The Fight For Academic Freedom at Ball State University

_{Donald McLaughlin

September 12, 2013

Academic Freedom, Atheism, Darwinism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

By now, I’m sure most of you have heard about the academic freedom controversy surrounding Ball State University and the investigation of physics professor, Eric Hedin (pronounced he-deen). Discovery Institute’s Evolution News and Views has published several stories over the past few weeks, most notably this, this, this and this. (Articles on the entire saga can be found here.) Today, the DI launched a new web-page so you can help get the message of academic freedom to the BSU Board of Trustees. If you believe in academic freedom, like I do, then please take a look at the page and add your voice. The kind of treatment foisted upon Prof. Hedin is what you might expect in a totalitarian regime, not an institution of higher learning in the United States of America.

Comments

Mutual feelings; I've ignored your comments for months, KF/GEM.
"there are many billions of cases in point [of FSCO/I]" - KF/GEM
Not thousands or millions, but billions even?! :P Well, just one successfully published paper by you in a peer reviewed scientific journal would suffice. Or are you too afraid to try submitting your 'work' to a jury of your peers? My question was avoided by KF/GEM. It was a very simple question:
“Has KF/GEM “not cared to submit” his FSCO/I claims to a credible scientific journal for critical review? Perhaps he’s either tried and failed or never tried (or perhaps he’s succeeded and could send a link to his legit publication[s] on FCSO/I), instead prefering UD as his ‘science’ publication site. Does anyone know?”
How does a response like "No, I haven't tried" or "I tried and was rejected" sound, KF? Too difficult?
"peer review in an ideologically polarised, censorship riddled context is of low to no credibility." - KF/GEM
Oh, so it *is* yet another case of Expelled Syndrome in action then. No HOPE for IDists who actually seem to *want* to be victims of fate for lack of effort. The *entire* credible publishing world is against IDists, so goes this fairytale. I know quite a few credible and honest publishers who would at least entertain the FSCO/I hypothesis that KF/GEM swears by on his life as 'true' and 'reliable' but won't risk submitting for publication. Has he even tried? That's not a bluff. That's a simple question.Gregory_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Gregory: These days I normally ignore your remarks. I note first, the Ball State U case is one of blatant censorship motivated by a priori materialism and the theocracy smear, so my comments on this aspect in response to distortions have been on topic. Secondly, peer review in an ideologically polarised, censorship riddled context is of low to no credibility. Third, despite such, there are now dozens of ID supportive papers in the professional literature. Fourth, the facts on functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, FSCO/I are easily verified. Your post above is a case in point as is the computer on which it was composed. So, it is real, identifiable, observable, recognisable. Next, it is easily verified observationally that there are many billions of cases in point and that in EVERY one of them where we directly know the cause, it is design. This already directly warrants the inductive inference that FSCO/I is an empirically reliable sign of design as cause, let the chips lie where they fly. This is backed up by an analysis of search challenges in config spaces, for blind search on the scope of solar system or observed cosmos. Therefore, we have excellent reason to hold that, absent credible counter example, FSCO/I in its various guises is a reliable sign of design as cause. Regardless of who wants to say otherwise, absent an empirically shown credible counter-example. Your bluff is called, and your bluff failed Gregory. KFkairosfocus_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

No, KF/GEM, you're the one playing rhetorical games, flooding threads with nonsense. It's gone on long enough. Your bluff has been called.
"If you disagree, don’t just tell me – show the scientific community by proposing the hypothesis and conducting the test and writing up the results for review."
TEST YOUR 'THEORY' WITH THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY OR QUIT SQUAWKING POOF OF FSCO/I AT UD. Period. You are displaying no integrity as a 'thinker' by avoiding peer review, KF/GEM. Is Expelled Syndrome involved here? I asked a very simple question: "Has KF/GEM “not cared to submit” his FSCO/I claims to a credible scientific journal for critical review? Perhaps he’s either tried and failed or never tried (or perhaps he’s succeeded and could send a link to his legit publication[s] on FCSO/I), instead prefering UD as his ‘science’ publication site. Does anyone know?" KF/GEM knows. But no answer has been offered.Gregory_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Claudius, kindly deal with the issues on the merits instead of playing at red herring led out to strawman soaked in ad hominem and set alight through polarising rhetoric games. KFkairosfocus_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

F/N: It's time for another markup of a Wiki ideological hit-piece that helps explain its want of credibility once we touch on subjects its dominant factions insist on twisting into propagandistic indoctrination, courtesy Claudius' link above. I will simply start from the intro, putting comments on numbered arrows: _____________ >>The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation-evolution controversy and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific and political issues.>> 1 --> Refusal to acknowledge a third view, design inference, fed into an assumed equation of design theory and Creationism. >> The subject is primarily contentious in the United States. However, it is also important in other countries where creationists advocate the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution,>> 2 --> Builds on that strawman >> or portray the modern evolutionary synthesis as an inadequate scientific paradigm.>> 3 --> Implies that critical analysis of the claims of evolutionary materialism is only a matter of creationism, which of course is a radioactive accusation 4 --> The observation based evidence for abiogenisis of cell based life in a warm little pond or the like, by blind chance and mechanical necessity through physics and chem is: ___________. ANS: Nil, and this is the root of the darwinist tree of life, as can be seen from the Smithsonian and more. 5 --> By contrast, there is abundant empirical warrant to conclude that per reliable sign, FSCO/I, the observed nature of cell based life, including codes, coded data strings, algorithms and executing machines, points to design. 6 --> The same extends to the origin of body plans, where increments in FSCO/I are of order 10 - 100+ mn bits, dozens of times over 7 --> The want of such a mechanism, and the imposit6ion of a priori materialism that leads to question-begging resort to misleading icons and gross extrapolation from a completely different phenomenon, minor changes due to small variations in genomes within islands of functional forms, warrants the conclusion that the modern evolutionary synthesis is a reigning orthodoxy maintained by ideological imposition rather than a fully grounded scientific paradigm. >>An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] >> 8 --> Appeal to consensus of a heavily ideologised elite dominated by Lewontin's a priori materialism. >>Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3]>> 9 --> More of same, and no authority is better than facts, assumptions and reasoning. The issues above raised a year ago int eh darwinism essay challenge and unanswered to date, speak eloquently on the force of the point. >> Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.>> 10 --> Courts are not competent to rule on matters of science and associated philosophy. This is again appeal to authority, backed up by policing power, in a context of imposed ideologies, and of course resorts to conflation of design theory with creationism, where also creationists have been smeared unjustly for decades. >>There is widespread belief in creationism in United States,[4][5][6][7][8][9] the Muslim world,[10] South Africa,[11] India, South Korea and Brazil, with smaller followings in Israel,[12] Australia,[13] New Zealand,[14] and Canada.[15]>> 11 --> Perhaps, because of the force of the following:
Rom 1:19 . . . what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. {--> It makes but little difference whether such are in a rude little hut or a gloriously designed temple with associated myths, or a science museum or a textbook] 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! [ESV]
>> The most prominent organization behind this movement has been the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind the intelligent design movement.>> 12 --> Pivots on the conflation of design theory with creationism, and the broad-brush smearing associated therewith. >> Through its Center for Science and Culture, the Institute conducts a number of related public relations and lobbying campaigns aimed at influencing the public and policy makers in order to advance its position in academia. The Discovery Institute claims that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their campaign states, "Teach the Controversy". >> 13 --> A strawmannish caricature of the DI, its general focus, the CSC and its focus, arguments and rationale for teach the controversy, all multiplied by that wider context of improper conflation with creationism [which has much larger and far more active institutions such as AIG] and the equally improper smearing of creationism. _____________ In short, yes, read and weep. Weep for the deceptions, distortions and poisonous ideologies promoted by such tactics and the harm done. Then get up and determine to expose the want of credibility of Wikipedia and similar entities on this subject. Claudius, you should know and do much better than this. KFkairosfocus_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 38
Claudius, I suggest you re-examine what you have repeated without correction and suggested comes from authoritative and credible collective witness in 5 above. Specifically, given that the claim you repeat with evident approval is demonstrably false and has been repeatedly shown false in your presence. That many others are doing a grave wrong does not excuse you in piling on, which in a nutshell is the force of my remark at 8 following. KF
And I suggest you reread Plutarch's biography of Lucullus (Parallel Lives, Vol. II, Loeb Classical Library edition, 1914, para. 25, p. 551):
Since the first messenger who told Tigranes that Lucullus was coming had his head cut off for his pains, no one else would tell him anything, and so he sat in ignorance while the fires of war were already blazing around him, giving ear only to those who flattered him ...
CLAVDIVS_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

AF: The needle in haystack search comparison is a word-picture comparison to illustrate the issue of bridging vast Hamming distances in config spaces for 500 and more bits through blind search, in the further context that by the nature of the need for multiple, well matched correctly arranged and coupled parts to achieve relevant, specific function, zones of such function T, will be deeply isolated in the space of possible clumped or scattered configs, W. I suggest you need to show good cause backed up by actual empirical observation that FSCO/I -- including codes, code strings and algorithms with executing machinery such as we find in the protein synthesis system -- can be and is produced by blind chance and mechanical necessity. We know from billions of test cases and repeated failure of attempts to provide counter examples over years of effort (to the point where it seems to have been given up) that design is the reliable cause of FSCO/I. All you are proving by your continued misrepresentations and dismissals is that you are a committed ideologue who is willing to set up and knock over convenient strawmen, instead of face the issue as it is, squarely on its merits. In this case, over the life of this blog. KFkairosfocus_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

vjtorley @ 35
You say ID proposes no theory that can be tested by the methods of science. I respectfully disagree.
Really, there's no point trying to convince me on a post on UD. You need to be proposing an "intelligent cause" hypothesis, conducting empirical tests, and publishing the results for critical scientific review.
If we’re talking about biological ID, then I’d say it stands or falls depending on evidence relating to: (a) the proportion of amino-acid sequences of a given length (say 100) that are actually functional; and (b) the question of whether this proportion is equivalent to the chance in Nature that a change (or mutation) in a given amino-acid sequence will improve its functionality. etc.
Friendly hint: All you're proposing here is to test whether phenomenon (a) is explained by "chance in Nature", which is simply not scientifically testable: 1. The explanandum (phenomenon (a)) is unmeasurable at present, so this is not a scientific test we can perform right now. This is a short-term problem. 2. Much worse, the explanans 'chance in Nature' is so utterly vague and unlimited that it cannot even in principle be tested scientifically. Why? Because we are not omniscient. We can never, ever be in a position to say scientifically "phenomenon (a) is not due to 'chance in Nature'", because we cannot exhaustively test every possible 'chance' process that may exist in every corner of the universe. 3. Even if we could show phenomenon (a) is not explained by 'chance in Nature' (which we cannot, even in principle), this does not tell us what does explain phenomenon (a). To do that, a specific, scientifically falsifiable explanation needs to be proposed and tested, and the results published for scientific scrutiny. If you disagree, don't just tell me - show the scientific community by proposing the hypothesis and conducting the test and writing up the results for review.CLAVDIVS_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

EL: Bland denial simply compounds the problem. Joe, 29: >> ID predicts, as does archaeology and forensic science, that, if ID is true, we will find signs in nature- ie things that nature, operating freely cannot produce. But anyway- enjoy: The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer.—Dr Behe As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.- Wm. Dembski page 33 of The Design Revolution . . . . Further I would expect to see command & control- a hierarchy of command & control would be a possibility. Test: Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism. Try to determine if that minimal functionality is irreducibly complex and/or contains complex specified information. Also check to see if any subsystems are irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. Potential falsification: Observe that living organisms arise from non-living matter via a mixture of commonly-found-in-nature chemicals. Observe that while some systems “appear” to be irreducibly complex it can be demonstrated that they can indeed arise via purely stochastic processes such as culled genetic accidents. Also demonstrate that the apparent command & control can also be explained by endothermic and/or exothermic reactions. Confirmation: Living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain irreducibly complex subsystems. The information required to build and maintain a single-celled organism is both complex and specified. Command & control is observed in single-celled organisms- the bacterial flagellum not only has to be configured correctly, indicating command & control over the assembly process, but it also has to function, indicating command & control over functionality. Conclusion (scientific inference) Both the universe and living organisms are the result of intention design. Any future research can either confirm or refute this premise, which, for the biological side, was summed up in Darwinism, Design and Public Education page 92: 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. >> DM, 41: >> Joe in #29: Very nice explication of the scientific testability of ID hypothesis. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for the Darwinians to slap their foreheads shouting “Oh, of course…how silly of us not to see that ID is indeed testable!” >> EL, 47: >> DonaldM Joe in #29: Very nice explication of the scientific testability of ID hypothesis. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for the Darwinians to slap their foreheads shouting “Oh, of course…how silly of us not to see that ID is indeed testable!” There is one big problem with Joe’s scheme. Not one of his tests, if failed, would falsify ID. >> KF, 49: >> Franklin, Do you realise that your side would never pass the test you propose for ID, i.e. you are being selectively hyperskeptical? Further, there is abundant evidence on the observed source of FSCO/I, billions of cases show, design. This is backed by the blind search sampling challenge of finding a needle in an astronomical haystack. And my allusion to blind sampling is pivotal — there is no need whatsoever to evaluate probabilities once a sampling challenge overwhelms solar system scale or observed cosmos gamut resources. And such kicks in at 500 – 1,000 bits. At a crude estimate, that covers 250 – 500 bases, or 80 – 160 or so AA in a string. VJT’s 100 AA threshold is very well set, given that the solar system is our practical cosmos for chemical interactions. >> KF, 50: >> EL: Sorry, but you are persisting in a continued poisonously laced misrepresentation that feeds a ruthless ideological agenda currently being reflected in your own blog. Where, frankly, continued misrepresentation in the teeth of duties of care to accuracy, fairness and truth is willfully deceptive. You full well know or should know that a single unambiguous observed case of FSCO/I — and particular cases include coded digital info in string data structures such as English text strings or D/RNA — resulting from a clear case of blind chance and or mechanical necessity without guidance would devastate the biological design inference. This has been pointed out and cogently shown to you over and over again [and in your presence several failed attempts to show such counter-examples have happened -- indeed you have your own failed attempts], so you are without excuse to speak contrary to facts you know full well or SHOULD full well know. Continued misrepresentation in the teeth of cogent correction has no possible justification. Therefore, kindly stop the continued perpetuation of toxic and misleading, atmosphere poisoning misrepresentations that feed ruthless ideological agendas such as we again see at your site. >> In short, EL, you are indeed pushing the misrepresentation that the design inference on FSCO/I is not properly subject to empirical test. In addition, as at Sept 12, you have hosted at TSZ, a scurrilous attack post that falsely accuses the intelligent design school of thought of theocratic agendas -- a thinly veiled accusation of nazi-like totalitarianism -- and the like, a long since exposed smear. The comment thread openly advocates indoctrinating children in evolutionism, violation of parental rights,equates design theory to a common -- and slanderous -- caricature of Creationism, tosses in the term fraud as an accusation justifying incivility, and more, just click the link and read. That, EL, is what you are enabling as blog owner. I suggest, you need to seriously think again about what you are doing and enabling. KFkairosfocus_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

Joe @ 31
CLAVDIVS: The science that underlies evolutionary biology is of the same standard as any other science relied on in our great institutions of industry, medicine, government and the law. Joe: Liar.
That's all you've got, a kindergarten-level riposte? Read 'em and weep.CLAVDIVS_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

I suspect KF knows himself that any argument based on his needle-in-a-haystack analogy is so far from what the theory of evolution proposes that it in danger, if it got out into the mainstream, of ending up on this list. The two main holes in his argument are that: 1. he assumes a search for an amino acid sequence as a hit or a miss for a complete sequence of say 100 residues. We see nothing of the sort in nature and ToE does not propose "tornado-in-a-junkyard processes. 2. he assumes that all or most unknown protein sequences are non-functional.Alan Fox_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

"I do not care to debate your arcane FSCO/I claims since you have not cared to submit them to the scientific community for critical review." - CLAVDIVS Is this actually true? Has KF/GEM "not cared to submit" his FSCO/I claims to a credible scientific journal for critical review? Perhaps he's either tried and failed or never tried (or perhaps he's succeeded and could send a link to his legit publication[s] on FCSO/I), instead prefering UD as his 'science' publication site. Does anyone know?Gregory_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

I am doing none of those things, KF. Please try to get over your paranoia. I do not wish you ill, far from it.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

EL: Sorry, but you are persisting in a continued poisonously laced misrepresentation that feeds a ruthless ideological agenda currently being reflected in your own blog. Where, frankly, continued misrepresentation in the teeth of duties of care to accuracy, fairness and truth is willfully deceptive. You full well know or should know that a single unambiguous observed case of FSCO/I -- and particular cases include coded digital info in string data structures such as English text strings or D/RNA -- resulting from a clear case of blind chance and or mechanical necessity without guidance would devastate the biological design inference. This has been pointed out and cogently shown to you over and over again [and in your presence several failed attempts to show such counter-examples have happened -- indeed you have your own failed attempts], so you are without excuse to speak contrary to facts you know full well or SHOULD full well know. Continued misrepresentation in the teeth of cogent correction has no possible justification. Therefore, kindly stop the continued perpetuation of toxic and misleading, atmosphere poisoning misrepresentations that feed ruthless ideological agendas such as we again see at your site. KFkairosfocus_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

Franklin, Do you realise that your side would never pass the test you propose for ID, i.e. you are being selectively hyperskeptical? Further, there is abundant evidence on the observed source of FSCO/I, billions of cases show, design. This is backed by the blind search sampling challenge of finding a needle in an astronomical haystack. And my allusion to blind sampling is pivotal -- there is no need whatsoever to evaluate probabilities once a sampling challenge overwhelms solar system scale or observed cosmos gamut resources. And such kicks in at 500 - 1,000 bits. At a crude estimate, that covers 250 - 500 bases, or 80 - 160 or so AA in a string. VJT's 100 AA threshold is very well set, given that the solar system is our practical cosmos for chemical interactions. KFkairosfocus_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
There is one big problem with Joe’s scheme. Not one of his tests, if failed, would falsify ID.
What is the SINGLE TEST that would falsify Darwinism?Mung_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

DonaldM
Joe in #29: Very nice explication of the scientific testability of ID hypothesis. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for the Darwinians to slap their foreheads shouting “Oh, of course…how silly of us not to see that ID is indeed testable!”
There is one big problem with Joe's scheme. Not one of his tests, if failed, would falsify ID.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 14, 2013
September
09
Sep
14
14
2013
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Hi Brent, It's ok. When I saw someone else taking sides I just bowed out. I'm not asking people to take sides. I've no interest in dividing the UD community. Some posts are deleted and some posts just never appear, or take time to appear. Maybe your post will show up soon. The only one here at UD that I know of who deliberately deletes posts, or changes their content to make it appear that something else was written, is Salvador. His actions are documented on the web. I don't think they reflect well on UD. I don't think they reflect the motto of UD "Serving the Intelligent Design Community." Why his actions are tolerated remains a mystery to me. Salvador has a personal animosity towards me. I know why. It's because Sal serves Sal and I had the gall to point that out to him. Sal doesn't understand the source of his animosity (or he pretends not to). He is in a position of power, and I am not. He abuses his power and that's on him and says far more about him than it says about me. That said, I don't want you to take sides. But that's not to say you should not be honest about your experiences here at UD. No one else is going to speak up for you.Mung_{September 13, 2013
September
09
Sep
13
13
2013
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

Mung, Do you know whether someone is deleting others' posts as well. A very benign post of mine went missing the other day it seems. I have mixed feelings about a certain writer here. He fit your recent description to a "T", and I was concerned about him more than a year ago, I think, when he jumped down BA's throat for posting an OT note too high up on one of his articles. Anyway, I haven't written anything in support of your plight simply because I figured it would simply be deleted. Sorry for your struggles.Brent_{September 13, 2013
September
09
Sep
13
13
2013
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

mung: Easy. we create a model and see how well it fits the data. You know, science.
Great! when should we expect the public unveiling of the model?franklin_{September 13, 2013
September
09
Sep
13
13
2013
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

I’d like to hear how ID proposes to test all possible amino acid sequences of 100 AA or larger (or even smaller).
Easy. we create a model and see how well it fits the data. You know, science.Mung_{September 13, 2013
September
09
Sep
13
13
2013
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

vjtorley:If we’re talking about biological ID, then I’d say it stands or falls depending on evidence relating to: (a) the proportion of amino-acid sequences of a given length (say 100) that are actually functional; and (b) the question of whether this proportion is equivalent to the chance in Nature that a change (or mutation) in a given amino-acid sequence will improve its functionality.
I'd like to hear how ID proposes to test all possible amino acid sequences of 100 AA or larger (or even smaller). Next problem is that it appears that you, and most ID proponents, believe that catalytic proteins are all that need to be considered. That, of course, would be a very large mistake when considering the functionality of proteins. For example one major function of serum albumin is to maintain osmolality in the body. How many AA acid sequences are there that contribute to this type of function? How will the ID camp screen all possible AA sequences for functionality given the number of potential AA sequences as well as the number of possible substrates to bind, osmolality importance, ect. Seems a near impossible task when one actually considers the experiments that would need to be conducted would create a very very large matrix for the experimental design. You also have many proteins that act as receptors and are not catalytic. How many AA acid sequences are there that can bind some substrate? This also needs to be taken into consideration by the ID camp and I've never seen it addressed at all. There are a great many other functional proteins that are not catalytic in nature and I would like to see the ID research proposal which is going to address how many possible AA sequences are functional yet not catalytic.franklin_{September 13, 2013
September
09
Sep
13
13
2013
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Joe in #29: Very nice explication of the scientific testability of ID hypothesis. Just don't hold your breath waiting for the Darwinians to slap their foreheads shouting "Oh, of course...how silly of us not to see that ID is indeed testable!"DonaldM_{September 13, 2013
September
09
Sep
13
13
2013
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

I've just posted a follow-up article which should answer most of the questions being raised here.DonaldM_{September 13, 2013
September
09
Sep
13
13
2013
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

KF,that's exactly what I'm saying. You are reading into my words things that I did not say. I completely agree with Sir Isaac Newton, and in particular with the sentence you italicised:
And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur.
In other words, if a model is repeatedly supported by data, we can start to regard it as a fact - "the Conclusion may be pronounced generally". But we must always remember that scientific conclusions, including "facts" can be overturned by new data: "But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur". What was a "fact" now is modified "with such Exceptions". In other words even established models are subject to modification in the light of new data.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 13, 2013
September
09
Sep
13
13
2013
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Claudius, I suggest you re-examine what you have repeated without correction and suggested comes from authoritative and credible collective witness in 5 above. Specifically, given that the claim you repeat with evident approval is demonstrably false and has been repeatedly shown false in your presence. That many others are doing a grave wrong does not excuse you in piling on, which in a nutshell is the force of my remark at 8 following. KFkairosfocus_{September 13, 2013
September
09
Sep
13
13
2013
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

PPS: Messed up link: here.kairosfocus_{September 13, 2013
September
09
Sep
13
13
2013
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

EL: Sir Isaac Newton, in Opticks, query 31, c. 1704:
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For [speculative, empirically unsupported] Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.
Time for some serious rethinking methinks. KF PS: My attention was just drawn to a seriously slanderous OP at TSZ by a Mr Hooke, it seems, The enabling problem continues.kairosfocus_{September 13, 2013
September
09
Sep
13
13
2013
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS You say ID proposes no theory that can be tested by the methods of science. I respectfully disagree. If we're talking about biological ID, then I'd say it stands or falls depending on evidence relating to: (a) the proportion of amino-acid sequences of a given length (say 100) that are actually functional; and (b) the question of whether this proportion is equivalent to the chance in Nature that a change (or mutation) in a given amino-acid sequence will improve its functionality. As I understand it, ID proponents typically say that the answer if (b) is yes (i.e. Nature has no built-in bias toward functionality) and that the proportion in (a) is very, very low (e.g. Dr. Douglas Axe uses figures like 10^-74, making it virtually impossible to hit upon a protein within the time available on Earth). ID critics like Art Hunt argue that the proportion in (a) is much higher (typically, they use figures like 10^-12, which gives Nature a fighting chance of making functional proteins from amino acid sequences over the course of geological history), and some of them also say that Nature may well have a built-in bias towards the creation of functional amino acid sequences (which also makes the creation of proteins much easier). These are the core claims that typically distinguish ID proponents from their critics. They certainly sound testable to me.vjtorley_{September 13, 2013
September
09
Sep
13
13
2013
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

bornagain77- They have many promissory notes- they are sure someone in the future will have the answers they do not. :)Joe_{September 13, 2013
September
09
Sep
13
13
2013
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply