves your ignorance and downright stupidity. You assume that any and every extra-terrestrial that could possibly exist absolutely must be “supernatural”, and to “support” this silly notion, you claim that an ET absolutely must be able to “defy gravity and inertia and speed of light limits”, with absolutely nothing to back up that ridiculous assertion. In fact, your claims are complete non sequiturs. What does “defying inertia” have to do with being able to manipulate molecular biology?  Do you not comprehend that Man can manipulate molecular biology (albeit at a limited level)? Does this mean that Man must also be able to travel faster than the speed of light or defy inertia? According to your “logic”, the answer is yes.

This is what I mean when I say that your criticisms aren’t scientific. No, they’re borderline lunacy.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/04/06 at 11:11 AM from United States

You still don’t - and by this time I am forced to change that to won’t - get it.

ID is nothing more than evolution, with “random chance” replaced with “Intelligent Designer”.

The existence of that Intelligent Designer cannot be tested for. The only evidence that would even tend to lead to the existence of that Deisgner is nothing more than improbability, using values as defined by the ID proponents, and assigning their value as the inverse probability, without taking all factors into account.

There is no way to falsify that difference, and belief in that Designer (with no evidence whatsoever) meets the definition of religion. That makes it not science. You have admitted that ID is not science. You have admitted that it shouldn’t be taught.

But you’re still trying to argue that it’s true, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

You are entitled to worship whatever Designer you wish, but please take those devotions elsewhere. No one else is even listening anymore, and after this sentence, neither will I.

Posted by on 01/04/06 at 04:33 PM from United States

But you’re still trying to argue that it’s true, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

Geez, talk about not getting it. Drum, you are the poster boy.

I am not arguing that ID is true.

What I am arguing is that you don’t know what it is.  When you spew your ignorance, I simply try to correct it.  In addition, I simply note that much of your criticism is emotional ranting and not levelheaded criticism.

There is no way to falsify that difference, and belief in that Designer (with no evidence whatsoever) meets the definition of religion.

I have told you how ID can be proven wrong, but you just ignore it over and over. The evidence is the machines in question. Prove that those machines came about by dumb luck and you’ve proven ID wrong.

ID is nothing more than evolution, with “random chance” replaced with “Intelligent Designer”.

No, it’s more like evolution aided or guided by an intelligent designer. But you are too emotional to grasp the difference.

You are entitled to worship whatever Designer you wish

Just as you are free to worship any science-based ideology you wish.  Just stop pretending that it isn’t ideology.

after this sentence, neither will I [listen]

Yeah, that’s what you said last time.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/04/06 at 04:34 PM from United States

{Yawn}

Posted by Lee on 01/04/06 at 04:34 PM from United States

I am not arguing that ID is true.

What I am arguing is that you don’t know what it is.

What ID is:  religion disguised as science.
What ID is not:  science

Seems pretty clear to me.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/04/06 at 04:37 PM from United States

Lee, he’s either not willing to grasp that or not capable of it.

He’s admitted that it isn’t true and it isn’t science, and he’s STILL trying to defend it. Almost religious in his extremism.

Posted by Lee on 01/04/06 at 04:37 PM from United States

I have told you how ID can be proven wrong, but you just ignore it over and over. The evidence is the machines in question. Prove that those machines came about by dumb luck and you’ve proven ID wrong.

Uh, no.  That’s not how it works.  The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that your theory is correct.  Basically what you’ve just said is that to prove ID wrong we have to prove evolution to be right.  That’s not how the game is played.  If you have two suspects for a murder, proving that one of them didn’t do it doesn’t instantly prove that the other one did.  Each theory has to be advanced and criticized on its own merits, and yours has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

Posted by on 01/04/06 at 04:55 PM from United States

Or are you now arguing that your “Agent” wasn’t smart enough to know what would result from his manipulations, trusting solely in blind chance to determine the outcome?

So, either the agent is a Supernatural GAAAWD or a bumbling moron?  Are you familiar with the term “false dichotomy”?

Do you realize that Man can predict future events? Does that make Man “omniscient” or “supernatural”?

I guess Man relied on “blind chance” every time NASA lanched a vehicle into space. We got to the moon via “blind chance”.

Or, maybe, just maybe, we were “smart enough to know what would result from [our] manipulations” of Matter and Energy.

Are you capable of a rational argument at all?

Posted by on 01/04/06 at 05:08 PM from United States

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that your theory is correct.

The evidence is the machines, and the slim probability that they could have “just happened”. ID attempts to quantify this, but some people cannot get past their “It’s Reelijun” biases.

Provide a quantified model of how they could “just happen”, and ID is proven wrong. You say it “isn’t falsifiable”, but I have just stated how it is, to which you reply, “that’s not how it works.”

So, how can Darwinism be proven wrong?

Each theory has to be advanced and criticized on its own merits, and yours has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

Have you actually attempted to look for any?

Posted by on 01/04/06 at 05:10 PM from United States

{Yawn}

I thought you weren’t listening.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/04/06 at 05:38 PM from United States

{Yawn}

One last time, and only because I am taking pity on your ignorance.

Provide a quantified model of how they could “just happen”, and ID is proven wrong.

1.  Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

* deletion of parts
* addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
* change of function
* addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
* gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility is no obstacle to its formation (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996).

2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a “part” is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

4. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
* The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
* The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
* In spite of the complexity of Behe’s protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
* The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.

I guess none of that qualifies as “proof”, even though it meets your exact definition. Because if it did, you would have to admit that ID is flat-out wrong.

Conversely, there are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

* a static fossil record;
* true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
* a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
* observations of organisms being created.

None of which have ever been provided. Go figure, huh? Now that you have quantified evidence of how evolution “could” make things “just happen”, that means ID isn’t true. Does it not? Or are you going to move the goal posts again?

Posted by Lee on 01/04/06 at 06:27 PM from United States

The evidence is the machines, and the slim probability that they could have “just happened”. ID attempts to quantify this, but some people cannot get past their “It’s Reelijun” biases.

No, no, no.  Seriously dude, you’re talking out your ass here. 

You assume that there are only two possible reasons for the evolution of life, as if they’re the flip sides of a coin, with ID on one and evolution on the other.  Since a coin always lands on one side or the other, if you know what side it doesn’t land on then you also know on what side it did.  But since we’re dealing with an unknown quantity, such as the origin of life, there are, literally, an infinite number of possibilities.  The weight of the evidence has thus far led us to evolution and chance as the most likely of these infinite number of possibilities.  So, your burden is not to prove evolution wrong, it’s to prove ID to be right.  Since neither can be “proven” in the literal sense, you assume that there is equal validity between unproven arguments, when this is complete crap.

As I said, each theory has to be taken on its own merit.  For all you know, evolution and ID might both be wrong, and there might be some other dynamic at work, something we have not even yet begun to comprehend.  And if such a dynamic is ever discovered or theorized, you can bet that the normal scientific world will evaluate it on its merits and adopt it if the evidence warrants it, while the ID folks will be jerking off to their bibles, wailing about how this is just the latest attempt by durn libruls to kill the Baby Jesus.

Posted by Lee on 01/04/06 at 06:30 PM from United States

Let me put it this way.  If there are 20 pieces of solid evidence in ID’s favor, and there are 20 million pieces of evidence in evolution’s favor, this would lead any reasonable person to conclude that evolution was far more likely to have been “proven” than ID has been.  Just because two things are both unproven does not mean that they are both equally so.

Of course, I just pulled these numbers out of my ass for illustrative purposes.  There are probably way more than 20 million pieces of evidence to support evolution, and I think 20 pieces of evidence to support ID is being overly generous.  Nonetheless, my point stands.

Posted by on 01/04/06 at 06:32 PM from United States

You’ve gotta be kiddin’ me, Drum. Apparently, you are utterly unaware of what qualifies as a model, let alone a quantified one.

6or7squirrels was kind enough to provide this one:

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):

A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.

The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).

The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).

An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.

The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.

Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.

It fails to account for details, however, including how three equally-spaced and coordinated devices could have evolved around the E. Coli’s body, or how the “fortuitous association” of the ion pump would have worked.  But it is a start, like I said in response to 6or7, and it can serve as a framework for a fully fleshed-out quantified model.

The stuff you cut’n’paste is ultimately irrelevant, and represents so much hand-waving. In fact, it contradicts itself by using the term “irreducibly complex” several times to claim that certain things aren’t IC, then complaining that IC is “poorly defined”. Well, why use the term then? Can’t have it both ways.

I suppose this could turn into a “who can cut’n’paste the most?” pissing contest. Your choice.

Oh. Wait. You Aren’t Listening. I keep forgetting.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/04/06 at 06:44 PM from United States

The stuff you cut’n’paste is ultimately irrelevant

Scccrrrreeeeeeeeeccchk (sound of goalpost being dragged)

Well, why use the term then? Can’t have it both ways.

To point out the hypocrisy of rebuttals of “that’s not what I meant” which you have repeatedly used.

You still have not identified the Agent you are giving credit for having shaped all of Creation. Can you? If yes, then do so. If not, then you are in no position to bitch about defining terms.

But hypocrisy seems to be your stock in trade, right alongside the other nonsense you preach.

You’re right, I should just laugh at you when you spout your lies, but I can’t take the chance that some poor innocent who doesn’t know any better might wander in, and take your lies as truth.

Of course, now you are going to claim that they are not lies, to which I will ask - AGAIN - for actual evidence, not “look at these things - they are too improbable to have spontaneously developed, therefore they must have been designed”.

That’s not evidence, ducky. It cannot be tested in any way. Which means, as Lee says, you are talking out of your ass on this issue.

There’s an easy way to prove ID. Prove the existence of that creator with direct evidence. Or some way to test for him.

All this time and many requests for that proof later, and you have nothing - NOTHING - to show for yourself. It would be almost laughable, if you weren’t so pathetic.

Posted by on 01/04/06 at 06:47 PM from United States

You assume that there are only two possible reasons for the evolution of life, as if they’re the flip sides of a coin, with ID on one and evolution on the other.

No, you are assuming dichotomy, not ID, which doesn’t even attempt to deny that the Darwinian model can account for many things.

Since neither can be “proven” in the literal sense, you assume that there is equal validity between unproven arguments, when this is complete crap.

Not quite. I do recognize that Darwinism isn’t as unassailable as many of its proponents would have us believe (like your mythical “20 million pieces of evidence” claim), and I am simply curious as to what ID’s proponents can come up with. I don’t give much “validity” to either “religion”.

It seems curious that random chance can outhink and outproduce Man on so many levels, but then, our intelligence and imagination are also the products of sheer dumb luck, so maybe it shouldn’t be so surprising.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/04/06 at 06:55 PM from United States

No, you are assuming dichotomy, not ID, which doesn’t even attempt to deny that the Darwinian model can account for many things.

With religion to fill all of those uncomfortable gaps where Science says “I don’t know yet”.

Like I said, ID = Evolution + Religion.

Go ahead, Seabass. Prove me wrong.

I don’t give much “validity” to either “religion”.

Well, there goes most of your earlier arguments. Except that Science isn’t a religion, since all of the basic tenets of science can be tested.

It seems curious that random chance can outhink and outproduce Man on so many levels

You’ve obviously never seen a fractal, or seen a Lorenz Attractor at work. Welcome to Chaos Theory.

You’ll excuse me now, I have to get back to laughing at you.

Posted by on 01/04/06 at 07:01 PM from United States

Drum, you sound like a typical Liberal who wishes to silence views that you don’t agree with.

I never claimed ID was science.

I never claimed it should be taught anywhere.

I have explained that ID makes no attempt to identify the designer, or to deny Darwinian evolution is a viable model for many things.

Yet you scream “LIAR” like a typical, hysterical leftie.  If people on this forum cannot discern that I am being sincere, it’s their problem. I am simply trying to explain what ID is while avoiding your red herrings and dodging your non sequiturs.

I haven’t been the one who typically resorts to invective.

That would be you.

I am not the one who simply ignores what my opponents say and repeat misinformation over and over.

That would be you.

I am not screaming “LIAR” even though some of your claims (like the absurd “by definiton, the agent is supernatural” claim you made) could qualify as lies, especially in light of the fact that you repeat them after having been told that they are wrong.

That would be you.

I see that you aren’t good on your word. You stated at least twice that you weren’t going to continue this apparently fruitless discussion.

Yet here you are. Still.

I suppose I could pick your cut’n’paste apart piece by piece, but I am confident that you still wouldn’t get it, and would still demand that I “admit” that the designer is God, or whatever.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/04/06 at 07:05 PM from United States

Slow, aintcha? Getting a few of your friends to help?

Ain’t no “slow and steady wins the race” this time, moron.

It’s been several days, and you have yet to provide even a scintilla of actual evidence. And the only argument you have in favor is over the probability of an event that has already happened.

Posted by on 01/04/06 at 07:11 PM from United States

Seabass

Hmm. Just how childish can you get, I wonder?

Tell you what. I’ll bow out now, given your degeneration.  You can even delude yourself by claiming you “won” if it’ll get your proverbial rocks off.

It’s rather apparent that you really aren’t listening. You’re just making noise.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/04/06 at 07:23 PM from United States

I never claimed ID was science.

I never claimed it should be taught anywhere.

Yet you still defend it. Why is that?

I have explained that ID makes no attempt to identify the designer, or to deny Darwinian evolution is a viable model for many things.

So you agree that ID is nothing more than evolution with that “agent” stuffed into the gaps. Until you can define that agent (and the capabilities of that agent), there is no difference between having that agent there and not.

In order to claim any difference, you must be able to specifically define the differences made by the inclusion of that agent, which you are incapable of doing, since you refuse to actually identify the agent. (Sounds like a flying, invisible, incorporeal, heatless dragon to me...*)

You stated at least twice that you weren’t going to continue this apparently fruitless discussion.

But you keep ignoring reality. You’re entitled to your moronic opinion (bearing absolutely no relation to reality), but when you try to pretend that your opinion has any actual basis in fact, I am compelled to point out where you are wrong.

Call it a character flaw, but I put a high stock in the facts. I’m trying to hold you to the same standards. You obviously object. Why is that? Why do you hold facts in such scant regard? Is it because they contradict your worldview?

I am simply trying to explain what ID is while avoiding your red herrings and dodging your non sequiturs.

We KNOW what ID is. Darwinian Evolution, with the inclusion of an Intelligent Designer to cover any gaps in that Theory.

What you are apparently incapable of seeing is the simple fact that belief in that Intelligent Designer (or Agent or Being or ET or “Creative Force” or whatever you want to call it) qualifies as a Religion under both dictionary definition and legal precedent. (I admit the possibility that you have the capacity, but that calls into question your motives for refusing to admit to the facts.)

Why will you not admit to the facts?

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/04/06 at 07:26 PM from United States

Hmm. Just how childish can you get, I wonder?

So I should assume that your initials are C.B., and the rest just a descriptive addition, then?

Twit.

It’s rather apparent that you really aren’t listening.

Not listening? You’re a fool. You have been asked - several times - to actually provide evidence. Evidence is something that is testable. The only things you have brought up are all “this is too improbable, so it must have been designed”. You dodge questions, but not gracefully.

Put up or shut up, ya pussy.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/04/06 at 07:51 PM from United States

{whistling Jeopardy theme music while cbass hides under his coral reef}

Posted by on 01/05/06 at 10:48 AM from United States

Alright, I’m going to step up for cbass for a bit, because I think certain aspects of ID are being misconstrued.  He’s stated the following on many occasions, but perhaps filtering it through my head will make it a bit more understandable to those that are on my side of the fence.

ID is nothing more than evolution, with “random chance” replaced with “Intelligent Designer”.

Based on what cbass is trying to say, I believe this isn’t the case.  ID allows that most of evolution occurs in Darwinian fashion, but it suggests that certain, specific biological features are not Darwinian, using features that are irreducibly complex as the marker, and are therefore designed.  I’m not suggesting it’s any sort of supportable hypothesis, but it’s different than suggesting ID removes “random chance” from evolution.

The existence of that Intelligent Designer cannot be tested for.

This isn’t implicitly true.  If the designer is divine, than this is technically possible (not necessarily true).  If the designer is natural, however, there’s no reason to think we couldn’t discover the designer (or have them discover us).

There is no way to falsify that difference, and belief in that Designer (with no evidence whatsoever) meets the definition of religion. That makes it not science. You have admitted that ID is not science. You have admitted that it shouldn’t be taught.

But you’re still trying to argue that it’s true, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

I’m not sure that there IS evidence to the contrary.  But neither is there evidence in support.  Because irreducible complexity is ultimately an argument from incredulity, it’s, at this point, impossible to prove or disprove.  That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s untrue, however, it just means it’s impossible to tell.

You are entitled to worship whatever Designer you wish, but please take those devotions elsewhere.

I’m not 100% sure of cbass’s notions of who or what the designer is.  Undoubtedly, the originators of ID has God in mind when they formed it, but that doesn’t preclude others latching onto the idea with something else in mind, i.e. aliens, extradimensional beings, etc.  So, based on this, I’m not sure it’s fair to call it worship.

Uh, no.  That’s not how it works.  The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that your theory is correct.  Basically what you’ve just said is that to prove ID wrong we have to prove evolution to be right.

It would be more truly stated that ID’s proponents need to show ID isn’t INcorrect.  Based on my what cbass has tried to convey, ID and Darwinian evolution aren’t mutually exclusive.  In some sense, ID could be considered a corrolary.  The problem is, again, ID uses a potentially non-falsifiable argument (I say potentially because, if the designer is natural, than it IS falsifiable.  Which is kind of funny, since if a natural designer is shown to definitively be the cause, then it isn’t false.)

Posted by on 01/05/06 at 10:49 AM from United States

I think I messed up the above post.  Ah well.

Provide a quantified model of how they could “just happen”, and ID is proven wrong. You say it “isn’t falsifiable”, but I have just stated how it is, to which you reply, “that’s not how it works.”

So, how can Darwinism be proven wrong?

As I’d stated in previous posts, providing a quantified model to disprove one example of ID still leaves it to explain others.  That makes ID a tough act to follow, since it chooses which examples to act as gap-filler.  When science closes one gap, ID still has other gaps to fill.  Over time, every one of those gaps may be filled by science, but in the meantime, ID hasn’t really accomplished anything.

Darwinism is incredibly difficult to prove wrong.  It’s not impossible, but it would take a drastic discovery to do so.  This is much of why Darwinian evolution is a cornerstone to modern biology.  In order to prove evolution incorrect, we would need to kick out it’s major points from underneath it.  For instance, showing that genetically manipulating a cell DOESN’T drastically alter it’s characteristics, at the same time finding what actually does, in essence, disproving gene theory.  Disproving the gene’s ability to mutate.  Typically, disproving a major aspect is tied to finding the alternative.

It seems curious that random chance can outhink and outproduce Man on so many levels, but then, our intelligence and imagination are also the products of sheer dumb luck, so maybe it shouldn’t be so surprising.

Not quite sure what you mean here.  It sounds like you’re trying to compare millions or even billions of years of natural progression to two centuries worth of man’s comprehension of it.  Referring to evolution’s incremental advancements as sheer dumb luck suggests that you might not fully understand how evolution unfolds.  Sheer dumb luck is having a jet engine break off of a plane, fall out of the sky and punch through your bedroom at night, while that night you’re sleepwalking on the local country club grounds.  Evolution, on the other hands, uses random variables built within to the system already.  Proteins just don’t bounce together and make coffee, the changes aren’t huge.  It’s the difference between being blindfolded and searching feeling a 2x2 inch area on my desk every three hours for my coffee mug, as opposed to doing the same thing only expanding the area to my entire building, or even the state.  Rough example, I know, but I hope I illustrated my point enough.

Like I said, ID = Evolution + Religion

That’s not strictly true, but it’s partially true.

I never claimed ID was science.

I never claimed it should be taught anywhere.
Yet you still defend it. Why is that?

Mmmmmm, that’s unfair.  ID could be considered a valid philosophical topic.

Posted by on 01/05/06 at 10:50 AM from United States

Dammit!  *sigh*

Decipher the above posts at your leisure.

Posted by on 01/05/06 at 10:53 AM from United States

Anyways, what can I say?  I’m a sucker for a good debate.  Or in this case, debacle.

Posted by on 01/06/06 at 12:44 PM from United States

Eureka, I found it!

It fails to account for details, however, including how three equally-spaced and coordinated devices could have evolved around the E. Coli’s body, or how the “fortuitous association” of the ion pump would have worked.

Here we go-

But spirochetes, the spiral shaped bacteria, use flagella in a way one wouldn’t expect. Their flagella don’t stick out, yet are used for swimming, burrowing, and maintaining the cell’s shape. Flagella are grown at both ends and extend toward the middle under the outer membrane. The flagella maintain the cell’s spiral shape, and by rotating can create a moving wave along the cell, causing the cell to move in the opposite direction (19).

It is not easy to observe the behavior of individual bacteria in the wild. Just recently though, Danish researchers noticed some unusual behavior by bacteria living on low oxygen marine sediments. To see exactly what the bacteria were doing, they recreated the ecosystem in the laboratory. Who would have thought that some bacteria, shaped like slightly bowed rods, would tether themselves to the sediment with a mucus stalk secreted from the center and then use flagella at both ends to move like a propeller? But that’s what these bacteria do. They create a tiny current, refreshing the water around them much faster than diffusion alone could do it (36).

Bacteria can move across surfaces in organized swarms, and quickly colonize a new food source such as your own much larger cells. When swarming, they often grow more flagella than usual and make cell-to-cell contacts with these flagella (37). Some bacteria also use their flagella to hang on to our cells as they try to break in and eat the cell contents (38).

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/06/06 at 01:03 PM from United States

{Channeling cbass}

“But that’s not quantifiable proof, is it?”

In 5...4...3...2…

Posted by on 01/06/06 at 01:13 PM from United States

Again, I’m not saying that irreducible complexity doesn’t exist.  I’m just saying the examples that are currently being provided are far from definitive.

Next entry: The Power of Words

Previous entry: Scandals and Sandals

<< Back to main