aelf
Ashen One
What, the theory that lightning precipitated the first instances of cellular life? How much of that is biology compared to chemistry or physics?
The logical end result of Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Phlegmak
- Start date
What, the theory that lightning precipitated the first instances of cellular life? How much of that is biology compared to chemistry or physics?
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
aelf said:
It is chemistry, and as such biochemistry when applied to a biological topic.
The real point is that if a SCIENTIST limits themselves to such strict limits, they will be a very dull boy. When studied in total, biology is really an interdisciplinary topic, much like economics.
Case in point, biology regularly interellates with physics as biophysics, as there is simply no instruments that provide perfect visualization of a biological system down to the chemical level; Instead physics lends biology instruments to draw inferences from. As well, the forking of biology from chemistry on the grounds of organic/inorganic is false on the universal level. At the molecular level, it is all chemistry. And all chemistry is subject to the laws of physics.
Biology is not strictly memorizing the components of a taxonomy and anatomizing all the component species. To think such is very old skool. In that vein, the only end of biology would be to map out all the biomes of the universe, and categorize all the inhabitants. Rather, a biologist is simply a scientist focusing on systems that we call 'life', but free to use all of science to examine those systems.
aelf
Ashen One
Well, Intelligent Design isn't even a field. I don't think a run-of-the-mill biologist studying cellular life would venture into the biochemical research concerned with the origins of life, for (a rather cursory) example. Why would you expect people researching Intelligent Design to venture into researching the identity and full methodology of the designer when they have not even completed their current research?
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I wouldn't expect ID people to seriously do any research at all. I totally agree with Phlegmak, except I add that I think ID is scientifically lazy, and its a real shame when a scientist tries to advance orthodoxy as a proven scientific theory.
I was just trying to point out a few posts ago that biology, when approached with a broad mind, can gain from studying the origins of life. True science shouldn't constrain biological studies by what amounts to 19th C. science. Science shouldn't be an orthodoxal battleground is my main point. It's very bad for science, whatever the speciality.
I was just trying to point out a few posts ago that biology, when approached with a broad mind, can gain from studying the origins of life. True science shouldn't constrain biological studies by what amounts to 19th C. science. Science shouldn't be an orthodoxal battleground is my main point. It's very bad for science, whatever the speciality.
aelf
Ashen One
Sure, but each field of science must also understand its limitations. Certainly, science, even as a whole, cannot give us the meaning of life.
One can believe in God and evolution. One can be a religious, spiritual person and completely embrace scientific principles and science in general. Nothing wrong with that, perfectly fine.
ID on the other hand is just what Arwon described: a ruse to slip God into public schools via the back door in an effort to fight what some demented people consider a modern "culture war." It's silly and insidious and has no place in science classes, and I'd be extremely concerned if any school my kids went to taught it in any class whatsoever.
ID on the other hand is just what Arwon described: a ruse to slip God into public schools via the back door in an effort to fight what some demented people consider a modern "culture war." It's silly and insidious and has no place in science classes, and I'd be extremely concerned if any school my kids went to taught it in any class whatsoever.
I just sent this email. My hopes that this discussion would be fruitful seem to be ending.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Mr. Luskin,
I apologize for responding after so long. I haven't had a lot of time for a response until now. I have more things to ask about.
Most of what you said in your email is outside of science and is not what I'm interested in discussing. Since my email is regarding "What do we do with ID once we established it's true", I'll simply stick with that subject.
You wrote this:
"I reply: Regarding ID in education, Discovery Institute opposes mandating ID in public schools. However, if ID were taught, then a teacher could discuss how intelligent design theorists detect design in nature, and then discuss the informational properties (i.e. irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and other experimental data) showing that various natural objects were designed. There is SO MUCH TO STUDY within ID that is incredible."
So other than explaining to students how design is detectable, what else is done with it? You said there is so much to study. What exactly is there to study? I am extremely interested in knowing.
You wrote this:
"By the way, I took over a dozen courses covering evolutionary biology at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and I was often simply told "evolution did this" with no further explanation given. In my experience, ID provides us with no fewer details than does Darwinian evolution about the history of life."
You probably had bad teachers.
You wrote that Behe wrote this:
"The most important difference [between modern ID and Paley] is that [ID] is limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley's was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis non fingo."
This leads me to a parallel in another branch in science which is the Big Bang. It's possible that science is extremely limited in what it can tell us about how the Big Bang happened. However, at no point have I heard a scientist simply say, "Ok, we can't learn anything more about that, so we'll stop learning about it, and just let people imagine whatever they want to about how the Big Bang happened." (Please note that I'm not up to date on any current theories about the Big Bang. It's only an example.) So I find it completely bizarre that a scientist would take the stance of, "people can imagine whatever they want about this." A much more scientific answer would be "we don't know anything about the designer but I would like to find out."
Regarding the rest of your letter to me, if ID is interested ONLY in detecting design, then what about the host of other questions that arise from that detection? I only asked 4 to you (I have since added another which is "Why would a designer or designers design life"). What other project would be made to answer these other questions? I sincerely hope the Discovery Institute would be interested in discovering more about the designer.
Outside the scope of my original discussion: How do you know when you've reached the point that you can safely say that ID is true? Or have you reached that point already?
(My real name which I'm censoring here.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Mr. Luskin,
I apologize for responding after so long. I haven't had a lot of time for a response until now. I have more things to ask about.
Most of what you said in your email is outside of science and is not what I'm interested in discussing. Since my email is regarding "What do we do with ID once we established it's true", I'll simply stick with that subject.
You wrote this:
"I reply: Regarding ID in education, Discovery Institute opposes mandating ID in public schools. However, if ID were taught, then a teacher could discuss how intelligent design theorists detect design in nature, and then discuss the informational properties (i.e. irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and other experimental data) showing that various natural objects were designed. There is SO MUCH TO STUDY within ID that is incredible."
So other than explaining to students how design is detectable, what else is done with it? You said there is so much to study. What exactly is there to study? I am extremely interested in knowing.
You wrote this:
"By the way, I took over a dozen courses covering evolutionary biology at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and I was often simply told "evolution did this" with no further explanation given. In my experience, ID provides us with no fewer details than does Darwinian evolution about the history of life."
You probably had bad teachers.
You wrote that Behe wrote this:
"The most important difference [between modern ID and Paley] is that [ID] is limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley's was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis non fingo."
This leads me to a parallel in another branch in science which is the Big Bang. It's possible that science is extremely limited in what it can tell us about how the Big Bang happened. However, at no point have I heard a scientist simply say, "Ok, we can't learn anything more about that, so we'll stop learning about it, and just let people imagine whatever they want to about how the Big Bang happened." (Please note that I'm not up to date on any current theories about the Big Bang. It's only an example.) So I find it completely bizarre that a scientist would take the stance of, "people can imagine whatever they want about this." A much more scientific answer would be "we don't know anything about the designer but I would like to find out."
Regarding the rest of your letter to me, if ID is interested ONLY in detecting design, then what about the host of other questions that arise from that detection? I only asked 4 to you (I have since added another which is "Why would a designer or designers design life"). What other project would be made to answer these other questions? I sincerely hope the Discovery Institute would be interested in discovering more about the designer.
Outside the scope of my original discussion: How do you know when you've reached the point that you can safely say that ID is true? Or have you reached that point already?
(My real name which I'm censoring here.)
CheScott
Prince
I believe that "this theory has no practical applications" is the better argument.
The argument that "this theory is incorrect" leaves greater room for speculation and interpretation. The argument is doomed to repeat itself forever, because Intelligent Design is not a falsifiable hypothesis. That is to say, no matter what experimentation and no matter how much evidence you gather, you cannot prove it false. You can only show it is illogical and unlikely.
Where as "this theory has no practical applications" is virtually undeniable.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I actually agree with Elrohir.. The truth, no matter what it is, should be taught.. no matter what the implications of what you're teaching are.
unless it's totally worthless knowledge.. which in this case, I'd argue, it wouldn't be.
but first we'd need a falsifiable theory
I'm with Phlegmak here.
There is an assumption in the reply he received that ID proponents are not interested in the nature or identity of the designer. this itself is a claim subject to testing:
- first, it is a very strange attitude for a scientist to take, as Phlegmak points out.
- second, it is nevertheless a necessary approach if ID is to be used as a stalking horse for creationism, as it undoubtedly is.
So as long as we theorise that ID is not a genuine attempt at scientific endeavour, we have a clear motive for the counter-scientific approach to the topic that we have observed.
But I have a second, and IMHO bigger problem with the reply Phlegmak received.
It states that we cannot scientifically establish anything of the nature or identity of the putative designer - to quote: "the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy."
But it provides no evidence to support this proposition - it is simply assumed that there is no evidence that can be considered to help identify the nature, or purpose of a designer, in essence that the 'designer' is ineffable.
By making this assumption - that the 'designer' is ineffable - ID takes a definitional stance against vast swathes of potential designers: aliens, inhabitants of past or parallel universes, one or more gods with existence outside time. In fact, anything but an ineffable, implicitly Abrahamaic God.
Thus ID implicitly assumes the creator is 'God' whilst explicitly claiming to do no such thing. Yet another demonstration - if any more were needed - that ID and Abrahamaic creationism are one and the same movement.
The alternative, and one that anyone with a scientific approach would be excited about, would be to ask what we can learn of the nature and purpose of a creator by examining his creations. That would allow us to extrapolate and interpolate toward new knowledge, perhaps even to make testable propositions from ID. I suspect that would be unattractive to ID proponents for three reasons:
1) Much biological 'design' looks pretty counter-intuitive, and some downright harmful to other 'designed' elements; speculating on what purpose the appendix, puff adders or or cholera have in the great scheme of things and what this tells us about the designer might lead to unpalatable conclusions about their purpose, mental state and benificence, which are directly contrary to church tenets.
2) A testable prediction from ID makes it liable to absolute dis-proof, something its deliberate vagueness has made impossible up until now. Yes, science can knock down each individual proposition of 'irreduceable complexity' but it takes time, and ID can immediately come up with a new example. But if ID makes testable predictions...
3) If analysis of 'designed' biology tells us something about the 'designer' then the 'designer' ceases to be ineffable, in direct contradiction of Christian teaching - admittedly the internal inconsistency of theological 'thinking' has been around for 1,000 years without troubling creationists too much, but they wouldn't want to actually hammer another nail into the coffin...
So we go around the circle - understanding anything about the designer is 'outside the realms of science' because it is taken as read that the 'designer' is the Abrahamaic God, and therefore ineffable and therefore cannot be understood, however we can't actually SAY that the designer is God, and if we actually did try to learn from 'design' we might very well prove (or at least strongly indicate) that the 'designer' can't be God after all, so the proposition must be stated without evidence but with the maximum assurance, with the knowledge that to question logically is to bring the whole edifice down - i.e. somewhat on the nature of a religious belief...
BFR
There is an assumption in the reply he received that ID proponents are not interested in the nature or identity of the designer. this itself is a claim subject to testing:
- first, it is a very strange attitude for a scientist to take, as Phlegmak points out.
- second, it is nevertheless a necessary approach if ID is to be used as a stalking horse for creationism, as it undoubtedly is.
So as long as we theorise that ID is not a genuine attempt at scientific endeavour, we have a clear motive for the counter-scientific approach to the topic that we have observed.
But I have a second, and IMHO bigger problem with the reply Phlegmak received.
It states that we cannot scientifically establish anything of the nature or identity of the putative designer - to quote: "the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy."
But it provides no evidence to support this proposition - it is simply assumed that there is no evidence that can be considered to help identify the nature, or purpose of a designer, in essence that the 'designer' is ineffable.
By making this assumption - that the 'designer' is ineffable - ID takes a definitional stance against vast swathes of potential designers: aliens, inhabitants of past or parallel universes, one or more gods with existence outside time. In fact, anything but an ineffable, implicitly Abrahamaic God.
Thus ID implicitly assumes the creator is 'God' whilst explicitly claiming to do no such thing. Yet another demonstration - if any more were needed - that ID and Abrahamaic creationism are one and the same movement.
The alternative, and one that anyone with a scientific approach would be excited about, would be to ask what we can learn of the nature and purpose of a creator by examining his creations. That would allow us to extrapolate and interpolate toward new knowledge, perhaps even to make testable propositions from ID. I suspect that would be unattractive to ID proponents for three reasons:
1) Much biological 'design' looks pretty counter-intuitive, and some downright harmful to other 'designed' elements; speculating on what purpose the appendix, puff adders or or cholera have in the great scheme of things and what this tells us about the designer might lead to unpalatable conclusions about their purpose, mental state and benificence, which are directly contrary to church tenets.
2) A testable prediction from ID makes it liable to absolute dis-proof, something its deliberate vagueness has made impossible up until now. Yes, science can knock down each individual proposition of 'irreduceable complexity' but it takes time, and ID can immediately come up with a new example. But if ID makes testable predictions...
3) If analysis of 'designed' biology tells us something about the 'designer' then the 'designer' ceases to be ineffable, in direct contradiction of Christian teaching - admittedly the internal inconsistency of theological 'thinking' has been around for 1,000 years without troubling creationists too much, but they wouldn't want to actually hammer another nail into the coffin...
So we go around the circle - understanding anything about the designer is 'outside the realms of science' because it is taken as read that the 'designer' is the Abrahamaic God, and therefore ineffable and therefore cannot be understood, however we can't actually SAY that the designer is God, and if we actually did try to learn from 'design' we might very well prove (or at least strongly indicate) that the 'designer' can't be God after all, so the proposition must be stated without evidence but with the maximum assurance, with the knowledge that to question logically is to bring the whole edifice down - i.e. somewhat on the nature of a religious belief...
BFR
Murky
Deity
I think the biggest problem for intelligent design is the obvious lack of intelligence of those who are pursuing it as a field of study.
CheScott
Prince
That is not the point of science. Science is the ability to make predictions based on observation and analysis, not to figure out what the truth is. 'Truth' is a philosophical term. A good scientist realize that the 'truth' he has discovered in his predictions and theories based on them, no matter how correct and coherant, will probably be discovered in the future to the result of a greater structure.
Example: Gravity. Newton didn't even bother trying to reason by what process gravitation works. The important thing was his analysis and observation made verifiable predictions about the future. Einstein came along some 200 years later and figured it out and, someday, we'll find out that he was wrong or not entirely right. "Scientific achievement is an inherently iterative process."
And that's the problem with ID, which was pointed out earlier, if you ask ID for a prediction your result is something along the lines of "ERROR: Divide by 0".
This is Mr. Luskin's reply. I don't think there is more I can ask him so I'm going to let the subject drop.
It appears the point of detecting design in nature is to then teach how the design is detected. I find this astonishing that this is called science. Call me crazy, but I always thought the point of discovering new knowledge was to then try to use it somehow.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Alex,
Greetings and thanks for your reply.
You wrote: “Most of what you said in your email is outside of science and is not what I'm interested in discussing. Since my email is regarding "What do we do with ID once we established it's true", I'll simply stick with that subject.”
I reply: OK, that’s fine with me. I was just trying to respond to your comments.
You wrote: “So other than explaining to students how design is detectable, what else is done with it? You said there is so much to study. What exactly is there to study? I am extremely interested in knowing.”
I reply: That’s a great question. We could study just some of the many areas in science where we are detecting design:
- We could learn how we measure information in DNA, and how both specificity and complexity (i.e. not mere specificity, and not mere complexity) is necessary to infer design
- We could analyze the information processing systems of the cell and understand how they form irreducible logic circuits wherein signs and symbols make no sense outside of the complete system and how such systems of languages and codes only come from intelligence.
- We could describe the irreducibly complex properties of molecular machines, how we test for such properties, and why we infer they were designed based upon their comparisons to human-desgigned machines.
- We could look at predictions from ID about macrosystems in biology and ask whether macrosystems interact in irreducibly complex ways that implicate design
- We could study published computational simulations of evolution and ask whether they are truly modeling random mutation and blind selection or whether the programmer has unintentionally (or even worse, intentionally) smuggled complex and specified information into the program. We could try to determine what “natural” processes can produce versus what intelligent causes can produce in such simulations.
- We could ask how we discriminate between designed systems and evolved systems.
- We could look at ID predictions about function for “junk” DNA and study all of the functions that have been discovered in recent years regarding LINE, ALU, ARE, and SINE sequences, and pseudogenes, etc.
- We could look at ID predictions about other once-considered vestigial organs like the thyroid or appendix and ask if these predictions better fit with the expectations of Darwinists or ID proponents.
- We could ask how “common design” might be a better explanation for the data than “common descent” especially regarding Phylogenetic incongruities at the base of the tree of life, within the metazoan phylogeny, within mammalian groups, and many other groups.
- We could study examples of genetic convergence regarding genes coding for eye development, wing development, and limb development and ask whether such convergence is likely to occur under evolutionary processes or whether common design provides a better explanation.
- We could study explosions in the history of life and determine if such mass explosions of new biological information is most consistent with ID or evolution.
- We could study these explosions and use collectors curves to determine if our knowledge of the fossil record is sufficiently complete to determine that there was indeed an explosion.
I can think of many more examples, but you get the picture.
You wrote: "You probably had bad teachers.”
I reply: I hope you are joking, because UCSD was the #1 public university for biology at the time that I attended the school. I did not have bad professors. I was very blessed in that I had some of the top biology professors in the world. Even Russell Doolittle, a foremost expert on protein evolution, could give NO EXPLANATIONS for how the blood clotting system evolved beyond the lame explanation that “because protein A is similar to protein B, we know they evolved from a common ancestor.” No details other than homology? Give me a break!
You wrote: “This leads me to a parallel in another branch in science which is the Big Bang. It's possible that science is extremely limited in what it can tell us about how the Big Bang happened. However, at no point have I heard a scientist simply say, "Ok, we can't learn anything more about that, so we'll stop learning about it, and just let people imagine whatever they want to about how the Big Bang happened."
I reply: I have seen scientists say that we can’t scientifically study what happened “before” the Big Bang.
You wrote: “A much more scientific answer would be "we don't know anything about the designer but I would like to find out."”
I reply: I think that ID proponents take this approach: We’d love to study the identity of the designer scientifically, but at present we aren’t sure exactly how to do that. What we can do is study natural objects to determine if they were designed.
You wrote: “Why would a designer or designers design life"
I reply: Those are interesting questions but they lie outside the scope of scientific inquiry. We could study them but they would be studied through fields like philosophy, not science.
You wrote: “How do you know when you've reached the point that you can safely say that ID is true? Or have you reached that point already?”
I reply: Science never deals in 100% proofs but we do hold tentatively to what we believe is the best explanation. I believe that ID is the best explanation due to the fact that I think it makes better scientific predictions than Darwinism. If you’d like to know more about this, please see my article,
Design vs. Descent: A Contest of Predictions
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/846
Thanks again for your good questions.
Sincerely,
Casey
It appears the point of detecting design in nature is to then teach how the design is detected. I find this astonishing that this is called science. Call me crazy, but I always thought the point of discovering new knowledge was to then try to use it somehow.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Alex,
Greetings and thanks for your reply.
You wrote: “Most of what you said in your email is outside of science and is not what I'm interested in discussing. Since my email is regarding "What do we do with ID once we established it's true", I'll simply stick with that subject.”
I reply: OK, that’s fine with me. I was just trying to respond to your comments.
You wrote: “So other than explaining to students how design is detectable, what else is done with it? You said there is so much to study. What exactly is there to study? I am extremely interested in knowing.”
I reply: That’s a great question. We could study just some of the many areas in science where we are detecting design:
- We could learn how we measure information in DNA, and how both specificity and complexity (i.e. not mere specificity, and not mere complexity) is necessary to infer design
- We could analyze the information processing systems of the cell and understand how they form irreducible logic circuits wherein signs and symbols make no sense outside of the complete system and how such systems of languages and codes only come from intelligence.
- We could describe the irreducibly complex properties of molecular machines, how we test for such properties, and why we infer they were designed based upon their comparisons to human-desgigned machines.
- We could look at predictions from ID about macrosystems in biology and ask whether macrosystems interact in irreducibly complex ways that implicate design
- We could study published computational simulations of evolution and ask whether they are truly modeling random mutation and blind selection or whether the programmer has unintentionally (or even worse, intentionally) smuggled complex and specified information into the program. We could try to determine what “natural” processes can produce versus what intelligent causes can produce in such simulations.
- We could ask how we discriminate between designed systems and evolved systems.
- We could look at ID predictions about function for “junk” DNA and study all of the functions that have been discovered in recent years regarding LINE, ALU, ARE, and SINE sequences, and pseudogenes, etc.
- We could look at ID predictions about other once-considered vestigial organs like the thyroid or appendix and ask if these predictions better fit with the expectations of Darwinists or ID proponents.
- We could ask how “common design” might be a better explanation for the data than “common descent” especially regarding Phylogenetic incongruities at the base of the tree of life, within the metazoan phylogeny, within mammalian groups, and many other groups.
- We could study examples of genetic convergence regarding genes coding for eye development, wing development, and limb development and ask whether such convergence is likely to occur under evolutionary processes or whether common design provides a better explanation.
- We could study explosions in the history of life and determine if such mass explosions of new biological information is most consistent with ID or evolution.
- We could study these explosions and use collectors curves to determine if our knowledge of the fossil record is sufficiently complete to determine that there was indeed an explosion.
I can think of many more examples, but you get the picture.
You wrote: "You probably had bad teachers.
” I reply: I hope you are joking, because UCSD was the #1 public university for biology at the time that I attended the school. I did not have bad professors. I was very blessed in that I had some of the top biology professors in the world. Even Russell Doolittle, a foremost expert on protein evolution, could give NO EXPLANATIONS for how the blood clotting system evolved beyond the lame explanation that “because protein A is similar to protein B, we know they evolved from a common ancestor.” No details other than homology? Give me a break!
You wrote: “This leads me to a parallel in another branch in science which is the Big Bang. It's possible that science is extremely limited in what it can tell us about how the Big Bang happened. However, at no point have I heard a scientist simply say, "Ok, we can't learn anything more about that, so we'll stop learning about it, and just let people imagine whatever they want to about how the Big Bang happened."
I reply: I have seen scientists say that we can’t scientifically study what happened “before” the Big Bang.
You wrote: “A much more scientific answer would be "we don't know anything about the designer but I would like to find out."”
I reply: I think that ID proponents take this approach: We’d love to study the identity of the designer scientifically, but at present we aren’t sure exactly how to do that. What we can do is study natural objects to determine if they were designed.
You wrote: “Why would a designer or designers design life"
I reply: Those are interesting questions but they lie outside the scope of scientific inquiry. We could study them but they would be studied through fields like philosophy, not science.
You wrote: “How do you know when you've reached the point that you can safely say that ID is true? Or have you reached that point already?”
I reply: Science never deals in 100% proofs but we do hold tentatively to what we believe is the best explanation. I believe that ID is the best explanation due to the fact that I think it makes better scientific predictions than Darwinism. If you’d like to know more about this, please see my article,
Design vs. Descent: A Contest of Predictions
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/846
Thanks again for your good questions.
Sincerely,
Casey
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
This is Mr. Luskin's reply. I don't think there is more I can ask him so I'm going to let the subject drop.
It appears the point of detecting design in nature is to then teach how the design is detected. I find this astonishing that this is called science. Call me crazy, but I always thought the point of discovering new knowledge was to then try to use it somehow.
I'd tend to describe that as 'art' myself. Sort of analogous to the practice of palm-reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiromancy
At this point, my opinion is that the only rational approach to continuing this correspondence with them is to get them to peg their protocol for "detecting design" to a repeatable and unerrable methodology, as in "Step 1: do this to this standard". If it's 'secret', be sure to let them know that you don't want to infringe on their IP regarding this, but just want to spread the good news, or to convince your colleages of its veracity.
Otherwise, I'd let it drop, as they've mastered the art of technobabble. It may then become time to educate the public against falling victim to technobabble.
Edit: following their links confirms my opinion of them of using technobable to give the appearance of having a scientific refutation.Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
