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

[rogue06]

Not for Newton, it didn't. Nor for Mendel, or Pascal. The foundations of science were in examining the works of God.

But they all still relied on the scientific method, the cornerstone of which is methodological naturalism when doing their research and conducting experiments.

I don't think it is open to dispute that they would have kicked clowns like Behe to the curb when they saw how he and his buddies are trying to completely redefine science and dispose of the scientific method.

[rogue06]

Behe actually disagrees with my view on this:

Source: Behe

Court decision: ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.

Behe: It does no such thing. The Court’s opinion ignores, both here and elsewhere, the distinction between an implication of a theory and the theory itself. As I testified, when it was first proposed the Big Bang theory struck many scientists as pointing to a supernatural cause. Yet it clearly is a scientific theory, because it is based entirely on physical data and logical inferences. The same is true of intelligent design.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

Another thing that Behe said while on the stand (aside from admitting that in order for I.D. to be scientific you have to change the definitions to the point that astrology would be considered scientific):

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

That included admissions of there being no peer-reviewed papers supporting Behe's claims that complex molecular systems like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system were intelligently designed, as well as no peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are irreducibly complex.

This is doubly embarrassing in that I.D.'s "Wedge Strategy" had as a five year goal the publication of "one hundred scientific, academic, and technical articles by our fellows." And while the Discovery Institute has indeed been writing it hasn't been scientific research papers that supports intelligent design, it has instead been scores of opinion pieces, reviews, op-eds, position papers and books designed to fleece the flock and little else.

I.D.'s "Mahatma," Phillip E. Johnson, was remarkably open about how even years after their five year plan had failed. In 2006 Johnson wailed that I.D.'s "scientific people" hadn't produced a legitimate scientific "alternative" that could stand up to evolution, saying in an interview published in Berkeley Science Review that

"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove. ... No product is ready for competition in the educational world."

Paul Nelson, a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design appears to agree, stating in an article in Touchstone magazine:

"Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design."

Bruce Gordon, Research Director at Discover Institutes Center for Science and Culture, has also explained why I.D. has such a difficult time gaining a foothold in the scientific community:

"One of the principle reasons for this resistance and controversy is not far to seek: design-theoretic research has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement. In particular, the theory has been prematurely drawn into discussions of public science education where it has no business making an appearance without broad recognition from the scientific community that it is making a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the natural world."

Gordon is complaining that they quit doing science and instead settled on doing an end around, focusing on "a larger cultural and political movement" -- a view that I strongly agree with, and one that the other "big gun" of the I.D. movement, William Dembski, seems to concur with:

"Because of intelligent designs outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the cultural and political component of intelligent design is now running ahead of the scientific and intellectual component."

So it seems that these leading proponents of Intelligent Design all think that the one thing that their movement is missing is scientific support. Not support from the scientific community but rather support in the way of actual corroborating evidence for their claims.

[TheLurch]

So it seems that these leading proponents of Intelligent Design all think that the one thing that their movement is missing is scientific support. Not support from the scientific community but rather support in the way of actual corroborating evidence for their claims.

One of the things that always gets me about the situation is the apparent complete indifference to genome sequences. If design actually happened, it should have left some indication in the DNA. And now scientists have dropped vast amounts of genome data into public repositories, there for anyone to download and analyze. And lots and lots of biologists have.

But as far as I'm aware, nobody from the ID movement has bothered. As far as I can see, there are 3 potential explanations:
They're actually not adept enough at biology to do so.
They somehow don't actually think design will be detectable at the DNA level.
They have no idea what to look for.

All of these are pretty damning from a scientific perspective. The latter two are directly relevant to your point: the field hasn't produced enough of a theoretic framework to tell anybody how to analyze DNA to look for design, or whether design should even be apparent there.

[rogue06]

One of the things that always gets me about the situation is the apparent complete indifference to genome sequences. If design actually happened, it should have left some indication in the DNA. And now scientists have dropped vast amounts of genome data into public repositories, there for anyone to download and analyze. And lots and lots of biologists have.

But as far as I'm aware, nobody from the ID movement has bothered. As far as I can see, there are 3 potential explanations:
They're actually not adept enough at biology to do so.
They somehow don't actually think design will be detectable at the DNA level.
They have no idea what to look for.

All of these are pretty damning from a scientific perspective. The latter two are directly relevant to your point: the field hasn't produced enough of a theoretic framework to tell anybody how to analyze DNA to look for design, or whether design should even be apparent there.

But they routinely release "sciency" sounding public relation releases that some folks around here unquestioningly gobble down

[lee_merrill]

I see you're ignoring the extremely detailed account of how it was awkward for many people, posted by Rogue just above.

Well, I hold that that is not the Judeo-Christian view.

What would we miss? It would fall into the "we can't explain it" category.

we would miss getting to know God, that would be important not to miss.

"LORD, your hand is lifted high, but they do not see it." (Isa. 26:11)

And, since a miracle would involve the suspension of physical laws, and couldn't be expected to be limited by those laws, or occur with any sort of regular pattern, that's precisely where it would belong.

Now you're speaking as if you know what God would do! But there well may be a consistency in the Designer, which is reflected in his works.

"When you send your Spirit, they are created,
and you renew the face of the earth." (Ps 104:30)

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

But they all still relied on the scientific method, the cornerstone of which is methodological naturalism when doing their research and conducting experiments.

No. they had God in mind, they were tracing the hand of God. This is a far cry from methodological naturalism.

So it seems that these leading proponents of Intelligent Design all think that the one thing that their movement is missing is scientific support. Not support from the scientific community but rather support in the way of actual corroborating evidence for their claims.

As I have heard, Behe is considering a positive theory of ID in his next offering.

One of the things that always gets me about the situation is the apparent complete indifference to genome sequences. If design actually happened, it should have left some indication in the DNA.

You may have heard of Meyer's book, Signature in the Cell.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Well, I hold that that is not the Judeo-Christian view.

I'm sure the Scots anxiously await your wisdom on what constitutes being a true one.

we would miss getting to know God, that would be important not to miss.

And there we have it. This is fundamentally a religious project, not a scientific one. And if science has to be completely changed to allow that, and followers of other religions or none at all get left out, that's their problem.

Why can't you just leave science alone to continue doing what it does so well?

[TheLurch]

You may have heard of Meyer's book, Signature in the Cell.

I have heard of it. I have never heard of any indication that it does any comparative genomics.

[rogue06]

One of the things that always gets me about the situation is the apparent complete indifference to genome sequences. If design actually happened, it should have left some indication in the DNA. And now scientists have dropped vast amounts of genome data into public repositories, there for anyone to download and analyze. And lots and lots of biologists have.

But as far as I'm aware, nobody from the ID movement has bothered. As far as I can see, there are 3 potential explanations:
They're actually not adept enough at biology to do so.
They somehow don't actually think design will be detectable at the DNA level.
They have no idea what to look for.

All of these are pretty damning from a scientific perspective. The latter two are directly relevant to your point: the field hasn't produced enough of a theoretic framework to tell anybody how to analyze DNA to look for design, or whether design should even be apparent there.

For whatever reason, this reminds me of something that William Dembski, the other "great light" of the Intelligent Design movement was quoted as saying in a 2004 article in Touchstone magazine called "The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design":

"In the next five years, molecular Darwinism -- the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the sub-cellular level-- will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years."

Meanwhile examination of "complex molecular structures at the sub-cellular level" has in fact provided a library-sized stack of further evidence in support of evolutionary theory.

The imminent demise of "Darwinism" was a fairly common claim among I.D. advocates back then.

In 1998, Phillip Johnson in Mere Creation:

I believe that at some time well before 2059, the bicentennial year of Darwin's Origin of Species, perhaps as early as 2009 or 2019, there will be another celebration that will mark the demise of the Darwinist ideology that was so triumphant in 1959

.

Ibid:

In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The more perceptive of the ship’s officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship’s great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom

In 2002, Paul A. Nelson (a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design) in an interview with the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID):

Here's a prediction. Universal CD [Common Descent] will be gasping for breath in two or three years, if not sooner.

In 2004, William Dembski in The Design Revolution:

Yes, we are interested in and write about the theological and cultural implications of Darwinism's imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design.

In 2006, William Dembski in an interview with the Associated Press:

Source: Evolution theory on last legs, says seminary teacher

To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won't matter in a decade.

By then, he says, the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead.

The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he thinks the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won't be able to supply the answers.

"I see this all disintegrating very quickly," he said.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

In 2006, Denyse O'Leary on Uncommon Descent:

It’s almost not worth deciding what to do about Darwinism, because it is on the way out anyway. But we must find some comprehensive way of addressing the history of life.

In 2008, Barry Arrington, when he took over at Uncommon Descent:

We live in exciting times. The Darwinist/materialist hegemony over our culture has definitely peaked, and we are privileged to watch the initial tremors that are shaking the Darwinist house of cards. These are only the beginning of woes for St. Charles disciples, and I look forward to one day watching the entire rotten edifice come crashing down. I am persuaded that just as when the Soviet Union went seemingly overnight from menacing colossus astride the globe to non-existent, the final crash of the House of Darwin will happen with astonishing suddenness. You can be sure that we at UD will be there not only reporting on events, but also lending our intellectual pry bars to the effort.

[TheLurch]

For whatever reason, this reminds me of something that William Dembski, the other "great light" of the Intelligent Design movement was quoted as saying in a 2004 article in Touchstone magazine called "The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design":

"In the next five years, molecular Darwinism -- the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the sub-cellular level-- will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years."

In the sense that the Taliban are still with us and seemingly as threatening as ever, he did better than most in your collection of quotes.

[lee_merrill]

And there we have it. This is fundamentally a religious project, not a scientific one. And if science has to be completely changed to allow that, and followers of other religions or none at all get left out, that's their problem.

Well, let's seek the truth above all else! If the evidence points to God, let's let it point to God.

Why can't you just leave science alone to continue doing what it does so well?

It's doing quite well, and pointing to a designer.

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

Well, let's seek the truth above all else! If the evidence points to God, let's let it point to God.


It's doing quite well, and pointing to a designer.

Blessings,
Lee

The problem is that, in Intelligent Design, the designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making I.D. and the argument from design analytic a posteriori arguments.

From the Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, which is where Michael Behe is ensconced:

Q: Why couldn't intelligent design also be a scientific theory?

A : The idea of intelligent design might or might not be true, but when presented as a scientific hypothesis, it is not useful because it is based on weak assumptions, lacks supporting data and terminates further thought.

FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS: The main argument for ID is that some biological systems appear to be too complex to have arisen in a gradual, "step-wise" manner. Thus, because proponents of ID find these systems too complicated to understand, they leap to the conclusion that these systems were intelligently designed. The first logical flaw in "ID theory" is the assumption that if it's not gradual evolution, the only alternative must be ID.

ID theory also contains another common fallacy, the straw man fallacy, because it sets up evolution as necessarily gradual and stepwise. To the contrary, modern evolutionary thinkers acknowledge the possibility of nongradual, nonstep-wise, alternative modes of evolution, without invoking a supernatural designer. In addition, the components of complex systems are not necessarily without adaptive value when they are not part of an adaptive system. There are many well-known examples of components of complex systems that had other adaptive functions before they became part of the system we observe today.

Finally, proponents of ID are fond of quoting Darwin 's remark that "design" is a striking feature in the structure of biological systems. Darwin 's genius, of course, was in his ability to refine and reclaim the definition of design. He suggested that the traits we see in organisms were molded or designed by differential reproductive success, that is, by competition and survival of the fittest. This is quite different from the idea that an omniscient creator purposefully designed the traits of each organism. Thus, the current argument for ID is simply a regression to pre-Darwinian concepts, an embryonic notion that has not developed into a sophisticated, well-reasoned hypothesis supported by data.

The preponderance of evidence strongly supports the idea that living things were designed, not on purpose, but, rather, by a combination of natural selection and random events such as genetic drift. Sometimes the design seems rather elegant, other times it looks rather clumsy. Sometimes the design succeeds, whereas quite often, it fails miserably. In fact, 99.9% of the species that came into being eventually became extinct. How intelligent could the designer be?

TERMINATES FURTHER THOUGHT: Imagine that you were an early scientist who wanted to cure bacterial infections, and you began your work with the hypothesis that humans were designed as elegantly and as perfectly as possible by and intelligent designer. Why is our intelligently designed physiology susceptible to microscopic organisms? The eternal answer is that we can never know the designer's hidden agenda. Things are the way they are because they were designed that way. The end. Supernatural explanations terminate the quest for further exploration, whereas a good hypothesis stimulates further exploration.

Evolutionary theory, in contrast to ID, spawns many testable ideas, not only about why we are susceptible to these microorganisms, but about how to fight these infections. If we share a common ancestry with other organisms, perhaps we can use properties of their physiology and metabolism to cure our own infections. Careful experimental designs and data collection supported the idea that some microscopic organisms produce substances that kill bacteria, and as a result, we have antibiotics effective against many bacterial infections such as those that cause tuberculosis, pneumonia and strep throat.

[rogue06]

Another thing that Behe said while on the stand (aside from admitting that in order for I.D. to be scientific you have to change the definitions to the point that astrology would be considered scientific):

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

That included admissions of there being no peer-reviewed papers supporting Behe's claims that complex molecular systems like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system were intelligently designed, as well as no peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are irreducibly complex.

This is doubly embarrassing in that I.D.'s "Wedge Strategy" had as a five year goal the publication of "one hundred scientific, academic, and technical articles by our fellows." And while the Discovery Institute has indeed been writing it hasn't been scientific research papers that supports intelligent design, it has instead been scores of opinion pieces, reviews, op-eds, position papers and books designed to fleece the flock and little else.

I.D.'s "Mahatma," Phillip E. Johnson, was remarkably open about how even years after their five year plan had failed. In 2006 Johnson wailed that I.D.'s "scientific people" hadn't produced a legitimate scientific "alternative" that could stand up to evolution, saying in an interview published in Berkeley Science Review that

"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove. ... No product is ready for competition in the educational world."

Paul Nelson, a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design appears to agree, stating in an article in Touchstone magazine:

"Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design."

Bruce Gordon, Research Director at Discover Institutes Center for Science and Culture, has also explained why I.D. has such a difficult time gaining a foothold in the scientific community:

"One of the principle reasons for this resistance and controversy is not far to seek: design-theoretic research has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement. In particular, the theory has been prematurely drawn into discussions of public science education where it has no business making an appearance without broad recognition from the scientific community that it is making a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the natural world."

Gordon is complaining that they quit doing science and instead settled on doing an end around, focusing on "a larger cultural and political movement" -- a view that I strongly agree with, and one that the other "big gun" of the I.D. movement, William Dembski, seems to concur with:

"Because of intelligent designs outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the cultural and political component of intelligent design is now running ahead of the scientific and intellectual component."

So it seems that these leading proponents of Intelligent Design all think that the one thing that their movement is missing is scientific support. Not support from the scientific community but rather support in the way of actual corroborating evidence for their claims.

I've noted several times how Intelligent Design has all but abandoned actual scientific research and has instead focused on trying to convince the public at large that it is a legitimate scientific theory through publishing articles, posting on blogs and writing books meant to sucker someone without even the slightest understanding in how science works. Aside from the quotes above largely acknowledging the truth of this, Behe was forced to admit during cross-examination during the Kitzmiller 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.

They've all but abandoned peer review after taking a stab at it where they literally reviewed each others work and tried to pass it off as legitimate peer review. As Mark Isaak (who wrote the instructive and informative What Design Looks Like) noted in 2006:

"With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.

Their version of peer review was darn near incestuous and lacked even the pretense of any impartiality and rigor

The cold, hard truth of the matter is that, over the past few decades, and in spite of generous funding, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is dismally low. To put it in perspective, it has been noted that a mere week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of I.D. peer-review. Even more damning is the very little that has been published has led to any productive work.

[TheLurch]

Well, let's seek the truth above all else! If the evidence points to God, let's let it point to God.

Because there's no way to tell when evidence points to God. You can never rule God out for anything - it's completely unfalsifiable, and there's no way to even guess at a probability of whether God might have acted.

So again, i'll ask my question: instead of redefining science for what's essentially a religious project, why don't you redefine religion to incorporate some scientific features? It seems to be a more sensible approach, since religion is already interested in the existence and nature of God (or Gods).

It's doing quite well, and pointing to a designer.

Oh, Lee. In these threads, you've shown you can't manage basic probabilities, aren't aware of key aspects of the fossil records, don't know of entire classes of proteins that are central to the argument you're making, etc. etc.

Given all that, what makes you think you're capable of evaluating scientific evidence?


I'll add that it's especially ironic to make grand pronouncements about intelligent design immediately after Rogue and i were making fun of its leading proponents getting their grand pronouncements comically wrong.

[lee_merrill]

The problem is that, in Intelligent Design, the designer is not falsifiable...

Sure it is, if natural processes could produce X, then we conclude a Designer is not required.

Oh, Lee. In these threads, you've shown you can't manage basic probabilities, aren't aware of key aspects of the fossil records, don't know of entire classes of proteins that are central to the argument you're making, etc. etc.

Given all that, what makes you think you're capable of evaluating scientific evidence?

I note that you have been mistaken in these threads, too, in regard to tRNA, for instance. And I would dispute several of these points. But let's not do ad hominems, and instead focus on the evidence, such as Koonin's calculation (which you have ignored), such as James Tour's objections to abiogenesis, such as Behe's arguments (which I have continually had to correct you on).

Blessings,
Lee