The Dawn Treader

More talk about Intelligent Design with TIME's latest cover story.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909-1,00.html

- Brian

Jeff-I like the idea of maybe being on the verge of a tipping point. And I think you are right about the 10-to-1 ration. The vast majority of what I read against ID refuses to take the central claims of ID seriously or would rather attack Christianity in general than the science of ID.

I have always contended that when ID is seen for its scientific rigor, then a "tipping point" may not be far behind.

Tom,

Let's make sure we are all talking about the same thing.

What exactly is intelligent design as you understand it? Note: I am not fishing for snarky remarks here -- I am serious.

I think it will help us to have a productive exchange.

Also, what books have you read written by those associated with ID? That will help me understand your knowledge base.

Jeff:

Haven't read any of the ID books, only what web folks like you have put forth. And that has included some extensive excerpts of Dembski and Behe and others, of course. But then how many books against ID theory have you read?

As for what Intelligent Design Theory states, that seems to be a moving target. The nutshell version is that life is too complex to have occurred by chance and that it therefore must have been designed by some unidentified designer. This is usually "supported" by some combination of irreducible complexity arguments and misstatements of the second law of the thermodynamics vis-a-vis "increasing information."

A more recent tack has been to talk about the ability to differentiate between apparent design and actual design, but that's often more general, minus any actual testable hypotheses.

dopderbeck:The comment about ID'ers bypassing the peer review process, for example, seems particularly to miss the point. If the proponents of ID are correct in their critique of the sociology of the scientific establishment, and I think to a certain extent they are, of course ID'ers have difficulty with the traditional peer review process.Well, if they were right about being unfairly snubbed by the scientific establishment, they should be able to point to the quality science they've done that's been unfairly dismissed. Their inability to do this, with specificity, indicates to me that no such snubbing is going on.As Thomas Kuhn has observed, Science as an establishment hates revolutions, and revolutionaries are right not to expect "objective" peer review of their work.Well, the fact that peer review is difficult to survive is precisely what makes the scientific method work so well. Scientists, like anyone else, are largely hostile to change. So to be able to convince them that a drastic change in theory is in order is quite an accomplishment. It's difficult, but not impossible, so when it happens, you can be reasonably sure that there's good reason to give some weight to the new theory, because it means that the theory is sound enough to win over a largely hostile crowd.Well, that would likely take a fundamental redefinition of what science is, because science currently concerns itself only with those things that can be empirically verified; that, or the existence of God is empirically verifiable, in which case there's no need for faith any more. I doubt you'll find either alternative particularly agreeable.

All:

The bottom line is that ID hasn't yet established itself as legitimate science. At worst, it's not science at all, but religious philosophy thinly disguised as science. At best (giving a great deal more weight than it deserves), it's highly speculative, similar to superstring theory. Either way, it has no business in a high school science classroom.

Tom,

You and Kevin have identified ID as the enemy. It seems to me that the best strategy for winning a war against any enemy is to understand your enemy.

If you and Kevin are as serious and devoted to squashing ID as you seem to be, then it is a huge mistake to rely on bloggers and web sites to understand ID. You need to go to primary sources. Otherwise you run the risk of getting misled -- either by people who are intentionally trying to dupe you, or people who simply don't understand ID themselves.

At a minimum, there are two books you should read.

Intelligent Design

and

Darwin's Black Box

These are the two books most everyone talks about. You will see that the authors discuss two different arguments -- both of which are classified under the heading "ID". There is a third form of ID that we could talk about, but that should be enough for now.

Darwin's Black Box is at the Memphis Public Library -- I just checked. It is at the Central and Highland locations. Your public library does not carry Intelligent Design unfortunately. I think this book does the best job of making the empirical case for design detection -- which is one of your chief critiques of the movement.

Your library does have a book called "Signs of intelligence : understanding intelligent design" edited by William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner. It is a collection of essays. It is currently checked in at the Highlands location. It may not be as strong as Intelligent Design, but it is free and available at the library.

Your library also has a DVD for check out called "Unlocking the mystery of life". It is at Central. You still need the books, but the video is fairly well done and provides a good introduction.

Here is my point.

Do your due diligence first. Understand what ID is -- not just what others think ID is. Then you will be able to develop an effective campaign against ID -- you will know the lay of the land. It will be time well spent.

What books have you read against ID that I should check out? My library probably carries them.

Jeff:

You misunderstand me. I don't want to "squash" ID, I want to sqaush pseudoscience. If ID proves itself out, like every other field of scientific inquiry has to do, then I will welcome it with open arms. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about bypassing all those proving grounds -- essentially cheating the system -- and going directly into schools. And that's simply not prudent at this juncture.

If I were arguing that nobody should be talking about or investigating Intelligent Design, then you'd be right about my need to go to primary sources. But that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm just talking about whether or not ID has played by the rules, and survived the same scrutiny that other theories must in order to gain acceptance. Clearly it has not, and I need not look to primary sources to figure that out, any more than I need primary sources to say that super string theory remains largely hypothetical and untested.

Now, my hunch is certainly that ID is bunk, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it should be taught in schools, which is the subject at hand. All that matters there is whether or not ID is well-established, accepted science, and clearly it is not.

The issue you've ducked is the reflexology/astrology/alternative medicine problem. These aren't well-established sciences either, and the scientific community is at least as biased against these as it is against ID. So why should ID curry special treatment, and these others get left out?

Jeff

I have actually read parts of Darwin's Black Box, and it isn't useful to the question of whether or not the idoea is science. Unless there was mor einformation in the chapters I did not get to, the book was a popularization, like the pieces Hawkings rights, not a hard scientific tract.

But the point isn't about whether or not we believe in ID: the point is that ID has not proven itself as science. Evolution has been through a century of research and testing by literally tesn of thousands of scientists in literally dozens of fields to get wehre it is now -- accepted scientific theory. ID has not done any of that. It doesn't posit a testable theory or testable predictions, it hasn't been rigorously reviewed by peers in any disciplines that I can find. Like I said in my post in resposne to this one:

Think about the situation for a moment. ID is not science. It makes no falsifiable predictions, it provides nothing in the way of a coherent theory, it doesn’t even provide even so much as a method of determining what was and what was not designed. It defines itself not by what it is, but by what it opposes. It is not science in any meaningful sense of the word. And yet, its proponents want it taught as science without having done any of the hard work necessary to earn that place in the science classroom.

Evolution is science. It does make falsifiable predictions. It does present a coherent theory. It has been tested and refined by the research and experimentation of tens of thousands of scientists over the course of more than one hundred years. It has earned its place in the science classroom.

So we have two camps — ID and evolution. The ID camp cannot claim to be science, cannot claim to have any scientific evidence, and cannot claim a serious body of work that supports it. Evolution’s merit has been proven by the constant application of the scientific method. ID advocates claims it should have entry to the same places evolution has entry — science classrooms — based on nothing more than their sense of entitlement based upon their position in society. ID advocates feel entitled to what they have not earned, rewards they have not worked for, and respect they do not deserve — and evolution is elitist?

And thats my problem with it in the classroom -- it isn't accepted science. it has done far less than string theory, and I don't want that taught in science classes, either.

David:

Why do we have to answer the "Kuhnian view?" Why should ID be granted a special exemption from winning acceptance within the scientific community? And even assuming this is advisable (it sure as heck isn't), how then do we differentiate substantive scientific claims that are being unfairly snubbed from groundless claims that are being rightly snubbed? How do we separate snake oil from penicilin?Because of the scientific establishment's well-documented, even stated, a priori institutional bias against any notion of a designer, I don't share that level of trust.As I stated above, their bias isn't against a designer per se but against that which cannot be empirically verified. And that's as it should be since science by definition is the study of those things which can be empirically verified."Science" is just a signifier for a certain method or methods of investigation, and the meaning of that signfier has changed significantly over time and continues to change.First, you can lose the scare quotes around science. Second, while the findings of science have changed a great deal throughout history, the process of science, which is what we're talking about here, has changed very little. And it's this process that ID proponents would bypass.

In any case, I disagree that a designer is excluded a priori. Your beef with science doesn't seem to be that it excludes the possibility of a designer/creator (it doesn't -- it merely goes, albeit often reluctantly, wherever the evidence leads); you seem upset that it doesn't share your assumption (a priori) that a creator/designer must exist.We should first be discussing what "Science" means.Here, at least, we agree. To pick on Jeff for a minute, he chides me for not having a good idea of what ID is, but himself often exhibits a lack of understanding of what science is. So agreeing upon what we mean by science is indeed of great importance.The observations are that certain cellular functions require a precise cascade of chemical reactions; none of these reactions, taken alone or in any other combination than the one in which they presently occur, has any apparent utility to the organism; and without this exact cascade of reactions, the cell would not function.Straw man. In fact, there are innumerable other combinations for which a cell could function. So you're building the case for irreducible complexity from a flawed foundation.

But all of this is, of course, beside the point. We have a method for evaluating scientific knowledge which, while imperfect, has worked remarkably well for literally centuries. To suggest changing this method now would require a darn good reason; it has to go well beyond some vocal religiously-motivated minority having their sensibilities offended. You have to demonstrate a very real systemic problem with the current method, and then demonstrate another method which solves that problem and otherwise works at least as well as the current method.

Nobody has done that or, to my knowledge, has even bothered to try. So I fail to see how any system which allows ID to stand toe-to-toe with evolution wouldn't also allow astrology to stand toe-to-toe with astrophysics, or snake oil to stand toe-to-toe with penicilin.

"I think, is fully answered by a Kuhnian view of the community of science. You haven't really answered the Kuhnian view, other than to restate your original argument."

Are you honestly arguing that all the worlds peer reviewed sceintific journals are conspiring to keep valid science out of their pages because they don't like ID or religion? That they could do that an no one would know or help expose that conspiracy? And while we ar eon the topic - -explain the appearance os string theory matte rin scientifc journals. Traditional physicists hate that theory with a passion. I have seen it referred to as "nonsense form brand dead pot smokers". And yet, string theory gets published and reviewed in peer reviewed journals. ANY new theory attacks some established part fo science. And yet new theories are argued over and debated in the pages of peer reviewed journals all the time. Why would you expect ID to be any different?

" Because of the scientific establishment's well-documented, even stated, a prioriinstitutional bias against any notion of a designer, I don't share that level of trust."

And now we are back to the consipracy. First, you need to prove your assertions friend, becasue their are plenty of religious scientists. The only way this could explain the lack of ID in peer reviewed journals is a conspiracy among literally tens of thousands of scientists. And while we ar eon the subject, please xplain how anti-global warming material gets pubished in peer reviewed journals? the scentific community ios overwhelming convinced of global wamring and that humans play a large part in it, but good science questioning that theory and/or aspects of it get published in peer review journals. So consensous opinions don't seem to have an effect on one of the most politically contentious issues of the day. Again, why would ID be different?

As for your definition of science, well, let me just deal with this one point:

"Why is this theory not falsifiable?"

Simple: it never, ever lays out a definition of irreduciable complexity other than "whatever I think is irreducably complex". As sson as something can be shown to be explained, it can ALWAYS go to the next level down in the complexity chain and say "that is too complex to be designed". There is nothing in the "theory" of his that defines what is and is not encompassed by it. And therefor, there is no test that can possibly prove it or disprove it. There is no way to give the theory to two scientists, lock them in seperate rooms with identical material, and have them come out of those rooms with anything approaching the same conslusions about what part sof the material wihere, based soley on the definition provided by the material, irreducably complex.

"I know it when I see it", which is irreducably complex's only working definition, is not science.

Kevin,

Are you honestly arguing that all the worlds peer reviewed sceintific journals are conspiring to keep valid science out of their pages because they don't like ID or religion?

No. A conspiracy suggests some conscious coordination, and I don't suggest any such thing. But I do believe the reigning paradigm of materialistic Darwinism underlies the decisions of most individual peer reviewers and that the cultural bias within the scientific community against suggestions of design create career risks in publishing ID literature that most peer reviewers are not willing to take. I also believe the bias against suggestions of a designer within the "legitimate" scientific community keeps many young scientists out of the ID world. Being an academic myself (in law, not science), I can understand how important it is to produce the right sort of work to acquire tenure.

Honestly, I don't think playing the "conspiracy theorist" card is a fair move -- it smacks of an ad hominem. What I'm suggesting is simply the Kuhnian view of scientific paradigm shifts.

And yet new theories are argued over and debated in the pages of peer reviewed journals all the time. Why would you expect ID to be any different?
--snip--
So consensous opinions don't seem to have an effect on one of the most politically contentious issues of the day. Again, why would ID be different?

Indeed, why would ID be any different? Why should things like string theory, which might just be crazy nonsense, get published in establishment journals, while ID doesn't? Why can you advance just about any theory in the scientific literature other than one which implies the existence or agency of God? Because the scientific establishment's methodlogical pre-commitment is to exclude God a priori. This methodologial pre-commitement is one of the significant components of the existing paradigm, to use Kuhn's model again, that ID threatens. String theory, various ideas about global climate change, and the like don't challenge that paradigm.

Why is this theory not falsifiable?"

Simple: it never, ever lays out a definition of irreduciable complexity other than "whatever I think is irreducably complex".

When I said "this theory," I was referring to the little model of cellular functioning I provided, not to irreducible complexity generally. I think what I laid out was plenty specific for the falsifiability criterion; Behe lays it out in even more detail with reference to particular biochemical chains. How is the specific model of cellular functioning I mentioned not falsifiable?

As sson as something can be shown to be explained, it can ALWAYS go to the next level down in the complexity chain and say "that is too complex to be designed".

Again, the same is true for any theory based on the falsifiability criterion, particularly naturalistic evolution. The fossil record no longer supports a particular evolutionary pathway for a given organism? Fine, there must be some other pathway. The genetic data suggest different relationships among certain organisms than our evolutionary model previously predicted? Fine, there must be some other way to explain the relationships.

All of this goes to Quine's critique of the scientific method: all obseravations are theory-laden, and the observer always tries to fit the data into her theory.

There is no way to give the theory to two scientists, lock them in seperate rooms with identical material, and have them come out of those rooms with anything approaching the same conslusions about what part sof the material wihere, based soley on the definition provided by the material, irreducably complex.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Are you saying two scientists would never agree that there is no apparent evolutionary pathway by which a given system could have developed gradually? In that case, you're simply wrong. They might not agree that the system is therefore irreducibly complex, because of the dynamic with which you critique ID: they'd probably say the evolutionary pathway must exist but simply isn't yet known. They'd adapt their theory to their observations.

"I know it when I see it", which is irreducably complex's only working definition, is not science.

This would be a nice rhetorical flourish if it weren't so lame. Here, for example, is Behe's definition: "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." (Darwin's Black Box, at p. 39. (One example of an irreducibly complex system is a standard mousetrap -- take away the base, spring, lever or latch, and the trap effectively ceases functioning). Hardly "I know it when I see it."

By the way, have some more critique of irreducible complexity theory. The burden of proof is on the people who posit irreducible complexity, and so far they have failed to meet that burden.

Anyway, scrolling back through this thread, there are several questions I have asked (some of them repeatedly) that remain unanswered. To wit:

Why should we allow ID into high school science classrooms (henceforth "the classroom") but not also allow Flat Earth theory, Young Earth theory, magnet therapy, and reflexology, and who knows what else, back into the classroom?

Related to the above, why should ID qualify for a special exemption, not having to follow the rules that other fields of scientific inquiry are bound by?

What, precisely, are the "central claims of ID" that can be empirically (or otherwise independently) verified?

What, really, has Kuhn got to do with anything?

How do you resolve the snake oil / penecillin problem?

How do you square your proposition that scientists are a priori biased against God with the fact that most of them believe in God?

Excellent thread guys -- maybe the best the Dawn Treader has ever seen.

I think David O. is arguing this point better than I ever could. My argumentation is going to sound a little like a clanging gong. But here goes...

My original points were:

Most people who have strong opinions on ID don't have a clue what it means.

I think that point still stands (even though "don't have a clue" is too snarky and does not apply to any of the commenters on this thread). Tom and Kevin have strong opinions on ID which they consider to be pseudoscience. However, having never read a full length book expounding any of the arguments, they continue to insist that ID is on the same level as snake oil, flat earth, sasquatch, and a host of other silly subjects. Whether Darwin's Black Box or Intelligent Design is popular literature or ready for scientific journals is irrelevant to my point. Either way, you guys have have not personally invested yourselves in reading primary sources -- and rely on the opinions of the scientific establishment as your basis. As David has pointed out, the scientific intelligentsia is hardly a group without pre-committments, paradigms, tenure, politics and host of other relevant factors. The chief precommittment is, God, or any hint of divine agency, is not allowed at the table. Out of bounds. Foul. Penalty flag. Illegal. A priori.

Therefore, you owe it yourselves to go check out a couple of books from the library and get up to speed on what intelligent design really is. It has nothing to the second law of thermodynamics, for example. This current thread, moreover, has not even touched on one of the major areas of I.D. -- it has only touched on the concept of irreducible complexity.

David's point about Kuhn and Popper is extremely relevant. Why?

Because the entire argument I have seen presented here against ID is that "it is not science, so you can't teach it as science".

Premise one seems entirely up for debate.

If you are stuck with an 18th century definition of science, then the argument completely disintegrates.

That is why the discussion about Kuhn and Popper and so forth is completely relevant. Science is not static -- it is 'evolving'. Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)

David:C'mon, Tom, admit that Popper's ideas were revolutionary and that "science" isn't some monolithic, unchanging force.Of course they were, but what I was getting at was that these revolutionary ideas changed the application of the scientific method, but not the method itself. The cornerstones were still in place. And of course science isn't unchanging. What makes it so useful is precisely that it does change, generally in a self-correcting fashion.My point is that the methodology of science excludes reference to a creator / God. Do you dispute that point? Do you think an argument that refers to God or to divine agency (e.g., miracles) can be considered "science"?I don't dispute that at all; what I dispute is your characterization of this as unfair. A God which cannot be observed, measured, detected, or tested cannot be talked about in science, because He (She/It) is immune to the methods of science. And if we had a scientific explanation for a "miracle," it would cease to be miraculous. So I fail to understand why this would even bother you. Now if science were claiming that "God cannot exist," I can see where this would trouble you, but that's not what's happening here. Instead, science is simply saying that matters concerning God are outside its scope, and I don't see why you would disagree with this.So now the ground has shifted. We were arguing, I thought, about whether claims about irreducible complexity could be considered "science" at all.No shift at all. We were arguing this within the context of the current politicization (bemoaned by Jeff) of ID, and that politicization primarily concerns ID in the classroom. So while you indeed have chosen to focus on discussing the relative merits of ID as science, my complaints against ID in this regard are just one facet of my larger argument against allowing it in schools, which was a big part of the topic at hand, at least as I understood it. Jeff mentions schools several times in his post; I mentioned the academic problems in my very first comment; and I started talking specifically about whether or not it belongs there in my comment dated August 8, 2005 10:58 PM.As to whether ID is an "established" science, what "established" even means and why we should care about that, and what should be taught in high schools, I personally would like to leave that for another thread.Odd, considering it's a key part of the topic of this thread, as I've just demonstrated. :)Of course, I'm also pretty sure that evolution, as it's taught in the average public high school classroom, is "science" either. (Without straying too far from the main point, I think there's a big difference between a concept of descent with modifications, which I believe is a "scientific" concept with good support in observable data, and the metanarrative of evolution as an explanation for everything, which is how it's usually taught).My scholastic exposure to evolution hasn't been anything like what you've just described. I think the whole "explanation of everything" accusation is truly a straw man here.The community of science simply is not the purely objective place you want it to be. It's rivalrous, competitive, and entirely human.I'm not sure I've ever claimed otherwise, and if I did, I was wrong. But so what? My complaint isn't that scientists are always right and therefore ID is bunk; my complaint is that ID proponents want to bypass the very proving ground that other fields of science -- even highly controversial ones -- must survive. THAT's my beef.My response is that the rejection of ID by the scientific establishment is not surprising because ID represents a major paradigm shift, so the scientific establishment's hostile response to ID doesn't necessarily prove anything.No, not in and of itself. But the burden of proof remains on ID's proponents. I see no reason why ID should qualify for any special exemptions.The paradigm I'm referring to is that science proceeds without any reference to God / a designer.We could fill many, many pages discussing this, but the bottom line is that I simply fail to see how science could reference God / a designer as anything other than pure speculation and conjecture. Unless you believe God can be tested and measured, which kind of blows the whole faith thing out of the water.I said cosmology has left us with many unsolved mysteries. It has not been nearly as successful at problem solving as, say, applied engineering. There are questions a cosmology based on methodological naturalism seems unable to answer.Such questions exist in every field of science. So what? There's a ton we don't understand about gravity yet, either. Does that mean that science is bad at telling us about gravity?All of which is simply to dilute the argument you and Kevin were making about ID articles not appearing in many established peer reviewed journals.So what? Whether or not ID is unfairly left out of peer-reviewed journals (I contend that it is not), that still doesn't mean we shouldn't take a wait-and-see attitude toward ID, just like we do with string theory or anything else.Do you honestly suggest that there is no such thing as an irreducibly complex system using Behe's definition?No, because that's not the crux of irreducible complexity. What Behe argues is that irreducibly complex systems can't occur naturally, and that's the part I'd dispute. This is only further complicated by the fact that many of Behe's examples of irreducible complexity are not, in fact, irreducibly complex. Plus, there are other problems; for example, Behe ignores the possibility that an efficient biological system could have simplified over time.Our original discussion was about what counts as "science" and whether ID, specifically irreducible complexity, counts.That may have been YOUR original contribution to this discussion, but as demonstrated above, that's not what the conversation was about.

In any case, I bring up this problem in my very first comment, so I can't see how you'd qualify that as me changing the subject.Back to the original question(s): given what we've discussed about the philosophy of science, and given that ID can provide falsifiable models for things like irreducible complexity, why doesn't ID qualify as "science"?That's your original question, but okay: because it doesn't provide a testable model or make consistent falsifiable predictions. Even if you grant irreducible complexity (which is specious at best), that's still an attack against the existing paradigm, rather than positive evidence for an alternative one. Which is what Kevin mentions, when he says that it defines itself not by what it purports, but by what it opposes. Too much of ID is focused on "evolution must be wrong" instead of "ID must be right." Worse, ID starts from its conclusion: there must be a designer; any evidence against a designer must be wrong, or misinterpreted. (To some extent, all scientific fields are guilty of this, but this is what gets shaken out on peer review. Witness punctuated equilibrium.)

To succeed or fail as a science, ID must stand or fall on its own, without even referring to evolution.

Jeff:Either way, you guys have have not personally invested yourselves in reading primary sources -- and rely on the opinions of the scientific establishment as your basis.By this rationale, you have no business whatsoever rejecting Islam, because you haven't personally read the Qu'ran. See the problem here? Your insistence on going back to "primary sources" rings hollow. For that matter, we can't comment intelligently on the Bible, either, because none of us has (to my knowledge) read the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic.The chief precommittment is, God, or any hint of divine agency, is not allowed at the table. Out of bounds. Foul. Penalty flag. Illegal. A priori.And here, it seems, is a key to understanding our disagreement. You (and David) seem to think that it is because of this that ID is rejected by most of the scientific community, when in fact it's rejected because even the non-God, non-supernatural claims it makes don't pan out.Everyone completely ducked point number four. Detecting design is already an established science. Nobody cared until biology was brought into the fray.This is because, quite frankly, until you mentioned it I had never even heard of the science of design detection. That's not to say it didn't exist, but I've never heard of it, which is why I chose to igore your claim that it's an "established science." Perhaps you can fill us in on some mainstream work that others have done, and that have gained widespread acceptance, in this area.Because the entire argument I have seen presented here against ID is that "it is not science, so you can't teach it as science".This misstates the argument. You can't teach it in high school science classrooms because it's not well-established science. It's not even close to being on par with the other stuff -- even evolution -- that gets taught in science classes. If you want to teach it in a philosophy course, or a religion course, fine. Hell, if a university decides that they want to cover it in biology, I don't even necessarily have a problem with that (but then there's my oft-unanswered question about what the lab exercises might look like). But in its current state, it has no place whatsoever in a high school science classroom.

Further, the objection isn't just to teaching silly science, but to teaching highly speculative science. Even if ID weren't mostly silly (which I contend it is, and you and David disagree), it still qualifies as highly speculative, just like string theory (which may turn out to be "silly," but isn't there just yet; it may also turn out to be true, but isn't there yet either). I object to spending any substantial amount of time on highly speculative sciences in the high school classroom.Science is not static -- it is 'evolving'.Well, yeah, but not in the way David seems to be implying. He may be right, and the existing model may not work very well, but he has yet to suggest an alternative model that works at least as well. Until he (or someone else) does suggest such an alternative, all the complaining about the exclusions of the current methodology are just that: complaints, and little more.It needs more models. It is a tad too mathematical to teach to average high schoolers. The concept of specified complexity is a useful start -- but a lot more work needs to be done in detailing how that applies to the anthropic arguments.See, that's exactly the problem. There's all this hubbub about whether or not we should be teaching it, but when push comes to shove, nobody can come to any agreement concerning what it is we would actually teach.

This also points to a problem with our discussion of ID. The high-level math involved requires us to rely on experts, because most of us can't do the math required. To a layperson, it may look great; to a mathematician it may be obvious crap; but there's no simply way of conveying whether it's valid or crap that doesn't involve taking somebody's word for it.

Most of the qualified scientists who have looked at this math think it's mostly crap. Does that automatically make them right? No, but it's not unreasonable to believe that the majority is probably right on something like that. At best, it's inconclusive.In other words, it is more of counter-evidence against the current ruling paradigm of natural selection.Bingo. This goes directly to Kevin's point. ID isn't there to promote anything; it's there to undermine evolution. And that is not how science is done. You don't say, "Here are problems with your theory, therefore it's all wrong." You say "Here's a theory that works better." Yet ID cannot or will not do this. It is, at this stage, primarily a contrarian theory.At this point, I think it offers a useful opportunity to generate good discussion.But again, that's for somewhere other than the science classroom. Just as the theological / philosophical implications of evolution or the big bang are outside the scope of such classrooms.

This, when coupled with David's objections, reveals what I feel is the real objective of the ID movement: what they want is to get God into the classroom. Their history indicates that they don't much care how.

"No. A conspiracy suggests some conscious coordination, and I don't suggest any such thing. But I do believe the reigning paradigm of materialistic Darwinism underlies the decisions of most individual peer reviewers and that the cultural bias within the scientific community against suggestions of design create career risks in publishing ID literature that most peer reviewers are not willing to take. I also believe the bias against suggestions of a designer within the "legitimate" scientific community keeps many young scientists out of the ID world. Being an academic myself (in law, not science), I can understand how important it is to produce the right sort of work to acquire tenure.

Honestly, I don't think playing the "conspiracy theorist" card is a fair move -- it smacks of an ad hominem. What I'm suggesting is simply the Kuhnian view of scientific paradigm shifts. "

So, please, please, please, please explain to me how work opposed to current scientific consensus get published in every other area aside from ID. The evidence simply does not support your contention that controversial ideas do not get published or worked on. Either you are alleging horrible cowardice and incompetence, or you are alleging conspiracy. Simply repeating "bias, bias, bias" without addressing the evidence is nothing more.

"Indeed, why would ID be any different? Why should things like string theory, which might just be crazy nonsense, get published in establishment journals, while ID doesn't? Why can you advance just about any theory in the scientific literature other than one which implies the existence or agency of God? Because the scientific establishment's methodological pre-commitment is to exclude God a priori. This methodological pre-commitement is one of the significant components of the existing paradigm, to use Kuhn's model again, that ID threatens. String theory, various ideas about global climate change, and the like don't challenge that paradigm."

You are arguing in circles. ID doesn't get published in journals, and it must not get published in journals because scientists don't like God. Not, of course, because it doesn't meet the standards. And since ID doesn’t get polished, then scientists must hate God. All I can do is shake my head.

"Again, the same is true for any theory based on the falsifiability criterion, particularly naturalistic evolution. The fossil record no longer supports a particular evolutionary pathway for a given organism? Fine, there must be some other pathway. The genetic data suggest different relationships among certain organisms than our evolutionary model previously predicted? Fine, there must be some other way to explain the relationships."

Again, you seem to be missing the point. What you are describing is falsibility in action. Theory A says X happened because of mechanism Y. Oops, mechanism Y doesn't cause X -- so theory A is replaced with a new theory describing mechanism Z, which explains how X happens. That is not what irreducible complexity does. THIS is too irreducibly complex -- oops, it can be reduced. So now the reduced thing is irreducibly complex! Oh, wait, that thing can be reduced too? Umm, then the result is irreducibly complex! That is not in any form or fashion the same as the situation in the first part of my paragraph, or your example.

"This would be a nice rhetorical flourish if it weren't so lame. Here, for example, is Behe's definition: "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." (Darwin's Black Box, at p. 39. (One example of an irreducibly complex system is a standard mousetrap -- take away the base, spring, lever or latch, and the trap effectively ceases functioning). Hardly "I know it when I see it.""

First, you better come up with a better example than the mousetrap. Its obvious that a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex. I will leave that as an exercise for you, for now, but think hard on it and you might see some problems with your approach.

Second, that definition of IC (I hate typing the whole thing out, so I will use IC) is not falsifiable, because it relies upon "I know it when I see it". It says: the function of X is only Y, and when we remove enough to stop doing X, then it must be irreducibly complex. But it provides no way for anyone to come up with a definition of X that is scientifically sound. even if you can stop something from doing Y, it doesn’t mean that X is then IC, because X may then do some other thing -- and your definition has no way to deal with that. By your definition, X is IC because it stopped doing Y. Period. I hope you can see why that is poor science, and why it depends entirely on the subjective definition of the person claiming something is IC.

Not to mention the fact that there is nothing in IC theory that begins to differentiate between IC that evolved and IC that was designed. it assumes that IC means designed, but, again, a little thought shows that not to be the case. Parts could wither, functions could change, multiple parts could be added, etc - -all things that happen in evolution.

"I'm not sure what you're suggesting here"

See above, but, basically, IC provides no guidance for scientists. There is nothing to prevent two people form coming to completely different conclusions about what is IC, because IC depends on their subjective definition of what the purpose of the material is.

"When I said "this theory," I was referring to the little model of cellular functioning I provided, not to irreducible complexity generally"

Sorry, misunderstood. And, again, the cell could not function the way it does now, perhaps, but that does not mean it could not have other functions. You are arguing, basically, that as soon as you think something no longer does what you think it should do, it is IC. I don't consider that to be a rigorous theory in general.

"My response is that the rejection of ID by the scientific establishment is not surprising because ID represents a major paradigm shift, so the scientific establishment's hostile response to ID doesn't necessarily prove anything."

As did, I might remind you, evolution. And yet, scientists came to accept it. Why could Evolution -- with its paradigm shit that Creation of the Bible was wrong -- get accepted and yet ID cannot?

David:I'm not sure what else to say, Tom. I gave you a specific model of irreducible complexity that is falsifiable. You don't want to engage it.First, what you gave me is one that has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked. Second, it might help if you gave a specific example of a falsifiablitiy criterion that could conceivable be met. Something concrete, like the anti-evolution examples I gave. Instead, you said "If you observed a pathway by which this set of cellular reactions develops through natural selection alone, wouldn't you have falsified the theory?" Except that this is a safe assertion for you to make, because that's not the sort of thing you could "observe." For this falsification to hold, you would have to be able to demonstrate that this reaction developed rationally. And indeed, as critical flaws in Behe's theory have been illuminated, he has never accepted that any of him falsify his theory.

A pre-cambrian mammal is an easily defined, concrete hypothetical discovery that would absolutely eviscerate the theory of evolution. How does this differ from your example? The mere existence of the pre-cambrian mammal would kill the theory, and we wouldn't even have to get mired in discussions of how it got there.

Let's see some similar examples for ID before we go declaring it "falsifiable." Give me an example of an item / fossil / discovery which, if found, would falsify ID. There's no such thing, ergo the theory is non-falsifiable.No, the little model I gave, which you don't want to engage, makes positive statements, and says nothing at all about undirected evolution, except by implication.I've engaged your model by showing you any number of places where it's been debunked, but you don't want to address those. You'd rather have me put together a sloppy summary so that you can attack the summary, rather than address the detailed work. Sorry, I'm not biting.

In any case, what you've given me is a snippet of a model. You've given me no realistic means for testing or even evaluating it. You've provided no testable predictions made by the model. You've merely (falsely or mistakenly) asserted its falsifiability, even to the extent of not caring whether or not it's actually been falsified, and expected me to accept this. Sorry, but I don't.The premise ID starts from, actually, is that if there is a designer, we should expect to be able to detect evidence of design in the natural world.Talk privately to anyone at the Discovery Institute, and they'll have a substantially different take. But so far as it goes, there's nothing wrong with that premise. But given that premise, the next step is we need how to determine how to differentiate between apparent design and actual design. Irreducible complexity doesn't help toward this end. Complex, specific information could conceivably do this if that term is ever adequately defined (which, so far, it hasn't been). As an aside, even among ID proponents there's great dispute as to what's evidence of actual vs. apparent design; I see snowflakes thrown around a lot.

Anyway, my point is that without defining precisely how you would "detect design" (as you might detect radiation with a radio telescope) the design hypothesis you give is vague and abstract, whereas the others you give are very specific.Every new theory has to show why it's superior to existing theories.True, but those theories still have to positively explain something. ID purports to explain how life came about. To do this, it needs to put forth the positive evidence that supports this theory. In other words, it has to give evidence that implies that things DID come about in this way; evidence implying that things DIDN'T come about in some OTHER way is not evidence FOR your theory; it's just a problem with the other theory. Once you've built a solid positive case for design, then and only then can you start comparing the theory to other, competing theories. At least not if you expect to win in that comparison.

The body of evidence for evolution is extensive, including a remarkable fossil record, several predictions which later proved true, etc. ID has none of this to its credit thus far, and doesn't even deserve mention in the same breath as evolution until it gets there.

And as an aside, the only real "controversy" over evolution concerns the mechanics of how it works, not whether or not it happened.BTW, ID doesn't in itself even necessarily say "evolution" is wrong, if we understand "evolution" to mean descent with modifications.Well, I've argued this for a long time, but most ID proponents reject it. What you wind up with is theistic evolution, which is probably where most biologists stand. But that's not what ID really purports, at least not as I've ever seen it advertised. It presents itself as an alternative to evolution, not a supplement to it.If you use "evolution" to mean that the universe arose entirely by chance, ID would stand in contrast to that theoryI don't know of anyone prominent who argues that the origin of the universe is within the scope of the theory of evolution.Thanks for finally acknowledging that "science," as you understand it, a priori must exclude reference to God.Yeah, but big deal. You still haven't explained why this is a problem. Science, by its very nature, has to be neutral on the subject of God. Mind you, not hostile to God -- neutral on it. It's a huge difference. From a scientific perspective, it's irrelevant whether or not God exists, so why bother discussing it? If God exists, science helps us discover how He did what He did. If not, then science just tells us what appears to be true. Either way, its methods remain the same.The problem is that you misunderstand both "faith" and "knowledge." "Faith" doesn't preclude some knowledge, nor does "knowledge" exist apart from some faith.This could easily spiral into another discussion, but why then have efforts to "prove" God's existence been mostly frowned upon in the Christian world? But in any case, maybe I do misunderstand faith. If I have conclusive proof of something, I don't need faith there, do I?I think we all agreed (Tom, I think even you agreed), that even "rational" or "scientific" claims end up relying on assumptions that aren't themselves "scientific" or provable.Well, as far as that goes, but that doesn't make all those assumptions equally worthy of consideration. That's where we differed. I hate that line of argumentation, because it can be used to defend any point of view, no matter how patently absurd it may be. I believe in the Pink & Purple Polka-Dotted Toaster God of the Sky, and if you shared my foundational assumptions, you would too. Since you can't disprove my foundational assumptions or prove yours, you must give my P&PPDTGotS theory every bit as much respect and consideration as your theories. You see how quickly this leads nowhere?What are we left with, then? Nothing but a bias against any reference to God. It's cultural, not "scientific."Yeah, because America, probably the most openly religious industrialized nation in the world, is culturally biased against God. Do you hear yourself?

strong>Kevin

So, please, please, please, please explain to me how work opposed to current scientific consensus get published in every other area aside from ID

Did it already. Repeatedly. Go back and read it. Synopsis: reigning paradigm, hostile culture, young discipline and few young researchers (in part b/c of 1 and 2).

You are arguing in circles. ID doesn't get published in journals, and it must not get published in journals because scientists don't like God. Not, of course, because it doesn't meet the standards. And since ID doesn’t get polished, then scientists must hate God. All I can do is shake my head.

We are shaking our heads together then, because you aren't reading what I wrote. Again, go back and read it carefully before you respond. I never drew the conclusion about individual scientists "hating" God that you attribute to me. What I'm saying is vintage Kuhn.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. What you are describing is falsibility in action. Theory A says X happened because of mechanism Y. Oops, mechanism Y doesn't cause X -- so theory A is replaced with a new theory describing mechanism Z, which explains how X happens. That is not what irreducible complexity does. THIS is too irreducibly complex -- oops, it can be reduced. So now the reduced thing is irreducibly complex! Oh, wait, that thing can be reduced too? Umm, then the result is irreducibly complex! That is not in any form or fashion the same as the situation in the first part of my paragraph, or your example.

Well, it seems exactly the same to me. Explain the difference in a sentence or two. What's the principled difference?

First, you better come up with a better example than the mousetrap. Its obvious that a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex. I will leave that as an exercise for you, for now, but think hard on it and you might see some problems with your approach.

Again, read the prior posts. I discussed this already in response to Tom. I think you're wrong, and the examples I've seen trying to debunk the moustrap example seem utterly silly and unworkable. Regardless, who cares. Do you deny that there are some systems designed by man that are irreducibly complex under Behe's definition?

it doesn’t mean that X is then IC, because X may then do some other thing -- and your definition has no way to deal with that. By your definition, X is IC because it stopped doing Y. Period.

No, that isn't so at all. Let's look at Behe's definition, yet again: "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." If X continues to perform some function (as you say it, "does some other thing") after removing component Y, I would not understand that system to be irreducibly complex. The point is that the system has no effective function after removing any component.

Not to mention the fact that there is nothing in IC theory that begins to differentiate between IC that evolved and IC that was designed. it assumes that IC means designed, but, again, a little thought shows that not to be the case. Parts could wither, functions could change, multiple parts could be added, etc - -all things that happen in evolution.

Again, this misstates the argument. IC doesn't say that any IC system necessarily is designed. Here is Behe's actual argument:

"Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possiblity of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly comlex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin's criterion of failure has been met skyrockets towards the maximium taht science allows." Darwin's Black Box, at p. 40.

So, Behe isn't saying (and I'm certainly not saying) the existence of an IC system ipso facto establishes a designer. We are saying the presence of multiple extraordinarly complex IC systems in every biological organism suggests the work of a designer.

There is nothing to prevent two people form coming to completely different conclusions about what is IC, because IC depends on their subjective definition of what the purpose of the material is.

I don't entirely disagree with you here. As I've said, I agree that IC / ID is a young project, and I'm not so sure it's ready for "prime time" yet. But that's true of almost any scientific project. Lock five physicists in a room and see if they come up with a common model of quantum mechanics, for example. You can't eliminate subjectivity entirely.

You are arguing, basically, that as soon as you think something no longer does what you think it should do, it is IC. I don't consider that to be a rigorous theory in general.

Hopefully I've now clarified that point. That's not my argument.

As did, I might remind you, evolution. And yet, scientists came to accept it. Why could Evolution -- with its paradigm shit that Creation of the Bible was wrong -- get accepted and yet ID cannot?

Well, here in a very, very brief nutshell is my take: in the Englightenment context out of which Darwinism arose, it was presented as a more rational explanation for the observable data than common readings of the Biblical accounts of creation. At the same time, there were movements within Christianity towards "rationalizing" the faith, which resulted in things like German Higher Criticism. There were few Christian scholars who were adequately prepared for these challenges, and Christianity (at least Protestant Christianity in America) fragmented into fundamentalists who retreated into their own worlds and liberals who essentially rejected any role for faith in matters of science. Now, a couple of generations have passed, and there are thoughtful religious / Christian scholars engaging the intersection of faith and science, as well as serious questions about the broader claims of Darwinism.

In short, we are in one particular historical moment with respect to Darwinism, faith and science. If History tells us anything, it tells us that this moment, too, shall pass.

Well, no, not at all. This is your own prejudices. ID CANNOT prove that God was in anyway shape or form involved in the desgin. It can only attempt to prove that some things could not have happened without outside design. That design could have happened by little green alien, or Satan, or Zeus, etc,etc,etc. So, by your defintion, ID is a priori opposed to God.

Huh? ID makes no claim to prove the existence of God -- I never said it does and neither do serious ID proponents. I really don't understand your claim that ID is opposed to God if the designer could be someone or something other than God. ID is neutral towards God -- it neither assumes a certain kind of God exists nor excludes the possible existence of a certain kind of God from the discussion.

David:Anyway, what I've asked you to engage is why the example isn't falsifiable, not whether the example has in fact been falsfified. The question I'm asking is whether you agree the example makes a "scientific" claim, not whether the claim is accurate.The answer to that last question is "no," and I'll explain in more detail below. Essentially, I do not think "falsifiable" means what you think it means.Here is one concrete way to falsify the example I gave: find a living organism that uses a similar system without all the components of the system present. Or, engineer an organism to use the system without one or more of its components. Would you agree that these are falsifiability criteria?Well, those would indeed falsify the specific example you gave, but they would do nothing to falsify the theory, and that's what needs to be falsifiable. All these efforts would prove is that one particular system which you previously thought was IC turns out not to be. It says nothing at all about whether IC systems exist, or far more importantly, about whether the existence of such systems is indeed evidence of design/intent.

No, what you'd need for falsifiability is an example of something, some widget, that would show that IC systems, even fairly complex ones, can come about without design. Or that there's simply no such thing as an IC system at all. I can conceive of no discovery that would prove this (and, apparently, neither can you, based on your examples so far), which is why I claim IC is not falsifiable.

I've given several such examples for evolution. A pre-cambrain mammal would submarine the theory. So would any other wildly-out-of-the-timeline fossil. So would the discovery of some biological feature in one species which exists solely for the benefit of another species. These are discrete, succinct examples of discoveries which, if found, would eviscerate the theory of evolution by natural selection. And those are just off the top of a computer geek's head. :)

These are the types of examples you need for IC to meet the falsifiability criterion, and these are what you have't provided (nor has anyone else to my knowledge, for that matter).I just gave you two, and that's just from off the top of a law professor's head.No, you didn't, as I've just demonstrated.Make your summary clear, neat and concise. Your a smart guy, you can do it.So smart, I even know the difference between "your" and "you're." :) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

First, as demonstrated above, IC is not falsifiable. I've not yet seen a realistic falsifiability criterion for IC. (FWIW, string theory suffers from the same problem.)

Second, IC as I understand it doesn't show that IC systems imply design -- which is what it would need to do -- it assumes this. The existence of IC systems tells us nothing about how those systems came to be.

Third, IC ignores the possibility of subtraction. It claims that IC systems can't have come about naturally because if you take away any parts, they would cease to function; however, they ignore the possibility that such systems evolved not from simpler ones but from more complex ones. We have examples of this in evolution all the time -- biological structures becoming simpler and more efficient. IC seems to assume that evolution is unidirectional, moving only from simple to more complex; but while this is the overall trend, it's not always the way it works.

Fourth, IC is classic "God-of-the-gaps." It posits design as an explanation for the existence of such systems not because that's where the evidence points, but because its proponents can conceive of no other way such systems could have come into being. This gets us back to the problem of being able to differentiate between apparent design and actual design, a skill I have not seen succinctly and satisfactorily summarized.

And these are mostly the objections I came up with off the top of my head. I'm sure there are far more thorough, detailed debunkings out there, if only you care to look.Appeals to authority -- "it's been debunked" -- with a link thrown in are meaningless.Quite the contrary. This is not some simple algebra problem with a concise solution. This is a complex matter about which neither of us is a subject matter expert. As such, we're compelled to appeal to authority. Such appeals in and of themselves do not prove anything conclusively, but they can give us a pretty good idea of where the evidence lies, what the prevailing wisdom is, and what the issues are.

If 999 biologists believe ID is bunk and 1 biologist believes it isn't, that doesn't make the 999 right, but it certainly makes the 999 the safer bet. And if the 1 is right, some of the 999 will eventually come around. If Kuhn is right (and you seem to love little more than you love Kuhn *grin*), then a lot of them will come around suddenly in a seismic shift. But you still haven't explained why we should jump ship before they do.I take it you've actually spoken with some of those folks and know this first-hand?Google up Philip Johnson and the "Wedge strategy." It's not exactly a secret. Here's a starting point:If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this,...We call our strategy the "wedge." pg. 91-92, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds" Phillip Johnson, 1997 ... Johnson acknowledges that the goal of the intelligent design movement is to promote a theistic and creationist agenda cast as a scientific concept.Unless, of course, you want to argue that Johnson is unimportant to the DI or the ID movement.Let me direct you to DI's own website, That's their official, on-the-record stuff. I used the word "privately" for a reason. With the notable exception of Johnson, of course, who makes no bones about his agenda here. I'm genuinely surprised you weren't aware of this.I don't contend that ID is a mature discipline.Well, if we can agree on that -- and it seems we do -- then we should be able to agree on the political aspects of this long, drawn out thread. Immature disciplines have no place in basic science classrooms. Once you start getting into the nitty gritty in college, then maybe.Agreed. And I wouldn't support putting any of them in a high school science classroom.It says, "the organization and complexity of this moustrap appears designed. What is the most plausible explanation for that appearance of design?"But until it comes up with independently verifiable explanations for this, it has no answers, only questions. That, to me, makes it more philosophy than science.However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." I don't know what's so "neo" about that. I don't think anyone prominent has ever suggested that there's some "purpose" to the mechanisms at work. And in any case, the existence of bad mutations (and the fact that they pretty badly outnumber the "good" ones) supports the idea that the change over time is undirected. If we saw only positive changes in organisms over time and never negative ones, that would certainly be evidence against undirected evolution.There's plenty of controversy, or at least there should be, about the non-falsifiable claim that everything arose solely through random processes.Now look who's playing the non-falsifiable card! And the words "everything" and "solely" make you tread dangerously close to straw man territory. Let's not confuse abiogenesis with evolution here. But you want a concrete example? Suppose tomorrow we all started developing gills, and the next day we had a major flood. That would certainly imply direction and would pretty much eviscerate the random-processes-only theory.If God or a designer has acted in history, I can't see any principled reason why the scientific method can't be used to examine the observable data for things that suggest his / her / its actions.It may surprise you to learn that I agree with you here. I've long argued that if we have a personal God who actively intervenes in our world, then we ought to be able to detect those interventions in some meaningful way.We don't limit science in this way with respect to the actions of other intelligent beings -- we examine archeological remains for evidence of human activity, and fossil rocks for evidence of animal activity. Why is seeking evidence of a designer's activity any different?Here's where you lose me. Why is this different? Because we know, beyond doubt that humans and animals exist. We can't say this about God or a designer. At best, we have to guess at it. At worst, we assume it (one way or the other).

Put it like this: Does it make sense, when conducting a scientific inquiry, to consider the effect Zeus had on the process? Why or why not?

So while I agree that if God exists and intervenes, we ought to be able to detect this, it's a big step to say we should assume [G/g]od[s] exist[s]. The question of whether this is true is beyond the capabilities of science to answer. Because of this, science must remain neutral on the matter.I don't think efforts to "prove" God's existence have been frowned on in Christianity. There's a long history in Christianity of efforts to come up with logical "proofs" of God's existence (e.g., the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the moral argument, etc.).Mea culpa, although the fact that people have tried it doesn't take away from the fact that many others claim such efforts are misguided. "Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test," and all that.I would argue that, given our epistemological limitations as human beings, there's no such thing as "conclusive proof" of anything.True enough, but there's still such a thing as "close enough."Yes, but I don't think anyone but sophomore college philosophy majors seriously argue it that way.Careful, now! Our gracious host has made similar arguments on a number of occasions. :)I was referring to the culture of the scientific establishment, not the culture at large.If the establishment (at least in America) is biased against anything, it's not God, but rather the idea that science can talk meaningfully about God (or Allah, or Vishnu, or whatever).But I won't ask why the elite few in the scientific establishment get to set the agenda for the rest of us mortals concerning things like the education of our children and the use of our tax dollars, because that would open another Pandora's box entirely.....There's that elitist card again. Never mind that you seem to have been arguing all along that ID should get more respect than it has earned so far; it's the ID opponents who are elitist.

Anyway, they get to do this for the same reason that the elite few in the military-industrial-intelligence establishment get to decide for the rest of us mortals when and why we go to war, and how the money for such war will be spent. Because they have far more information and subject matter expertise on such matters than we do.

Do you honestly think (for example) what's healthy and what's not should be decided by a vote? Do you really want to see "should we nuke Iran" as a ballot initiative? We rely on experts in such matters because it's prudent to do so.

If you want to know how your car works, who do you ask, John Q. Public, an accountant, or an engineer who designs cars for a living? If you have any sense in your head, you'll ask the engineer.

So why, on the question of whether or not evolution is valid science and worth teaching in the classroom, are you willing to put the word of a bunch of lawyers, PR folks, and political wonks?

(By the way, have a look at the the list of fellows at the Discovery Institute. The list is overwhelmingly PR people, attorneys and political science wonks, with a few philosophers and economists thrown into the mix. I clicked on every single fellow for whom they have a bio -- 32 in all -- and there's not a single biologist on the list. Doesn't this raise even the slightest red flag for you as to their credibility on this issue?)

Wow, Tom commenting at 3 am, me at 4am. Grown men posting comments in the middle of the night. I love the passion for a good discussion -- though I hate the droopy eyelids ;-)

Tom said: "By this rationale, you have no business whatsoever rejecting Islam, because you haven't personally read the Qu'ran. See the problem here? Your insistence on going back to "primary sources" rings hollow. For that matter, we can't comment intelligently on the Bible, either, because none of us has (to my knowledge) read the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic."

Tom, nice debate move. As I recall, you weren't too pleased when I criticized Islam's historical accuracy without reading the Qu'ran myself. I know you and I both care about words and actions being consistent. To be consistent, if you are going to criticize me, then you need to criticize yourself. I would suggest that you do your due diligence first before making bold claims about what Behe is arguing and saying, and how poor his examples are and so forth. From someone who has read the primary material, I can tell you that you and Kevin don't understand Behe's argument, and you don't understand Dembski's model. Don't focus on what the proponents of ID are saying – go to the original sources and read them. They are at the public library.

Once you grasp it and can articulate it, then David won't have to cut and paste from Darwin's Black Box to keep you guys from drifting off target.

Googling, blog surfing, link dumping … these are not going to work if you want to have a good nuts and bolts discussion about ID.

Tom said: "This is because, quite frankly, until you mentioned it I had never even heard of the science of design detection. That's not to say it didn't exist, but I've never heard of it, which is why I chose to igore your claim that it's an "established science." Perhaps you can fill us in on some mainstream work that others have done, and that have gained widespread acceptance, in this area."

Start with SETI. SETI attempts to detect intelligence through pattern matching. They set up explanatory filters to parse radio signals and filter out noise and hone in on complex, specified information.

There are other examples: archaeology, cryptography, forensics. Each is interested in intelligent agency in one fashion or another.

David said: "I don't entirely disagree with you here. As I've said, I agree that IC / ID is a young project, and I'm not so sure it's ready for "prime time" yet. But that's true of almost any scientific project. Lock five physicists in a room and see if they come up with a common model of quantum mechanics, for example. You can't eliminate subjectivity entirely."

I would agree with David here. I am not sure it is ready for "prime time" either. Scientific revolutions take time. What we are seeing is the first phase of a paradigm shift. We see anomalies with the old model. We see lots of political rhetoric. We see a promising new paradigm emerging, but not yet completely formed. Patience is required. So is clarity. I see a lot of "Behe said this" … followed by "no he didn't, he actually said this" … even within this thread.

Once we get everyone talking about the same thing, we might actually make some progress.

Why is this particular area of discussion hotter than string theory? Because of its worldview implications. Arguments for design do not offer 100 % bomb-proof certainty that God exists – but they obviously challenge pure naturalism at one of its core tenets.

BTW, it was no easy shift from the universe is static and infinite to the universe started with a Big Bang. That has worldview implications too. Look how long it took to get agreement there. Overturning Newtonian physics with relativistic physics was no small feat.

I think these different schools of thought are worth exploring. One thing Tom and I have agreed upon in the past is a high school level, philosophy of science course. Things like presuppositions, logic, proof, falsifiability, testable models, Kuhn, Popper and so forth would be fair game. It would promote good thinking and use of logic.

Food for thought.

Anyway, I'm headed to DC for a wedding, and won't be back until Monday, so it looks like I'm going to have to let you two have the last word on this.

Also, remember that I'm normally an hour behind you, so I was posting at 2 AM, not 3 AM. :)

Tom and Kevin,

Sorry -- but your sources of knowledge on ID have let you down. Your presentation of what you think ID is badly misses the mark. Since you show no interest in reading the work of people you disagree with, I make a motion that we close our discussion.

We could all use more sleep. :-)

As previously stated, like you, I would like to see ID mature. More models. More research. More researchers. More popularizers. I know it will. It has passed the tipping point now.

The revolution is underway. I don't think ya'll will have to wait too long for it to get all the T's crossed and I's dotted.

FWIW, I will pursue my friend with the PHD in biology who teaches in college to find out how receptive the current scientific community is toward design. He is, after all, on the playing field – while the rest of us are merely spectators.

Thanks for the massive contribution from all involved in this great discussion. I believe we are up to 50 pages of comments. Unbelievable. What passion.

David, your talent in argumentation really showed on this thread. I would hate to face you in court. Now, on the golf course maybe I would have a better shot at beating you :-)

Cheers!

All in favor say Aye. ( a thunderous aye is heard ).

All opposed say Nay. (only the sound of crickets)

So moved. The motion carries.

Thank you gentlemen. I'll surely host more discussions -- and Tom and Kevin have at least four open threads at www.leanleft.com on intelligent design if any readers want to keep going.

I echo David's comment. No one is admitting defeat by closing out this thread. At some point, a thread simply becomes unmanageable, and we all need to walk away and come back later with fresh ideas.

Thanks especially for the tone. I like a spirited debate sans the $#%#$% words and snippiness. Excellent stuff.

Tom,

I am glad you enjoyed your weekend. We went to Pennsylvannia -- again. The heat index was over 100 degrees. Pretty miserable conditions for an outdoor birthday party, but we survived.

Re: "No matter what we say about ID (shy of maybe "OK, so there's something to it," which we're not at all likely to say), you claim that we're not properly understanding ID, and yet you refuse to correct us and actually tell us what it does state."

True statement. This thread was a test of sorts. I wanted to see if you were genuinely interested in understanding what ID is. You post about it often on your blog. This topic seems of great interest to you. I thought I presented a good idea to you -- spend the time to learn all you can about the other side. Call it reconnoitering. Call it due diligence. Since you agreed with Kevin that this was going to be the key issue in 2008, it seems like a no brainer -- go to the library, check out a book, and read it. Be informed. Understand your opponent.

Don't come back with ID is not the opponent. No one is claiming reflexology or alternative medicine is going to be the unifying issue for the republicans in 2008. But I know two poli-bloggers who say that ID is. ID is very much in your cross-hairs.

If you were willing to show me a hint of being genuinely interested in learning about ID, I would be more than happy to get into a lengthy discourse on the particulars of the design paradigm. Why? Because I'd know you were genuinely interesting in learning more, even if you disagreed with it. The first step is being genuinely interested is willing to admit you might be wrong. The second step is humbling yourself to read the other guy's original argument.

Instead, your true agenda came out. To win.

You are content to rely on knowledge sources you already agree with going in.

I have read Behe. I have read Miller's alleged debunking of Behe. I have read Behe's debunking of Miller's alleged debunking of Behe. I have read opinions of those who claim ID is pseudo-science and their reasons for calling it pseudo-science. In 99 % of the cases, their arguments attack caricatures of ID.

I have found that the only people who will consider ID are the ones who don't hold philosophical pre-committments against ID. I am left to read their opinions. I had hoped you would be different but I was wrong.

Fortunately, there are those who are not locked into metaphysical naturalism who understand ID and are willing to help advance the discussion. They don't walk in lockstep with everyone else -- so they are helping to advance the discussion. One such person is Dr. Robin Collins whom I quote in a recent post.

As a thought exercise (and maybe the topic for a follow-up post), you might consider what specific discoveries would lead you to doubt or reject ID. I've listed several such possibilities for evolution in this thread, so you can see what I mean.

I have thought about it. One would be to discover a natural process for generating CSI. But I will try to think of more.

BTW, check out the latest post on Dr. Collins. He may have a solution to ID.

Jeff:Since you agreed with Kevin that this was going to be the key issue in 2008, it seems like a no brainer -- go to the library, check out a book, and read it.Well, I think you misunderstand here. From a purely political perspective, ID by itself isn't the issue. Requiring ID to be taught in public schools is the issue. This is something that's being advocated purely for political and religious reasons, not scientific ones. When pressed, even the proponents of ID (such as yourself and David) admit that it isn't really ready for prime time yet. As such, it is at best on a level with superstring theory, which itself is far too speculative to have any place in a typical high school science class.

There's a second, separate argument here that we're conflating with the political concerns, and that is whether or not ID constitutes legitimate science at all, and it is here that we more vehemently disagree. But from a political perspective, I don't much care about that. I care about that out of a respect for science, which is a completely separate concern.

As to that latter question, it doesn't much matter how many primary sources you or I read, because these sources are popularizations, not rigorous explanations of the theories, and in any case neither of us has the necessary background in biology to understand them at anything other than a basic level.

From that perspective, ID simply is not worth considering a legitimate science until it gains some wider acceptance within the scientific community. All appeals to Kuhn aside, if there's something to ID, this will happen; perhaps slowly at first, but it will. Until that happens, though, I simply cannot see giving ID any respect that it hasn't earned the hard way -- just like any other new scientific idea would have to.

That said, if some group of scientists (or even religious philosophers) wants to continue down the path researching ID, by all means they should go ahead and knock themselves out. Just don't whine and complain that the deck is stacked against them -- it isn't, at least not any more than it is against any dramatically different paradigm. Continue your work, and when you have something solid, convince your peers. I don't see why this is asking a great deal, or why ID should be given a pass on this process. I've asked several times, and nobody has even acknowledged the question.Instead, your true agenda came out. To win.I could say "pot, meet kettle" here, but in fact that isn't my intention at all. As it turns out, I do want to understand ID, just not in the way you think I do. I don't care about the nitty-gritty details of the theory; I'll leave that to qualified experts to sort out. I want to understand why ID feels entitled to bypass important scientific review processes that any other field of inquiry must undergo. I want to understand why ID proponents feel that it is the people who refuse to grant the special treatment who are the "elitists," rather than the ones who are demanding the special treatment (i.e., the ID proponents themselves). I want to understand why ID is being foisted upon everyone else by PR and politics (I noticed you didn't comment on the Discovery Institute's makeup, and wondered why not), rather than through normal scientific channels. Those are the things I want to understand.In 99 % of the cases, their arguments attack caricatures of ID.Again, pot meet kettle. The vast majority of critiques of evolution are straw-man attacks. But apparently that's fair play...I have found that the only people who will consider ID are the ones who don't hold philosophical pre-committments against ID. I am left to read their opinions. I had hoped you would be different but I was wrong.See above; my main beef is giving special treatment to ID that other fields of scientific inquiry don't get. Why this is a bad thing, I do not know. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

If it makes you feel any better, point me to a "primary source" on ID, and I'll read it. But I don't accept the Behe document as a primary source, not because of anything I've read about it or anything anyone has said about it or any of the debunkings of it. I reject that one because of how it bills itself: not as a case for ID, but as a case against Darwinian evolution. (Heck, just look at the title and subtitle of the book.)

In this context, I'm not interested in yet another creationist critique of evolution. I want to see a positive case for ID. Maybe the Dembski book is what's appropriate. Maybe there's some other, more technical article out there that can give detailed insight into how to differentiate between apparent and actual design. You tell me, and I'll do my best to look at it with an open mind.One would be to discover a natural process for generating CSI.As I already explained to David above, this is insufficient. Never mind the lack of a scientifically rigorous definition of precisely what constitutes "complex, specific information." First, we've discovered just such a process; problem is, it takes millions of years and can't be replicated in a laboratory. Second, even assuming we did replicate such a process in a lab, what's to stop design proponents from shifting the debate from "the CSI was designed" to "the process which resulted in the CSI was designed." The design focus shifts from the end product to the process, but I suspect design proponents would still infer design.

In fact, I don't even have to suspect anything, because computer models have indeed randomly generated such complex information, and ID proponents reject this saying that the program itself was designed and that this therefore proves nothing.

So how, then, could one ever discover such a process that ID proponents such as yourself would readily accept?

No, what you need is something more tangible. Not a process that would falsify the theory, but a discovery that would falsify it. For example, the discovery of some widget X (a thing, not an abstract process) would run directly counter to design theory and prove it wrong. Analogous to my oft-repeated-but-apparently-still-not-understood pre-Cambrian mammal example for evolution. (That is, if you find a mammalian fossil that dates before the Cambrian, it doesn't matter how it got there -- the process is unimportant; according to the theory, it should exist at all.)

As a side note, I do find a bit of humor in how you chide me for my poor understanding of ID, and then promptly demonstrate a poor understanding of falsifiability. :)