A Word About Our Moderation Policy

_{Barry Arrington

March 12, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Some commenters have raised questions regarding the propriety of recent posts and UD’s moderation policy. UD’s moderation policy is fairly simple: As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want. We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win — and if we don’t win we either need to learn to debate better or change our position. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opening this site up to nasty juvenile name-calling fests like one see so often at Panda’s Thumb. But if you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people, you should have no problems passing muster here.

What about the “God-bashing” and the defenses of God that have appeared in these pages? God can take care of Himself. We at UD feel no need to protect Him from defamation. Bash away. Those who are offended by (or disagree with) the bashing are welcome to post such defenses as they deem appropriate. There are limits, however. This site is not intended to be a forum for extensive religious debates. Religious issues inevitably come up from time to time and people should feel free to discuss them from both sides when they do. But the moderators will exercise their judgment and gavel discussions that stray too far a field from the purpose of this site for too long.

I personally find the God-bashing disturbing. So why do I allow it? As one of my colleagues has aptly said, the wiser course, when someone attacks God is to let those UD commenters who are theists respond to the charges. Our readers will then be in a position to see: (1) that UD, unlike the Darwinists, doesn’t ban or censor ideas; and (2) that theism in general and Christianity in particular is quite capable of defending itself against lies, distortions, illogical arguments, and misunderstandings. Our role is not to censor ideas but to provide a forum where hard questions can be discussed calmly, fully, and fairly, and we trust that when that happens truth will prevail.

Certainly there is risk to this approach. Some will reject truth and embrace error. But the consequences of pursuing the alternative course – ignoring or even running from the hard questions – would be far worse.

Finally, some have asked whether we should even discuss “peripheral issues” at UD, such as Darwin’s racism or the implications of ID for the theodicy. This site is devoted not only to scientific theories of origins, but also to the metaphysical and moral implications of those theories. Plainly BOTH Darwinism and ID have implications beyond the science. Certainly Darwinsts like “intellectually fulfilled” atheist Richard Dawkins understand the metaphysical implications of Darwinism and talk about those implications ad nauseum. What hypocritical balderdash for anyone to suggest a double standard prohibiting those of us with a different point of view from doing the exact same thing from our perspective – and we will continue to do so.

Comments

"It is therefore misleading to claim that contemporary evolutionary theory and ID are equivalent with respect to observations in these domains. Evolutionary theory entails common descent and microevolution; ID does not." If ID is going to comment on evolution and evolution is the main reason for the ID movement to exist, then it cannot dodge what are the obvious scientific facts about this area. If it tries to dodge the obvious then the claims that it is nothing but creationism in disguise will ring true. The Darwinists who claim that eventually their research will show how complex novel capabilities arose via natural means should be encouraged to continue their research. And so should the creationist be so encouraged to do their own research. But each group's research in this area should be criticized. As of now ID should be on record that each group's research is highly suspect. The creationist research has a wide range of research dealing with the world and universe and much of it is highly suspect and ID should say so. So ID should divorce itself from the bogus research of each group or any other group that shows up with bad research. As of the moment, micro evolution seems to be supported to a great extent so should be accepted by ID till proven otherwise. Common descent is a conclusion to be accepted or denied based on the evidence. Common ancestry seems to be supported by a large body of evidence and till proven otherwise should be accepted to this limited degree. But common ancestry is limited to those species that fit the pattern of relationship and doesn't automatically include all living things past and present. Analysis of genomes in the future may change the extent to which common ancestry now applies to individual sets of species. It will be a conclusion of science not an assertion that is ideological and based on limited data as Darwin's assertions were. Some of Darwin's ideas were pure ideologically based and did not fit the data he had. Other ideas he had were bad because of the knowledge of science in his day. But some of his ideas ring true. The part of the current evolutionary thesis that ID does not accept and for which there is no scientific evidence is that all macro evolution is the accumulation of change over time to individual species. The ID position is not based on arbitrary rejection of such ideas but on the inability of information to be created by natural means that could create the control mechanisms to lead to these capabilities. So far no one has found any process that leads to the very complicated information needed to control the morphological changes seen in the history life. That is the issue under debate. So when our anti ID friends come here, the onus is on them to present data that contradicts our position. Namely, that all macro evolution events and the underlying changes in the complex control systems can be explained by natural processes. But we must not deny what is probably true which is why ID is completely in sync with any science that explains other life's processes including a lot of evolution. And right now micro evolution is one of those processes. So ID is completely in sync with micro evolution and subsumes it in the sense that the propositions of micro evolution are consistent with ID. And micro evolution is a lot of what the anti ID present as evidence so to stop this waste of time, ID must stop these discussion at the start. In the past year we have had a lot of people come here with micro evolution as evidence that ID is nonsense. If ID subjects the EF to micro evolution, then it must say that it is based on law and channce. A few months ago I wrote a long draft of a position that I believe all ID presenters should take when debating those who have anti ID attitudes so that unnecessary discussions do not get in the way here. One of the creationist commenters here said he could live with such a position so it should not offend the creationists. I don't see how it could offend the Darwinists. I would like to have something similar be part of the site here so that all discussions with the anti ID people can proceed intelligently instead of how they usually proceed on this site. Witness StephenB comment at #71. Here is what I wrote back in September. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/november-apologetics-conference-we-need-more-than-good-arguments/#comment-296129 In addition to the FAQ's which are useful, I believe such a position would lead to more cogent conversations in the future. One possibility is that part of the moderation policy could be based on recognizing this and other aspects of ID as a basis for commenting here. That way we won't get the endless drivel that the anti ID people have when they comment here.jerry_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Joseph @ 104 -
The theory of evolution REQUIRES an old Earth. Unfortunately for the theory 4.5 billion years does not seem to be enough.
This doesn't speak to my point. My point is that the entailments of evolutionary theory include common descent, microevolution, and an old earth. ID has no such entailments vis these topics. Therefore evolutionary theory and ID are NOT equivalent in this specific regard. As you indicated, evolutionary theory requires (entails) an old earth. Indeed, Darwin was troubled by Thompson's/Kelvin's estimate, which was much briefer (a few tens of millions of years) than the several hundred million years that Darwin felt his mechanism required. Darwin proved correct (in spades) and Kelvin was wrong. Whether 4,500 periods of one million years is "enough" is another question. It is approximately ten times the interval Darwin felt his theory entailed. Had Kevin been right, Darwin would certainly have conceded that his theory had been refuted. ID does not "subsume" the contemporary age of the earth in the sense that it has similar entailments. It is entirely silent on the question. No finding regarding the age of the earth has bearing upon ID's claims. The two theoretical views stand in similar relation vis common descent and microevolution.Reciprocating_Bill_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Reciprocating_Bill, The theory of evolution REQUIRES an old Earth. Unfortunately for the theory 4.5 billion years does not seem to be enough. Also the theory of evolution doesn't have anything to contribute besides slight modification- oscillating modifications- of some already present population. That said to falsify ID in the domain of evolution all one has to do is demonstrate that the organism/ obeject/ event in question can be reduced to matter and energy. ID says if design is determined then that in question cannot be reduced to matter and energy.Joseph_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

R. Martinez [86]
Your definition of “ID” is based upon the desire of one person—Michael Behe—to not be perceived as a Creationist. The concept seen in “Intelligent Design” always presupposes agency accomplished by the power of Mind. There is no source for any Divine Mind producing nature by the concepts seen in “evolution” or “common ancestry.” These concepts, that is, the concepts of “evolution” and “common ancestry” were accepted on the basis that Intelligent agency is absent from reality—that is why the concept of evolution is necessary to explain reality. IF ID is true, that is, if Intelligent agency is operating in reality, and the all the evidence says it is, then we cannot explain reality using the terms and phrases (”evolution” and “common ancestry”) that presuppose the absence of Intelligent agency.
Well said. Although I think it is unfair to blame only Behe for that philosophical error, your reference reminded me of what he said in 2007: http://calitreview.com/260
I would suggest that Richard Dawkins re-read my book. In it I clearly state that random evolution works well up to the species level, perhaps to the genus and family level too. But at the level of vertebrate classes (birds, fish, etc), the molecular developmental programs needed would be beyond the edge of evolution.
How can Behe or anyone set limits to the power of the designer? The power to design and create a vertebrate class entails the power to design species, genera, families, etc. (To say nothing of phyla and life itself.)Adel DiBagno_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Jerry at 72 and 75:
ID subsumes most of the modern evolutionary theory. Where it differs with nearly all evolutionary biologists is in the origin of FCSI. remember that ID subsumes most of the modern synthesis.
"Subsumes" requires disambiguation. From Darwin forward evolutionary theory has ENTAILED common descent and 'microevolution' (as well as an old earth), in the sense that the failure to observe any of these would have falsified Darwin's model of descent with modification. ID does not entail common descent, microevolution, or an old earth in this sense. What you really mean to say is that ID is silent on these questions and that, unlike contemporary evolutionary theory, ID has nothing to contribute with respect to many hugely important questions WRT the history of life on earth. Nor, unlike evolutionary theory, can it be falsified by observations in these domains. It is therefore misleading to claim that contemporary evolutionary theory and ID are equivalent with respect to observations in these domains. Evolutionary theory entails common descent and microevoution; ID does not.Reciprocating_Bill_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

Looking at the 1987 video, it is clear that correct letter selections are occasionally replaced with incorrect letters and then, subsequently, the correct letter is re-selected. This is conclusive evidence that latching was not employed in the WEASEL program in that year. Dawkins denies that latching was ever part of the program. The only evidence for the hypothesis that it was are the printouts of short sequences of character strings selected by the program from an earlier run which appear to exhibit latching behavior. This leaves us with three possible explanations: first, that Dawkins forgot that he had included latching behavior in his original program, second, that he is lying about it or, third, that the appearance of latching is just that, a consequence of the fact that the reprinted sequences are too short to show correct choices being deselected. Dawkins being nothing if not meticulous in these matters it is unlikely that he forgot and, presumably, it would be easy enough for him to check the original code if he felt any uncertainty. He has also never, to my knowledge, been caught in a lie. This leaves the third explanation as the most likely, in my view, but we cannot know for certain. The simplest solution would be to obtain a copy of the original code and run it to see if it exhibits latching behavior. Another approach, which I believe has already been adopted, is to write a new program for the same purpose but which specifically excludes any form of latching behavior. Either way, the fact remains that Dawkins never claimed anything more for the WEASEL program that that it was an illustration of the advantage of cumulative selection over random searching.Seversky_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus, I repeat I am sorry if any of my comments seem to imply you are a stupid liar. I again unreservedly apologize for any offense. None was intendedArthur Smith_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

Arthur: Back and forth it seems. Ever so sadly so. Arthur, let me spell it out: In my comments I gave clear evidence at 497 - 8 that I had wasted 10 minutes of my time watching BBC Horizon 1987, and spotting the differences between Weasel 1986 and Weasel 1987. AFTER that was up, you directly implied that I had not watched it. And AFTER I corrected you, you went right back and insisted there ["fair enough"] that I have not seen it. That dieectly -- and falsely -- implies that I am a liar, and a stupid one. Whether by intent or by negligence, that is slander, and slander that serves to add to a slanderous insinuation by another whom I am directly remarking on above here in this thread. Please, stop it. Right now. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

I am merely asking if you watched the Dawkins video? How on Earth can that be construed as unfair. You are at liberty to answer or not as you choose. I am just curious; It is no big deal. Perhaps the problem that we do not appear to communicate well is not only limited to my poor reading skills.Arthur Smith_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

Arthur: I am having to correct you a second time in a matter of minutes on propagation of a false insinuation. If you had taken time to actually read 497 - 8 in the other thread [less thant he 10 minutes I spent on Dawkins' video] -- and as I pointed to above here -- you will see that I took the time to watch Dawkins in 1987, and observed on the key points of contrast to the 1986 situation. had you read above in this one, you would see that one of my concerns on moderation is that false claims with adverse implications or insinuations are being propagated from omne place to another. You have, within minutes, substantiated my concern. For shame! GEM of TKI PS: There is a duty of care on FAIRNESS of comment.kairosfocus_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus: Did you view the clip of Dawkins demonstrating his "weasel" program? LinkArthur Smith_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

Moderators (and Joseph): Joseph [thanks!], re 92:
[To GLF:] You think KF’s credibility is lacking because of one alleged mistake, but what does this tactic say about you?
Of course -- and Moderators, directly relevant to the moderation policy -- what GLF does not say is: 1 --> In the Scepticism thread, 336, GLF quotemined my remarks (he obviously knows that few people follow up links . . . ) in an earlier thread at the outset. [Cf his 336 and my 402 and 404 and 407 here. On the substantial point cf my 346 - 7.] 2 --> His rhetorical tactics, now repeated in multiple threads -- sadly -- are indeed as Stephen summarised at 71: selectively hyprerskeptical red herrings that distract the thread from its key issue, led out to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignited to further distract attention, and cloud and choke the atmosphere with polarisation and a host of unjustified, uncivil immoral equivalency claims or insinuations. 3 --> In this case, in the already linked thread he without justification cleverly insinuates [carefully chosen word] not merely that I have made "mistakes" -- NB: as my latest correction to JT at 497 - 8 shows the best explanation of Weasel circa 1986 is that it carries out targetted, hot/cold reward non functional configs with v slight increments search, still best explained by explicit latching [with implicit quasi-latching the second best explanation], i.e. Weasel is an example of ID, not evo by RV + NS -- but that I am a willful deceiver and stubborn in defense of error and falsehood. Nowhere has he retracted such despite much good evidence that his insinuation is flat wrong. [That he foolishly put up US$ 100k may have something to do with the above. I have shown from Dawkins' mouth in Blind Watchmaker and a New Scientist article, both as cited and easily accessible online, that Weasel is the precise kind of targetted search that i described in the original, quote-mined thread (cf 107 and 111 there, esp. as excerpted at 404 in the sceptics tread) is a strawman distractor from the challenge of getting to bio-function by a BLIND watchmaker highlighted by Hoyle, and that the observed 1986 printoffs beyond reasonable [but of course not beyond selective hypersketpicism adn its typical endless ill-founded objections] doubt exhibit latching of outputs, which still is best explained by explicit or implicit latching a la T2 or T3. The 1987 program that does NOT exhibit latching, is significantly different in its behaviour from the published record on the 1986 one. (this I discuss yet again in my latest correctives to JT and DK at 497 - 8.)] 4 --> In this context of red herrings, strawmen, turnabout insinuations and attempted immoral equivalency, GLF now seems to be trying to broadcast a tendentious and unwarranted claim as if it establishes a fact. 5 --> This is similar to his attempt to dismiss the significance of the underlying issue on Weasel: the unmet search challenge posed by FSCI. (GLF's tendency to speak of the evolutionary materialist attempted reconstruction of a distant, unobserved and unrepeatable past as if it were a "fact" is also suggestive of an underlying lack of appreciation for the material difference between claims [especially tendentious ones] and facts. Indeed, it is diagnostic of the conjoined selective hyperskepticism towards inconvenient and reasonably well warranted fact that is inconvenient, and hyper credulity towards unsupported claims that one is inclined to accept.) 6 --> This note therefore seeks to point out that uncorrected, tolerated false insinuation or claims may well be perceived by the naive onlooker as the truth (and, one cannot spend all one's time tracking down every assertion all over UD much less the wider Internet). So, tendentious and distractive or atmosphere poisoning agitprop can easily triumph over truth by drowning it out and obfuscating it in a cloud of noxious polarisation, once ad hominems are tolerated. 7 --> The remedy seems plain: once a thread hijack red herring is raised, it should be corrected,and if insisted upon, cut off. 8 --> If ad hominems are resorted to, they should be corrected and if unapologised for, cut off -- once they are irrelevant or unwarranted or uncharitable. And on this one GLF tried to make an immoral equivalency claim between his uncharitable remarks to another person, and my characterisation of selective hyperskepticism [an ideological abstract entity] as an intellectual disease that is in a runaway and probably fatal epidemic across our civilisation; with people afflicted with it seen as VICTIMS. Dire prognosis notwithstanding, I am still trying, as I believe in miracles, even last minute ones. (I note, Clive has already warned GLF on uncharitable tone and comment towards another UD commenter.) 9 --> Similarly, if commenters show unresponsiveness to basic correctives on ID 101 facts, that behaviour should be corrected. Insistence on misinformation and misrepresentations [i.e. strawman arguments] should be in particular, strongly corrected. A three strikes and you're out policy on this may be appropriate. (This is very different from showing well-warranted flaws in the Weak Arguments Correctives, which are EXPLICITLY open to such corrections on the merits.) 10 --> In general, I think we need to insist that discussion on UD, to be productive, targets the merits of fact and good reasoning, i.e critically aware dialogue on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power, towards the truth; not the rhetorical games of debate in the too often justified bad sense of that term. ___________ Thanks again Joseph for watching my 6. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

re: post 71 Maybe we need a code word/phrase to flag StephenB's "Darwinists-can't-dance-to-this-tune-so-IDists-are-letting-them-play" phenomenon. It is rather like a burglar throwing a guard dog a piece of meat to distract him from his duty. I confess to having chased the pork chop instead of the prowler.russ_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

StephenB in #71 Thank you for that post. Great insights. And "on topic", even! Sorry you'll be leaving (for now?)russ_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

George, Your third link is just more of "evolution flagellum". You have been told several times now that "evolution" is not being debated and you still continue with the same comical nonsense. You think KF's credibility is lacking because of one alleged mistake, but what does this tactic say about you? Truly pathetic and really very much like Zachriel. From your posts you are either Zachriel or someone who wants to be Zachriel. Pathetic indeed...Joseph_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

seversky:
Wouldn’t this be the ideal sort of research for ID scientists to carry out, though? If they failed to find any evidence that that flagella-less bacteria could evolve one under suitable environmental pressures, wouldn’t that tend to support Behe’s claim?
No it is an experiment tat evolutionists should be doing to demonstrate THEIR claim. If an IDist did it and it didn't come out how you liked you would just claim we cheated. However you bring up a point- If Behe genetically engineers a flagellum would that count for ID?
Intelligent Design accepts what it calls micro-evolution and common descent but claims that major changes like speciation cannot be accounted for by the theory of evolution and can only be explained by the intervention of an unspecified intelligent agent.
No intervention is required. Just the right target-driven genetic programming and the right resources to trigger the right epigenetic systems. And again evidence for ID is observed in transcription, proof-reading, error-correction, editing- have you seen the splicesosome and ribosome in action? Ribosomes have been synthesized but they don't function. Do you want to know why? They aren't programmed. And evolutionary biology doesn't have any evidence for cumulative selection. It is having a tough time trying to get two cumulative mutations never-mind anything beyond that. So if all of life's diversity can be explained by two or less muations, then your position may work. Good luck with that...Joseph_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

George, This is TOO funny to pass up- The second paper you linked to is titled: Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system
There is no “the flagellum"- George
But I take it there is "the bacterial flagellar system"!Joseph_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

How the heck can one test the premise that the flagellum arose via an accumulation of genetic acidents?
Can you be a bit more specific? I mean, there are many types of flagellum.
Pick one. I am leaving it all up to you.
What do you make of papers such as this? Bacterial Flagella and Type III Secretion: Case Studies in the Evolution of Complexity.
Besides the FACT that "evolution" is not being debated? Does the phrase "designed to evolve" mean anything to you? Have you had any experience with a TARGETED search program? Then there is one peer-reviewed paper showing how difficult it is to break Dr Behe's "Edge of Evolution" and you want us to believe that an UNtargeted search- a search for something that never existed in the population- can occur in less time than a relatively simple two mutation accumulation? All via UNGUIDED processes? So what I make of papers such as those is this: They are an attempt to answer a question via imagination rather than demonstration. Meta-information- that is what ID answers and you cannot. Meta-information is that which is NOT reducible to matter and energy, nor chance and necessity. But anyway I will have a more thorough review of the first paper tomorrow. And I bet the only "standards" it meets are the "standards" of those wed to the anti-ID position. Yet when asked for a demonstration- an actual demonstration, not just what can be put on paper- for cumulative selection, nothing measuring up to much is presented. And as I have already said- Dr Spetner addressed gene duplication, transposons, and several other mechanisms as part of his non-random evolutionary hypothesis. 1997 "Not By Chance" Read it and then you may be able to grasp what is being debated. Nothing has seemed to work so far... Designed to evolve vs evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidentsJoseph_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Arthur joins the list of those helping ID. Arthur, do you think in your vivid imagination that if George could find something that would discredit ID and support the naturalistic origin of complex novel capabilities, that he would not have included it. No, he would have included it in a nano second and touted it for the rest of the month. And you would be there cheering him on. George and Arthur, thank you. It’s so easy.
Jerry, I am flattered that you respond to my post. I wonder whether you need me to reply as you are gifted with the ability to read minds. Anyway, just a couple of points. First: My comment was to suggest to DaveScot that it might make sense to have another thread on the subject of "10 useful things evolutionary biology has done for us" or some such, thus keeping Barry's important statement on moderation policy undiluted. The clue was in the opening; i. e. "@ DaveScot" Second: If I thought someone were undermining their position and strengthening mine by their actions, and I were interested in furthering my own view at all costs (even at the expense of truth), I wouldn't point it out to them.Arthur Smith_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

Joseph
How the heck can one test the premise that the flagellum arose via an accumulation of genetic acidents?
Can you be a bit more specific? I mean, there are many types of flagellum. There is no "the flagellum". You are sadly mistaken if you think there is only 1. What do you make of papers such as this? Bacterial Flagella and Type III Secretion: Case Studies in the Evolution of Complexity.
Bacterial flagella at first sight appear uniquely sophisticated in structure, so much so that they have even been considered ‘irreducibly complex’ by the intelligent design movement. However, a more detailed analysis reveals that these remarkable pieces of molecular machinery are the product of processes that are fully compatible with Darwinian evolution. In this chapter we present evidence for such processes, based on a review of experimental studies, molecular phylogeny and microbial genomics. Several processes have played important roles in flagellar evolution: self-assembly of simple repeating subunits, gene duplication with subsequent divergence, recruitment of elements from other systems (‘molecular bricolage’), and recombination. We also discuss additional tentative new assignments of homology (FliG with MgtE, FliO with YscJ). In conclusion, rather than providing evidence of intelligent design, flagellar and non-flagellar Type III secretion systems instead provide excellent case studies in the evolution of complex systems from simpler components.
I realise it's from 2007 so it may not be quite as up to date as you need. It's here http://tinyurl.com/bb6824 Are you up to speed on all the recent developments in this area? http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116 There appear to be many such resources available, if you are truly interested in answering your own question http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=evolution+flagellum&submit=yes Have a look the first paper I linked to, perhaps we could talk about your thoughts on why it does not meet your standard (which I predict it will not)?George L Farquhar_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

DaveScot (#58): "ID does not dispute so-called micro-evolution by and necessity nor does it dispute common descent." Utterly false. Your definition of "ID" is based upon the desire of one person---Michael Behe---to not be perceived as a Creationist. The concept seen in "Intelligent Design" always presupposes agency accomplished by the power of Mind. There is no source for any Divine Mind producing nature by the concepts seen in "evolution" or "common ancestry." These concepts, that is, the concepts of "evolution" and "common ancestry" were accepted on the basis that Intelligent agency is absent from reality---that is why the concept of evolution is necessary to explain reality. IF ID is true, that is, if Intelligent agency is operating in reality, and the all the evidence says it is, then we cannot explain reality using the terms and phrases ("evolution" and "common ancestry") that presuppose the absence of Intelligent agency. Your definition of "ID" is subjective. RayR. Martinez_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Joseph @ 79
How the heck can one test the premise that the flagellum arose via an accumulation of genetic acidents?
Since it is unlikely that such event will have left a trail of evidence in the fossil record, the only other possibility would be to try to replicate the process in the laboratory. This might take a long time although that would not, in itself, be a reason for not trying. Wouldn't this be the ideal sort of research for ID scientists to carry out, though? If they failed to find any evidence that that flagella-less bacteria could evolve one under suitable environmental pressures, wouldn't that tend to support Behe's claim?
What is the hypothesis for such a premise?
I would have thought that was obvious. It is the alternative hypothesis to Behe's flat denial that it could have happened at all. It is based on observations of how living things can change over time, such as bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics or the capacity to digest nylon.
If you cannot answer them then perhaps you will see the emptyness your position offers.
Evolutionary biology has accumulated an abundance of evidence from many fields consistent with a theory which explains how living things could have changed over time without requiring the intervention of an intelligent agent: Tiktaalik, the bacterial changes mentioned above, the peppered moth, the finches beaks, transitional fossils, some in nice sequences in the geological record to name just a few. Intelligent Design accepts what it calls micro-evolution and common descent but claims that major changes like speciation cannot be accounted for by the theory of evolution and can only be explained by the intervention of an unspecified intelligent agent. The only evidence offered is highly-controversial estimates of probability and the despairing argument from incredulity. It also offers a method of distinguishing what is designed from what is not designed but that has yet to be tested. Onlookers will decide for themselves which is the emptier case. The fact is that a lack of evidence from an area where you would not expect to find any evidence really tells us very little. If there is no 'watermark' in our genome which reads "Made in Heaven. Use by 43567895 AD" it does not mean there is no God. Neither does the lack of a detailed genetic pathway leading step-by-step from the Type III secretory system to the bacterial flagellum mean it did not happen or that the whole theory of evolution is overturned by its absence.Seversky_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

George, eintown doesn't seem to be able to answer the following questions. Perhaps you can: How the heck can one test the premise that the flagellum arose via an accumulation of genetic acidents? What is the hypothesis for such a premise? If you cannot answer them then perhaps you will see the emptyness your position offers.Joseph_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Science by induction i.e empirical science is trying to find patterns from gathered data. As it happens the amount of data that we can analyze however is infinite in length. So even if we find some pattern in the data certainly doesn't make something a fact even if all experiments points to that conclusion. So Georges comment "Modern evolutionary theory says that macroevolution is a fact for one thing." is logically wrong in all counts. This really shows poor understanding on what empirical science can do and cannot do. The strongest conclusion empirical science can do is "all data (X) gathered this far indicates a pattern (P) which points to a conclusion (Y).Innerbling_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

George:
I think I understand exactly what ID is about, thanks.
All evidence to the contrary, of course.
How about you pony up some actual evidence?
Transcription, proof-reading, error-correction, editing, more proof-reading and error-correction, translation with its proof-reading and error-correction. What part oif that strikes you as being from an accumulation of genetic accidents? The you list some stuff and expect ID to hacve the answers when YOUR positiopn doesn't have any of the answers! How does YOUR position say DNA, RNA, protens etc arise? No idea. Origin of species? No idea. So what does saying an accumulation of genetic accidents add to the discussion? IOW all you have is "it evolved" and nothing more.Joseph_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

George:
After all, YEC holds that nothing significant (much less species-specific adaptive traits or metabolisms) evolved, they were directly created, right?
Wrong. According to YECs the organisms we observe "evolved" from the originally created kind. There is a science called baraminology. Perhaps you should look into it. Also Dr Spetner has a book titled "Not By Chance" that also explains the Creation position. That said perhaps you can tell us which one of your examples relies on the accumulation of genetic accidents. As a matter of fact I didn't see one example you provided that YECs dispute. And I don't have a "YEC perspective". I just know what YECs say because I have read enough of their material. THAT is how it is done: FIRST read and understand the position which you are arguing against- THEN come to a discussion ready to go. YOU don't seem to understand what the alternatives are saying. And to prove that you provided examples that no one disputes. You are in good company- Allen MacNeill does the same thing.Joseph_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

George, You are getting like a broken record which is an anarchism these days. I have already told you that there are tens of thousand of ID research projects going on by ID proxies. Every research study which fails to show support for the macro evolution part of the evolutionary synthesis is research that supports ID. The basis for this claim is the thinking of Behe in the Edge of Evolution. You can bluster on but that is what it is, blustering. When a series of studies comes along that is not speculation and shows how complex novel capabilities arose naturally, then evolutionary biologists will have the right to use all of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis as part of their science. Until that day, they must admit it is not scientifically based. You don't seem to understand. It is the evolutionary synthesis that is on trial. We want empirical evidence. If it existed, then we would all go away. The fact that you and others fail to provide it just makes our case stronger. I also suggest you deal with one point at a time. You seem to think that make multiple claims makes your case stronger but in reality it makes it weaker because you cannot focus. Pick your strongest example of empirical research and go with it. But you now know what ID believes so make sure it is not something we will agree with.jerry_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

DaveScot:
People trust medical doctors because they can get sued and lose their license if they screw up.
Tell that to russ@33. Medical practitioners range from brilliant to looney tunes. I'm talking about trusting established medical science.
What happens to a tenured evolutionary biologist if he’s wrong?
I'd imagine that researchers who prove incompetent in their field will, at the very least, have a hard time finding collaborators and funding. If tenure removed all motivation to produce quality work, all scholarly disciplines would be in big trouble, not just evolutionary biology.
By the way, what grade are you in?
Tell you what, Dave. I brought up a couple of points in a previous thread:
You seem to think that descriptional complexity contributes to an inference of design, but Dembski’s math says the opposite.
and
Dave, I thought that you were open to the possibility that intelligence reduces to the laws of physics. (Maybe I misunderstood some of your previous posts.) If so, wouldn’t that mean that intelligence reduces to chance and necessity?
which you promptly deleted. (Apparently not all posters here are as confident as Barry when it comes to open debate.) Respond to those points and I'll respond to your question.R0b_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

jerry
While you are thrashing about trying to understand what ID is about
I think I understand exactly what ID is about, thanks. How about you pony up some actual evidence? The comment you linked to says
The first tier is the origin of life or how did a cell and DNA, RNA and proteins arise. Quite a sticky issue with no sensible answer by science. Lots of speculation and wishful thinking but nothing that makes sense.
How does ID say DNA, RNA, protens etc arise? It is silent on the matter.
The next tier I will call the evolution of single celled organisms.
What does ID contribute to the question? It is silent on the matter.
. How, did brains, limbs, digestive systems, neurological systems arise and all the complex signaling systems between cells and organs. These are immensely complicated but get little discussion except it all happened over time.
What does ID say on these matters? It is silent.
how did one species arise from another species when there are substantial functional differences between them.
What does ID say about how species arose? It says nothing.
This is how did a lot of the orders and families develop? For example, within Carnivora how did all the families arise?
Does ID say "this is how the orders and families developed?" No, it does not. It is slient on the matter.
The final tier is what Darwin observed on his trip on the Beagle and what most of evolutionist are talking about when they think evolution, namely micro-evolution and can be explained by basic genetics, occasional mutations, environmental pressures and of course, natural selection. Few disagree on this fifth tier including those who call themselves Intelligent Design proponents yet this is where all the evidence is that is used to persuade everyone that Darwinism is a valid theory.
Hardly. As ID says nothing about how any of your noted "tiers" came to be (other then gosh, it's so complex Darwinism could not have done it on it's own) how is it that the last "tier" should disprove or prove Darwinism. It's obvious that the data on each of the "tiers" you talk about has actually come from darwinist scientists. As, if you recall there are no ID scientists due to repression etc. So on the one hand you have ID, which cannot speak to how any item in any "tier" came to be. On the other hand you have "darwinism" which attempts to explain and provide evidence (and has done so with great or lesser sucess in all your "tiers") and is a more or less unified framework (with large amounts of disagreement internally on the exact mechanisms). So, on the one had we have an evidence free theory and on the other we have a theory with lots of evidence. Yet you still believe in the evidence free theory. Why is that jerry? If you were placing a bet would you bet on the side that had no evidence for it's position?George L Farquhar_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

jerry
That is FSCI. The concept of FSCI is all over microbiology. They just do not call it that.
Then one wonders why you don't just use their terms instead of inventing your own, if they do indeed mean the same thing. What benefit does it do you to invent your own terms when they already exist, for the same thing?
If it happened, then ID will accept it. Is that hard to understand?
Yet ID says that this level of complexity cannot evolve. If the things we're talking about can evolve without intelligent input then what relevance does ID have?
What is the cite for this example so we can see what the findings are for the research?
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1752-0509-3-33.pdf
What ID disputes with this is how all new species arise.
ID might indeed dispute that, but what does ID add to the dicussion other then saying "it could not have happened like that". Any information on how you say it did happen? I'm not interested in purely negative argumentation I've afraid.
ID subsumes most of the modern synthesis.
Even if the modern synthesis explicitly rejects the notion that intelligent design is a required input?
It is interesting how those who come here try to impose their perceptions of ID on us and then demand we accept their erroneous perceptions when we complain that they are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm not demanding anything of the sort. What I am asking is what relation ID has to the types of examples that I gave. Does it remain silent on such? You have your link http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1752-0509-3-33.pdf Now, tell me what ID can contribute to our understanding of the subject of that paper.George L Farquhar_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply