Primer on ID

It’s very apparent to me that the Darwinists that have come to “converse” with me on this blog need a primer on what ID is and what it isn’t.  So, I’ve gone and found one for them to use.  See Luskin’s reply to a student, and stop with the strawmen.

Advertisements

33 responses to “Primer on ID

  1. Dude. Seriously? You’re invoking Casey Luskin?

    That doesn’t bode well.

  2. That’s an ad hominem attack. Regardless of how you feel about him in any respect, his arguments stand on their own merit. Take this as a warning.

  3. No its not ad hominem. Luskin’s character was not attacked. try again.

  4. Alrighty then.

    Let’s look at one particular thing that I always find fascinating about the IDCH:

    You asked: “Do you think an atheist can believe in Intelligent Design?”

    I reply: Yes. ID proponents have been firmly consistent in explaining that ID doesn’t try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer. My personal view is that the designer is God, but that’s not a conclusion of ID, that’s my personal religious view. I know ID proponents who do not believe in God, so it seems that it is possible to accept ID but not have any particular religious viewpoint.

    (Casey Luskin, from the page you linked)

    How do you (and I’m asking in all seriousness) reconcile that with

    “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

    Exactly how would an atheist believe in the “Logos theology of John’s Gospel”? There’s just no rational way to reconcile those two statements. Quite frankly, if I were going to choose whose definition would be more accurate, it would seem that as a founder and leading light of ID, Dr. Dembski would be in a better position to comment. This is why I find it rather odd that you would invoke Luskin’s definition.

    Perhaps it would be helpful if the ID crowd got on the same page regarding the definition of ID.

    On the related but separate topic of the goals of the IDCH, I’d be interested in your thoughts on this:

    * Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity,
    * Phase II: Publicity & Opinion-making, and
    * Phase III: Cultural Confrontation & Renewal.

    Is this a typical set of goals for scientists? I’ve heard not, but I admittedly only usually get one side of this. Perhaps you have a different view? Do scientists ordinarily engage in Phases II and III above? If not, should they?

    Oddly enough, the IDCH’s reputation within the scientific community with which I’m familiar is one of not actually doing any Scientific Research, but really hammering on the other points above. Am I being fed inaccurate information?

    Would you be so kind as to point me to the research papers supporting ID?

    If you are familiar with me, you know I’m not by any means an ID supporter. I am however, open to evidence. I’m fairly literate, and I can do some background research when necessary, so do feel free to point me to the primary research papers, rather than the pop-sci versions.

  5. Janie:

    * Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity,
    * Phase II: Publicity & Opinion-making, and
    * Phase III: Cultural Confrontation & Renewal.

    Is this a typical set of goals for scientists? I’ve heard not, but I admittedly only usually get one side of this. Perhaps you have a different view? Do scientists ordinarily engage in Phases II and III above? If not, should they?

    Publicity is a necessary element for any up-start theory. ID does not enjoy the advantages that come with advocating mainstream ideas.

    Given the fact that much opposition to ID is culturally grounded, responding to non-scientific objections is a necessity.

  6. How do you (and I’m asking in all seriousness) reconcile that with

    “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

    That’s Dembski’s non-scientific view. He is as much entitled to it as are Dawkins, PZ Meyers and others to their non-scientific views.

  7. Mr. Bradford,
    Your replies were stuck in the moderation queue for some reason (haven’t you commented here before?) I’ve approved them and they should go through now hopefully.

  8. Rich,
    It most certainly is an ad hominem attack. Janie is attacking the person of Casey Luskin and implying that his arguments have no merit simply because of who he is.

    Janie,
    I’m floored that Darwinists feel that ID scientists are not allowed to have personal beliefs, yet Ken Miller is free to talk about god all he wants.

    Further, the specified goals are not what I would have wanted. I would have wanted to simply stick to the science. The problem, however, is that the Darwinists are not doing science and therefore, in order to gain a foothold in the scientific establishment, they’ve created a situation where such measures are necessary.

  9. Mr. Bradford,
    Your replies were stuck in the moderation queue for some reason (haven’t you commented here before?) I’ve approved them and they should go through now hopefully.

    I don’t believe I have. I accidently came across your blog while reading a blog entry at UD. I’ve included your blog in a list of places for me to visit.

  10. I must be confusing you with someone else then. Welcome.

    First comments go into the moderation queue until they are approved, so that’s why your comments didn’t show up. Now that I’ve approved those, your comments should show up as this one did.

  11. Ok, fair enough. Assuming for the sake of argument that publicity is vitally necessary for scientific research in a hostile environment, and that this is honestly the only objective of the goals set forth above (a proposition of dubious essence at best), I still cannot help but notice that neither of you has addressed the science of the ID movement.

    This is, after all, the crux of the question – in a discussion of scientific merit, it would seem to me that the science should be the premier issue, and that the other goals should be secondary to advancing the science. So the PR is in place and it is your contention that the PR is integrally necessary to get the science out there, but where is the science?

    No matter the religious/non-religious interpretation (a point only granted for argument’s sake) or the unjust necessity of the advertising of the product, after all is said and done there still must be a product.

    Am I being clear enough? Where is the product? Show me the science.

    I don’t want to know why evolution sucks, I don’t care about the moral decay of society in regards to this discussion. I don’t need to hear about gaps in the fossil record, why dinosaurs can’t possibly have evolved into birds, or how dogs don’t give birth to cats.

    Show me the positive signature of Design, undeniable, scientific, and specifically attributable only to an Intelligent Designer.

  12. Janie: Show me the positive signature of Design, undeniable, scientific, and specifically attributable only to an Intelligent Designer.

    There is no point at setting the bar higher than exists for mainstream science unless you have a non-scientific reason for opposing ID. Science is unable to provide us with “undeniable, scientific, and specifically attributable” atelic pathways to life. In fact there are no undeniable pathways of any type. But science is in the business of providing empirical evidence that supports or falsifies related hypotheses and their encompassing theories.

    There are different schools of thought on approaches to research programs. One of the sites I write for- Telic Thoughts- has put forth the front loading concept. If you are unfamiliar with it you can peruse these related entries:

    http://telicthoughts.com/category/front-loading/

    Recently Mike Gene’s book The Design Matrix was published. He goes into some detail on different ideas related to investigating ID but I’ll focus on one that recently received attention there. Mike indicated that cytosine deamination may show how a specific biological phenomenon can direct front loading. The following comments relate to the issue:

    http://telicthoughts.com/nick-matzke-semi-reviews-the-design-matrix/#comment-169039

    http://telicthoughts.com/nick-matzke-semi-reviews-the-design-matrix/#comment-169213

    http://telicthoughts.com/nick-matzke-semi-reviews-the-design-matrix/#comment-169314

    Research which produces data supportive of ID friendly theories are needed to establish ID as part of mainstream science. There are research projects currently underway but noone can predict experimental outcomes in advance. ID is new to the landscape and offers interesting possibilities for those not frightened by metaphysical side issues.

  13. Darth Piglet

    That would be complexity. Complexity is abundant everywhere in nature, like the DNA code for example, which works like a language and carries a specific function. These two points illustrate this well:

    a) ID shows that something needs to be designed by an “intelligent being” in order to serve a function.

    b) It has been demonstrated that every complex object that is designed to serve a function requires the presence of an external creator.

    These are simple FACTS that Darwinism dogmatically refuses to consider, and yet they think they are being scientific.

  14. Mr. Bradford,
    Your comment didn’t appear right away due to the number of links – I believe. I went ahead and approved it, but that’s why there was a delay – I just got to it (I was busy today).

  15. Sorry, professor smith, it’s not ad hominem.

    “Dude. Seriously? You’re invoking Casey Luskin?

    That doesn’t bode well.”

    where is the attack against the man? Perhaps you are inferring/ speculating. [ed’s note: redacted for violation of moderation policy]

    So it doesn’t bode well, does it?

  16. Yes Rich, that is ad hominem. It is discounting the argument by attacking who wrote it. You are dead wrong on this.

    Also, in keeping with the moderation policy, I suggest that you support your assertions of Mr. Luskin’s character. If you can not support your assertions, then they will be redacted in keeping with blog policy.

  17. You are most welcome to consider the volume of peer reviewed scientific publications by the DI, vs. there endless press releases denoucing “Darwinism”.

    http://badidea.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/casey-luskin-loves-lying-intelligent-design-flails-as-it-fails/

    Read the quote again.

    “Dude. Seriously? You’re invoking Casey Luskin?

    That doesn’t bode well.”

    No argument was dimissed, but a statement was made that it doesn’t bode well, which is an inference with high statistical confidence.

  18. You are most welcome to consider the volume of peer reviewed scientific publications by the DI, vs. there endless press releases denoucing “Darwinism”.

    Does that same logic apply to Richard Dawkins and others whose denouncements of ID exceed their scientific publications?

  19. Of course it does. You are perhaps unaware of Dawkins early publishing record? Compare that to the *whole* output of the DI.

  20. Compare that to the *whole* output of the DI.

    The DI is funding their own research projects. They do not have access to the freebies available to mainstreamers.

  21. “The DI is funding their own research projects”

    Oh really? What are they working on at the moment? How are the labs doing? Perhaps if they;’re strapped for cash they could do less PR and more research?

    Describe an ID experiment to me, I’m genuinely interested.

  22. Describe an ID experiment to me, I’m genuinely interested.

    Why not do your own research? What you are interested in is criticism which is predictable in its content.

  23. I’d love to do some research. Just give a hypothesis, a positive argument for design. “If things are designed then…”

    Don’t give me a negative argument against “darwinism” but a positive argument for design. If you can, the scientific community will get onboard. Honestly.

  24. Don’t give me a negative argument against “darwinism”

    I don’t give negative arguments against “darwinism.” Try getting out of the cliche mode.

    but a positive argument for design. If you can, the scientific community will get onboard. Honestly.

    The science commnunity gets on board following a series of empirical results. Honestly.

  25. Still waiting for a positive argument for design.
    My Bunsen burner is on (the wavy, yellow flame, obviously) but it’s still costing me money. One you give me one (I’m sure there are many) I can get these scientific enterprise underway. I may even go for that big Templeton grant that was out there.

    You’re devoting a lot of time to this ID thing, surely you can give me a positive argument?

    Thanks in advance!

  26. Still waiting for a positive argument for design.

    Did you bother to read the posted links. Thanks in advance!

  27. Why don’t you just give me a really good link.?Or boil it down into a paragraph even I can understand?

    My Bunsen burner is still on. We wouldn’t want it to look like you are ducking the issue.

    Fond regards!

  28. Rich, the links are clear to see. Do you know what cytosine is? Cytosine deamination? Front Loading? Follow the links and understand the reasoning associated with these physical phenomenon. Are you trolling?

  29. Ohh. Front loading! I know all about that. PEH! Directed panspermia, maybe! Can we do this one, puh-lease? I’ll help with the experimental design.

  30. I’ll help with the experimental design.

    It is hard to believe, isn’t it?

  31. Rich,

    where is the attack against the man? Perhaps you are inferring/ speculating.

    If it is not ad hominem then it is poisoning the well. Really though, it is the former. The sense is that it doesn’t bode well because the arguments must be wrong due to the source.

    I’ll note that you backed away from your assertions so to the character of the man you attacked, but in true Darwinist fashion you did not have the courage to retract your statement.

    Also, there are positive arguments for ID. Spend some time educating yourself. In fact, you could stop using ad hominem attacks against Luskin and start actually reading the links above to get an idea of what those arguments are.

  32. “well poisoning”, quickly followed by “but in true Darwinist fashion”. To quoque?

    There are positive arguments for ID, just you haven’t stated any. Bunsen burner is still on, guys.

  33. No, not “To quoque?” [sic]

    Anyway, positive argument have been stated and they abound on the web. I’ve given links to some discussion which will point you to positive arguments in the OP alone. You have demonstrated that you are completely unwilling to even look at them. Is this the open-mindedness that you would claim to have? To me, you’re just another true-believing Darwinist who actually admits that he can’t be bothered to find out if it is right or not before simply claiming victory. If you won’t read anything about ID and will continue to post strawmen, then don’t expect me to allow you to continue to violate the moderation policy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s