This evolution meeting must be significant: Suzan Mazur has been disinvited… again!

CR,

Specifically, a designer that “just was” complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins, already present, doesn’t serve an explantory purpose.

You already know that your premise is untrue; it doesn’t stand up to even the first criticism. And yet, you repeat the same false statements over and over again. What does this say about your attack on ID? If life on this planet originated from a prior intelligence (with a material brain and body) we would see exactly what we see today. You already know this to be true, and therefore you are deliberately arguing from a premise that you are fully aware is false. A ”designer that “just was” complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins” is entirely consistent with design theory, and the documented physical evidence isn’t even controversial. Not only would a prior intelligence explain the system found at the heart of biology, it is the only empirically verifiable source of such systems – i.e. a high-capacity semiotic system (language) is exclusively identifiable through physical analysis, and has thus been identified. Its specific form was predicted in logic and was then confirmed through molecular biology. Yet, your response is to make yourself cut off from even acknowledging the evidence. And in the meanwhile, you practice deception against your opponent’s position. It's not a good look. Hilariously (and sadly) you then bounce around this blog with your epistemological six-shooter yelling bang! at people; passing out lectures on how to think. I’d tell you to get a grip on yourself, but I just don’t see it happening.

I’m not hostile to ID. I’m hostile to theories that do not serve an explanatory purpose.

Good grief. You espouse a theory that first assumes that physical laws are un-designed, then concludes that biological life is possible under those un-designed laws (with one mere caveat -- that a medium of information must also be possible). Then (while completely ignoring the system that enables a medium of information to exist) you come to the shocking conclusion that Darwinian evolution is “compatible” with these un-designed laws. And from that brain cramp, you then go on to conclude that Darwinian evolution (therefore) “fully explains the appearance of design” in biology. Cha-ching. Forgive me, but it’s just striking to see someone (espousing what is perhaps the most inconclusive and useless theory of biological origins ever contrived) pretending to care about the explanatory power of anything at all. Upright BiPed

Further to @15 Saying that all the above evolved without any evidence for it is just an ideology based on faith not science... Therefore my assessment is accurate... J-Mac

@ critical rationalist, Of course it was, J-mac. You know this because it’s been divinely revealed as such. Right? As such, it couldn’t have been anything else but an ideology just waiting to be exposed. Would you say that is an accurate assessment? I know it is an accurate assessment, because of the total lack of scientific evidence to support Darwinism's claims...therefore it is nothing but an ideology cloaked in science that doesn't exist... Here just few examples: 1. The origins of life-Darwinists would scoff at it and say it has nothing to with Darwinism and would not provide one piece of scientific evidence that even supports spontaneous OOL. If you have one that convinced you the most, let me know. 2. The origins of the first cell paradox-DNA, proteins, enzymes, ATP, cell membrane interdependence law; i.e. all these components have to be present at the same time and functional 3. The mutation breeding fiasco due to the law af recurrent variation 4. Alternative splicing of RNA that produces multiple proteins from one gene 5. Overlapping sequences for protein coding and transcription factor binding-Duons 6. Dual coding genes 7. Non-random mutations via quantum coherence 8. An element of randomness to natural selection J-Mac

CR:

For example, how does ID explain why organisms appear in the order of least complex to most complex?

Except for trees. But anyway - terraforming explains your scheme. Evolutionism doesn't as it cannot explain the existence of any organisms.

I’m asking because ID’s designer is abstract and has no defined limitations.

ID is NOT about the designer. We can and do detect the presence of intelligent design without knowing the designer. As a matter of fact we don't even ask about the designer until intelligent design has been detected. And to refute any given design inference all one has to do is demonstrate non-telic processes can produce it.

At best, you can say “that’s just what some designer must have wanted”, which explains nothing.

LoL! Saying something was the result of intelligent design tells us quite a bit. So clearly you have never conducted an investigation into the root cause of something or else you would have known that. ET

CR @ Let me ask you this: what would be your ideal explanation of, let’s say, an organism? I take it you start the explanation with space, time, matter, energy and laws, each of which you cannot explain. Is that accurate? Okay, so, that’s where you start. And then what? What would it take to be a ‘good explanation’? Origenes

@j-Mac

Since Darwinism was never really anything more than an ideology, like many previous ones, before it can collapse, it has to be exposed for what it really is.

Of course it was, J-mac. You know this because it’s been divinely revealed as such. Right? As such, it couldn’t have been anything else but an ideology just waiting to be exposed. Would you say that is an accurate assessment? critical rationalist

Obviously, just like in case of the many ideologies in the history, there were always many of those who were willing to continue to believe in the failed ideology and were even willing to die for it... So, I don't think we should expect that many of the Darwinosaurs will be willing to abandon their ideology even if it is brought down in shame... The shameful exposure of the Darwinian ideology is exactly what is happening on this and other blogs. We are just playing a small part in it...hopefully... J-Mac

News, "It must be done far too carefully to make any difference until the wall starts collapsing, with some help… Darwinism, like any other ideology in the history of mankind, Marxism, totalitarian regimes, Nazi regime, was never established per se. Each ideology has to be bullied upon those who would disagree. Nazis were a great minority when they started off... So where the communists...The direct of indirect rule by the church didn't work either... Look at Poland. 30 years ago when people got rid off the communists in Poland, many wanted the church to take over the power. It didn't happen, but the church ruled and still rules indirectly influencing the policies to its benefits. Most people, even Catholics are tired of it and the church is losing its influence... Since Darwinism was never really anything more than an ideology, like many previous ones, before it can collapse, it has to be exposed for what it really is. If I were the Designer, that is exactly what I would do. I would expose the lies behind this ideology. That's exactly what is happening on this and other blogs. We are just playing a small part in it...hopefully... J-Mac

@origines I’m not hostile to ID. I’m hostile to theories that do not serve an explantory purpose. For example, how does ID explain why organisms appear in the order of least complex to most complex? What aspect of ID’s designer makes that a necessary consequence of ID? I’m asking because ID’s designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. This includes what it knew, when it knew it, etc. As such, it could have created organisms in any order, including most complex to least, or even all at once. IOW, the particular order we observe seems completely arbitrary given ID’s designer. At best, you can say “that’s just what some designer must have wanted”, which explains nothing. But, by all means, feel free to provide such an explanation. I won’t be holding my breath. critical rationalist

@origines I’m not sure why you’re an ID proponent if you think theory’s that do not explain anything should be abandoned. Specifically, a designer that “just was” complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins, already present, doesn’t serve an explantory purpose. This is because one can more efficiently state that organism “just appeared”, complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins, already present. Having skimmed the thread, your argument appears to be that you think that knowledge comes from authorative sources and RV+Selection cannot be the source of new knowledge because it isn’t an authorative source. Is that accurate? The thing is, the knowlege already exists. It’s right there in organisms. So, the origin of those proteins is the origin of that knowledge. Unless you have an explantion for this knowledge, then it’s an explantionless theory. To use an example, if I bought a plan on line to build a boat, then followed those instructions to the letter, did I design a boat? No, I did not. If I only possessed the knowlege of how to build a boat and a car, by say ordering them online, could I somehow choose a third option to build a helicopter ? No, I could not. That’s because a helicopter will only appear when the requisite knowege of what transformation to perform are actually present there. Furthermore, we cannot extraopolte observations without first putting them into some kind of explantory framework. This includes observations regarding transitional fossils and even simpler proteins. For example before 1903, did we think that the sun had not risen when we could not see due to being obscured by the clouds? No, we did not. This is because our theories of geometry, optics, etc. told us not to expect to see it during these times. And the opposite is true as well. If we experience the sun rising on TV, in a mirror, etc. do we interpret that as the sun rising twice? No, we do not. It’s those same thories of optics and geometry that tell us otherwise. In the same sense, it’s our theory of fossilization that tells us not to expect to find all transitional fossils, even if they did exist. So, in regards to not seeing simpler proteins or their predecessors, what theory are you appealing to that suggests we should observe those simpler / predecessors? And the same question can be asked regarding the rate of mutation today vs the past and the complexity of life today vs the past, etc. Without some theory, all you have are a number of singular observations that doesn’t tell us anything, one way or the other. So, if I had to summarize, it seems you’re confused about how knowlege grows, which includes being confused about our ability to extrapolate observations, etc. If you’re confused about how knowlege grows in the case of human designers, why wouldn't that confusion spill over into ID, the theory? critical rationalist

CR, The problem for darwinism is that natural selection performs worse than a blind search. Origenes

@asauber I don't feel misled. Darwinism falls under the universal umbrella that knowledge grows by some form of variation and criticism. We will find new ways of variation, such as horizontal gene transfer, which we have not discovered yet. This doesn't falsify Neo-Darwinism. IOW, you seem to have confused the theory of the history of life on earth with Darwinism, which is the theory of how knowledge grows in biological systems. critical rationalist

I think CR and perhaps others are disappointed at being let down by the Evolution Community, for having been misled, and are taking it out here. I hope they are slowly coming to the realization that belief in science can leave them in just as embarrassing a position as could any other belief, once it gets dispelled. I was listening to the AL playoffs last week or so, and Aaron Boone said the great hitters knew what pitches to not swing at. Who says sports can't teach us anything? Andrew asauber

@News Is hyperbole the best you can do? critical rationalist

This 'Expelled' trope News, was laughable with the Logan Craft, Ben Stein film, now it's becoming tedium. No one is being censored. Wikipedia is not a tax payer funded site, it is 'crowd funded', meaning the moderators can do what they want. Exactly what you can do here if you so choose, and 'Expell!' You might try using your barb laden pen on attacking a real censor, David Klinghoffer, over at Evolution News; now that man knows a thing or two about expulsion, and censorship. Mazur's books can still be bought publicly, at such bookshops as will hold it. As will, by the way, yours. And let's just say the Huff Po is not exactly known for its editorial rigour. No one is silencing protests, it's just that universities, and increasingly churches are simply tired of ID. Ken Ham at AIG mouths the words Intelligent Design from time to time, but I asure you, he means something completely different. News, there is no conspiracy against Mazur, she is, from the little I have read about her, a fringe, conspiracy promoter, (she's anti-vaccination too right?), and therefore posts at Huff Po, or uses the Vanity Publishing industry, just like you and other ID writers. I expect she did what most ID journalists do (and what Ben Stein did to Richard Dawkins, in Expelled), and came in with an air of legitimacy, anly to be discovered for what she was, a hack. rvb8

critical rationalist at 1, it is somewhat like criticizing Marxism in a Marxist state. It must be done far too carefully to make any difference until the wall starts collapsing, with some help... By the way, is this the best you can do? News

See also: From Biology Direct: Darwinism, now thoroughly detached from its historical roots as a falsifiable theory, “must be abandoned”

Which is it News? Are people allowed to criticize Darwinism or not? In the same post, you appeal to two conflicting links. One which criticisms Darwinism. What gives? critical rationalist