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

"Facility?" I intended "facilitate."Reciprocating_Bill_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Joseph @ 221 In what sense are these predictions "entailments" of your theory? Entailments follow of necessity from a theory. That is what makes them entailments. And that is why failing to observe them places the theory at risk of disconfirmation.
1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters.
I disagree. If the universe was a product of intelligent design I would expect to find various compartments, each governed by a different set of laws intended to facility various designed outcomes. Potential falsification: Try to observe the universe and find various compartments containing differing physical laws. If the universe displays uniformity it was not intelligently designed.
If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. IOW I would expect to see an intricacy that is more than just a sum of chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic).
I disagree. If living organisms were the result of intelligent design I would expect to find organisms with no interacting parts to wear out or break down. I would expect a single, seamless, morphing shape of irreducible simplicity, unattainable by the most skilled human designer, that is immortal and vastly more intelligent than the human beings I've met, especially recently. Potential falsification: Observe organisms and look for unsurpassed, seamless, irreducible simplicity enabling immortality. If intricate, complex mechanisms are observed that are prone to wearing out and breaking down then living organisms weren't intelligently designed. The point being, Joseph, is that you are pulling these assertions out of your, er, hat, in an entirely ad hoc manner. I see no way in which they are necessary entailments of a theory of intelligent or intentional design. Hence were each disconfirmed one could retreat to what Jerry so tellingly calls a "fallback position," in which you assert, on an ad hoc basis, something else that you feel is consistent with the data. Additionally, in order to discern whether a new, revolutionary theory does a better job of explaining data than the current, dominant paradigm the entailments/predictions that arise out of this new theory must be unique. Astrophysics and cosmology conducted within the natural science framework also observes/assumes uniformity. Hence the observation of uniformity gives no reason to prefer the ID framework, which otherwise appears to have no ability to meaningfully guide empirical research (as amply indicated by the comments on this thread), over the framework of naturalism, which continues to make dramatic progress. And lastly, no one is much impressed by "predictions" that predict things we already know/assume to be the case.Reciprocating_Bill_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

Question Is the universe the result of intentional design? Prediction: 1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters. 2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability. 3) Also if the universe was designed for scientific discovery I would expect it to be comprehensible. Test: 1) Try to determine if the same laws that apply every place on Earth also apply throughout the universe. 2) Try to determine the correlation between habitability and measurability. 3) Try to determine if the universe is comprehensible. Potential falsification: 1) Observe that the universe is chaotic. 2) A- Find a place that is not habitable but offers at least as good of a platform to make scientific discoveries as Earth or B- Find a place that is inhabited but offers a poor platform from which to make scientific discoveries. 3) Observe that we cannot comprehend the universe, meaning A) what applies locally does not apply throughout or B) what applies in one scenario, even locally, cannot be used/ applied in any similar scenario, even locally. Confirmation: 1) Tests conducted all over the globe, on the Moon and in space confirm that the same laws that apply here also apply throughout the universe. 2) All scientific data gathered to date confirm that habitability correlates with measurability. 3) “The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible.” Albert Einstein Question Are living organisms the result of intentional design? Prediction: If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. IOW I would expect to see an intricacy that is more than just a sum of chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic). 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.Joseph_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

If design is true...we will not observe a micro evolutionary process as a cause of the [macroevolutionary] change
OK. If design is true, what WILL you observe? What MUST you observe? Such that if you don't observe it, design is at risk?Reciprocating_Bill_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Reciprocating_Bill, I as sorry but it cannot be done exactly the way you want. It is not that simple. But the following is consistent with ID If design is true then we should observe 1. all trivial changes due to micro evolution processes. 2. for all major changes, that is the creation of complex novel capabilities, we will not observe a micro evolutionary process as a cause of the change. But again, ID does not deny that some of these major changes could happen by micro evolutionary processes. So the second proposition should be rewritten 2. for all major changes, that is the creation of complex novel capabilities, we will not observe a majority of the changes due to micro evolutionary process as a cause of the change or even a significant minority. Now theoretically ID could stand for just one not being explained but in reality no one would hold ID for evolution if such a situation existed. ID would retreat to the Origin of Life. There are no killer tests for this and you claim what I was saying is rambling, which may be true, but it will take such ongoing research proving true before anyone will take ID seriously. The current paradigm has been falsified completely but people hold out very high hope for it and that new research will eventually find how macro evolution happened. The war is going to be fought at the genome level because it is there and there alone that the information issue can be decided. For what the most virulent anti ID position is read the article by Jurgen Brosius in the Vrba and Eldredge book on macro evolution which is a reprint of the June 2005 issue of Paleobiology v. 31; no. 2_Suppl; p. 1-16; "Disparity, adaptation, exaptation, bookkeeping, and contingency at the genome level"? Jürgen Brosius. Institute of Experimental Pathology, ZMBE, University of Münster, Von-Esmarch-Strasse 56, Münster, Germany. RNA.world@uni-muenster.de The application of molecular genetics, in particular comparative genomics, to the field of evolutionary biology is paving the way to an enhanced “New Synthesis.” Apart from their power to establish and refine phylogenies, understanding such genomic processes as the dynamics of change in genomes, even in hypothetical RNA-based genomes and the in vitro evolution of RNA molecules, helps to clarify evolutionary principles that are otherwise hidden among the nested hierarchies of evolutionary units. To this end, I outline the course of hereditary material and examine several issues including disparity, causation, or bookkeeping of genes, adaptation, and exaptation, as well as evolutionary contingency at the genomic level—issues at the heart of some of Stephen Jay Gould’s intellectual battlegrounds. Interestingly, where relevant, the genomic perspective is consistent with Gould’s agenda. Extensive documentation makes it particularly clear that exaptation plays a role in evolutionary processes that is at least as significant as—and perhaps more significant than—that played by adaptation.”jerry_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Jerry @ 216 What I am describing, in highly specific terms, is the basic epistemological foundation of science, and the relationship between scientific theories and empirical observation. Pick any level of ID you like. (It's your theory.) Describe your theory at that level, including entailments that necessarily arise from that theory. Describe empirical tests of those entailments, such that failure to observe them would place your theory at risk of disconfirmation. Your ramble through genomes doesn't specify particular entailments, e.g. "If design is true then we should observe ________. If we don't observe _______ our theory is at risk of disconfirmation."Reciprocating_Bill_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Kairos @ 214
You here show that you do not realise that scientific theories are in general not shown to be CORRECT so much as shown to be (i) empirically reliable and also to be (ii) the best of current explanations.
That's correct. The way in which a theory may be said to be empirically reliable is that a) it generates specific positive entailments, such that failure to observe those entailments places the theory at risk of disconfirmation, and b) empirical tests of those entailments are conducted. Confidence in the theory is increased if the predicted entailments are observed, although the theory is never regarded as proved. A theory may sometimes be confidently disconfirmed, however, if the predicted entailments are not observed. None of the above suggestions get even that far.Reciprocating_Bill_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Jerry @217
I suggest you get more detailed if you want an answer to your question especially since every thing you have said could also be applied to the current evolutionary synthesis.
You frequently make claims like this, but I have yet to see you back them up with actual evidence. There is room for criticism of modern evolutionary theory (MET), but failing to follow the scientific method is not part of that. There are literally hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers that specify feasibly testable predictions entailed by some aspect of MET, and then report the results of those tests. What, specifically, are you talking about? JJJayM_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Jerry @217
When people say they cannot falsify ID, that is correct because all ID needs is just one instance of intelligence to justify its position. That would be a rather difficult position to falsify. There could always be a black swan. The ultimate fall back position for ID is the design of the universe.
Jerry, you do realize that you have just admitted that ID is not a scientific theory, right? It may be true, but if you can't specify a clear statement of the theory and a feasibly testable prediction that would serve to falsify it, you're not talking about science. JJJayM_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Reciprocating_Bill, If you are going to comment here, then you should understand the basic levels of ID. When people say they cannot falsify ID, that is correct because all ID needs is just one instance of intelligence to justify its position. That would be a rather difficult position to falsify. There could always be a black swan. The ultimate fall back position for ID is the design of the universe. Let us say that is the top level. The universe is finely tuned and how did this happen without an intelligence input. Some will say that this is the only intelligence input in the system. For example, Deists hold this position. The creation of life and all that follows was a result of the initial conditions set up at the Big Bang. That is an ID position taken by some. There have been many discussions here on how to falsify such a position and the only one that holds any water outside of these premises is the infinite universe scenario. A lot of religious people hold this principle and they believe that though God interfered in this world in some subtle ways He never changed the laws of nature during His interventions in any major way to accomplish His objectives and the origin of life and its evolution flow from the Big Bang. Others including most ID people believe that some intelligence, could be God but it could be someone else, created life. So this would be the one ID event that all ID people generally hold. Some of the ID people believe that once life was created the boundary conditions and initial conditions were such that life evolved and what we see is the result of these constraints. They will say that the initial genomes were full of the potential to guide the microbes to man scenario. Natural selection and mutations were not enough to create the variation necessary to fuel evolution but the actual variation or seeds of it were contained in the initial genomes. Others believe that there was an intelligence input at one or more times after this time to guide the process along. Just when or how often is the debate. Now given that, how does one approach the problem scientifically. You keep on saying "Describe an entailment unique to ID that, were there sufficient funding, could be subject to empirical test. Something that follows from ID such that were we to fail to observe it, ID or a major tenet of ID would be falsified. " Well given this, I thought I laid out a procedure that would lead to a clear understanding of what happened and try to assess when or how often an intelligent input happened or was required. Given the various positions people have about ID it is hard to imagine what you have in mind. You fail to provide any specifics so you seem to be hiding behind vague statements and decrying the inability of those here to understand. I suggest you get more detailed if you want an answer to your question especially since every thing you have said could also be applied to the current evolutionary synthesis. The answer may be that we cannot satisfy you but right now we do not seem to know what would satisfy you.jerry_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

David: Start with the rigorous definition of LIFE, the subject matter of biology. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

RB: You here show that you do not realise that scientific theories are in general not shown to be CORRECT so much as shown to be (i) empirically reliable and also to be (ii) the best of current explanations. In short, your objection is [inadvertently] selectively hyperskeptical; for it would undermine all of science if applied equally. So, please note: 1 --> The scientific inference to design does not claim ultimate correctness, but to be a well-tested, empirically reliable best current explanation. 2 --> If it can be shown that say CSI, where the specification is functional [i.e FSC or FSCI] is plausibly the product of chance + necessity and/or 3 --> that it is the product of another as yet unknown factor, then 4 --> the inference to design would be replaced by a better explanation. But, 5 --> we know that for 2400 years, we have seen that causes do naturally break down into (i) low contigency regularities [tracing to mechanical necessity], and (ii) high contingency outcomes [tracing to either (iii) directed or (iv) undirected stochastic contingency]. 6 --> Case (i) is law or necessity, case (iii) is design,a nd case (iv) is chance. 7 --> Apart from cases where evolutionary materialist worldviews are potentially at stake, this breakdown by cases is not even controversial. 8 --> Similarly, we recognise that real life situations are complex and that the different factors act: think of a die dropped in part of a game -- law, chance and design may a be acting. [Esp. if the die is loaded . . . ] 9 --> On an aspect by aspect basis, we can disaggregate the complex outocme, explaining part by law, part by chance, part by design where appropriate. 10 --> It turns out that specified complexity, esp functionally specified complex information, is a reliable sign of design. So, when we see FSCI we are entitled to infer to design per reliable sign, as a best and well-tested explanation. 11 --> but as with all scientific inferences, that is subject to further test and correction in light of evidence -- not mere metaphysical speculation, or imposition of Lewontinian censorship or just so stories. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

And David, I am still waiting for those rigorous definitions used by your "scientific community" pertaining to biology.Joseph_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

David, I have always posted what it would take- ie the evidence required. I do NOT require details. Details would be nice, of course. However when I see that the only "evidence" is a narrative, I have every reason to question it. IOW so far the ONLY difference I see between your position and Young Earth Creationism, is you think you have a better story. But hey, you could always just put up some scientific data, we could discuss it and then we could see exactly what "evidence" you do have. As I have told you before- even though we know much more about eyes and vision systems than Darwin did, the "evidence" for their evolution is the same- namely we observe differing complexities of eyes and vision systems and we "know" the original population(s) didn't have either. Just because you are gullible enough to buy that just because some scientist sez it is so, don't hate me just because I demand a bit more than what is being offered.Joseph_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Joseph, my sense of what you require is not dishonest, but an inference from your behavior.David Kellogg_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Kairos - How does your test distinguish between "ID is also wrong" and "ID is correct?"Reciprocating_Bill_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

But don't take my word for it. What I said is printed in black & white: ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 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. So the bottom-line is if you can demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for the ORIGIN of FCSI then ID would fall.Joseph_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Describe a specific entailment arising from ID, and a test of that entailment (not a test of an entailment of evolutionary theory), such that a component of ID may potentially be disconfirmed.
A specific entailment of ID is certain objects cannot be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity. To disconfirm that PoV all that has to be done is show it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. It is that simple.Joseph_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

Kairos - You demonstrate the same failure of comprehension displayed by the others. A test of the entailments of evolutionary theory, even if such a prediction is disconfirmed ("evolutionary theory is wrong") is not a test of the entailments of ID, as it provides no information to distinguish enabling a distinction between "ID is also wrong" and "ID is correct." Describe a specific entailment arising from ID, and a test of that entailment (not a test of an entailment of evolutionary theory), such that a component of ID may potentially be disconfirmed.Reciprocating_Bill_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

Reciprocating_Bill @205
Since I am apparently incapable of conveying these notions to you, and I can’t think of a simpler or more clear way to express them, we’ll have to agree that this discussion is going nowhere slow and leave it at that.
I'm sorry to see you bowing out of this discussion. I agree that it is slow going, but I hope that, with some persistence, you could get an answer (preferably multiple answers) to an essential question. Jerry (and Upright BiPed as well, if you like), would you please just directly answer RB's question? Present an explicit statement of ID theory, provide a prediction based on that statement that could feasibly be tested, and show how the failure of that prediction would falsify all or part of the theory. Do not mention evolution or any other theory in either the statement or the prediction. ID must stand on its own as a positive theory. If you cannot do this, you must admit that ID is not a scientific theory yet. My personal view is that ID has not yet reached this stage, but that some of Behe's work is most likely to get it there. I would love to be proven wrong about the current status. JJJayM_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

RB: There is a simple direct test of the issue of whether chance + necessity alone can credibly create FSCI. It is routinely done by the EIL, and can easily be accessed at their Weasel program page: indeed, it is a roy example, creating 1 in 10^40 instead of the realistic challenge to get to first life functionality in a config space of ~ 10^180,000 for DNA strands of about 300 k bases. Weasel gets around the challenge by implementing targetted, proximity-rewarding search that allows NON- functional configs to compete. Thus, it demonstrates the power of design, not of chance + necessity. In short, your test has long since been met by the EIL, and the evo mat scheme visibly and demonstrably fails. GEM of TKI.kairosfocus_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

Jerry, Since I am apparently incapable of conveying these notions to you, and I can't think of a simpler or more clear way to express them, we'll have to agree that this discussion is going nowhere slow and leave it at that.Reciprocating_Bill_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Reciprocating_Bill, This could also be used to assess the current evolutionary synthesis. The P2 is that there will be a new complex capability. The Q2 would be one or more new complex capabilities. If Q2 is not observed (not Q2) and there are no new complex capabilities then the mapping goes further back to the order or class level where there are definite differences on complex capabilities and the same process is repeated all over again to assess how such capabilities arose. The focus of the research then will be to try and determine how the various complex novel capabilities arose. And all this could be very different from class to class and from phylum to phylum.jerry_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Reciprocating_Bill, This is going no where. We say what the problem is and what to do about it and you repeat the same question. The Edge of Evolution concludes that there is a limit to the ability of natural processes to produce new genomic elements that would have been necessary for the naturalistic path from microbes to man. Short and sweet. One way to prove that this is possibly true or not is the mapping of genomes to see what has changed over time and one way of doing that is to keep going up the ladder of genomes to see where they differ and assess the differences in species as they split from one another. Species -> genera -> families. If a naturalistic mechanism exists then it should have left some forensic trail. How difficult is this to understand. The P2 is that there will not be any new complex capabilities. The Q2 would be the lack of a new complex capability. If Q2 is not observed (not Q2) and there are new complex capabilities then it would have to be determined how these capabilities arose. Was it a gradualist approach and there are two paradigms now competing or some other process. If it is another process, then was it due to elements in the genome recombining to produce it, then this moves the process further back to try to identify the origin of the genomic elements (e.g. evo devo.) Remember that there is a group who believes in the front loading hypothesis and that all was encoded in the genome at the origin of life. If Q2 is observed or no new complex capabilities, then the mapping goes further back to the order or class level where there are definite differences on complex capabilities and the same process is repeated all over again. This will take quite awhile and will still likely be going on after everyone here is gone. This question will not be settled in ID's favor for quite awhile because a lot of possibilities must be eliminated. There will not be any overt acknowledgment of ID because of the political aspects of this but ID will want essentially the same thing as current evolutionary biology. They are both after the same proof, one way or the other. It could be settled on a naturalistic mechanism much quicker if it exists. ID may want to do some other research but the issue will be settled in the mapping of genomes. But that will not eliminate ID altogether until the nature of the naturalistic mechanism is identified but the question of evolution will have come a long way. However, right now in my opinion there is no naturalistic mechanism in sight. And each new finding has reinforced that.jerry_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Jerry, Biped, Joe - Describe an entailment unique to ID that, were there sufficient funding, could be subject to empirical test. Something that follows from ID such that were we to fail to observe it, ID or a major tenet of ID would be falsified. Your research question should conform to this very simple logical format: If P2 (ID) then Q2 (a unique entailment of ID). If not Q2 (if the entailment is not observed), then not P2 (ID is false). Describe that Q2, and describe how you would research it. Imagine unlimited funding. Assertions regarding the entailments of P1 (evolutionary biology) don’t meet this standard, because it doesn’t follow that if not Q1 then P2. That rules out re-interpretations of ongoing biological research. I’m truly interested. Surprise me.Reciprocating_Bill_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

The ribosome is a genetic compiler.
Analogies can be taken too far.
It's not an analogy to those of us who understand what compilers and ribosomes do. To us it is a reality. Compilers- source code in usable code out- and it checks for errors. Ribosomes- mRNA (source code) in usuable proteins out- and it checks for errors.
IDers have never presented us with any falsifiable prediction to test the concept.
You say that out of ignorance of course. But that much has been obvious from your first post and your continued insistence that "evolution" and ID are opposites.Joseph_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

David, Your post proves your dishonesty. Ya see butthead YOU don't get to tell others what I will or will not do. That you did so proves you are dishonest because honest people would not do such a thing.Joseph_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

Transciption and translation remain very good evidnce for ID in biology.
Either that, or they are evidence of your lack of information and imagination, resulting in your inability to think of an evolutionary explanation.
So imagination is an acceptable substitute for real data? Are you soft? Read the following paper: Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution Then read Dr Behe's responses to it: Waiting longer for two mutations It appears that your position has been falsified. Amnd all you have left is some handwaving and arm-flailing.Joseph_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

I'll cop to being a butthead but not to dishonesty.David Kellogg_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Richard, I will ask you again: What pro-ID literature have you read? Have you read any of the books I listed in comment 165? (follow the link) Also I asked you for a prediction from an accumulation of genetic accidents. And instead of responding to THAT question you blather on about "evolution". "Evolution" is NOT being debated! And yes if someone discovered that living organisms are reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity, ID would fall. Just because you don't believe that means absolutely nothing to me. Please read the following so that you may have some clue as to what is being debated- or you could just start reading the books I listed: equivocation and evolution Equivocation continued Biological evolution what is being debatedJoseph_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply