Design Disquisitions: William Dembski Moves on From ID: Some Reflections

@TA, On page 6 of “The Evolution of the Primate, Hominid and Human Brain” the author makes anti-evolution statements. "Four 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 events occurring in a row appears like planned evolution rather than Darwinian evolution with remote odds of anywhere between 1 in a trillion and 1 in 10 quadrillion. This indicates that human brain development may have been planned rather than randomly evolved through Darwinian evolution. In this respect “the CG/hyperglycosylated CG human evolution model” could be suggestive of God’s involvement in planning human creation as indicated in the Bible." EricMH

Yes, KF, an appeal to peer review is, in fact, an appeal to authority. The reason being that whenever someone pops up with a new idea in whatever field, there will be a community of scientists with knowledge in the relevant area who will ask "can you justify what you say". If you can, you will get a hearing. If not, you will get hooted down. The latter is what has happened to ID. timothya

TA, maybe in a few days. KF kairosfocus

TA, I do not have time to take you up on a growing list of distractive points just now, but I do note that the DI will know better than you or I what they are saying. I suggest you need to have a look starting with Dembski's Dissertation ands the book based on it, then go on to the corpus coming out of evo info, say start with the concept of active information and how it is grounded. And I am ignoring for the monent the strong evidence of ideological domineering and censorship. Then too I am not highlighting how the appeal to peer review is appeal to authority, the actual core evidence and issue is accessible to anyone who can see the difference between text and gibberish -- jgq3ighuwjfi -- or repetitive sequences -- sdsdsdsdsd -- and pays attention to the difference between chance, design and mechanical necessity. I have come to the conclusion that we are dealing with people who are denying evidence right in front of them, who therefore have no credible standing to address subtler matters. KF kairosfocus

I took a look at the PDF entitled "BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ANNOTATED LIST OF PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN". I thought that Category 1: "Scientific Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals, Conference Proceedings, or Academic Anthologies" would be a good place to start if I wanted to find the articles that KF complains were ignored by Judge Jones. So I scrolled down the list until I got to a date before the judgment. But before I go on, I did notice the following entry from 2015: Laurence A Cole, “The Evolution of the Primate, Hominid and Human Brain,” Journal of Primatology, Vol. 4(1), DOI:10.4172/2167-6801.1000124 (2015) The paper is open access, so you can read the entire text. Now, I defy anyone to specify in what way this paper is "supportive of intelligent design". It doesn't mention the term anywhere. It throws no spears in the direction of evolutionary theory. Which makes me wonder what criteria were used in compiling the list. I'm inclined to write to Dr Cole to ask if he agrees with its status in the list, or if he even knows it was included, but I don't want to waste his time. Another thing I noticed in the entries for the last few years was the frequency of references to the journal named BIO-complexity. If you are unfamiliar with it, BIO-complexity is a house journal of the Discovery Institute, who are the founders and primary funders of intelligent design. It seems that every article published by BIO-complexity is listed in the PDF (except one that I can find, and thereby hangs a tale, see below) Here are a few measurements of BIO-complexity's output since it began publishing (these are my own calculations, I may be wrong): Start date: 2010 Number of people on the editorial team (as currently published): 31 Number of articles published since 2010 until now: 25 Proportion of articles written by or contributed to by the editorial team: 75 per cent Impact factor (the impact factor of a journal is "a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times it's articles are cited."). Here is the impact factor of BIO-complexity . . . 0 I do not wish to be uncharitable, but that does not look to me to be a genuine scientific activity. Here is the BIO-complexity article that didn’t get included in the “supportive of intelligent design” list: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2012.2 Please go and read it and tell me if you think this is science. BIO-complexity published that article via their version of peer review. I would say it is an exercise in numerology, but then, I had not realised that some intelligent design proponents regard astrology as a legitimate scientific endeavour until Michael Behe said so in his testimony. Never mind, backward to 2006. It gets a little difficult for me at this point because many of the articles are paywalled and I can't afford the price of seeing if the articles are, in fact "supportive of intelligent design". In passing, I'm prepared to bet that KF can't afford the subscriptions to confirm the assertion either. Doesn't stop him claiming that it is the case. Someone is being led by the nose. But here is one of the listed articles: Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) You will all remember this one. Meyer wrote a literature review (which, should you be interested, requires no original research according to the arcane procedures of scientific journals), published in the journal by Richard Sternberg, and subsequently getting banner treatment in Ben Stein's "Expelled". For the last of a tediously large number of times, I will point out that the article was repudiated by the organisation that runs the journal. That is a fact, dear onlookers. So please keep count how many times in the future KF uses that article as evidence "supportive of intelligent design". I'm getting bored, so I shall leave it here. Except for David Abel, who appears several times in the "peer-reviewed" list. In case you are unfamiliar with this person, he runs a research institute, complete with peer review, from the back yard of his house. timothya

TA, I see you have now put up a series of points. I am busy RW just now but will quickly first note, please read the already linked document and follow the footnote references that appear therein. Later, DV. KF PS: The summarised denial given as by the judge may or may not be verbally exact but it is accurate to what I recall was claimed at the time and what was celebrated by objectors to ID as supported by him. However it is manifestly false and so on things that were happening in the courtroom in front of the judge. So, the ruling is clearly injudicious. PPS: This caught my eye, "If you have testable evidence that The ID hypothesis is supportable, I encourage you to submit it to a reputable journal. So far, nobody has done so, including Plato. " As there are now over 50 ID papers in the literature the implied criterion has been more than met. At simple level you should know as a longtime objector to ID at UD, FSCO/I (or toher similar acronyms) is readily testable, start with, set up a random text generator and see if it can provide 500 - 1,00 bits of FSCO/I. So far 20 - 24 characters worth is all that has been achieved a factor of 10^100 short of the relevant config spaces. The persistence in a longsince cogently answered objection directly implies just how weak the objections to the design inference on FSCO/I are. Gone again. kairosfocus

From KF: F/N: For record, I will speak to several points. I find it remarkable how hard it is for some to acknowledge the force of evidence in front of them, or readily accessible. Okay, let’s go back through the unread clips from a 2006 DI PDF document on the ruling (which all serious about this issue should read in full): >>Judge Jones claimed that “ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.” Now here's the thing. Those words appears in the talk.origins archive and in a number of other commentaries on the Dover case, but I can't find them anywhere in Judge Jones' decision. Can you provide a page reference? What he did write is this: "On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe))." 15 (emphasis added) Again, the actual court record shows otherwise. University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified at trial that there are between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 16 and he specifically discussed 17 Stephen Meyer’s explicitly pro-intelligent design article 18 in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. As pointed out ad nauseam, that article would be Meyer's literature review containing no original research and which was explicitly repudiated by the sponsoring organisation. Repeating this nonsense does not help your case. Additional peer-reviewed publications, including William Dembski’s peer-reviewed monograph, The Design Inference (published by Cambridge University Press), 19 were described in an annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting ID submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official record of the case by Judge Jones. 20 Judge Jones’ false assertions about peer-reviewed publications simply copied the ACLU’s erroneous language in its proposed “Findings of Fact.”21>> None of the listed articles, peer-reviewed or otherwise, tested any explicitly ID hypothesis. What is your point? >>Judge Jones insisted that ID “requires supernatural creation,” 22 that “ID is predicated on supernatural causation,” 23 and that “ID posits that animals… were created abruptly by a … supernatural, designer.” 24 He further claimed that “[d]efendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this point.” 25 In fact, defendants’ expert witnesses did nothing of the sort. This allegation was yet another erroneous finding copied by Judge Jones from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact.” Contrary to the ACLU, ID proponents— including the defendants’ expert witnesses at the Kitzmiller trial — have consistently explained that ID as a scientific theory does not require a supernatural designer. For example, when asked at trial “whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator,” biochemist Scott Minnich replied, “It does not.”>> William Dembski: "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The Wedge Document: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God". The Wedge Document: "Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to popularize our ideas in the broader culture." >>Expert witness Scott Minnich testified at trial that there were between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 2 and he discussed a pro-intelligent design article in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 3 Additional peer- reviewed publications were listed in an annotated bibliography submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official court record by Judge Jones.>> As I mentioned above, I have read the papers that Scott Minnich referenced in his testimony. None of them provide a scientific test of the intelligent design hypothesis. >>Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in court showing slides of the genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes. 5 Judge Jones failed to mention any of Minnich’s experimental data supporting the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.>> Already answered above. These experiments are irrelevant to evolutionary theory and provide no support for intelligent design. It is time for you to produce real evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer of biological life. >>Contrary to the claim made by Judge Jones (and the ACLU), Of Pandas and People [–> itself set up as a strawman target] insists that science cannot detect the “supernatural.” It can merely determine whether a cause is intelligent. [–> that is, it speaks to the dichotomy known since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, Natural vs ART-ificial (and so intelligently designed), which can routinely be empirically detected — this has been corrected so often that to have pretended otherwise even c 2004 – 5 is a deceitful strawman misrepresentation.] Whether that intelligent cause is inside or outside of nature is a question that cannot be addressed by science according to the book. These points are made clear in the following passages from the text ignored by Judge Jones: …scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. I don't recall that Plato was called as a witness during the Dover proceedings. I may be mistaken. Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)… Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science.>> Jones’ [false] claim in the ruling: >>4. Whether ID is Science After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation [–> this is a deceitful strawman misrepresentation, both of ID and the historic nature of science and its methods]; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s [–> Irreducible complexity is an utterly commonplace phenomenon where several key parts are jointly necessary, in correct arrangement, for a function to emerge.] ; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. [–> “Refuted” is the wrong word (and is a fallacy of confident manner assertion), and attacks on “evolution” is a distortion, design is opposed to blind chance and necessity-driven bodyplan level macroevolution, but even the co-founder of the modern theory of Evolution, Wallace, disagreed with this evolutionary materialist account] As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence [–> coherence is a matter of logic and/or [process dynamics], has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth. [–> the criteria for evaluating theories are much broader than is represented by a judge ignorant of philosophy of science and copying what we can freely term irresponsible, dishonest advocates perfectly willing to distort the vexed technical issues]>> This appears to be a straight quote from the judge's decision. It would help the famous onlookers if you were to mark it as such. This is a mere start-point. Let me clip my 2006 remarks, citing Plato in The Laws, Bk X: Ath. . . . we have . . . lighted on a strange doctrine. Cle. What doctrine do you mean? Ath. The wisest of all doctrines, in the opinion of many. Cle. I wish that you would speak plainer. Ath. The doctrine that all things do become, have become, and will become, some by nature [–> necessity of nature, phusis], some by art, and some by chance. Cle. Is not that true? Ath. Well, philosophers are probably right; at any rate we may as well follow in their track, and examine what is the meaning of them and their disciples. Cle. By all means. Ath. They say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art, which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . . . fire and water, and earth and air, all exist by nature and chance . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them . . . After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [i.e. mind], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul’s kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? . . . . if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. Plato wasn't available for cross-examination at the Dover proceedings, so this is just tendentious special pleading. This of course is the context of the contrast between chance and necessity on the one hand and intelligently directed, ART-ificial configuration (design) on the other. C 1970, Monod published a famous book, Chance and Necessity, showing the longstanding context of thought. Wonderful book. I own a copy and can particularly recommend Chapter 4. Evolutionary materialism tries to explain all phenomena on blind chance and mechanical necessity, but utterly fails. No it does not. Get it right for once. Indeed, once it touches the conscious, rationally free and responsible mind, it falls into irretrievable self referential incoherence. It is necessarily and irretrievably false. Where is the scientific evidence that a "rationally free and responsible mind" actually exists? It seeks to block this by imposing arbitrary rules on scientific methods and reasoning as touching origins, usually termed methodological naturalism. In effect, science is redefined as the best of the evolutionary materialistic accounts of the world from hydrogen to humans. This is grand ideological question-begging backed by institutional dominance and utter, deceitful ruthlessness. This reflects exactly the sort of ruthless, amoral, might and manipulation make right factionalism Plato warned about in The Laws Bk X passage already cited. If you have testable evidence that The ID hypothesis is supportable, I encourage you to submit it to a reputable journal. So far, nobody has done so, including Plato. This is likely to be challenged, so I will clip the US National Science Teachers Association Board statement of July 200: The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [–> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [–> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations, generalizations and products [–> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [–> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [–> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD’s weak argument correctives 17 – 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge. The pattern is clearly demonstrated and as an institutional imposition. The same pattern is reflected in the misbehaviour of ACLU, NCSE and Judge Jones in the trial. Of course it is a "pattern". That is what science is: a pattern of hypothesis testing. ID refuses to test its hypothesis. That's what makes it outside the realm of science. Much more can be said, later. KF PS: The issue is not just what one says but what one suggests, esp. in the teeth of readily available evidence. Ask yourself, what a reasonable person not separately knowing the truth of a 2-minute time stamp difference, cross-post, would conclude from what you said. As for ducking and/or dismissal, your continued response to evidence speaks for itself. I trust that if you still cannot [???] read the clips, you will follow the link and will take some time to see for yourself. I frankly don't know what you are talking about. Your honour is not my concern. timothya

Folks, it is now quite evident that TA has declined to further follow up on the point, once the substantiating points in 63 above were put on the table. RVB8 is busy in other UD threads but has equally studiously avoided this one. These actions speak for themselves, sadly but tellingly. KF kairosfocus

RVB8, kindly note nos 58, 63 and 70 just above before further propagating the false Dover narrative promoted by evolutionary materialist activists and fellow travellers ever since the grossly injudicious and falsity-based decision at Dover in 2005. KF kairosfocus

TA, I find it significant to observe what appears to be a lack of response on your part, once I took time in 63 to lay out what you complained of as claimed unreadable on your device in my comment no. 58 (Feb 23rd). The substance, of course fills out to first level detail, the fact that ID researchers were physically present, testifying and presenting their research and findings in the Dover trial, findings that -- per Scott Minnich -- specifically used knockout studies to confirm the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Further, it was clearly shown that the design inference is not an inference to supernatural cause but instead to intelligently directed configuration that in relevant cases leaves empirically observable, tested, reliable signs of such design as best explanation for the causal process. Also, it was pointed out that Minnich spoke to 7 - 10 relevant ID publications at that time (where the number is now in excess of fifty, and where it has also been shown that censorship and improper harassment are implicated), and a list of such publications was presented to the court. Therefore, it is quite evident that -- despite the sustaining of a narrative to the contrary down to today -- Judge Jones' action of sweeping away evidence in front of him to put up a dubious post trial submission from ACLU/NCSE as his core ruling on ID, is patently grossly injudicious and highly misleading. In particular, setting up and knocking over a strawman caricature is inexcusable violation of sound jurisprudence. And, it is noteworthy that your unresponsiveness seems to further illustrate the issue of evident or at least apparent evasiveness regarding substance I raised already; the context of the exchange on a cross-post. I await your substantial response to what appears in 63 and in the onward linked. KF kairosfocus

Origines, Truth is what says of what is, that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Truth does not exist without symbolic, rational, aware representation. It is premised on consciousness. They are inextricably entangled and the incoherence and ignorance manifested in the attempt to sever the two speak telling volumes. KF PS: I found the article to be telling (as are many others by the same person). A key clip:

Consciousness is not only presupposed by the distinction between reality and illusion, it is also presupposed by the quest for explanation. For where would explanations reside if not in the minds of conscious beings? So I say consciousness cannot be an illusion. One cannot explain it the way Dennett wants to explain it, which involves explaining it away. For details, see Can Consciousness be Explained? Dennett Debunked. But if consciousness, per impossibile, were an illusion, why wouldn't truth also be an illusion? Consciousness is an illusion because naturalism has no place for it. Whatever is real is reducible to the physical; consciousness is not reducible to the physical; ergo, consciousness does not exist in reality: it is an illusion. By the same reasoning, truth ought also to be an illusion since there is no place for it in the natural world. Note also that Dennett obviously thinks that truth is objectively valuable and pursuit-worthy. Where locate values in a naturalist scheme? Wouldn't it be more consistent for Dennett to go whole hog and explain away both consciousness and truth? Perhaps he ought to go POMO. There is no truth; there are only interpretations and perspectives of organisms grubbing for survival. What justifies him in privileging his naturalist narrative? It is one among many. I say consciousness and truth are on a par: neither can be explained away. Neither is eliminable. Neither is an illusion. Both are part of what we must presuppose to explain anything.

kairosfocus

KF, as a follow-up, I recommend 'Consciousness is an Illusion but Truth is Not?' by Bill Vallicella. Origenes

Origines, strictly, there would be no person. Indeed, here is Alex Rosenberg:

Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions]. The physical facts fix all the facts. [--> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what "we," apart from "we delusions"?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>

The fact no 1 of our existence, conscious, responsible, rational freedom, is the standing refutation of and expose against evolutionary materialism. Especially, once it is stripped of the poof-magic of emergentisms. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: On the self-referential incoherence of evolutionary materialism ...

I completely agree and would like to add that, under materialism, there is no personal control over thoughts, behavior and actions. Materialism offers either 'determined events', which are consequences of events and laws of nature in the remote past before we were born, or 'undetermined events', which are equally beyond our control, as an "explanation" for rationality. Origenes

KF @ 63: Bravo! Truth Will Set You Free

F/N: On the self-referential incoherence of evolutionary materialism, let us start with Haldane:

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]

This specific insight was built upon by both C S Lewis and Victor Reppert. In short, immediately, the Darwinist IOU on mindedness has been on the table for 80+ - 150+ years and so has lost a lot of its credibility. Pleas for more and more time begin to sound hollow after that much time. However that is not the core challenge. Haldane rightly and aptly spoke to the powers and limitations of computing substrates, in ways that are independent of digital, analogue, neural network etc architecture: . . . They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically, so also hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In short, computing substrates do not work by rational insight and responsible freedom. They are mechanical, organised, implicitly or explicitly programmed devices that are working from blindly mechanical cause-effect chains and some influence or involvement of equally blind stochastic chance. They do not understand per logical ground-consequent inference or inductive connexion or abductive explanatory inference. Blind, mechanical and/or chance cascades leading to results driven and controlled by GIGO. That is why this is the heart of Reppert's argument:

It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.

No, it is not undue lack of confidence in yellowed intellectual IOU's; in the end it is that there is a categorical difference between blindly mechanical computational substrates and the responsible, rational freedom required to engage in reasoned discussion. So, properly, we point to the self-referential character and the indicators at the self-refutation end of the scale. Unless evolutionary materialism can cogently answer this, it cannot even properly sit at the discussion table as of right. KF kairosfocus

F/N: For record, I will speak to several points. I find it remarkable how hard it is for some to acknowledge the force of evidence in front of them, or readily accessible. Okay, let's go back through the unread clips from a 2006 DI PDF document on the ruling (which all serious about this issue should read in full):

>>Judge Jones claimed that “ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.” 15 (emphasis added) Again, the actual court record shows otherwise. University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified at trial that there are between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 16 and he specifically discussed 17 Stephen Meyer’s explicitly pro-intelligent design article 18 in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Additional peer-reviewed publications, including William Dembski’s peer-reviewed monograph, The Design Inference (published by Cambridge University Press), 19 were described in an annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting ID submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official record of the case by Judge Jones. 20 Judge Jones’ false assertions about peer-reviewed publications simply copied the ACLU’s erroneous language in its proposed “Findings of Fact.”21>> >>Judge Jones insisted that ID “requires supernatural creation,” 22 that “ID is predicated on supernatural causation,” 23 and that “ID posits that animals… were created abruptly by a … supernatural, designer.” 24 He further claimed that “[d]efendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this point.” 25 In fact, defendants’ expert witnesses did nothing of the sort. This allegation was yet another erroneous finding copied by Judge Jones from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact.” Contrary to the ACLU, ID proponents— including the defendants’ expert witnesses at the Kitzmiller trial — have consistently explained that ID as a scientific theory does not require a supernatural designer. For example, when asked at trial “whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator,” biochemist Scott Minnich replied, “It does not.”>> >>Expert witness Scott Minnich testified at trial that there were between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 2 and he discussed a pro-intelligent design article in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 3 Additional peer- reviewed publications were listed in an annotated bibliography submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official court record by Judge Jones.>> >>Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in court showing slides of the genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes. 5 Judge Jones failed to mention any of Minnich’s experimental data supporting the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.>> >>Contrary to the claim made by Judge Jones (and the ACLU), Of Pandas and People [--> itself set up as a strawman target] insists that science cannot detect the “supernatural.” It can merely determine whether a cause is intelligent. [--> that is, it speaks to the dichotomy known since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, Natural vs ART-ificial (and so intelligently designed), which can routinely be empirically detected -- this has been corrected so often that to have pretended otherwise even c 2004 - 5 is a deceitful strawman misrepresentation.] Whether that intelligent cause is inside or outside of nature is a question that cannot be addressed by science according to the book. These points are made clear in the following passages from the text ignored by Judge Jones:

…scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)… Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science.>>

Jones’ [false] claim in the ruling: >>4. Whether ID is Science After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation [--> this is a deceitful strawman misrepresentation, both of ID and the historic nature of science and its methods]; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s [--> Irreducible complexity is an utterly commonplace phenomenon where several key parts are jointly necessary, in correct arrangement, for a function to emerge.] ; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. [--> "Refuted" is the wrong word (and is a fallacy of confident manner assertion), and attacks on "evolution" is a distortion, design is opposed to blind chance and necessity-driven bodyplan level macroevolution, but even the co-founder of the modern theory of Evolution, Wallace, disagreed with this evolutionary materialist account] As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence [--> coherence is a matter of logic and/or [process dynamics], has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth. [--> the criteria for evaluating theories are much broader than is represented by a judge ignorant of philosophy of science and copying what we can freely term irresponsible, dishonest advocates perfectly willing to distort the vexed technical issues]>>

This is a mere start-point. Let me clip my 2006 remarks, citing Plato in The Laws, Bk X:

Ath. . . . we have . . . lighted on a strange doctrine. Cle. What doctrine do you mean? Ath. The wisest of all doctrines, in the opinion of many. Cle. I wish that you would speak plainer. Ath. The doctrine that all things do become, have become, and will become, some by nature [--> necessity of nature, phusis], some by art, and some by chance. Cle. Is not that true? Ath. Well, philosophers are probably right; at any rate we may as well follow in their track, and examine what is the meaning of them and their disciples. Cle. By all means. Ath. They say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art, which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . . . fire and water, and earth and air, all exist by nature and chance . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them . . . After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [i.e. mind], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? . . . . if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise.

This of course is the context of the contrast between chance and necessity on the one hand and intelligently directed, ART-ificial configuration (design) on the other. C 1970, Monod published a famous book, Chance and Necessity, showing the longstanding context of thought. Evolutionary materialism tries to explain all phenomena on blind chance and mechanical necessity, but utterly fails. Indeed, once it touches the conscious, rationally free and responsible mind, it falls into irretrievable self referential incoherence. It is necessarily and irretrievably false. It seeks to block this by imposing arbitrary rules on scientific methods and reasoning as touching origins, usually termed methodological naturalism. In effect, science is redefined as the best of the evolutionary materialistic accounts of the world from hydrogen to humans. This is grand ideological question-begging backed by institutional dominance and utter, deceitful ruthlessness. This reflects exactly the sort of ruthless, amoral, might and manipulation make right factionalism Plato warned about in The Laws Bk X passage already cited. This is likely to be challenged, so I will clip the US National Science Teachers Association Board statement of July 200:

The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [--> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [--> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD's weak argument correctives 17 - 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge.

The pattern is clearly demonstrated and as an institutional imposition. The same pattern is reflected in the misbehaviour of ACLU, NCSE and Judge Jones in the trial. Much more can be said, later. KF PS: The issue is not just what one says but what one suggests, esp. in the teeth of readily available evidence. Ask yourself, what a reasonable person not separately knowing the truth of a 2-minute time stamp difference, cross-post, would conclude from what you said. As for ducking and/or dismissal, your continued response to evidence speaks for itself. I trust that if you still cannot [???] read the clips, you will follow the link and will take some time to see for yourself. kairosfocus

KF: TA, you need to look again at the timeline above, then at your reaction to a cross-post, and what it clearly suggests. When you show us that you can process what is right in front of you, then we have a real basis for dealing with more difficult cases. KF PS: I expect to deal with a load shedding hours long power dropout shortly, so I will be brief. Later, when I have reason to think power will be there for some time. Please give it a break. I did not accuse you of dishonesty. Anyone reading the thread can see that. timothya

TA, you need to look again at the timeline above, then at your reaction to a cross-post, and what it clearly suggests. When you show us that you can process what is right in front of you, then we have a real basis for dealing with more difficult cases. KF PS: I expect to deal with a load shedding hours long power dropout shortly, so I will be brief. Later, when I have reason to think power will be there for some time. kairosfocus

My previous comment should have indicated that the plain text came from Kairosfocus. The bolded text is mine. timothya

TA, I again snatch a few moments: 1: it is you who after the timeline I put up, suggested that I failed to respond to your 9-pointer. I pointed out that there was an obvious cross-post event, which you then have patently tried to evade. I suggested earlier and continue to do so now, that you need to consider eventualities like that. 2: The tactic you “just” used is the turnabout projection, whereby you have projected to me what you demonstrably did in reaction to my setting the record straight. 3: this may seem minor, but it shows how you respond to direct, readily observable evidence that does not fit your preferred stance. If you cannot respond reasonably to things that are as simple and obvious as a timeline, that is something you will need to deal with. I do not say this to dismiss you, but to call you up to what is required to address these sorts of more vexed questions. I did not accuse you of dishonesty. Stop clutching your pearls. 4: Exhb A: Functionally Specific, Complex Organisation and associated Information is not an invention, much less that of that IDiot who hangs around UD. It is a description and abbreviation for a readily observed phenomenon. Indeed, it is the operative form of the complex specified information of Dembski and all the way back to Orgel in 1973. You seem to imagine that you can make it go away by pretending that I came up with a dubious notion that you can caricature and dismiss. Fail. "Indeed, it is the operative form of the complex specified information of Dembski and all the way back to Orgel in 1973." The key word here is "operative". Not sure what meaning you assign to it, but i would interpràet "operative form" as "an idea that can be formulated in a way that can be used to calculate". Can you point me to any research paper that uses your idea "operatively"? 5: Exhb B: Examples of FSCO/I include the text of posts in this thread, and the TEXT in DNA. 6: Exhb C: Likewise, something like the Abu 6500 C3 fishing reel, its drawing and an Autocad DWG file for same, illustrate how complex 3-d functional entities may in principle be reducible to textual, digitally coded descriptions. As a direct result, description on strings is WLOG. Yes. So what? You are describing demonstratively human artefacts. If you want to extend the notion to non-human objects then "you still have all of your work before you". Science by analogy is almost never successful. 7: Again, we see rhetorical dismissiveness in the teeth of readily observed facts, a manifestation of selective hyperskepticism. (And I do accept that I am one of the first to use this coinage, which describes a commonly met with attitude of the indoctrinated in skepticism. I note that it has cropped up, notoriously, in the Elevatorgate scandal regarding atheist gropers and grabbers.) Sorry but I have no idea what you are aiming to achieve by deploying this rhetorical device. Well, actually I and my epistemologically challenged pig (see below) know exactly why you are doing it. The pig is outraged. 8: You clearly refuse to address the similarly patently objective phenomenon of irreducible complexity, which was pivotal to the truth about the Dover trial. Behe championed the term, and Minnich demonstrated it in the lab in bacteria. Never mind, it is the heart of gene knockout studies. No competent biologist denies that "irreducible complexity" exists in organisms today. That isn't the argument (nor was it at the time of Dover). The argument is: could the irreducibly complex objects have arisen by natural, undirected processes. Knockout studies are useless in addressing this question. Other studies have shown how such showcase examples of irreducible complexity can be bootstrapped by ordinary evolutionary processes. 9: The fact that these phenomena have been identified, researched and published in peer reviewed materials and peer edited books before Dover and the linked fact that such is research on ID, multiplied by the fact that such was present in the courtroom live and in lists, gives the lie to any artful question used to set up a half truth then used to pretend that what was there did not exist C 2004 – 5. Namely, scientific ID research, thought and argument. I've read all of the papers that the ID proponents referenced in their Dover testimony. Not once is there any statement that affirms that any specific phenomenon must be the product of an intervention by an intelligence. If their work truly supported the ID hypothesis, then surely they would have said so. 10: In short, the whole Dover ruling insofar as it addresses science, turned on a lie backed by the institutional power used ever since to create and spread the falsehoods used to dismiss ID and to prejudice minds against it. Yes, well, it is a terrible thing for a court to ask for, you know, evidence. 11: Peer review, notoriously, is in trouble. In your dreams. But let's grant your assertion: what do you propose should replace it? Be specific please. 12: Dover School board’s failures and follies — entered into in the teeth of strong warning to the contrary — have nothing to do with the lies being projected to dismiss the scientific and properly inductive nature of the design inference on tested, reliable sign. That is why I have said all but nil about the Board. The Discovery Institute decided to get in the ring and help the Dover school board pig wrestle. When the pig lost, they decided to paint it with lipstick. You are still at it. 13: Methodological naturalism is patently a question-begging ideological imposition on science, as the Lewontin clip above abundantly shows. Begging questions by imposing agendas is a big logic fail. If methodological naturalism is as you say, then why is its application by scientists, religious and atheist alike, so successful? 14: We understand that you are epistemologically challenged in the context of inductive reasoning and provisional warrant for empirically grounded knowledge claims. Thank you for your gratuitous insult. And my epistemologically challenged wrestling pig thanks you as well. The pig wishes to contribute his own gratuitous insult: may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits. 15: In this context, the detection THAT intelligently directed configuration occurred is plainly independent of being able to satisfy an arbitrarily hyperskeptical objector that you have demonstrated HOW it occurred etc. In short the clip you give is a clear instance of a loaded, complex, abusive and dishonest question. Do you imagine that any practising scientist would be happy to stop their investigation at the point where they establish a correlation between an observed effect and a putative cause? Having worked in a large and diverse scientific research organisation, I can honestly say that I never encountered such a person. In every case that I know of, the researchers immediately proceeded to questions of how the proposed cause is connected to the effect. The fact that ID refuses to do so is a signal that is not scientifically serious. 16: Had you bothered to read my long since linked comment from Dec 2006, you would have seen this note from DI: In December of 2005, critics of the theory of intelligent design (ID) hailed federal judge John E. Jones’ ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which declared unconstitutional the reading of a statement about intelligent design in public school science classrooms in Dover, Pennsylvania. Since the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has been lavished with praise as a “masterful decision” based on careful and independent analysis of the evidence. However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy examination of “whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys. In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’ examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design. 17: You would have seen a link to the paper, which includes notes as follows: >Judge Jones claimed that “ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.” Read and previously answered. Repetition of a fallacious argument doesn't advance your case. 15 (emphasis added) Again, the actual court record shows otherwise. University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified at trial that there are between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, See above. Scott Minnich provided no scientific evidence supporting the existence of an intelligent designer of biological life. 16 and he specifically discussed 17 Stephen Meyer’s explicitly pro-intelligent design article 18 in the peer- reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington . Which was repudiated by the organisation that owns the journal. What follows in KF's commentary is unreadable on my device, so I must let it pass. Additional peer-reviewed publications, including William Dembski’s peer-reviewed monograph, The Design Inference (published by Cambridge University Press), 19 were described in an annotated bibliography of p eer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting ID submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official record of the case by Judge Jones. 20 Judge Jones’ false assertions about peer-reviewed publications simply copied the ACLU’s erroneous language in its proposed “Findings of Fact.” 21>> >>Judge Jones insisted that ID “requires supernatural creation,” 22 that “ID is predicated on supernatural causation,” 23 and that “ID posits that animals… were created abruptly by a … supernatural, designer.” 24 He further claimed that “[d]efendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this point.” 25 In fact, defendants’ expert witnesses did nothing of the sort. This allegation was yet anothe r erroneous finding copied by Judge Jones from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact.” Contrary to the ACLU, ID proponents— including the defendants’ expert witnesses at the Kitzmiller trial — have consistently explained tha t ID as a scientific theory does not require a supernatural designer. For example, when asked at trial “whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator,” biochemist Scott Minnich replied, “It does not.”>> >>Expert witness Scott Minnich testified at trial that there were between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 2 and he discussed a pro-intelligent design article in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington . 3 Additional peer- reviewed publications were listed in an annotated bibliography submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official court record by Judge Jones.>> >>Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in court showing slides of the genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes. 5 Judge Jones failed to mention any of Minnich’s experimental data supporting the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.>> >>Contrary to the claim made by Judge Jones (and the ACLU), Of Pandas and People insists that science cannot detect the “supernatural.” It can merely determine whether a cause is intelligent. Whether that intelligent cause is inside or outside of nature is a question that cannot be addressed by science according to the book. These points are made clear in the following passages from the text ignored by Judge Jones: …scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot . Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)… Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science.>> Jones’ [false] claim in the ruling: >>4. Whether ID is Science After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth.>> The assertion Jones copied, Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena, tendentiously redefines science and begs the pivotal issue that science seeks the truth about our world based on empirical investigations unfettered by a priori impositions. The problem with the above is readily evident from my remarks on Lewontin above. A sounder basic view of science can be found in College level dictionaries in the generation before this radical imposition was pushed and has been spun into an historically false myth: science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990 — and yes, they used the “z” Virginia!] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster’s 7th Collegiate, 1965] I trust this first level cluster of detail will help to clarify the matter. At least, for those seeking clarity. Okay, RW calls, literally. KF timothya

TA, I again snatch a few moments: 1: it is you who after the timeline I put up, suggested that I failed to respond to your 9-pointer. I pointed out that there was an obvious cross-post event, which you then have patently tried to evade. I suggested earlier and continue to do so now, that you need to consider eventualities like that. 2: The tactic you "just" used is the turnabout projection, whereby you have projected to me what you demonstrably did in reaction to my setting the record straight. 3: this may seem minor, but it shows how you respond to direct, readily observable evidence that does not fit your preferred stance. If you cannot respond reasonably to things that are as simple and obvious as a timeline, that is something you will need to deal with. I do not say this to dismiss you, but to call you up to what is required to address these sorts of more vexed questions. 4: Exhb A: Functionally Specific, Complex Organisation and associated Information is not an invention, much less that of that IDiot who hangs around UD. It is a description and abbreviation for a readily observed phenomenon. Indeed, it is the operative form of the complex specified information of Dembski and all the way back to Orgel in 1973. You seem to imagine that you can make it go away by pretending that I came up with a dubious notion that you can caricature and dismiss. Fail. 5: Exhb B: Examples of FSCO/I include the text of posts in this thread, and the TEXT in DNA. 6: Exhb C: Likewise, something like the Abu 6500 C3 fishing reel, its drawing and an Autocad DWG file for same, illustrate how complex 3-d functional entities may in principle be reducible to textual, digitally coded descriptions. As a direct result, description on strings is WLOG. 7: Again, we see rhetorical dismissiveness in the teeth of readily observed facts, a manifestation of selective hyperskepticism. (And I do accept that I am one of the first to use this coinage, which describes a commonly met with attitude of the indoctrinated in skepticism. I note that it has cropped up, notoriously, in the Elevatorgate scandal regarding atheist gropers and grabbers.) 8: You clearly refuse to address the similarly patently objective phenomenon of irreducible complexity, which was pivotal to the truth about the Dover trial. Behe championed the term, and Minnich demonstrated it in the lab in bacteria. Never mind, it is the heart of gene knockout studies. 9: The fact that these phenomena have been identified, researched and published in peer reviewed materials and peer edited books before Dover and the linked fact that such is research on ID, multiplied by the fact that such was present in the courtroom live and in lists, gives the lie to any artful question used to set up a half truth then used to pretend that what was there did not exist C 2004 - 5. Namely, scientific ID research, thought and argument. 10: In short, the whole Dover ruling insofar as it addresses science, turned on a lie backed by the institutional power used ever since to create and spread the falsehoods used to dismiss ID and to prejudice minds against it. 11: Peer review, notoriously, is in trouble. 12: Dover School board's failures and follies -- entered into in the teeth of strong warning to the contrary -- have nothing to do with the lies being projected to dismiss the scientific and properly inductive nature of the design inference on tested, reliable sign. That is why I have said all but nil about the Board. 13: Methodological naturalism is patently a question-begging ideological imposition on science, as the Lewontin clip above abundantly shows. Begging questions by imposing agendas is a big logic fail. 14: We understand that you are epistemologically challenged in the context of inductive reasoning and provisional warrant for empirically grounded knowledge claims. 15: In this context, the detection THAT intelligently directed configuration occurred is plainly independent of being able to satisfy an arbitrarily hyperskeptical objector that you have demonstrated HOW it occurred etc. In short the clip you give is a clear instance of a loaded, complex, abusive and dishonest question. 16: Had you bothered to read my long since linked comment from Dec 2006, you would have seen this note from DI:

In December of 2005, critics of the theory of intelligent design (ID) hailed federal judge John E. Jones’ ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which declared unconstitutional the reading of a statement about intelligent design in public school science classrooms in Dover, Pennsylvania. Since the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has been lavished with praise as a “masterful decision” based on careful and independent analysis of the evidence. However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy examination of “whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys. In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’ examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design.

17: You would have seen a link to the paper, which includes notes as follows:

>Judge Jones claimed that “ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.” 15 (emphasis added) Again, the actual court record shows otherwise. University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified at trial that there are between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 16 and he specifically discussed 17 Stephen Meyer’s explicitly pro-intelligent design article 18 in the peer- reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington . Additional peer-reviewed publications, including William Dembski’s peer-reviewed monograph, The Design Inference (published by Cambridge University Press), 19 were described in an annotated bibliography of p eer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting ID submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official record of the case by Judge Jones. 20 Judge Jones’ false assertions about peer-reviewed publications simply copied the ACLU’s erroneous language in its proposed “Findings of Fact.” 21>> >>Judge Jones insisted that ID “requires supernatural creation,” 22 that “ID is predicated on supernatural causation,” 23 and that “ID posits that animals... were created abruptly by a ... supernatural, designer.” 24 He further claimed that “[d]efendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this point.” 25 In fact, defendants’ expert witnesses did nothing of the sort. This allegation was yet anothe r erroneous finding copied by Judge Jones from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact.” Contrary to the ACLU, ID proponents— including the defendants’ expert witnesses at the Kitzmiller trial — have consistently explained tha t ID as a scientific theory does not require a supernatural designer. For example, when asked at trial “whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator,” biochemist Scott Minnich replied, “It does not.”>> >>Expert witness Scott Minnich testified at trial that there were between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 2 and he discussed a pro-intelligent design article in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington . 3 Additional peer- reviewed publications were listed in an annotated bibliography submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official court record by Judge Jones.>> >>Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in court showing slides of the genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes. 5 Judge Jones failed to mention any of Minnich’s experimental data supporting the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.>> >>Contrary to the claim made by Judge Jones (and the ACLU), Of Pandas and People insists that science cannot detect the “supernatural.” It can merely determine whether a cause is intelligent. Whether that intelligent cause is inside or outside of nature is a question that cannot be addressed by science according to the book. These points are made clear in the following passages from the text ignored by Judge Jones: ...scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot . Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)... Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science.>> Jones' [false] claim in the ruling: >>4. Whether ID is Science After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth.>>

The assertion Jones copied, Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena, tendentiously redefines science and begs the pivotal issue that science seeks the truth about our world based on empirical investigations unfettered by a priori impositions. The problem with the above is readily evident from my remarks on Lewontin above. A sounder basic view of science can be found in College level dictionaries in the generation before this radical imposition was pushed and has been spun into an historically false myth:

science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990 -- and yes, they used the "z" Virginia!] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster's 7th Collegiate, 1965]

I trust this first level cluster of detail will help to clarify the matter. At least, for those seeking clarity. Okay, RW calls, literally. KF kairosfocus

Timothya, Eric's presence reminds me of the following:

Eric Anderson: 1. The question of how something was designed is logically separate from, and subsequent to, the question of whether it was designed. ID is not an attempt to answer all questions. It is a limited inquiry into whether something was designed. Questions about who, why, how, when are all interesting second-order questions that can be asked only after an inference to design is drawn. You may want, deeply in your heart of hearts, for ID to answer all of those questions. But that is a failure of your expectations, not ID itself. 2. Design does not have to answer a “how” in the same way that purely natural explanations need to. That is because we are dealing with two different domains. Design is not a mechanistic theory. It is a theory about choice, about intentionality, about intelligence. You don’t need to know how the ancients built the pyramids or stonehenge, or the precise design and manufacturing process for how a solid state flash drive was built, to know that such things were designed. In stark contrast, chance and natural-law-driven processes are all about the mechanism. They are purely mechanistic theories that live or die by identifying a natural physical mechanism. Many materialists (because, again, they can’t see past their materialism), want to demand that ID provide some kind of detailed mechanistic explanation for design. That demand is based on a misunderstanding, because ID is not a mechanistic theory. That is not a failure of ID. It is a failure by the materialist to understand the different domains we are dealing with.

Origenes

Funny to see all the misrepresentations and spin by the anti-ID crowd over the Dover fiasco. Judge Jones was out of his depth, didn't understand the issues, apparently had an agenda and wanted to make a name for himself, and relied on terrible advice in preparing his rubber-stamp opinion. Very poor judicial precedent. Yes, the school board may not have had a very good case on the specific facts in the first place, and he could have ruled against them in a more narrow and succinct manner. But to pretend that Dover somehow adjudicated the truth, the method, the relevance, or the importance of intelligent design is nothing but naive wishful thinking and spin doctoring. Eric Anderson

Timotya:

Origenes: “How about ‘something that seems to be an alien battleship’, does that help you?”

It certainly doesn’t help you, since it encapsulates the same a priori assumption.

How about 'something that, after examination, proves to be able to function as a battleship' — not saying that it is a battleship? Does that help you? Origenes

Timothya, Suppose that next year we travel to some lifeless exoplanet and discover 'something', that, after examination, proves to be an exact copy of the passenger airship LZ 129 Hindenburg. Okay, we have not assumed our conclusion here, right? My question to you is: can we infer design even if we have no answer to the questions ‘what (who), when, where and how’? Origenes

TA, you refuse to accept that there was a cross-posting and that your remark at "33 timothyaFebruary 23, 2017 at 12:56 am" did not reckon with the likely fact that I likely would not have seen something that crossed my brief comments before returning to sleep and the like. So, there was a very obvious reason why I did not see your nine points of reply at that time. When I woke up for the morning, I saw and responded on points, noting I have other priorities that must take precedence, even this is in a pause to catch a breath or two. I suggest that onward you bear that sort of fairly obvious eventuality in mind. KF kairosfocus

Origenes: "How about ‘something that seems to be an alien battleship’, does that help you?" It certainly doesn't help you, since it encapsulates the same a priori assumption. timothya

KF: "TA, I came back for a moment. I deal with just one point for now: 32 kairosfocusFebruary 23, 2017 at 12:17 am 31 timothyaFebruary 23, 2017 at 12:15 am 27 kairosfocusFebruary 22, 2017 at 6:18 pm 25 timothyaFebruary 22, 2017 at 3:13 pm –> This timeline tells the key story. KF" I still have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest that you let it drop. timothya

Oh, for heaven’s sake can’t you see the fault in your reasoning? You’ve already assumed your conclusion by using the term “alien battleship”.

How about 'something that seems to be an alien battleship', does that help you? Origenes

TA, I came back for a moment. I deal with just one point for now: 32 kairosfocusFebruary 23, 2017 at 12:17 am 31 timothyaFebruary 23, 2017 at 12:15 am 27 kairosfocusFebruary 22, 2017 at 6:18 pm 25 timothyaFebruary 22, 2017 at 3:13 pm --> This timeline tells the key story. KF kairosfocus

Origenes: "IMHO your position is untenable. For example, if I remember correctly, W J Murray put up a post, a few years back (sorry no link, I cannot locate it), about the discovery of an abandoned alien battleship on an newly discovered abandoned planet. Surely this alien battleship is obviously designed and not produced by blind particles bumping into each other, but there is no answer to the questions ‘what (who), when, where and how’. W J Murray’s hypothetical should have settled the mater, but much to my surprise some opponents of ID tried to defend the absurd position that an inference to design wrt the battleship is therefore invalid." Oh, for heaven's sake can't you see the fault in your reasoning? You've already assumed your conclusion by using the term "alien battleship". When will you ever learn? timothya

KF: you seem to have cross posted above — did you see the TWO MINUTE difference in posting times? Did you notice, I commented and was offline for a time, as in we gotta sleep some time? I have no idea what you are talking about. You inferred that I deliberately ignored your comment and in effect lied, showing the underlying attitude. You are at the threshold of insult to honour to one who has literally put life as well as career on the line on matters of truth, and I would advise you to back off on your attitude, bigtime. Repeat as above. It seems you are shaking your hoary locks and howling at the wrong moon. I will comment on points in brief, just for record: a: You refuse to acknowledge the pivotal issue of inference to design on FSCO/I, which is the underlying issue with the design inference. if the Kangaroo Court at Dover cleverly arranged things so that the central issue on teh merits did not come up in court, but was shunted aside to impose a lie about the nature of the design inference — which is exactly what I recall happening — then that simply goes to just how injudicious this travesty was. FSCI/O is your invention and yours alone. Nobody else uses it, including no reputable scientist. That alone should be, as you so often say, "unfortunately revealing". b: You do the same again, refusing to acknowledge that here is such a thing as irreducible complexity — a common place phenomenon in the world around us of systems that are based on proper, properly arranged and coupled parts to function. What you are further suppressing is that Scott Minnich did extensive research on irreducible complexity on the flagellum, using knockout of proteins, thus directly demonstrating the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum he studied. His very presence in that courtroom raised this issue and put it in the centre of concern, next to the underlying basic design inference on FSCO/I. Your attempt to distract from the path of truth and justice speaks volumes. Please read what I actually said (a bit difficult for the famous onlookers, since you didn't include my comments above, but there we go). c: Judges, and especially this one, are not competent to understand the current state or the evolution across time of the balance of merits on a scientific case. His act of copy-catting the ACLU-NSCE post trial submission whole hog into his judgement’s scientific part, gross errors, misleading statements, and outright deceit alike, speaks directly to this. Courts may indeed traipse — that should ring a bell — on such ground, but that is an exercise in injudiciousness, not sound decision. The judge was presented with a defence of the Dover School Board's actions, buttressed by expert witnesses from the intelligent design camp. He weighed the evidence, including the blatant lying on the part of some of its members, and concluded that it was, on balance, a load of religiously freighted nonsense. d: Peer review is now notoriously a broken phenomenon. And your resort to appeal to consensus shows just how in a controversial matter, censorship by the dominant school of thought can thwart progress to sounder science. Which is exactly what happened with a case directly relevant to the court’s ruling, implicating staff of the Smithsonian in highly questionable behaviour. Now wait a second. All off the most recent cases of peer-review failure were uncovered by scientists. Cold fusion, cancer cascades, even if we want to go back far enough, the Piltdown fraud. In the particular case you refer to, let the famous onlookers know what the response was from the organisation that owns the journal in which Sternberg published Meyer's article. They repudiated it. e: The epistemology of empirically grounded knowledge claims is at the heart of what science is about, and it is what governs how certain or uncertain scientific inferences and conclusions can be. That you imagine this is irrelevant to the ruling, on fair comment, speaks tellingly to your lack of competence to seriously address this matter. Got no idea what you are saying here other than that I am incompetent. Happy to let the famous onlookers judge for themselves. f: The imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism on science and science education is actually censorship, and this case is a stunning illustration of how that happens. On law, that evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers have seized institutional power and are abusing that power to censor and impose destructive agendas is a telling sign of where our civilisation is headed, heedless of warnings. Over the cliff. Anyone who has material evidence that methodological naturalism is a bad basis for science is free to publish their ideas whenever they wish (in fact, there is a conference on exactly this topic under way exactly now, without any censorship). But unless you can produce a testable hypothesis explaining what, when, where and how the putative intelligent designer did its work, then basically, you got nothing. g: The court ruling implied the imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism as a criterion of what science and its methods are, and also on the teaching of science in schools. This is dangerous, destructive censorship. And the wider context shows where this imposed ideological redefinition of science heads, for now science is just politics. It has no claim to being a credible path to truth, just a propaganda device because many still imagine it is credible. This is some of the fire that is being played with: utter corruption of science. That is complete rubbish. The court asked a simple question: show me the scientific evidence that intelligent design has a basis outside of religious belief. and from the defence's own star witness came the answer (apologies to patient onlookers who have got this far): "On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.”17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe))." h: Science in society is a term of art for the ethics and professional praxis, which needs to be informed by key case studies. One of the critical issues to be addressed is that ever since Plato in the Laws Bk X, 2350+ years ago, it has been known that evolutionary materialism is inherently amoral, invites nihilistic, power-mad factions to impose agendas by might and manipulation, and ends in ruin of community as testified by the fate of Athens. This is HIGHLY relevant to the educational context of the case. Plato's theory of abstract forms was wrong from top to bottom. Including the ethical conclusions he drew from them. For some reason, you never include those conclusions. But even you should know this, despite your continual touting of Plato as the last word on ethics. timothya

Timothya: We infer an intelligent design of an artefact when we have reliable evidence of an intelligent origin for the artefact (that is to say, we have reliable evidence of what, when, where and how the intelligent designers did their work).

IMHO your position is untenable. For example, if I remember correctly, W J Murray put up a post, a few years back (sorry no link, I cannot locate it), about the discovery of an abandoned alien battleship on an newly discovered abandoned planet. Surely this alien battleship is obviously designed and not produced by blind particles bumping into each other, but there is no answer to the questions 'what (who), when, where and how'. W J Murray's hypothetical should have settled the mater, but much to my surprise some opponents of ID tried to defend the absurd position that an inference to design wrt the battleship is therefore invalid. Origenes

TA, you reveal your want of appreciation of the epistemological challenge of origins science. The point is, we have no ability to directly observe the remote past. Ever since Newton, we have recognised that what is remote can be analysed from its traces, where if we see that we can identify a reliable distinct cause of the like traces, then we have an empirically reliable sign of the cause, subject as usual to the provisionality inherent in inductive reasoning. On trillions of cases, we know FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design as cause, and this is backed by the search challenge analysis that Dembski highlighted in his early books and underlying PhD work. In simple parallel, deer tracks in the bush are a highly reliable sign of deer. So, even if we do not directly and independently see who, where, when, how etc -- which would obviate the need for an inference -- we can safely and reliably infer to the process of intelligently directed configuration as cause. Where, in the key case of DNA, what we are dealing with was recognised since 1953 as copious quantities of TEXT in the heart of the living cell [I here allude to Crick's March 19, 1953 letter], and central to its operations. So, the origin of cell based life has to have a credible explanation of codes, symbols, text, algorithms expressed in that text, and tightly coupled execution machinery, all in a coherent whole. it is an inadvertent testimony to the force of this inference that in order to deny it, you are forced into such rhetorical contortions and question-begging. That question-begging and that associated rhetorical gymnastics then further inadvertently show that you are ill-equipped to cogently comment on the Dover case. I suggest it is time for you to do some serious re-thinking. KF PS; RVB8, I have just a moment as other things call, the Quran fails the basic historic test by denying the crucifixion of Jesus and it fails the basic accuracy test by misrepresenting the Scripture-based creedal views of the Orthodox Christian Faith. I believe I have already drawn to your attention this basic 101 I wrote, which is nearly 20 years old now. Here is a declaration and call to action I had a part in. Here is a paper I presented at that conference as a co-author, which shows that the pattern of historical inaccuracy and manipulation is unfortunately a common feature of Islamic apologetics and the work of Islamic agents of influence -- and this one is directly connected to the Journal founded by Huma Abedin's family (I was amazed to see that connexion recently). Just for record, I am not going to go off on yet another of your side tracks. kairosfocus

PPS: Plato warned, long since:

Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]

and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

kairosfocus

PS: Note, this from Lewontin in NYRB Jan 1997, as marked up, on the issues at stake:

. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]

and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

kairosfocus

TA, you seem to have cross posted above -- did you see the TWO MINUTE difference in posting times? Did you notice, I commented and was offline for a time, as in we gotta sleep some time? You inferred that I deliberately ignored your comment and in effect lied, showing the underlying attitude. You are at the threshold of insult to honour to one who has literally put life as well as career on the line on matters of truth, and I would advise you to back off on your attitude, bigtime. I will comment on points in brief, just for record: a: You refuse to acknowledge the pivotal issue of inference to design on FSCO/I, which is the underlying issue with the design inference. if the Kangaroo Court at Dover cleverly arranged things so that the central issue on teh merits did not come up in court, but was shunted aside to impose a lie about the nature of the design inference -- which is exactly what I recall happening -- then that simply goes to just how injudicious this travesty was. b: You do the same again, refusing to acknowledge that here is such a thing as irreducible complexity -- a common place phenomenon in the world around us of systems that are based on proper, properly arranged and coupled parts to function. What you are further suppressing is that Scott Minnich did extensive research on irreducible complexity on the flagellum, using knockout of proteins, thus directly demonstrating the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum he studied. His very presence in that courtroom raised this issue and put it in the centre of concern, next to the underlying basic design inference on FSCO/I. Your attempt to distract from the path of truth and justice speaks volumes. c: Judges, and especially this one, are not competent to understand the current state or the evolution across time of the balance of merits on a scientific case. His act of copy-catting the ACLU-NSCE post trial submission whole hog into his judgement's scientific part, gross errors, misleading statements, and outright deceit alike, speaks directly to this. Courts may indeed traipse -- that should ring a bell -- on such ground, but that is an exercise in injudiciousness, not sound decision. d: Peer review is now notoriously a broken phenomenon. And your resort to appeal to consensus shows just how in a controversial matter, censorship by the dominant school of thought can thwart progress to sounder science. Which is exactly what happened with a case directly relevant to the court's ruling, implicating staff of the Smithsonian in highly questionable behaviour. e: The epistemology of empirically grounded knowledge claims is at the heart of what science is about, and it is what governs how certain or uncertain scientific inferences and conclusions can be. That you imagine this is irrelevant to the ruling, on fair comment, speaks tellingly to your lack of competence to seriously address this matter. f: The imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism on science and science education is actually censorship, and this case is a stunning illustration of how that happens. On law, that evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers have seized institutional power and are abusing that power to censor and impose destructive agendas is a telling sign of where our civilisation is headed, heedless of warnings. Over the cliff. g: The court ruling implied the imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism as a criterion of what science and its methods are, and also on the teaching of science in schools. This is dangerous, destructive censorship. And the wider context shows where this imposed ideological redefinition of science heads, for now science is just politics. It has no claim to being a credible path to truth, just a propaganda device because many still imagine it is credible. This is some of the fire that is being played with: utter corruption of science. h: Science in society is a term of art for the ethics and professional praxis, which needs to be informed by key case studies. One of the critical issues to be addressed is that ever since Plato in the Laws Bk X, 2350+ years ago, it has been known that evolutionary materialism is inherently amoral, invites nihilistic, power-mad factions to impose agendas by might and manipulation, and ends in ruin of community as testified by the fate of Athens. This is HIGHLY relevant to the educational context of the case. KF kairosfocus

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. We infer an intelligent design of an artefact when we have reliable evidence of an intelligent origin for the artefact (that is to say, we have reliable evidence of what, when, where and how the intelligent designers did their work). timothya

Timothya: in every other field of human endeavour, that is exactly the conclusion (not assumption) that we make. Why is it absurd for Judge Jones to hold the Dover defendents to the same standard?

For clarity, are you saying that we can only infer intelligent design wrt X if we know how X was intelligently designed? Origenes

Origines: "Judge Jones’ absurd underlying assumption seems to be: unless you do know how to do it, any inference to design is invalid." In every other field of human endeavour, that is exactly the conclusion (not assumption) that we make. Why is it absurd for Judge Jones to hold the Dover defendents to the same standard? Leaving aside the Dover defendents' blatant lying about their methods and motivations. timothya

Timothya: Behe: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”

And anyone would agree with Behe. We don't know how intelligent design of the cosmos and/or life works. We do not even know how Beethoven, Da Vinci or Shakespeare came up with their ideas or how to frame them into mathematical calculations. Under materialistic assumptions, 'we' don't know how we do science or write posts. And we certainly do not know how alien scientists, God or some telic force produced the design we find in nature. Judge Jones' absurd underlying assumption seems to be: unless you know how, any inference to design is invalid. Origenes

Origines: "Even if this is true, was Behe testimony the only source of information for Jones? Did you read post #26?" Do you realise how law cases are decided? That is, the judge (or jury, depending on the jurisdiction) is obliged to decide the case in front of them on the basis of the testimony provided by the plaintiff and the defendant. That is exactly what Judge Jones did. He took Michael Behe's plain speech into account in forming his opinion. That is to say, he took Professor Behe to be speaking the truth of his opinion when the witness, under oath, said, "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.". timothya

rvb8: Living involves knowing and discerning truth: Behe, in court, denied any peer reviewed work of ID ...

Even if this is true, was Behe testimony the only source of information for Jones? Did you read post #26?

Judge Jones shows no awareness of several other peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications explicitly supporting both intelligent design and Behe’s idea of irreducible complexity, even though a list of these publications was submitted as part of the record in the case. See appendix D of the amicus brief filed by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) here. This appendix lists such articles as ..... [see #26]

Origenes

Timothya:

KF: ... controversies on search challenges in config spaces of scale 3.27*10^150 – 1,07*10^301 cells and drastically up, ...

What controversy exists on this matter that was raised in the court?

The 'controversy' about whether evolutionary processes are up for this (search) task or not. And in case they are not, if this constitutes a (scientific) argument in favor of intelligent design.

Timothya: Since evolutionary processes don’t “search” across all possible configurations, this is irrelevant to the court’s central question.

Dembski: Go to Google and search on the term "evolutionary search," and you'll get quite a few hits. Evolution, according to some theoretical biologists, such as Stuart Kauffman, may properly be conceived as a search (see his book Investigations). Kauffman is not an ID guy, so there's no human or human-like intelligence behind evolutionary search as far as he's concerned. Nonetheless, for Kauffman, nature, in powering the evolutionary process, is engaged in a search through biological configuration space, searching for and finding ever-increasing orders of biological complexity and diversity.

Origenes

'K', to me @30 you ask to consider my immortal soul. Is that like an Islamist calmy lecturing you to consider the divinity of the Koran before it's too late? Is it like any other belief system, (Taoism, Jainism, Islam-both flavours, Hiduism, Shamanism, Voodooism, Judaism, West Borough Churchism), asking you to ponder your own immortal soul before the clear rediculousness of Christianity is made evident? Luckily I never 'ponder' these questions, (being an atheist they are really irrelevant), as far more serious ones concerning family, and friends, work, and life are infinately more satisfying. You sit on your sack-cloth, and flagellate your, "soul", all you wish, I prefer living. Living involves knowing and discerning truth: Behe, in court, denied any peer reviewed work of ID; save things like Jonathan Wells's laughable 'The Icons of Evolution'. Beautifully mauled by Hitchens; "Mr Wells's book is unlikely even to rate a footnote in the history of piffle," 't', at @31, and @33, also has some pretty sound rebuttal you should address; briefly! rvb8

KF: "TA, You know the answer, and that you have consistently ducked the material issue regarding the design inference, twelve years ago and today alike." You made nine claims of fact and I directly addressed all nine. That is not "ducking the material issue". It is up to you and the partisans on your side of the argument to produce scientifically acceptable evidence of what, when, where and how the designer of your theory did its work. Should you do so, I am confident that a great many evolutionary biologists will jump on board the new paradigm. Pony up, now is your chance. timothya

TA, You know the answer, and that you have consistently ducked the material issue regarding the design inference, twelve years ago and today alike. I suggest you seriously stop, ponder, and go in a better direction. KF kairosfocus

KF: Worse, a court is simply not the right place to properly resolve: a: controversies on search challenges in config spaces of scale 3.27*10^150 – 1,07*10^301 cells and drastically up, What controversy exists on this matter that was raised in the court? Since evolutionary processes don't "search" across all possible configurations, this is irrelevant to the court's central question. b: the phenomenon of systems that require several correct, correctly arranged and coupled components to interact to achieve core relevant function [similar to say the parts of a watch or car engine etc] — and the linked issue that self-replicating systems require a von Neumann kinematic self replicator tuned to the particular entity (which vNSR is itself of the like, irreducibly complex nature), Irrelevant to the question asked of the court. The existence of such systems in nature is not, in itself, any argument in favour of intelligent design. In any case, since the leading proponents of intelligent design refuse to propose, let alone experiment on, questions of what, where, when and how the putative designer did its work, you have, in the words of Christopher Hitchens, "all of your work still before you". c: the state of empirical evidence and conclusions on controversial scientific matters as they evolve across time, Do you live under a rock? Courts rule on such matters all the time. In fact, much of patent law is intimately concerned with exactly such controversies. On this matter, you are simply wrong. d: strengths and limitations of peer review and edit, The only limitation that I can see would be where the subject matter is so narrowly prescribed that there are insufficient reviewing scientists to form a decent consensual view of the merits of a candidate paper. This is clearly not the case in evolutionary biology and your claim must be judged irrelevant to the issue raised in court (that is, the parties to the case had no trouble ponying up their viewpoint experts). e: the epistemology of empirically grounded knowledge claims (especially when addressing the remote, unobservable past), Irrelevant to the question before the court. Or are you implicitly criticising Stephen Meyer, who wrote several documents making claims about the "remote, unobservable past". f: implications of worldview level impositions and linked ideologically driven power plays (especially regarding evolutionary materialism) on doing science, This is laughable. The entire notion of "law" is exactly an imposition of a worldview on the jurisdictional community. What on earth do you think that legislators and judges do all day? What, in your view should be the basis of law otherwise? g: the merits and demerits of radical revisions of definitions of science and its methods [yes, plural] in science education syllabi as informed by the above and by history of science, The court decision did not, nor did the plaintiffs' arguments call for any revision in the ground rules of science. In fact, the plaintiffs called for no more than application of the normal rules of science procedure to the claims of intelligent design. The result in the court's decision was a simple re-affirmation of the core scientific behaviour that scientists should try to connect material results with material causes, and the counter-claim that anyone wishing to introduce non-material causes into the explanations for the material world must produce evidence equivalent to that demanded of science as it is actually practised. That is: explain what, when, where and how the non-material cause did its work. Nobody from the defence attempted to do this, and they lost as a result. h: impacts of all these on science in society, ethics, governance and wider culture i/l/o experiences such as eugenics, the holocaust, the case of Marxism and Maoism, The technology of the machine pistol, IG Farben and the bulldozer has had a far more brutal and direct impact on people's lives that any argument about intelligent design being taught in schools. Get a grip and get some perspective. i: and more. I can't resist: I'm sure there will be, and I hope it includes bush rum. timothya

RVB8, surely, you know what a loaded, wickedly twisted question that forces a half-truth into the record is? where, too many crooked lawyers specialise in manipulating the gap between the half and the whole material truth. And, that your half-truth repeated as though it were the whole story -- in the teeth of repeated correction as already given -- is therefore a sadly telling witness against your character and intent. For the sake of the soul you disbelieve you have, please think again. KF kairosfocus

Kairos, sworn testimony, on a Bible. What is it about the ABC of English writng that so flummoxes you and BA? "A" = Accuracy, be accurate. You both have work to do here. "B" = Brevity, be brief. Oh Lord if only, if only you could grasp the importance of this in good communication. "C" = Clarity, be clear. The amount of down right obfuscation in your endless posts is astounding. Behe swears there are no peer reviewed articles on the topics here mentioned, and you lanch into a parallel universe of 'double speak', and non-information. rvb8

KF: "There has not been a framework or standing in the US judicial system to do an appeal." Complete nonsense. The school board certainly could, and probably any of its individual members. timothya

Origines, Thanks for giving details that flesh out my recollection. TA, There has not been a framework or standing in the US judicial system to do an appeal. That has absolutely nothing to do with and is yet another distraction from the manifest injudicious nature of the ruling. Worse, a court is simply not the right place to properly resolve:

a: controversies on search challenges in config spaces of scale 3.27*10^150 - 1,07*10^301 cells and drastically up, b: the phenomenon of systems that require several correct, correctly arranged and coupled components to interact to achieve core relevant function [similar to say the parts of a watch or car engine etc] -- and the linked issue that self-replicating systems require a von Neumann kinematic self replicator tuned to the particular entity (which vNSR is itself of the like, irreducibly complex nature), c: the state of empirical evidence and conclusions on controversial scientific matters as they evolve across time, d: strengths and limitations of peer review and edit, e: the epistemology of empirically grounded knowledge claims (especially when addressing the remote, unobservable past), f: implications of worldview level impositions and linked ideologically driven power plays (especially regarding evolutionary materialism) on doing science, g: the merits and demerits of radical revisions of definitions of science and its methods [yes, plural] in science education syllabi as informed by the above and by history of science, h: impacts of all these on science in society, ethics, governance and wider culture i/l/o experiences such as eugenics, the holocaust, the case of Marxism and Maoism, i: and more.

It is time for a sober realisation of what we have done collectively, the harm that has stemmed from it, and our need to undertake reform. KF kairosfocus

Timothya: He [Behe] was asked a simple question: where is the published research on intelligent design? He might have said: here’s mine, here’s Scott Minnich’s, here’s Bill Dembski’s etc etc. But he didn’t. He said there isn’t any. In sworn testimony.

Maybe that particular question was about peer-reviewed publications by ID-scientists which explicitly reference ID?

John G. West: Judge Jones writes that “a final indicator of how ID has failed is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory.” (p. 87, emphasis added) Again, he claims that “ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.” (p. 87, emphasis added) In a footnote, he glancingly mentions one peer-reviewed article in the journal Protein Science by Michael Behe, but complains that this article does not explicitly reference ID. (footnote 17, p. 88).

Not likely ...

John G. West: Judge Jones shows no awareness of several other peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications explicitly supporting both intelligent design and Behe’s idea of irreducible complexity, even though a list of these publications was submitted as part of the record in the case. See appendix D of the amicus brief filed by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) here. This appendix lists such articles as Stephen Meyer’s peer-reviewed technical article on the Cambrian explosion and intelligent design in The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and a more recent technical article on irreducible complexity and intelligent design in the scientific publication Dynamical Genetics. Judge Jones did not deny that these articles were peer-reviewed. He simply ignored them. He also ignored the peer-reviewed academic books like William Dembski’s The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) and Campbell and Meyer’s Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press). A number of the peer-reviewed articles supportive of design were referenced by biologist Scott Minnich during his testimony at trial. Was Judge Jones asleep during that part of Dr. Minnich’s testimony?

Origenes

KF @24 "F/N: Onlookers should quietly note how the substantial issue is constantly diverted from and/or twisted into oh so convenient strawman caricatures by critics of the design inference on tested, empirical signs. That’s a huge clue on the actual balance on merits. And a further clue, watch how critics react — or studiously do not react — to my pointing this out." Onlookers should also note that in ten years nobody has appealed to a superior court against the Dover decision. timothya

F/N: Onlookers should quietly note how the substantial issue is constantly diverted from and/or twisted into oh so convenient strawman caricatures by critics of the design inference on tested, empirical signs. That's a huge clue on the actual balance on merits. And a further clue, watch how critics react -- or studiously do not react -- to my pointing this out. KF kairosfocus

The ideals and methods of science suggest that empirical evidence is a most precious thing. It's a thing we can rely on. We can share and return to in order test and adjust our understanding of reality. Yet we see that there are some people who this is just simply not the case. What is important to them is something else -- not an understanding of reality. Upright BiPed

TA, your remarks are doubly misleading, nay triply. First, grant your premise c 2005. It is 2017 now, cf here which lists to Dec 2015. (And this page began c 2005 to answer that assertion.) I already pointed to the Dembski-Marks Corpus. Second, at least two ID researchers were present at the time in the trial and their work was either discussed or was readily accessible, and a list was made available to the court, all of which were ignored in the rush to prejudice pivoting on the underlying deceit that ID is about inferring the supernatural and so can be deemed an attempt to inject religion into science and can be hammered on that. Linked, we had the early Dembski work, pivoting on his PhD work and linked matters, which provided context for the inference to design on empirical signs, especially complex, specified information, where in biology, specification pivots on function. Third, at about that time, we had a clear case in point that demonstrated censorship and abuse in the context of peer review. These were brushed aside and deceitful assertions were basically copy-pasted, slightly adjusted and presented as objective findings grounding a judgement that will at length be seen as yet another case of injudicious activism from the bench. Remember, the judge viewed Inherit the Wind -- a travesty -- to key him up for what he intended to do. No, the Dover ruling is and always was indefensible, but it did one thing very well: it gave a fig leaf for an establishment needing cover for naked censorship and ideological imposition on science and science education. KF PS: Let me add, that of the three main levers of persuasion, we can set appeal to emotion [including to anti-supernaturalist prejudice] to one side. Then, no appeal to authority -- including that of peer review teams and editors -- is any better than the underlying assumptions, facts and reasoning. In the end, it is only facts, reasoning and underlying assumptions that can confer soundness to a case. To distract from this or to distort materially what is being argued on merits, or to smuggle in hidden controlling assumptions are alike indefensible. Evolutionary materialism is smuggled in, as Lewontin noted. Science is question-beggingly redefined, as can be seen from many cases. Third, the fact remains that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information is an observable. Just look at text here, or at that in DNA. On trillions of cases, FSCO/I is invariably produced by intelligently directed configuration. On the search challenge in config spaces starting at 3.27*10^150 cells to 1,07*10^301 cells (500 - 1,000 bits), across sol system or observed cosmos scale resources, only a negligibly small fraction can be blindly searched, so we end in seeing why anything reasonably isolated will be facing the needle in a cosmic scale haystack challenge. Design is the only plausible cause of FSCO/I. Which is controversial because it undercuts the establishment's favoured myth of OOL and OO body plans by blind chance and mechanical necessity, not because it actually lacks empirical warrant. kairosfocus

Behe appeared for the defence. He was asked a simple question: where is the published research on intelligent design? He might have said: here's mine, here's Scott Minnich's, here's Bill Dembski's etc etc. But he didn't. He said there isn't any. In sworn testimony. timothya

Article I, Section. 2 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of Free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

This is why courts shouldn't decide what is and isn't science. Upright BiPed

TA, that is false today and it was false at the time, e.g. there was to my recall at the time a paper by Loennig on jumping genes. Minnich also had published work. Even Dembski had books at the time which were monographs subjected to peer review as part of the editorial process. And that is to ignore the other half of ID, cosmology -- going strong since 1953. Further, the issue of peer review is tainted by the problem that emerged across 2004, of evident censorship so that when an open-minded editor did publish an article within the ambit of his journal there was a blatant piece of abusive behaviour implicating the Smithsonian. Going on, no research -- in the face of both Behe and Minnich right there in the courtroom? That is beyond error, that is a plain out and out lie and a slander. As for no testing, this too is a lie, irreducible complexity is routinely testable and was tested by Minnich as testified to in open court, as in knock out the protein, no motility, put back in, motility returns, across IIRC 30 or so flagellar proteins. What do you think the routine technique of gene knockout studies relies on, except for irreducible complexity? And the functionally specific complex organisation and associated information criterion is blatantly open to test: produce FSCO/I by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity and it fails, of course the problem is there are trillions of cases of FSCO/I observed as design, and NIL, NIL, NIL by blind chance and mechanical necessity, backed up by the search challenge in vast config spaces. It is telling on want of a credible anti-ID case that after over ten years post Dover, we see people still refusing to accept such simple facts. The assertions you cite over a decade later are little more than copy-catting the false assertions of an interested party with a reputation for less than being straight with facts, ACLU and/or NCSE. This was a kangaroo court and a travesty of natural justice. KF kairosfocus

Behe's concept of irreducible complexity is an unavoidable fact of biology -- and yes, this conclusion is very much recorded in the peer literature. If Dover II ever comes to pass*, this tactic will not work a second time. :) * I, like other ID advocates, did not agree with the politics of Dover, but the court proceedings were a sham. Upright BiPed

KF @16: "(Don’t forget, as just one instance: the Judge was presented with actual ID publications in the peer reviewed literature, but tried to deny that such existed, following the ACLU/NCSE blindly." From the Dover judge's decision: On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)). timothya

RVB8, remember, I was around discussing ID at the time and recall the matter live. Cf here in my always linked and onwards for documentary proof of wholesale copying and minor verbal changes on the pivotal issues. THIS INCLUDES MAJOR, IN COME CASES BLATANT ERRORS OF FACT, ASSERTION AND INTENT ETC THAT UTTERLY BIASED THE RULING AND MADE IT UTTERLY INJUDICIOUS. (Don't forget, as just one instance: the Judge was presented with actual ID publications in the peer reviewed literature, but tried to deny that such existed, following the ACLU/NCSE blindly. Indeed, Scott Minnich -- an ID researcher with a lab's worth of results [specifically on irreducible complexity . . . routinely used in knockout techniques of research BTW], was there in the court room, testifying.) I vividly remember Xmas 2006 for that breaking news. Note the date on my remarks. KF PS: Gooshy, welcome. Apparently judges can do that, but that is not advisable praxis. In this case, long run, it will come back to haunt those who so praised the Dover ruling. PPS: Notice, how RVB8 has quietly let slide his attempt to dismiss the post Dover Dembski and Marks corpus? Have a look here at evo info: http://www.evoinfo.org/publications.html kairosfocus

*delurk* hi guys! Newbie here. My only experience here is an environmental law course I had to take - mostly superfund stuff and commerce clause. I never saw this in SC majority or dissenting opinions. Cites can get long, but you don't cite counsel. Perhaps our host will weigh in. gooshy

Florabama, I wouldn't say judges are lazy, but they are very busy, and if one of the lawyers has set out very clearly the arguments and conclusions that the judge has adopted then, yes, they will cut and paste whole chunks of submissions. It makes sense. There is no point rewriting something in your own words if you believe that it already precisely sets out the facts and proper legal conclusions. Also, most judges have clerks that write their judgments in any case. The judge just signs off on it. Pindi

Pindi @ 9, I do appreciate you patiently deigning to offer me enlightenment in regard to judicial proceedings, but I take a bit of exception to yours and others characterization of the case. As I said, he didn't just quote from it. That is myth. He pasted the entire ACLU brief, almost word for word. Would you not agree, that there's a bit of a difference from quoting lines from, or pertinent portions of a brief, and inserting the whole thing, almost word for word in the place where you the judge are supposed to explain your own reasoning in deciding the case? Either Jones was supremely lazy or he was not bright enough to think and communicate for himself. The result was a judicial ruling that had no connection to reason or the Constitution. Florabama

Douglas Axe - The Research (Part 1) 10-29-2016 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp9UlC3oE3A&index=10&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUx3ngrgTIQyl-B2TaQBoq8 Douglas Axe - The Research (Part 2) 11-5-2016 by Paul Giem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRj8vUMp03o&index=11&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUx3ngrgTIQyl-B2TaQBoq8 Douglas Axe - The Research (Part 3) 11-12-2016 by Paul Giem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1kmw9u3ljo&index=12&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUx3ngrgTIQyl-B2TaQBoq8 Douglas Axe - The Research (Part 4) 11-19-2016 by Paul Giem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k83I98AMGUo&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUx3ngrgTIQyl-B2TaQBoq8&index=13

bornagain77

Axe, D. D. 2000. Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors. J Mol Biol 301: 585-595. Available at: http://www.toriah.org/articles/axe-2000.pdf Axe, D. D., N. W. Foster, and A. R. Ferscht. 1996. Active barnase variants with completely random hydrophobic cores. PNAS 93: 5590-5594. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/93/11/5590.full.pdf Axe, D. D., N. W. Foster, and A. R. Ferscht. 1998. A search for single substitutions that eliminate enzymatic function in a bacterial ribonuclease. Biochem 37: 7157-7166. Available at: http://www.binf.gmu.edu/mmasso/barn1.pdf Axe, D. D., N. W. Foster, and A. R. Ferscht. 1999. An irregular ?-bulge common to a group of bacterial RNases is an important determinant of stability and function in barnase. J Mol Biol 286: 1471-1485. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alan_Fersht/publication/13225370_An_irregular_beta-bulge_common_to_a_group_of_bacterial_RNases_is_an_important_determinant_of_stability_and_function_in_barnase/links/0912f5120a11713ef7000000.pdf Axe, D. D. 2004. Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds. J Mol Biol 341: 1295-1315. Available at http://www.toriah.org/articles/axe-2004.pdf Axe, D. D. 2010. The limits of complex adaptation: An analysis based on a simple model of structured bacterial populations. BIO-Complexity 2010(4): 1-10. Available at http://www.bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewFile/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4 Gauger, A. K. and D. D. Axe. 2011. The evolutionary accessibility of new enzyme functions: a case study from the biotin pathway. BIO-Complexity 2011(1): 1-17. Available at http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewFile/BIO-C.2011.1/BIO-C.2011.1 Lynch, M. and A. Abegg. 2010. The rate of establishment of complex adaptations. Mol Biol Evol 27: 1404-1414. Available at http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/6/1404.long Gauger, A. K., S. Ebnet, P. F. Fahey, and R. Seelke. 2010. Reductive evolution can prevent populations from taking simple adaptive paths to high fitness. BIO-Complexity 2010(2): 1-9. Available at http://www.bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2/BIO-C.2010.2

bornagain77

At some point the work is done. Rebutting the 'counter-arguments' grows weary. You move on because there is nothing left to be said. In his book 'Undeniable' Douglas Axe is saying something quite similar:

Nevertheless, my expectation that this would compel evolutionary biologists to hang “Out of Business” signs on their doors proved unrealistic. The stream of scientific consensus continued to flow in Darwin’s direction throughout 2004, and it still does. I continue to press for the change of thinking I was pressing for then, and this change is as unwelcome now as ever. Real science is nothing like the utopian version I held at the beginning of my journey. The flag of materialism I mentioned in chapter 1 still flies proudly over the academy, and people working under that banner are expected to show due respect. Any serious opposition will bring the color guard out in full force, to the sound of blowing whistles. That much is obvious to me. The harder question is how to advance the truth in the face of this opposition. My early recognition of the need to put Darwin’s theory to a rigorous technical test compelled me to devote two decades of my career to that need. I’m convinced those were years well spent, and yet I’ve also become convinced of this equally important complementary need: since most people will never master technical arguments, there is a desperate need for a nontechnical argument that stands on its own merits, independent of any technical work. As an expert who has been directly involved in many of the scientific studies described in the following chapters, I know the conclusions my coworkers and I have drawn are correct, and I know why the good work of others that gets used to argue against our work doesn’t support those arguments. I could try to impart this knowledge to readers of this book, I suppose, but no matter how many chapters I devote to this, nonexperts will still be nonexperts after they turn the last page. Does this matter? I’d like to say that it doesn’t, and yet I have to admit that it does. I am just one expert among many, most of whom either disagree with my conclusion or are reluctant to admit that they agree. The simple accounts of protein research I give in the coming chapters are therefore sure to be criticized by other experts, which will leave nonexperts in the position of trying to figure out which scientists to believe. Now, if Darwin was as wrong as I believe he was, his theory can’t possibly be defended as clearly and convincingly as it can be refuted. I will devote a whole chapter to that point. Nevertheless even poor arguments might seem to benefit from the status of the people making them. When all is said and done, then, nonexpert observers inevitably find themselves unable to do anything better with technical debates than trying to follow them and score them. That never settles the matter, though, because being scored the winner of a debate isn’t the same thing as being correct. For me there is no debate. The scientific facts are in complete harmony with the universal design intuition. The work my colleagues and I have done on proteins has completely resolved the internal conflict—for me. [Axe, 'Undeniable', ch.5]

Origenes

Hi Florabama, you will find it is not uncommon for judges to quote extensively from the submissions of the party who's arguments they find most compelling Pindi

I read extensively about the Dover case and the judge didn't just quote from the ACLU brief, he cut and pasted massive amounts of it, word for word. In fact almost all the meat of his ruling was plagiarized word for word, from the ACLU brief. The judge's ruling was decided long before any arguments. Florabama

No, the judicial joke was at Scopes where God won. At Dover science won and we're all better of for it. rvb8

Dembski is a hero. Dover was a judicial joke. bornagain77

OT:

Melania Trump FIRST Public Speech as First Lady FLORIDA Rally 2/18/2017 - 3:57 minute mark https://youtu.be/TcXtg7effQU?t=237

bornagain77

Demski had seemed frustrated in the last few pronouncements I've seen from him. He attacked creationists for not accepting and fighting for I.D. and for taking exception with some I.D. proponents on issues that were not readily compatible with creationism. This troubled me, and recently I've seen the same from Klinghoffer who, in a February 6 article, accused creationists of being in "bromance" with Darwinism. I fear the "creationist" label may be too much for some I.D. proponents, and an effort is underfoot by some to distance I.D. from even the appearance of an allied relationship with creationism. This is a mistake in my opinion. I'm a biblical creationist but I fully support the work of I.D. and send money every month to Discovery Institute even though I know that many who call themselves I.D. proponents would hold positions untenable to me. I hope that I'm wrong and that Demski and Kinghoffer are unrelated and not part of a larger problem. We are on the same side. The side of truth. Florabama

'K', the 'copy paste' nonsense has ben answered several times. The simple answer is that trial judges often quote at length from the winning argument because it was the sounder of the two. And one question, how on earth do you defend the inane childish video of a federal court judge, rediculously voiced over by Dembski himself? I often go through the archives here and reread the utter pandomonium unleashed at UD with the ruling. If you cross referance the dates with Pandas, then Dembski and all of his supporters are shown to be less than honest in their approach to plaintiffs, while ignoring the deficiencies of the defense. The ruling 'K', said that ID could not be seperated from its purely theological first principles, and it stii can't. Therefore tax payers money was going to subsidize a religious position; unconstitutional. The Judge also did not ban ID, he said it was perfectly alright to study the idea in Social Studies, or Religious Studies, just not science class, as it plainly isn't. Try reading some real History: "The Devil In Dover" by Lauri Lebo is the account of the whole trial from incompetent School Board inception, to shame faced Bonsell/Buckingham retreat. The account is all th more persusive as the writer is a resident, and intimate part of the Dover community, and a strong science supporter and church goer. rvb8

RVB8, spin, not sound assessment. Many of the Dembski-Marks series of significant peer-reviewed papers were developed in the decade after Dover, just for a baseline fact. I also suggest to you that your characterisation of the Dover trial is wrong from the outset, as by a year after the trial it was evident the judge simply copy-pasted and slightly modified submissions from the ACLU/NCSE (gross errors and all), leading to an utterly warped and fundamentally injudicious ruling. Worse, by his own confession, he set himself in the mood by watching the wretched hatchet job, Inherit the Wind. When a man's enemies have the sort of track record that we have seen with anti-ID forces, even the old inquisition was inclined to set aside their accusations. You would profit by doing some drastic rethinking. KF PS: In any case, none of this affects the core ID inferences: it still remains the case that on a trillion member base, functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information is an utterly reliable empirical sign of design as credible cause, with the configuration space, search challenge analysis backing up the observations. Next, since 1953, as was pointed out to you specifically, we find in the living cell complex coded, alphabetic, algorithmic text, i.e. language. Which has just one credible causal explanation. All this simply has no explanation of any cogency on blind chance and mechanical necessity, which is decisive in this context of inference to best empirically grounded explanation. kairosfocus

Dembski retired in December 2005 because of the Dover fiasco. His hubris pre-trial concerning a 'good ole boy Bush appointed judge', was followed by lame fart videos supposedly mocking the Judge, but in fact reflecting much more poorly on Denbski, his understanding of humour, and the DI generally. He was resurrected in January 2006 with some hard hitting (Heh:), posts that were ignored by the world, except those here. "Theoretical underpinnings", of ID you say. Replace that with 'philosophical/theologcal vagueries', and you've hit the nail on the head. His last thunderbolt at the heart of Evolutionary Science was a vanity press book; and he left after experiencing less of the solidarity of the heady days of 1999, and the egregious Wedge Document. Although you're new to ID, it doesn't excuse you goeing to Dembski's comments here through the years. Many of these a mean spirited, childish, vindictive, and just plain nasty. Check out the archive at Panda's and TalkOrigins for the real William Dembski, the reality belies the myth, as in so many cases. rvb8