Some of my best friends are . . .

Eric: well done! That disconnect is precisely what I was trying to point out. If ID wants to be taken seriously as a science, then it has to bridge the gap from trying to detect one mechanism of change to trying to present a scheme for explaining what we see in the real world (all of it: not just cherry-picked bits that might fit your explanation). That's what evolutionary biology does, and that's what you're up against. THe good news is that you don't have to do everything at once: Darwin is (I think) unusual in the history of science in that he presented his full scheme in one go: usually these sorts of explanatory schemes get put together in pieces. So design detection is a start, but if it's to be all of ID, then ID as a science isn't going to get anywhere. Bob Bob OH

I said: "It matters not how “natural” it is to ask about the identity of the designer, nor does it matter how much one would like to know the answer to that question. The design inference is not the right tool for detecting that. It is not a fault of design; it is not a failure of explanation; it is not a failure to ask interesting questions. It is a simple recognition of the capability, and limitations, of the tool at hand." Bob responded: "That’s a pretty damning comment on ID: that it’s not able to explain things like how the bacterial flagellum came about." Anybody note a disconnect here? Anyway, enough on this thread . . . Eric Anderson

Eric, well put. tribune7

Silber sounds like a kid I work with who, after one discussion on ID a few weeks back, recently told me that he had been reading up on Evolution wanted to 'debate' me again. I told him his time would be better spent reading up on ID and then he could debate himself. If you're not looking at the actual evidence it's nothing more than philosophical masturbation. Jon Jackson

I don’t mean to be harsh, but this is an example of projecting your own motives on ID proponents. I can easily interpret the refusal as something other than political: namely, it is an honest recognition of the inherent limits on the design inference.

Well, do something about those limitiations! The biggest limitation is that it can't use information about the designer, because it refuses to look into that question. I'm wondering what you see the purpose of ID to be. If it's to explain why the real world is the way it is, then the design inference can only be a part of the project. Knowing why and how something was designed is also important.

It matters not how “natural” it is to ask about the identity of the designer, nor does it matter how much one would like to know the answer to that question. The design inference is not the right tool for detecting that. It is not a fault of design; it is not a failure of explanation;

That's a pretty damning comment on ID: that it's not able to explain things like how the bacterial flagellum came about. Bob Bob OH

Bob wrote: "But by trying to remain so open-minded you lose almost all explanatory ability . . ." I am not sure it is so much a question of open mindedness as a recognition of the inherent limits of the design inference. Also, depends on what you are trying to explain. If you believe it is critical to explain the identity, motives or intent of the designer, then yes, ID will not answer that. On the other hand, if ID is trying to respond to the limited question of whether something is the product of design, then it can address that question quite nicely. I am quite content to accept ID for what it in fact can provide, while not demanding that it answer all interesting follow up questions. "I can’t interpret the refusal to delve into the identity of the designer as anything other than political: it’s the obvious thing to investigate, and from a scientific point of view the flat refusal of ID to consider it is odd." I don't mean to be harsh, but this is an example of projecting your own motives on ID proponents. I can easily interpret the refusal as something other than political: namely, it is an honest recognition of the inherent limits on the design inference. Is it possible to go beyond the design inference and draw conclusions about the identity of the designer? Sure, and many folks do so. But they do so not based on the design inference itself. Several of us, including Bob and I, have just dragged ourselves up the last few feet of Mount Everest and while taking a few quick looks at the magnificent scenery, a member of the climbing party pulls out an altimeter and proudly announces the reading. I respond by demanding, "Yes, but what is the temperature?" The climber looks around for a moment, puzzled, and then ignores me. "How cold is it?" I press. The climber responds by informing me that he doesn't have his thermometer handy and that his altimeter only shows the altitude. Frustrated, I continue, "How can you refuse to check the temperature? It is a natural thing to want to know. Why don't you check your altimeter again and tell me how cold it is? I don't understand your refusal to answer this perfectly natural question." It matters not how "natural" it is to ask about the identity of the designer, nor does it matter how much one would like to know the answer to that question. The design inference is not the right tool for detecting that. It is not a fault of design; it is not a failure of explanation; it is not a failure to ask interesting questions. It is a simple recognition of the capability, and limitations, of the tool at hand. Eric Anderson

Eric The big tent includes those that believe in special creation. That is a point where a crucial difference lies. Many people who would have no problem applying some telic agency to evolution even if that agency is undetectable or not willing to say that special creation events happenned (i.e. deny common descent). jmcd

If we remain intellectually scrupulous and acknowledge that intelligent design is limited to identifying whether something is best explained as the result of intelligent activity, then we do not get off into tangents about the nature or motives of the designer or whether “evolution” in some lesser or greater sense occurred.

But by trying to remain so open-minded you lose almost all explanatory ability: if you know something about the motives of the designer, then it becomes much easier to see the designer's handiwork (mid you, it helps if he leaves his signature on a glacier). I can't interpret the refusal to delve into the identity of the designer as anything other than political: it's the obvious thing to investigate, and from a scientific point of view the flat refusal of ID to consider it is odd. Bob Bob OH

Bob wrote: "That’s the downside of the “big tent” strategy: some in the tent are opposed to evolution per se, so it can be easy to get this perception. Does ID want to be a political or an intellectual movement?" It is not a downside of the big tent strategy. It is a natural limitation on what intelligent design is. If we remain intellectually scrupulous and acknowledge that intelligent design is limited to identifying whether something is best explained as the result of intelligent activity, then we do not get off into tangents about the nature or motives of the designer or whether "evolution" in some lesser or greater sense occurred. The big tent aspect of intelligent design is not a political strategy, it is a natural outgrowth of the fact that intelligent design addresses a limited question that is consistent with a broad range of views. Eric Anderson

*gasp* Bill, have you taken Peter Ward's request to Steven Meyer, and passed to the dark side? How could you?!! *sigh* And please provide the names of those "other ID proponents" so that we can put them in our black list. Mats

ID has no problem with the Shermer observations which tribune7 cites (nevermind for now the incongruities in the the patterns which Shermer presents as being so seamless). The issue we have is with the notion that blind, non-teleological mechanisms can produce these patterns. The evidence just isn't there that it all happened by Darwinian processes. And when one factors in the anomolies in what Shermer presents (which he avoided mentioning), then ID becomes a better explanation because the complete record of events suggests a front-loaded unfolding of biological innovation. Scott

One thing which keeps coming up in my mind, which may be irrelevant, is that there is this widespread misconception that ID is opposed to the idea of evolution per se.

That's the downside of the "big tent" strategy: some in the tent are opposed to evolution per se, so it can be easy to get this perception. Does ID want to be a political or an intellectual movement? Bob Bob OH

One thing which keeps coming up in my mind, which may be irrelevant, is that there is this widespread misconception that ID is opposed to the idea of evolution per se. I think this might be the biggest thing going against it in the public mind: people see obvious evidence of the increase in complexity of life and the change of basic forms over time, and they go "yeah. evolution" then dismiss ID because they perceive it to be about static "creation" of forms in a given time. Many people are quite unfamiliar with the very narrow claim of ID, that design, rather than just chance and necessity, is detectable. tinabrewer

Evolution, he notes, explains the fossil record's distinct patterns, with older, deeper layers of rock containing only simple invertebrates, and newer layers revealing the successive appearance of fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals. Evolution explains the presence in living organisms of vestigial organs and of segments of DNA that once served a function but no longer do. It also explains the geographic distribution of organisms -- for example, why oceanic islands have plants, insects and birds similar to those of the closest mainland areas. By contrast, as Coyne points out, ID offers no clear explanation of any of the above. Actually, ID can explain this just by saying evolution done it. The problem with evolution isn't what it explains, but that it claims to explain things it can't. The attempts to show that the bacterial flagellum isn't irreducilby complex are laughable. i. e. http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html And it's proponents fail to recognize that past claims of certain truth -- certain to the point where they were included in high school textbooks -- have been found to be glaringly false. Further the bizarre attempts to silence evo-critics strike the formerly neutral observer as being the antithesis of what scientific debate should be. Just look at the strawman Coyne has set up. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think ID even attempts to explain vestigal organs, DNA etc. But how does evolution explain the Cambrian explosion? tribune7

I'm inclined to agree. Decent ID opponents are out there (Michael Ruse seems to be another). It's refreshing to know that there are reasonable people out there who have the brainpower to understand that it's possible to disagree without being an obnoxious, feces-flinging gremlin. crandaddy