The goal of the Intelligent Design movement is the dismantling of modern science

[TheLurch]

But there is an equivalence for a designer. forensics is set up to detect the actions of intelligent agents.

Human intelligence. An intelligence (and its associated capabilities) that we can understand. Not some completely unspecified intelligence with completely unknown capabilities.

So no, not an equivalence.

I think if a list of prime numbers, or the periodic table, was discovered somehow, they would conclude alien intelligence was at work.

If they are represented in ways that we can understand, yes, i'd agree. But then it's no longer a probability argument, is it?

Certainly, but it's about probabilities, and whether we know enough now to make a good estimate.

But you haven't dealt with the fact that the probabilities keep changing as we learn new things. What's the probability that there's life on Mars? In my lifetime it's gone up and down multiple times, as we've gotten more evidence of Mars' watery past, found strong oxidizing chemicals in the soils, etc. etc. Regarding the formation of life on earth, we've found catalytic RNA molecules and chemical reactions that can spontaneously form RNA nucleotides, we've identified a variety of RNA-based RNA polymerases, etc. Every single one of these has changed the relevant probabilities.

You want to declare things permanently impossible, and refuse to acknowledge that these discoveries matter. It's not just that you're betting against history (as Rogue keeps pointing out), but you're essentially declaring that you've decided no amount of evidence could ever change your mind.

And you wonder why we all consider you an opponent of science.


Your response to these discoveries is this:

Because it doesn't begin to touch the vast complexity of even a single cell. Not to mention the origin of the information in the RNA! I believe we know enough now to estimate (as Koonin did) various aspects of the origin of life.

For one, you're completely misrepresenting Koonin. I'm not done reading it yet, but Koonin's argument is, in his own view, extremely speculative, and depends on things like whether cosmic inflation turns out to necessitate an infinite number of universes. Yeah, we can make an extraordinarily speculative estimate like Koonin's. But it's not the sort of estimate that i'd draw any major conclusions from.

The other aspect of this that's bogus is that you're trying to do the classic creationist thing and take the starting point (some chemicals) and the end point (a cell) and say "look, it's still impossible", even as we're finding the individual steps in between them are more probable than we thought. It's an abuse of statistics. There are entire books devoted to why this is a stupid argument.

[DaveB]

Well, a scientific theory, that is not to say that astrology would be considered scientific today.

Under Behe's definition it would be just as legitimate a scientific theory as say atomic theory or germ theory. In his hare-brained scheme to make Intelligent Design a legitimate scientific theory he is content to do more than just throw the baby out with the bathwater. He wants to throw whatever the baby was washed in, bath towels, soap etc. away as well and then burn the house down for good measure.

This is a rather shameless quote-mine of Behe, who is definitely not saying that astrology is a legitimate theory.

You quoted Behe in the OP and ended with "Yes, that's correct". Here is the rest of the paragraph that you omitted as well as the next question and answer:

"And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth."

So, obviously, Behe is only saying that while astrology is a discarded theory, he still considers it a theory. Even if it was never a formal scientific theory.

In science you always assume a natural explanation or else it comes grinding to a screeching halt. The spectacular successes over the past four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism^[1] (the very cornerstone of science) can not be disputed. But OTOH any scientist who when baffled, merely invokes a supernatural solution for a phenomenon they are investigating is assuring that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue since science can't explain (or test explanations about) the supernatural. Unfalsifiable premises get you nowhere.


1. I've noticed more than one cdesign proponentsists conflate, either intentionally or ignorantly, methodological naturalism with ontological (metaphysical or philosophical) naturalism (the latter of which claims that nothing can exist outside of science). Simply put, the former is solely a tool and makes no claim to truth whereas the latter makes the philosophical claim that only natural causes exist.

Lee is not conflating MN and naturalism (materialism). He, like myself, understands that you can keep MN and do good science while also rejecting naturalism.

Let me ask you this: If supernatural creation of life is the truth, what conclusion should science come to?

[TheLurch]

So, obviously, Behe is only saying that while astrology is a discarded theory, he still considers it a theory. Even if it was never a formal scientific theory.

But isn't that saying effectively the same thing, given that ID isn't a formal scientific theory either?

[DaveB]

But isn't that saying effectively the same thing, given that ID isn't a formal scientific theory either?

rogue06 is claiming that Behe is saying that astrology is currently a valid theory, which isn't what Behe meant.

[TheLurch]

rogue06 is claiming that Behe is saying that astrology is currently a valid theory, which isn't what Behe meant.

Well, i'll let Rogue clarify what he meant. But i don't understand what Behe meant, either. This is clearly part of his testimony meant to present ID as a sufficiently scientific theory to merit inclusion in a biology class. But he's focused on a definition of theory that isn't scientific, and would include astrology. So maybe you could explain what his meaning was here?

[shunyadragon]

This is a rather shameless quote-mine of Behe, who is definitely not saying that astrology is a legitimate theory.

You quoted Behe in the OP and ended with "Yes, that's correct". Here is the rest of the paragraph that you omitted as well as the next question and answer:



So, obviously, Behe is only saying that while astrology is a discarded theory, he still considers it a theory. Even if it was never a formal scientific theory.



Lee is not conflating MN and naturalism (materialism). He, like myself, understands that you can keep MN and do good science while also rejecting naturalism.

Let me ask you this: If supernatural creation of life is the truth, what conclusion should science come to?

First, science does not deal with 'truth,' It deals with the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on 'objective verifiable evidence.' Bogus stuff like Astrology will not qualify as a 'scientific theory,' because it cannot be falsified by MN. No, you cannot consider Astrology as a legitimate theory in the past and now. ID proponents classically have greatly abused the concept of 'Theory' sprinkled with layman use of the word.

Yes, I have followed Lee's posts, and he does consider the current MN in science as 'Philosophical Naturalism, because it does not include the possibility of a 'Source' he calls God to justify Intelligent Design.

[rogue06]

This is a rather shameless quote-mine of Behe, who is definitely not saying that astrology is a legitimate theory.

You quoted Behe in the OP and ended with "Yes, that's correct". Here is the rest of the paragraph that you omitted as well as the next question and answer:



So, obviously, Behe is only saying that while astrology is a discarded theory, he still considers it a theory. Even if it was never a formal scientific theory.



Lee is not conflating MN and naturalism (materialism). He, like myself, understands that you can keep MN and do good science while also rejecting naturalism.

Let me ask you this: If supernatural creation of life is the truth, what conclusion should science come to?

I provided the exchange between Behe and the plaintiff's attorney during the Kitzmiller case where he was forced to concede that under the definition being pushed by him and others at the Discovery Institute would make astrology a legitimate scientific theory. This is indisputable.

Now getting back to your statement here... You are aware that Behe was forced to concede that in order for Intelligent Design to qualify as a valid scientific theory that you would have to distort the definition of scientific theory to the point that it would include things like astrology, right? I'm not talking about astronomy but astrology -- the pseudoscientific belief that you can divine information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.

Now I know that the Discovery Institute tells their lemmings that isn't true so let's look at the transcript again.

Q: And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q: The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A:That is correct.

Q: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A: Yes, that's correct.

Ouch.

Behe then continues by giving his own personal definition for "theory," which only confirms that you have to change it to the point that it includes crap like astrology. In science "theory" has a very specific meaning: What "theory" means in science

IOW, Jones did demonstrate his understanding of "intelligent design as science." That it isn't. That it is pseudoscientific claptrap on par with astrology.

You'll note that I did point out that Behe tried to explain it away by providing his own personal definition for "theory." But that attempted explanation merely served to verify that you would have to change the definition so radically that it would now include astrology as science.


And yes Lee is indeed conflating MN with ontological (metaphysical or philosophical) naturalism. He is following the lead of the Discovery Institute in this (they prefer to call MN "methodological materialism").

For instance, in their Intelligent Design Uncensored, William A. Dembski and Jonathan Witt write:

Only about one in ten Americans is an out-and-out atheist, but atheists have managed to extend their influence by selling religious people a related idea called methodological materialism. In its most ambitious form, methodological materialism says that we can believe whatever we want in our personal life, but when we’re doing serious academic work, we should only consider and defend explanations fully consistent with philosophical materialism.

Similarly, in his books Darwin's Doubt and Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer spends a great deal of time repeatedly attacking MS as being a restrictive and arbitrary standard in science (I'm willing to wager this is where Lee gets all of his nonsense about SETI and forensics from).

Paul Nelson, while discussing Meyer's complaints, categorically states that "ID theorists regard MN as an obstacle to knowledge and hence a methodological rule that we would be better off without."

The "Mahatma" of the I.D. movement, Phillip E. Johnson, ranted in his Reason in the Balance that MN (or for him "methodological materialism") is directly linked to homosexuality, abortion, genocide and a host of other "social ills"

As Lawrence Lerner once commented, "It is standard intelligent design creationist jargon to deliberately confuse and misuse the terms ontological (philosophical) naturalism and methodological naturalism" (emphases in original), or as the philosopher of science Del Ratzsch has correctly observed in his Science and Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective, that "the center of gravity of the [ID movement] is a rejection of methodological naturalism."

[rogue06]

But isn't that saying effectively the same thing, given that ID isn't a formal scientific theory either?

The Discovery Institute has been diligently working for years trying to find a way of spinning the an unmitigated cluster... disaster that Kitzmiller was for them. This was one of the tactics that they came up with. Another is accusing Jones of being so dim-witted that he plagiarized the plaintiff's case because he couldn't understand it.

And to think of how excited they were going into that trial. It was a dream come true for them, what with even getting a sympathetic conservative Christian for a judge and all. It appears that Dembski was the only one to see the writing on the wall and backed out of participating in that fiasco.

[TheLurch]

And to think of how excited they were going into that trial. It was a dream come true for them, what with even getting a sympathetic conservative Christian for a judge and all. It appears that Dembski was the only one to see the writing on the wall and backed out of participating in that fiasco.

Actually, i think Behe was the only Discovery Fellow to testify - a bunch besides Dembski had planned to but backed out.

Presumably had something to do with the school board members having been caught on tape saying they wanted to teach creationism before someone told them to say ID instead.

[rogue06]

Actually, i think Behe was the only Discovery Fellow to testify - a bunch besides Dembski had planned to but backed out.

Presumably had something to do with the school board members having been caught on tape saying they wanted to teach creationism before someone told them to say ID instead.

Huh. I thought it was only Dembski and Behe who were set to testify. In any case, by the time the trial was over it was already evident to the Discovery Institute that it had been an absolute disaster for them. That this is the case is evidenced by how the DI went out and hired the public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts, for assistance with their anticipated damage control efforts. You generally don't do that if you are expecting to win.

[TheLurch]

Huh. I thought it was only Dembski and Behe who were set to testify. In any case, by the time the trial was over it was already evident to the Discovery Institute that it had been an absolute disaster for them. That this is the case is evidenced by how the DI went out and hired the public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts, for assistance with their anticipated damage control efforts. You generally don't do that if you are expecting to win.

This seems to be the most comprehensive account of the expert witnesses who backed out of the trial. I was mistaken in that it seems to have been a mix of DI and unaffiliated witnesses.

https://ncse.ngo/can-i-keep-witness

[rogue06]

This seems to be the most comprehensive account of the expert witnesses who backed out of the trial. I was mistaken in that it seems to have been a mix of DI and unaffiliated witnesses.

https://ncse.ngo/can-i-keep-witness

Discovery Institute analyst Seth Cooper sent an e-mail to the Dover Area School Board in late 2004 stating that its proposed policy was likely to lead to a lawsuit and that it would be better to withdraw this policy and construct a new one that would meet with DI approval. The DI apparently was concerned enough about the Dover case that it felt that there was a considerable risk of a loss in court that could produce a legal decision that could damage the DI’s ability to promote ID as science.

So from early on they knew they were in trouble.

And I cannot help but agree that there is at least some truth the following and very likely a contributing factor:

The withdrawals of the expert witnesses began after depositions by Michael Behe and Scott Minnich were completed. It cannot be ruled out that the DI realized just how well prepared the plaintiffs’ legal team was in each of these and concluded that exposing more of the CSC fellows to that level of scrutiny was not in its best interests.

[lee_merrill]

Human intelligence. An intelligence (and its associated capabilities) that we can understand. Not some completely unspecified intelligence with completely unknown capabilities.

An intelligence which was able to create cells and flagella. At least that much we can understand, and make an equivalence.

If they are represented in ways that we can understand, yes, i'd agree. But then it's no longer a probability argument, is it?

Well, it's not utterly impossible that nature could generate a list of prime numbers, or the periodic table.

But you haven't dealt with the fact that the probabilities keep changing as we learn new things. What's the probability that there's life on Mars? In my lifetime it's gone up and down multiple times, as we've gotten more evidence of Mars' watery past, found strong oxidizing chemicals in the soils, etc. etc. Regarding the formation of life on earth, we've found catalytic RNA molecules and chemical reactions that can spontaneously form RNA nucleotides, we've identified a variety of RNA-based RNA polymerases, etc. Every single one of these has changed the relevant probabilities.

Well, it's still implausible, is the point. And when the relevant probabilities reach Dembski's probability bound, then we can feel safe in concluding design, regardless of changing probabilities.

For one, you're completely misrepresenting Koonin. I'm not done reading it yet, but Koonin's argument is, in his own view, extremely speculative, and depends on things like whether cosmic inflation turns out to necessitate an infinite number of universes.

But I don't subscribe to his infinite universes, I only cite his estimate (that caused him to resort to infinite universes).

The other aspect of this that's bogus is that you're trying to do the classic creationist thing and take the starting point (some chemicals) and the end point (a cell) and say "look, it's still impossible", even as we're finding the individual steps in between them are more probable than we thought.

But see James Tour, and Koonin, and Dembski's probability bound above. A hundred, a thousand times more probable is not touching 1 in 10¹⁰¹⁸.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

So, in your mind if you are, say, trying to figure out why your car won't start, if you start checking the battery and the such but aren't considering the possibility that God was responsible, you aren't worshipping God? Is that it? If you can't find your keys and don't figure that God hid them rather than looking in the places you were when you last had them, then you don't worship God.

Are you saying God is not possibly going to break my car or hide my keys? This is Deism, pure and simple.

"... the king commanded Jerahmeel, a son of the king, Seraiah son of Azriel and Shelemiah son of Abdeel to arrest Baruch the scribe and Jeremiah the prophet. But the LORD had hidden them." (Jer. 36:26)

Scripture readily reveals that God regularly accomplishes His purposes through means such as natural processes or human activity. In fact, I think that God's sovereignty and rational character provide immeasurable support for believing that creation operates primarily by regular principles that can be discovered through scientific investigation.

Certainly, but that does not mean he is not in control of natural processes, or that he never intervenes.

" The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD." (Prov. 16:33)

IOW, looking for natural solutions -- the secondary causes -- does not take God out of the equation.

Yes, it does, if you ignore the possibility that God has acted.

You keep saying that but continue to fail at providing a method in which we could eliminate natural causes.

By estimating the probability of natural causes producing a result. If it's remotely improbable, then we deduce that an intelligent agent has been at work.

Again, just because we don't have an answer today does not mean we won't tomorrow. That's what happened to Behe's examples of irreducible complexity. There may not have been answers when he first presented them but since then numerous solutions have appeared.

We went through the flagellum, and you were not able to tell me what the function of the rod and hook were, as the flagellum was putatively developing.

You want to shut down inquiry and simply declare "it's a miracle!" and be done with it.

Inquiry may proceed, it's just that at some points we may reasonably conclude design.

Please explain how declaring something happened as a result of supernatural intervention has ever helped solve a criminal investigation.

God's intervention in Joseph's life led to the brothers being shown to be responsible for what they did.

Finally, as I previously pointed out, in one of his last works, The Christian Virtuoso, Boyle made his view clear:

"consult Experience both frequently and heedfully; and not content with the Phaenonmena that Nature spontaneously affords them, they are solicitous, when they find it needful, to enlarge their Experience by Tryals purposely devis’d; and ever and anon Reflecting upon it, they are careful to Conform their opinions to it; or, if there be just cause, Reform their Opinions by it."

We should look for natural explanations and follow the evidence.

Well, he's describing the scientific method, but without appealing to methodological naturalism.

I'll add this from Kathryn Applegate (who I've mentioned in a previous post):

Perhaps surprisingly, methodological naturalism frees us to envision God not as periodically “intervening” in our world (a word which connotes meddling or tampering), but as faithfully and lovingly preserving, redeeming, and remaking all things in Christ. Methodological naturalism, when practiced by a Christian, presupposes the sovereignty and consistent sustaining work of God

This is again Deism. And this is an appeal to MN, which is what we are arguing about. And God doesn't intervene?

"Do any of the worthless idols of the nations bring rain?
Do the skies themselves send down showers?
No, it is you, LORD our God.
Therefore our hope is in you,
for you are the one who does all this." (Jer. 14:22)

Cite me just one instance where forensics eliminated natural causes.

It does so all the time, in archaeology, in criminal cases.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

An intelligence which was able to create cells and flagella. At least that much we can understand, and make an equivalence.

No, it's not an equivalence. You're basically saying you'll define the capabilities in any way that's convenient for your arguments at the moment, which is nothing like forensics or archeology. We don't suddenly redefine humans as being able to turn invisible if they seemingly can go past a security camera without being seen.

Well, it's still implausible, is the point. And when the relevant probabilities reach Dembski's probability bound, then we can feel safe in concluding design, regardless of changing probabilities.

You're making a mistake you made previously, and one i described just above. All that stuff is the instantaneous probability of something poofing into existence. If there is a path with selected steps along the way, then the improbability is approximately the same as the single least probable step. Again, that's why all these intermediate probabilities matter.

Nothing's going to stop you from dismissing any evidence you don't like as implausible. But by doing so, you're essentially admitting 1) you don't understand statistics; 2) you don't care about evidence; 3) this is a matter of personal beliefs, and you won't even consider arguments that go against what you want to believe.

All of that's fine. None of that's science.

But I don't subscribe to his infinite universes, I only cite his estimate (that caused him to resort to infinite universes).

Well, i'm going to stop reading Koonin, then, because this comment makes it clear you haven't.

But see James Tour, and Koonin, and Dembski's probability bound above. A hundred, a thousand times more probable is not touching 1 in 10¹⁰¹⁸.

But learn statistics.