Navigation
Recent Comments
- Wesley R. Elsberry on May 25, 2004 12:20 PM
- Wesley R. Elsberry on May 25, 2004 12:10 PM
- Bruce Wainscott on May 24, 2004 01:37 PM
- PT&S on May 24, 2004 01:32 PM
- Jerry Don Bauer on May 19, 2004 09:51 PM
- Pim van Meurs on May 19, 2004 09:18 AM
- Jerry Don Bauer on May 18, 2004 03:59 PM
- Pim van Meurs on May 18, 2004 08:44 AM
- Jerry Don Bauer on May 17, 2004 09:57 PM
- Pim van Meurs on May 17, 2004 09:03 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 8, 2004 03:34 PM
Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do, Otto, they just don’t understand it.
("A Fish Called Wanda")
In his new book, The Design Revolution, “intelligent design” advocate William A. Dembski invokes the late philosopher Sir Karl Popper as an authority on “testability” (ch. 39, pp.281-282). Perhaps Dembski has read Popper, perhaps he hasn’t. It’s certain, though, that Dembski does not understand Popper, and has a long history of not understanding Popper. Which is surprising, because Popper was an extraordinarily accessible philosopher.
Dembski bases his chapter on “Testability” in The Design Revolution (ch.39) on an essay he posted to the Internet in 2001. Between these two, Dembski switches from the term “falsifiability” to “refutability” instead. This is an odd thing for Dembski to do. It is explainable as a response to criticism that I made of his use of “falsifiability” in 2001, as I showed then that Dembski’s use of “falsifiability” differed markedly from that of Popper, who defined its usage in science and philosophy. The new version of Dembski’s argument shows a continuing misunderstanding of Popper and overlooks the fundamental flaws in Dembski’s argument.
Sir Karl Popper is justly famous as a philosopher of science. He proposed a demarcation criterion that, in his view, made the distinction between scientific theories and non-scientific conjectures. The basis of this criterion was what Popper called falsifiability. It should be noted that Popper’s proposal of a demarcation criterion has not been generally accepted in more recent treatments of philosophy of science. But the issue here is not over whether Popper’s falsifiability properly can be used as a demarcation between science and non-science. What is at issue here is whether William Dembski accurately conveys the concepts from Popper that Dembski cites.
Popper’s concern with testability focused on distinguishing between theories that are empirically testable and those that aren’t. This is the context into which Popper introduced the concept of “falsifiability”. “Falsifiability” refers to a deductive method of testing a theory: derive an entailed proposition from the theory that must be true if the theory is true, and attempt to determine the truth or falsity of the entailed proposition from empirical data. If the entailed proposition turns out to be false, one is justified in considering the theory that generated it false. Popper was explicit that “testability” and “refutability” meant the same thing as “falsifiability”, if they were to mean anything at all.
In order to be falsifiable, Popper asserted, a claim had to have the form of a universal statement. Only universal claims are susceptible to the application of modus tollens that underlies falsifiability. What about conjectures that come in the form of existential statements instead? Popper considered such “empirically irrefutable”.
Let’s examine what Popper said on these topics.
Some twenty five years ago I proposed to distinguish empirical or scientific theories from non-empirical or non-scientific ones precisely by defining the empirical theories as the refutable ones and the non-empirical theories as the irrefutable ones. My reasons for this proposal were as follows. Every serious test of a theory is an attempt to refute it. Testability is therefore the same as refutability, or falsifiability. And since we should call ‘empirical’ or ‘scientific’ only such theories as can be empirically tested, we may conclude that it is the possibility of an empirical refutation which distinguishes empirical or scientific theories.
If this ‘criterion of refutability’ is accepted, then we see at once that philosophical theories, or metaphysical theories, will be irrefutable by definition.
(Popper, 1985, p.214.)
And, of course, Popper held that strict or pure existential statements were empirically irrefutable.
With empirical irrefutability the situation is a little different. The simplest examples of empirically irrefutable statements are so-called strict or pure existential statements. Here is an example of a strict or pure existential statement: ‘There exists a pearl which is ten times larger than the next largest pearl.’ If in this statement we restrict the words ‘There exists’ to some finite region in space and time, then it may of course become a refutable statement. For example, the following statement is obviously empirically refutable: ‘At this moment and in this box here there exist at least two pearls one of which is ten times larger than the next largest pearl in this box.’ But then this statement is no longer a strict or pure existential statement: rather it is a restricted existential statement. A strict or pure existential statement applies to the whole universe, and it is irrefutable simply because there can be no method by which it could be refuted. For even if we were able to search our entire universe, the strict or pure existential statement would not be refuted by our failure to discover the required pearl, seeing that it might always be hiding in a place where we are not looking.
(Popper, 1985, pp.212-213.)
Let’s examine what Dembski says about “intelligent design” in light of Popper’s statement:
The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there exist natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural causes and that exhibit features which in any other circumstances we would attribute to intelligence.
( Dembski, 2004, p.45. )
Dembski delivers a clear “strict or pure existential statement” here. One doesn’t have to accept Popper’s notion of falsifiability as a demarcation criterion to recognize that Popper’s argument for considering pure existential statements as being empirically irrefutable is still sound. But nowhere within Dembski’s chapter on “testability” does Dembski confront and attempt to rebut Popper’s argument. The chapter reads as if Dembski were completely unaware or ignorant of Popper’s statements in this regard.
It is useful to point out the provenance of Dembski’s chapter 39 on “testability” in The Design Revolution. It is derived mostly from an earlier essay posted to the Metanexus MetaViews email list and web site on January 24th, 2001 and entitled, “Is Intelligent Design Testable?” (IIDT hereafter for short. A copy is available at ARN.) Within this essay, one will note the absence of any reference to or use of the term “refutability”. What one does find is reference to “falsifiability”:
In relation to science testability is a very broad notion. It certainly includes Karl Popper’s notion of falsifiability, but it is hardly coextensive with it and can apply even if falsifiability does not obtain. Testability as well covers confirmation, predicability, and explanatory power. At the heart of testability is the idea that our scientific theories must make contact with and be sensitive to what’s happening in nature. What’s happening in nature must be able to affect our scientific theories not only in form and content but also in the degree of credence we attach to or withhold from them. For a theory to be immune to evidence from nature is a sure sign that we’re not dealing with a scientific theory.
What then are we to make of the testability of both intelligent design and Darwinism taken not in a generic abstract sense but concretely? What are the specific tests for intelligent design? What are the specific tests for Darwinism? And how do the two theories compare in terms of testability? To answer these questions, let’s run through several aspects of testability, beginning with falsifiability.
FALSIFIABILITY: Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam’s razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.
(Dembski, 2001.)
One will note that Dembski’s deployment of “falsifiability” is unrecognizable as any sort of usage that could be said to be derived from Popper. Demsbki does not proceed from some “theory of intelligent design” and find a proposition that is an entailed consequence and test its empirical validity, as Popper required for his “falsifiability”. Dembski asserts that an essentially unrelated proposition, whether some phenomenon can be explained sufficiently well by reference to a completely unrelated theory, somehow has implications for the truth value of the conjecture of interest. This has no corresponding construct in Popper’s framework, perhaps for the simple reason that it is an obviously invalid approach that Popper wouldn’t have touched with a ten foot pole. (See below for more.) It was this clearly erroneous deployment of “falsifiability” that I strongly critiqued in my presentation on June 17th, 2001 at the CTNS/AAAS “Interpreting Evolution” conference at Haverford College with William Dembski and Michael Behe in attendance (see slides 23-25).
Now, by examination of Dembski’s chapter on “testability” in The Design Revolution, it appears that Dembski did get the message that his deployment of “falsifiability” was flawed. But rather than fix the underlying problem, Dembski chose simply to introduce another term with which to replace “falsifiability” that he could redefine to suit his already existing text. Unfortunately, Dembski again ties the new term of choice, “refutability”, to Sir Karl Popper. Here is Dembski’s justification for invoking Popper on “refutability”:
The main point of Popper’s criterion of falsifiability is not so much that scientific claims must have the possibility of being demonstrably false as that they must have the possibility of being eliminated as the result of new evidence. To underscore this point Popper even wrote a book titled Conjectures and Refutations. That is the point of refutability.
(Dembski, 2004, p.281.)
The aphorism about judging a book by its cover leaps to mind. Examination of the book in question, though, leads to an understanding that Popper treated testability and refutability as synonyms for falsifiability (see pp. 37, 39, 197, 219, 256, and 258. See p. 279 for discussion of Carnap, who makes a similar error to that of Dembski.). In other words, the point of refutability is, according to Popper, quite unlike what Dembski has represented in his book.
So much for invoking the authority of Popper as a prop for Dembski’s version of “refutability”. But does Dembski’s formulation have any merits of its own? Let’s have a look.
Refutability comes in degrees. Theories become more refutable to the degree that new evidence could render them unacceptable. Note that refutability asks to what degree theories could be refuted, not to what degree they actually have been refuted. Thus refutability gauges how sensitive theories are to refutation in principle rather than on the basis of any particular evidence. The more sensitive to evidence generally, the more refutable the theory. According to Popper, one mark of a good scientific theory is that it is highly refutable in principle while consistently unrefuted by the evidence in practice. Better yet are those theories on which scientists have expended tremendous diligence to refute them, only to have their efforts come to nothing. Within Popper’s scheme of scientific rationality, theories are corroborated to the degree that they resist refutation.
Let’s now ask, Is intelligent design refutable? Is Darwinism refutable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design could in principle be readily refuted. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are, within the theory of intelligent design, key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems that are wonderfully complex, elegant and integrated — such as the bacterial flagellum — could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (and thus that their specified complexity is an illusion), then intelligent design would be refuted on the general grounds that one does not invoke intelligent causes when undirected natural causes will do. In that case Occam’s razor would finish off intelligent design quite nicely.
(Dembski, 2004, pp.281-282.)
Here Dembski’s “refutability” runs head-on into Popper’s argument concerning the empirical irrefutability of strict or pure existential statements, such as the fundamental claim of intelligent design quoted above. The result is fatal for Dembski’s “refutability” and the claims he makes for it. No matter how many systems ID advocates assert might have specified complexity or irreducible complexity and later have them overturned by empirical inquiry finding that directed natural causes, such as natural selection, are perfectly capable of explaining them, the ID advocates can always propose yet another system as a candidate. (Dembski’s phrasing of “undirected natural causes” excludes natural selection, since natural selection is constrained and thus guided by local environmental conditions and factors like co-evolution. If Dembski wishes to redefine “guided” as “guided by an intelligent agent”, he needs to do so explicitly.) The cycle is endless, as Popper quite clearly saw with his example of search for the ten-times-larger-pearl. We already see the beginning of this, as ID advocates used to be very keen on using the human blood clotting cascade as a model system showing “intelligent design”. Good responses to the ID claims on blood clotting have made this system less tenable as an illustration, but ID advocates do not thereby say that the “fundamental claim of intelligent design” is thereby to that degree refuted. To the contrary, they simply have picked up and moved on to another system to serve as a poster-type example, in this case the flagellum of E. coli bacteria. We can already observe that the “sensitivity” of “intelligent design” conjectures to empirical evidence appears to be “none whatsoever”. On Dembski’s own criteria, as well as Popper’s, “intelligent design” is irrefutable.
As criticism of ID arguments about the E. coli flagellum accumulate, one can see that ID responses are tending to insulate against empirical refutation. One class of ID responses claims that the information needed to make flagella was “front-loaded” into some ancestral strain of bacteria. Another is that the “intelligent designer” acted at the quantum level to produce the flagellum. And a third class of response requires video-camera certainty concerning every step of proposed natural pathways to development of bacterial flagella. (It is useful to note here that “intelligent design” advocates select examples where knowledge concerning their historical origins is sketchy to non-existent. If “intelligent design” were more than a “bare possibility”, the ID advocates should be able to use as examples biological systems whose historical origins are well-known, but which remain unexplained by various evolutionary hypotheses or mechanisms. Instead, whenever there is sufficient evidence of the origin of a biological system, it uniformly is explained by some evolutionary hypothesis or mechanism. By the sort of inductive process invoked by Dembski elsewhere (e.g., Dembski, 2004, pp.95-96), “intelligent design” advocates should concede that this will continue to be the case for all future examples.)
On a further note, Dembski’s claim that “Darwinism” is irrefutable is clearly a mistake. If one credits Dembski’s formulation of “refutability”, it is clear that he has misapplied it in his haste to say something negative about “Darwinism”. Dembski’s entire program of finding “specified complexity” in biological systems is dependent upon his “generic chance elimination argument” (GCEA) being able to consider — and eliminate — evolutionary hypotheses for the origin of some event. If Darwinian hypotheses were actually irrefutable, as Dembski claims, then his GCEA would get nowhere in considering biological systems. Dembski cannot “have his cake and eat it, too” in this instance, since “Polite society frowns on such obvious bad taste.” (See also my essay on Huxley and the “typing monkeys” metaphor.)
As I have noted before elsewhere, falsifying tests for natural selection date back to Darwin.
Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.
(Darwin, 1859, ch. 6)
Famously, Popper himself had a go at an opinion on the status of “Darwinism”, which he originally critiqued as being “almost tautological” and thus relegated its status to that of a useful “metaphysical research program”. Popper recanted his earlier stance in an article published in Dialectica in 1978, saying that natural selection could be formulated in a way that was far from tautological and also testable. Dembski, predictably, also fails to learn this lesson from reading Popper. Perhaps understanding of Popper will one day come to Dembski. Until then, we’ll know to check the original sources when Dembski makes a claim about Popper.
Darwin, Charles R. 1859. On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, First Edition. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html…, last accessed 2004/05/03.)
Dembski, William A. 2001. “Is Intelligent Design Testable?” MetaViews. (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm…, last accessed 2004/05/03.)
Dembski, William A. 2004. The Design Revolution. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Popper, Sir Karl. 1978. “Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind,” Dialectica 32:339-355.
Popper, Sir Karl. 1985. “Metaphysics and criticizability.” In: Popper Selections, David Miller (ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Originally published in 1958.
Popper, Sir Karl. 1992. “Conjectures and Refutations.” Routledge; 5th edition.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/190
Comment #1959
Posted by Immanuel Rant on May 9, 2004 02:39 AM (e) (s)
Excellent article Wesley!
Creationists/IDists seem to have a big thing for Popper. For some reason they forget that the philosophy of science has gone way beyond Popper and are loathe to even acknowledge that there a valid criticisms of Popper’s idea. I think the word “falsibility” excites them too much to actually understand what Popper was saying.
At the same time while IDists are throwing Popper around they seem to want to engage in a form of epistemic relativism in regards to science.
ARN, as usual, has good examples of both (often in the same post).
Comment #1961
Posted by Bob Maurus on May 9, 2004 04:38 AM (e) (s)
Concerning “frontloading,” a friend dropped an article about Christian Schwabe and his Genomic Potential Hypothesis in my inbox the other day, bemoaning the fact that Schwabe couldn’t get printed in Science journals - along with a link to Dembski’s claims about the testability of ID, which I was quite happy to counter with Wes Elsberry’s timely rebutal here yesterday.
What is the scientific relevance or credibility of Schwabe’s hypothesis? How does it relate to discussions of evolution theory? I haven’t found anything on it yet that’s layman friendly.
Comment #1962
Posted by Richard Wein on May 9, 2004 05:29 AM (e) (s)
Hi Wesley. A very good article. I have a few comments.
We can already observe that the “sensitivity” of “intelligent design” conjectures to empirical evidence appears to be “none whatsoever”. On Dembski’s own criteria, as well as Popper’s, “intelligent design” is irrefutable.
ID is only irrefutable (in Dembski’s sense) in the eyes of ID advocates. As far as mainstream science is concerned, it is refutable and has been refuted. ID’s central proposition is rendered “unacceptable” (to use Dembski’s term) by the evidence which leads scientists to infer that there was no intelligent intervention in the evolution of species.
Dembski’s entire program of finding “specified complexity” in biological systems is dependent upon his “generic chance elimination argument” (GCEA) being able to consider — and eliminate — evolutionary hypotheses for the origin of some event. If Darwinian hypotheses were actually irrefutable, as Dembski claims, then his GCEA would get nowhere in considering biological systems.
According to Dembski, it is “Darwinism” which is irrefutable, rather than specific evolutionary hypotheses. ID advocates generally use “Darwinism” to mean the proposition that no intelligent agency was involved in the evolution of species. Your conclusion, however, remains true: Dembski’s claims are inconsistent. He claims that an application of his design inference leads to the conclusion that intelligent agency was involved in the evolution of the flagellum, which, if true, would refute Darwninism (i.e. render it “unacceptable”). Yet he also claims that Darwinism is not refutable! (Since he defines refutability as a matter of degree, I assume that the latter claim is intended to mean that Darwinism has zero refutability.)
Comment #1963
Posted by Richard Wein on May 9, 2004 05:31 AM (e) (s)
Hi Wesley. A very good article. I have a few comments.
We can already observe that the “sensitivity” of “intelligent design” conjectures to empirical evidence appears to be “none whatsoever”. On Dembski’s own criteria, as well as Popper’s, “intelligent design” is irrefutable.
ID is only irrefutable (in Dembski’s sense) in the eyes of ID advocates. As far as mainstream science is concerned, it is refutable and has been refuted. ID’s central proposition is rendered “unacceptable” (to use Dembski’s term) by the evidence which leads scientists to infer that there was no intelligent intervention in the evolution of species.
Dembski’s entire program of finding “specified complexity” in biological systems is dependent upon his “generic chance elimination argument” (GCEA) being able to consider — and eliminate — evolutionary hypotheses for the origin of some event. If Darwinian hypotheses were actually irrefutable, as Dembski claims, then his GCEA would get nowhere in considering biological systems.
According to Dembski, it is “Darwinism” which is irrefutable, rather than specific evolutionary hypotheses. ID advocates generally use “Darwinism” to mean the proposition that no intelligent agency was involved in the evolution of species. Your conclusion, however, remains true: Dembski’s claims are inconsistent. He claims that an application of his design inference leads to the conclusion that intelligent agency was involved in the evolution of the flagellum, which, if true, would refute Darwninism (i.e. render it “unacceptable”). Yet he also claims that Darwinism is not refutable! (Since he defines refutability as a matter of degree, I assume that the latter claim is intended to mean that Darwinism has zero refutability.)
Comment #1966
Posted by Matthew Heaney on May 9, 2004 07:05 AM (e) (s)
Karl Popper recanted, and said that yes, natural selection as indeed falsifiable. Dembski is arguing that Darwinism is not falsifiable, but he’s also using Popper to bolster support for his own theory. So which is it? If Dembski buys into the Popperian program, then he’s going to have to reconcile how Popper himself gainsays Demski’s argument.
Comment #1967
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 9, 2004 07:48 AM (e) (s)
Richard,
Dembski uses a parallel construction to say that “intelligent design” is refutable, but “Darwinism” is not. By parallel, how Dembski explicates “refutability” for “intelligent design” must also hold for how it should be applied to “Darwinism”. Dembski deploys “refutability” as a piecewise rejection of specific propositions in the case of “intelligent design”, and therefore that is the same standard that must be used for “Darwinism”. I’m not defending Dembski’s approach as valid, just pointing out the consequences of his own usage.
Of course, Dembski is inconsistent. That’s the point. And I also pointed out that the literature has long had falsifying tests for natural selection. That Dembski fails to take cognizance of these is a further strike against him.
About the irrefutability of the “fundamental claim of intelligent design”… I have to agree with Popper on this one. Because it is a pure existential statement and biologists don’t have a videotape collection of every moment of every organism that ever lived, ID advocates can always claim that the Designer acted in one of those gaps where there isn’t data. And they do. Just because the preponderance of biologists find the available evidence dispositive does not change the logical status of the proposition. As I noted, where we do have the evidence in abundance, we also see that biological systems are explained as the result of evolutionary processes. It is precisely those systems where design is exclusively maintained by scanty knowledge inference (or D.E.M.B.S.K.I.) that ID advocates feel comfortable in advancing as examples for their position.
Wesley
Comment #1971
Posted by Richard Wein on May 9, 2004 08:12 AM (e) (s)
Wesley,
I’m not defending Dembski’s approach as valid, just pointing out the consequences of his own usage.
So I understood. And I am doing the same.
About the irrefutability of the “fundamental claim of intelligent design”… I have to agree with Popper on this one.
I was using “irrefutability” in Dembski’s sense, not Popper’s.
Comment #1972
Posted by Richard Wein on May 9, 2004 08:27 AM (e) (s)
P.S. Perhaps we are differing in our interpretation of Dembski’s usage of “refutability”. The nearest he comes to a definition in the quoted passages is this: “Theories become more refutable to the degree that new evidence could render them unacceptable.” Obviously, this raises the question of what he means by “unacceptable”. I take him to mean that a theory is “refuted” when the evidence leads to an inference inconsistent with the theory. What do you take him to mean?
I should add that I haven’t read TDR, so I’m relying on the passages you quote here. But perhaps Dembski is clearer about his meaning elsewhere in the book.
Comment #1976
Posted by Richard Wein on May 9, 2004 09:29 AM (e) (s)
P.P.S. Since you referred, in your reply to me, to Dembski’s “parallel construction”, I suspect you are concentrating on the second paragraph of the passage in question. Note that this paragraph only gives an example of how ID (allegedly) could be refuted. It does not claim that this is the only way ID could be refuted. In order to determine whether ID and Darwnism are refutable (in Dembski’s sense), we need to understand more generally what he means by the term.
Comment #1995
Posted by Steve Reuland on May 10, 2004 07:06 AM (e) (s)
What is the scientific relevance or credibility of Schwabe’s hypothesis? How does it relate to discussions of evolution theory? I haven’t found anything on it yet that’s layman friendly.
You can see a good skewering here:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm…
There is nothing of value to it. Not only is the hypothesis itself clearly implausible, but he borrows many creationist arguments against evolution that are flat-out false. For example, he reproduces Michael Denton’s fallacious molecular phylogenetics argument, even after Denton himself repudiated it.
Schwabe’s “theory” hasn’t been published in Science for the simple reason that it’s not good enough.
Comment #2148
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 13, 2004 10:55 PM (e) (s)
The article was well written and considerably researched. I did enjoy the read even if I did not clearly understand exactly where Wesley thinks Dembski goes awry in understanding Popperian thought.
It seems that the gist of Wesley’s argument is that Dembski uses the word refute rather than falsify:
I look up falsify and I get: “To declare or prove to be false.”
I look up refute and get: “To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.”
IOW, the two words mean exactly the same thing in the way we use them. Have I misread or missed something?
Also, I see much misunderstanding, as I did in another thread I participated in on this forum with people understanding what ID is. Here are a few examples:
*****ID is only irrefutable (in Dembski’s sense) in the eyes of ID advocates.******
This is too broad and shows misunderstanding of ID. It’s like saying, ‘Geology is only refutable in the eyes of geologists.’ WHAT in geology? There is no theory of geology just as there is no theory of ID to refute. There are theories and predictions within these two bodies of thought that are refutable, but not the topics themselves.
******ID’s central proposition is rendered “unacceptable” (to use Dembski’s term) by the evidence which leads scientists to infer that there was no intelligent intervention in the evolution of species.******
What is ID’s “central proposition?” I have studied this new science since its inception and I’m not aware of any one central proposition. Also, other than radical naturalist Dawkins and a handful of others, I know of no one who espouses there is evidence of no intelligent intervention in origins. What on earth IS this evidence? Aren’t you guys aware of the old adage that states if something did NOT occur, it could not possibly have left any evidence either way?
*****According to Dembski, it is “Darwinism” which is irrefutable, rather than specific evolutionary hypotheses.******
I’m afraid this is exactly backward. Darwinism is too broad a term to be refuted. There is no such thing as a theory of Darwin to falsify. However, many of its core tenets are not falsifiable, and therefore fall outside the realm of science, according to Popper. I believe this is what Dembski is referring to.
*****ID advocates generally use “Darwinism” to mean the proposition that no intelligent agency was involved in the evolution of species.*****
Sorry, this too is incorrect. Evolution has little to do with ID. There are many Idists who feel that the first protist was designed and everything else arrived here via common descent.
Comment #2149
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 13, 2004 11:13 PM (e) (s)
Jerry: Darwinism is too broad a term to be refuted.
How so? Natural selection and variation do not sound that broad. In fact, most of the evidence seems to support Darwinian theory.
Comment #2150
Posted by Richard Wein on May 14, 2004 05:35 AM (e) (s)
Jerry:
What is ID’s “central proposition?” I have studied this new science since its inception and I’m not aware of any one central proposition.
Dembski:
The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there exist natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural causes and that exhibit features which in any other circumstances we would attribute to intelligence.
Comment #2157
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 10:43 AM (e) (s)
*****there exist natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural causes and that exhibit features which in any other circumstances we would attribute to intelligence.******
But what does this really have to do with ID: A science based on probability employed to detect design in a given artifact or system? It may be a true statement, but its too vague to really be addressed or falsified. Therories must take the form of universal postulates.
Comment #2159
Posted by Larry LaPorte on May 14, 2004 11:29 AM (e) (s)
“ID: A science based on probability employed to detect design in a given artifact or system? “
Hahahahhahahahah. Can you show me any study which shows that any ID scientist has been able to accurately predict, using an algorithm “based on probability,” whether an object of uknown utility that the ID scientist has not seen before was “designed” or not?
Your “ID” is a science in the same way that mind reading is a science, Jerry: bogus nonsense.
Real scientists (and non-scientists) have used their brains for hundreds of years to determine whether found objects were designed. Why all of a sudden do we need charlatans like you telling us that you have a better way but refusing to provide a single demonstration that your way works?
Comment #2160
Posted by Brian on May 14, 2004 11:32 AM (e) (s)
Dembski could give a scientific response but is unlikely to do so. The idea of Irreducible Complexity supposedly did not spring forth through a leap of faith, but rather as a hypothesis based on the observation of complexity in natural systems. Dembski should just say “Here are the dozen best examples of IC, and that’s the restricted existential statement you’re looking for. Refute these, and then there is little reason to talk about IC any more, especially because these examples are what led to the IC theory to begin with.” IC theory would be falsifiable as to those examples. Dembski is unlikely to make this argument though, because the dozen examples will soon be refuted. He could try and claim any complex system on the earth constitutes the restricted existential statement, but that’s a little too cute to pass Popper’s test.
Comment #2162
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 11:43 AM (e) (s)
*****Hahahahhahahahah. Can you show me any study which shows that any ID scientist has been able to accurately predict, using an algorithm “based on probability,” whether an object of uknown utility that the ID scientist has not seen before was “designed” or not?*****
No. Nor would I expect anyone to conduct such a silly study. Why would you as your proposition is largely nonsensical.
*****Your “ID” is a science in the same way that mind reading is a science, Jerry: bogus nonsense.*****
Please back this up with something other than broad assertions. I’m not going to get into a juvenile is too/is not/is too argument with you.
*****Real scientists (and non-scientists) have used their brains for hundreds of years to determine whether found objects were designed. *****
This is the no true Scottsman logical fallacy. I only address cogent posts based on logic.
*****Why all of a sudden do we need charlatans like you telling us that you have a better way but refusing to provide a single demonstration that your way works?*****
I don’t believe anyone has asked for a demonstration. Basically, the only thing I’ve received since I’ve been in here is ad homonym fallacy. Your post seems typical.
Comment #2166
Posted by Larry LaPorte on May 14, 2004 11:59 AM (e) (s)
Jerry, you lazy ignorant pathetic excuse for a liar (Ph.D.? what a joke), here’s just one example of a request for a demonstration:
A proper test of ID would be for it to make some prediction about a biological process, event, or feature that could not, in principle, be explained by evolution but only by intelligent design, and then having that prediction corroborated. Such a testable prediction might, for example, be recognition of the operation of the intelligent force that causes the alleged organic design, or a prediction of the identity of the designer.
By the way, you might want to use the following website to find other requests for demonstrations (I don’t have time to teach you how to use it; ask your mommy):
Comment #2167
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 12:03 PM (e) (s)
*****Dembski could give a scientific response but is unlikely to do so.******
Why are you guys so obsessed with Dembski? And why do you look to Dembski hoping to find the science of ID? Dembski is not a scientist, he’s a philosopher. Philosophy is all you will ever get out of him and that is logically all that could be expected.
******Dembski should just say “Here are the dozen best examples of IC, and that’s the restricted existential statement you’re looking for. Refute these, and then there is little reason to talk about IC any more, especially because these examples are what led to the IC theory to begin with.” IC theory would be falsifiable as to those examples. Dembski is unlikely to make this argument though, because the dozen examples will soon be refuted. He could try and claim any complex system on the earth constitutes the restricted existential statement, but that’s a little too cute to pass Popper’s test*****
Really, well if Dembski is unlikely to make that argument I certainly have no problem with it. Please consider the mammalian circulatory system which we will boil down to its core IC components:
Hemoglobin to carry oxygen, plasma to carry the hemoglobin, lungs to oxygenate the hemoglobin, miles of veins, arteries and capillaries to carry the fluid, a heart to pump the blood, a kidney to keep the blood clean and a brain to make it all work together.
Now take a monkey into a lab, pull out one of these irreducible components and show me how this system can still function. Refute this, then we’ll talk. ;)
Comment #2169
Posted by Leighton on May 14, 2004 12:27 PM (e) (s)
Okay, Jerry, what sources would you recommend for learning about ID, if not Dembski? Are Behe, Johnson, and Wells inadmissable too?
Where are you pulling your ideas about ID from?
Comment #2170
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 12:28 PM (e) (s)
*****Jerry, you lazy ignorant pathetic excuse for a liar (Ph.D.? what a joke), here’s just one example of a request for a demonstration*****
LOL…This is funny. You seem to be reduced to name calling in 1 post, gotta be a record. ;)
*****A proper test of ID would be for it to make some prediction about a biological process, event, or feature that could not, in principle, be explained by evolution but only by intelligent design, and then having that prediction corroborated.*****
You’re cracking me up, man. Do you think we have a problem in this area? You only think so because you are ignorant of the subject.
ID is based heavily on thermodynamics and one aspect of ID thermo is this postulate which has been around for years: ‘With the spreading of loose information, entropy will increase.’
Since genes are information, ID would predict that rather than an evolution of complexity within the human genome just the opposite, or devolution of the genome toward disorder would be occurring. Well, the only study ever done on the human genome by evolutionary biologists is in and this is exactly what is happening. Here’s the abstract:
High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids.
Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD.
Centre for the Study of Evolution and School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
It has been suggested that humans may suffer a high genomic deleterious mutation rate. Here we test this hypothesis by applying a variant of a molecular approach to estimate the deleterious mutation rate in hominids from the level of selective constraint in DNA sequences. Under conservative assumptions, we estimate that an average of 4.2 amino-acid-altering mutations per diploid per generation have occurred in the human lineage since humans separated from chimpanzees. Of these mutations, we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically. Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages
http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/eang33/pdfs/eyre-walker_keightley1…
This biological prediction of ID stands as supported by the evidence.
******Such a testable prediction might, for example, be recognition of the operation of the intelligent force that causes the alleged organic design******
There is no such thing as an ’intelligent force’ anywhere within the science. There are no leprechauns or fairies, either.
******or a prediction of the identity of the designer.*****
There is no such thing as a prediction of the identity of a designer. If the designer were an astronaut, how in heck do you figure that anyone could devise experimentation to figure out its name? That’s just silly.
See, I don’t need my mommy. And you don’t need to go to a philosopher to learn science. Throw it my way because philosophy is not my field
Comment #2171
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 12:36 PM (e) (s)
*****Okay, Jerry, what sources would you recommend for learning about ID, if not Dembski? Are Behe, Johnson, and Wells inadmissable too?
Where are you pulling your ideas about ID from?****
Johnson is OK. Behe revamped the argument from irreducible complexity that’s been around since the days of Christ, but I guess that’s all he’s ever done for ID. Wells is a law professor—wouldn’t go there.
If I had my druthers, I wish people would learn from us out here in the field that don’t make a fortune off books and lectures. We just do it.
Oh, we lecture (for free)and I have a book that will soon be out, but we are the crux of IDists that actually teach it to high schools and colleges and design research for their science departments.
I feel the latter is your best bet to get to the heart of the matter.
Comment #2172
Posted by Larry LaPorte on May 14, 2004 12:54 PM (e) (s)
You’re cracking me up, man. Do you think we have a problem in this area?
No, Jerry. I don’t think you have a problem in this area. I know that you have many problems in multiple areas.
Your first problem is that you are a liar with an understanding of biology roughly equivalent to that of a 6th grader who leared biology from a creationist.
Although you speak as if you know more about ID than anyone else on this blog, you stated that you weren’t aware that “anyone has asked for a demonstration.”
You were provided with one such request. No demonstration of the type requested in the article I linked to has been provided. Why? Because ID is bogus.
The paper you cited tested the prediction that “humans may suffer a high genomic deleterious mutation rate”. That prediction was not made by ID hucksters. It was made by scientists. The conclusions of that paper have nothing to do with ID. The paper only highlights the difference between scientists and frauds like you, Jerry. Real scientists propose testable hypotheses and publish papers in peer-reviewed journals. ID hucksters like you troll around on evolution blogs and make fools of themselves.
Now, as for the ID postulate that “With the spreading of loose information, entropy will increase,” would you mind defining the terms “spreading” and “loose” for us all?
That way we might be able to discuss the relevance of a mutation rate to your thermodynamic theory (ignoring for the moment the fact that humans eat food which contains stored energy).
Also Jerry Don, since you behave as if you believe yourself to be an expert in thermodynamics, could you please explain the results in this molecular biology paper to me, results which Maxwell might find a bit troubling?
Simplification of DNA topology below equilibrium values by type II topoisomerases.” Rybenkov, V.V., Ullsperger, C. U., Vologodskii, A.V. and Cozzarelli, N.R., Science, 1997, 277, 690-693.
I’m sure Alex Vologodskii and Nicholas Cozzarelli would be very excited to hear what insights a deluded mental dwarf such as yourself has to offer.
Comment #2173
Posted by Dr. Roland Strickland on May 14, 2004 01:03 PM (e) (s)
we lecture (for free)and I have a book that will soon be out, but we are the crux of IDists that actually teach it to high schools and colleges and design research for their science departments.
JD, I’m bored with the innuendo. How about some names? i.e., whose “we”? which high schools and colleges? could you provide an example of a “research” program this “crux of IDists” has designed for a “science” department at one of the “high schools and colleges” you refer to?
Or are you just a pathological liar?
Note that I could care less about your book. The most use that our nation’s physicists or biologists will get out of it is for lighting their grills or wiping themselves. I’m not criticizing it, necessarily. Just making a prediction.
Comment #2174
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 01:25 PM (e) (s)
******No, Jerry. I don’t think you have a problem in this area. I know that you have many problems in multiple areas.******
This is correct. However science and ID are not in those areas.
*****Your first problem is that you are a liar with an understanding of biology roughly equivalent to that of a 6th grader who leared biology from a creationist.*****
LOL…I majored in chemistry and have never been to a creationist site in my life except out of curiosity, not to gather facts. Has anyone ever told you that name calling is the ad homonym fallacy? How do you ever expect to win any points in debate if you base your arguments on logical fallacy?
*****Although you speak as if you know more about ID than anyone else on this blog, you stated that you weren’t aware that “anyone has asked for a demonstration.******
Nah…I’m not going to let you wiggle your way out of this. I addressed your request for a demonstration and now it is your turn to address that post. Don’t run from it, you’ll look sillier than if you addressed it.
*****The paper you cited tested the prediction that “humans may suffer a high genomic deleterious mutation rate”. That prediction was not made by ID hucksters. It was made by scientists. The conclusions of that paper have nothing to do with ID. The paper only highlights the difference between scientists and frauds like you, *****
LOL…Did you even read it? The paper never mentions frauds or scientists. Do you just make it up as you go? I’m not surprised you are a Darwinist. Did you know that the word gullible is not in the dictionary?
*****Jerry. Real scientists propose testable hypotheses and publish papers in peer-reviewed journals.******
The no true Scotsman fallacy again. I fear there may be no hope that you will ever bring a logical argument against ID.
*****Now, as for the ID postulate that “With the spreading of loose information, entropy will increase,” would you mind defining the terms “spreading” and “loose” for us all?*****
Nope. Look it up. I don’t seriously address posts this juvenile. I toy with them. Now, if someone else wants to ask those questions……
****Also Jerry Don, since you behave as if you believe yourself to be an expert in thermodynamics*****
Yep, a ‘real’ thermodynamicist, I’m afraid.
*****could you please explain the results in this molecular biology paper to me, results which Maxwell might find a bit troubling?*****
LOL…No thank you, I don’t believe I need to be making your arguments for you. I’ll let you do that, if you can. <;0)
Comment #2175
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 01:36 PM (e) (s)
*****JD, I’m bored with the innuendo. How about some names?*****
I use my real name.
*****i.e., whose “we”? which high schools and colleges?*****
On the Internet?? There are nuts reading this that would cause problems for these institutions. I don’t need that and you probably didn’t think it through before requested it.
******could you provide an example of a “research” program this “crux of IDists” has designed for a “science” department at one of the “high schools and colleges” you refer to?*****
Sure can. <;0)
*****Or are you just a pathological liar?*****
LOL…Have I picked up another PhD troll? They tend to follow me around, don’t you know. Do I know you from anywhere else?
*****Note that I could care less about your book.*****
Good. Then you won’t get a copy.
*****The most use that our nation’s physicists or biologists will get out of it is for lighting their grills or wiping themselves. I’m not criticizing it, necessarily. Just making a prediction*****
LOL…I thought you could care less about the book. But you may be the only person I know that can ‘dis’ a book without reading it. How do you do this, by osmosis? Now let’s go back to the opening sentence:
*****JD, I’m bored with the innuendo****
Great. Maybe this means you will actually bring an argument against any tenet of ID I’ve posited thus far on the forum. But, I’m not holding my breath.
Comment #2176
Posted by Saul on May 14, 2004 01:45 PM (e) (s)
For more examples of Jerry Don’s pathological lying, see
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=001315
and compare his statements and lies there with those here.
Jerry Don’s profile on the ARN site says that he is a “51 year old CEO of a business in the Midwest”. Anyone know in what state? Can anyone find the name of Jerry’s business? He has no other web presence except as a blogger on creationism boards like ARN.
I’m having fun watching him step into his own shite over and over again, like a rat in a corner just before it’s neck is snapped in two by a fox.
I suspect he is interested mainly in getting banned from this site so that he can use the ban as another reason to criticize “Darwinists” and accuse them of being unfair to pathological liars or something like that.
Good luck Jerry!
Comment #2178
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 01:53 PM (e) (s)
*****Jerry Don’s profile on the ARN site says that he is a “51 year old CEO of a business in the Midwest”. Anyone know in what state? Can anyone find the name of Jerry’s business? He has no other web presence except as a blogger on creationism boards like ARN.*****
LOL…Now does the good professor from a couple of posts back understand why I don’t give out certain information on the Web?
Comment #2180
Posted by Dr. James R. Quaradial on May 14, 2004 01:58 PM (e) (s)
“Now does the good professor from a couple of posts back understand why I don’t give out certain information on the Web?”
Yes, I understand completely. The more “information” you give us about you, the more proof we will have that you are a pathological liar.
Comment #2182
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 02:13 PM (e) (s)
*****Yes, I understand completely. The more “information” you give us about you, the more proof we will have that you are a pathological liar.*****
Very cool. Maybe we’re getting somewhere. I’ve been toying with this for a few days and I’m wondering if you can give me your opinion. This is an entropic formula that could deal with informational, logical and thermodynamical. I’m wondering if I could get the input of another educator:
Considering the general definition from statistical mechanics, which defines entropy as an absolute quantity, whereas the classical definition is only relative: S = -k*sum(overj){Pj*log(Pj)}, where “Pj” is the probability, “P”, of finding the system in state “j”, the sum is over all possible states “j”, and “k” is an arbitrary constant to define units (Boltzmann’s constant in thermodynamics). That definition of entropy is also used in information theory (with no “k”), and so is much more relevant to the question regarding complexity and order (which are poorly adapted concepts for thermodynamics).
Do you feel I need to slant this more Boltzmann, toward Prigogine, or possibly go down the middle with Schrodinger?
Comment #2187
Posted by Jack Krebs on May 14, 2004 03:11 PM (e) (s)
I’ve watched Jerry Don Bauer participate in a number of internet disucssions, and they always seem to devolve to about the same level. My feeling is that I’d like to see the Panda’s Thumb keep these kind of discussions to a minimum. People who want to argue with Jerry might invite him to step over to ARN or ISCID and take up the discussion there.
Just a thought on my part.
Thanks.
Comment #2189
Posted by Dr. Roland Strickland on May 14, 2004 03:17 PM (e) (s)
Jerry Don Bauer is employed at Time For Joy Productions which produces evangelical music out of Branson, Missouri. Could Jerry Don Bauer really be a Christian fundamentalist? What a shock that would be to us all.
A link which includes a letter from Jerry Don Bauer and pictures (!) is included.
WARNING!!! Turn down the volume on your computer first!!!
When you get to the site, search for “Jerry Don” and you’ll find his letters and pictures.
http://www.urban.ne.jp/home/koa7/newsletter.htm
Nice headphones, Jerry Don! Are the headphone your direct connection to God? Is that where you get all your thermo gobbledygook?
If it’s not you, Jerry Don, perhaps the real Jerry Don Bauer or his attorneys would be interested in knowing why you’ve stolen his identity.
Comment #2190
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 03:24 PM (e) (s)
*****I’ve watched Jerry Don Bauer participate in a number of internet disucssions, and they always seem to devolve to about the same level.*****
I’m sorry. I’m just responding to posts from wannabe detractors of ID that refuse to argue even one tenet of it. I’m being nice to people, in spite of the incoming, and just want to reason. Is this not the purpose of the forum?
Comment #2191
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 03:27 PM (e) (s)
*****If it’s not you, Jerry Don, perhaps the real Jerry Don Bauer or his attorneys would be interested in knowing why you’ve stolen his identity.*****
LOL…This is your logic to refute the above posts? Why don’t you just come right out and state that ID is science. ID is fact. There is not one thing I can do to refute even the simplist tenet of ID. I are a IDist. Welcome aboard, Doc. I went through this too.
Comment #2206
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 14, 2004 05:42 PM (e) (s)
Oh no, not the entropy debacle all over again. I have spent countless postings on ISCID and ARN trying to educate Jerry as to how to correctly apply entropy calculations to the genome as relevant to the issue of evolution. Seems that contrary to what science (read Schneider, Adami, Ofria and others have found) Jerry seems to be under the impression that entropy tendency is positive under mutation. Not to mention that Jerry confused tendency (which is a derivative) with the actual entropy. Since entropy is always positive, not surprisingly Jerry concluded, incorrectly, that this showed a positive tendency.
You can lead him to water but surely it seems that you can’t make him drink.
Just check out the ISCID or ARN threads, a riot…
We can find W, because the researchers tell us is there are about 100 million possibilities that could mutate, so four mutations is not that big a number, relatively speaking. But this will be positive entropy, thus we can surmise that entropy has risen in each, or at least most, generations for the last six million years and there is no evidence at all to suggest it hasn’t been this way throughout the entire 2 billion year process.
S = log2W, S = log2(100,000,000), S = 26.5754247590989, therefore S is positive showing a positive tendency of disorder as we would expect.
Ok, you can stop laughing now, this is serious stuff…
Comment #2209
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 06:01 PM (e) (s)
PvM, You’ve trolled me through more forums than I can count now. Go play in the sandbox or something. Let these people address the arguments they have initiated. I think that’s fair.
Comment #2210
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 14, 2004 06:08 PM (e) (s)
What arguments would that be Jerry? I hope they are better than the earlier debacle on these issues at this board.
And if you consider me showing the errors in your claims to be ‘trolling’ then you surely must believe that there are a lot of trolls out there :-)
You have shown through your own statements a total flawed understanding of concepts of entropy leading you astray more than once. And despite many efforts by various people to correct these errors and educate you, it seems that these attempts have been mostly in vain.
Of course that won’t prevent me from at least explaining to those on this board who are interested in what is wrong with your arguments.
Comment #2211
Posted by Mark V. on May 14, 2004 06:10 PM (e) (s)
Jerry Don, did you teach yourself rudimentary thermodynamics or did you learn thermodynamics from legendary gospel singer Gary Paxton?
Too bad you don’t have Gary’s head of hair.
Comment #2212
Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 14, 2004 06:44 PM (e) (s)
If I may interject, anyone who thinks JDB is a hopeless lunatic and a troll, should simply stop answering his posts. It goes to no one’s advantage (including, and especially, the Thumb’s), to keep hurling insults back and forth. Thanks.
Comment #2213
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 06:45 PM (e) (s)
*****Jerry Don, did you teach yourself rudimentary thermodynamics or did you learn thermodynamics from legendary gospel singer Gary Paxton? Too bad you don’t have Gary’s head of hair.*****
Gary is not a gospel singer. He does it all. Anyhow, you wouldn’t like Gary now, he‘s nuts. Yeah..he met a group called Paul Revere and The Raiders in an A&W Rootbeer stand in Hollywood and told them he would make them the number one rock group in America and he did. He brought a guy named Luther Vandross into the studio and produced a record album that sold 37 and a half million copies. He was the biggest record producer in Hollywood for 25 years. And yes, he’s a former business partner of mine.
So what. Now that you know I am known in Japan as a record producer with Gary S. Paxton as one of my former partners, how can you address the ID argument?
Comment #2215
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 14, 2004 07:10 PM (e) (s)
*****If I may interject, anyone who thinks JDB is a hopeless lunatic and a troll, should simply stop answering his posts.*****
I would add that I would appreciate it if no one would answer the posts that do not have an argument. Calling me a liar does not address anything logically. Further your cause, guys. Show that ID is false. Thus far, no one here seems capable of even addressing the subject.
Comment #2222
Posted by Andrew on May 15, 2004 06:49 AM (e) (s)
As someone with a layman’s interest in evolution, and wishing to have no truck with ID (or God) I would appreciate it if somebody would address JDB in a logical and consistent manner to debunk him.
I could use the tips for my own arguments.
The name calling simply looks hysterical. Flaming may be an old internet tradition (like text browsers) but face it, it makes everything look pretty crappy.
Now snap to it boys (and mature women). I don’t want to have to go to the hard work of getting a degree if I can cadge the best arguments off you chaps.
Comment #2223
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 15, 2004 07:33 AM (e) (s)
“Andrew”,
Well, for starters, there’s this paper critiquing Dembski’s CSI. IC is claimed to be a subset of CSI, so this applies to both.
I feel that every aspect of ID advocacy is fair game for criticism, from their arguments as such (see the paper mentioned above for one), their socio-political activism, and their rhetoric. Some people object to having the latter two categories critiqued on the grounds that such examinations don’t bear upon the arguments-as-such. I find this objection incredibly weak. The arguments-as-such have been thoroughly examined and dissected (see, for example, links from my page on William A. Dembski’s work); it is not as if they haven’t been addressed on their own lack-of-merit. The criticism of the politics and rhetoric proceeds in parallel with the criticism of the arguments-as-such.
Wesley
Comment #2229
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 15, 2004 09:43 AM (e) (s)
Jerry: Show that ID is false. Thus far, no one here seems capable of even addressing the subject.
Fascinating self denial. Not only does it seem self evident that Jerry is avoiding addressing the subject of thermodynamics in any scientifically meaningful manner but he also seems to ignore the vaste amount of evidence presented on this blog and other websites that ID is false. Not false in the sense that there is no God but false in the sense that it has failed to be a scientific alternative or extension.
Welcome to our Bible courses section explores and contradicts some of the suggestions by Jerry Don that he is not a ‘creationist’ as well as Jerry Don’s understanding of the concept of entropy
Such as this whopper
Yet evolutionists proclaim with every stage of the evolutionary process the law of entropy must be broken billions of time to form even the most primitive organism.
Of course as anyone knows, or should know, evolutionists do not claim that the law of entropy must be broken to form even the most primitive organisms. This is clearly a strawman on the part of Jerry Don and a complete misunderstanding of the concept of entropy as well as of the claims of evolutionists.
or here where Jerry Don can be observed saying
And I don’t believe complex systems CAN be set up to maintain order in the face of entropy.
For reference:
Creationist: Believer in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible
Comment #2237
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 15, 2004 11:03 AM (e) (s)
Well see, there ya go Wesley. The way to get anywhere in this subject is to get very specific. We can discuss CSI if you wish.
But may I suggest that the presentation of web sites with the invitation to ‘Go read this and you’ll see how wrong you are’ is not a fair argument? How would one ever score points by doing that as the writers of those web sites are not here to debate when they are wrong.
So, why don’t you place an argument in your own words. Do you feel there is no upper barrier limit where things cannot come together on there own? Do you feel that Dembski just uses the wrong figures? What problems do you have with CSI?
Comment #2238
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 15, 2004 11:07 AM (e) (s)
LOL….Pim, you are stringing together meaningless quotes from me from across several forums involving subjects that, I’m afraid, are not even related to one another.What is your point, do you have one?
Comment #2240
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 15, 2004 12:18 PM (e) (s)
Well see, there ya go Wesley. The way to get anywhere in this subject is to get very specific. We can discuss CSI if you wish.
But may I suggest that the presentation of web sites with the invitation to ‘Go read this and you’ll see how wrong you are’ is not a fair argument? How would one ever score points by doing that as the writers of those web sites are not here to debate when they are wrong.
So, why don’t you place an argument in your own words. Do you feel there is no upper barrier limit where things cannot come together on there own? Do you feel that Dembski just uses the wrong figures? What problems do you have with CSI?
That’s fascinating. Risible, but fascinating. Jerry somehow believes that I have not yet put arguments on these topics “in my own words”.
If Jerry had bothered to open up a browser window and look at any of the URLs that I provided, he would have found my name prominently displayed on each of them. If Jerry had bothered to read the critique of CSI that I referenced before, he would already know the answers to his questions.
There is another paper with my name on it that critiques the “explanatory filter”. This one was published in Biology and Philosophy back in November of 2001.
Jerry might consider checking out the authorship of referenced words before claiming that someone has not put an argument in their own words. Jerry might even go to the uncommonly difficult length of plugging a search into Google like “elsberry ‘intelligent design’” and see what pops out before insinuating that no such arguments exist.
Comment #2241
Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 15, 2004 12:35 PM (e) (s)
Andrew, there is really no simple “logical and consistent manner” to address JDB. His arguments are so far out, that to address them requires long explanations of very basic principles of biology and physics. When one does so, he usually ignores the main point, and starts on an unrelated tangent. It’s like trying to nail a bead of mercury to the table, which is what makes people frustrated and eventually causes flame wars. On the large scale of things, it’s not even really necessary to answer his pronouncements, since as far as I know not even creationists (at least, the professional kind) take him seriously.
My experience is, if you can stick to the topic without getting distracted by his tactics, go ahead and he eventually quits, otherwise, have some Mylanta at hand.
Comment #2243
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 15, 2004 01:06 PM (e) (s)
Jerry: So, why don’t you place an argument in your own words. Do you feel there is no upper barrier limit where things cannot come together on there own? Do you feel that Dembski just uses the wrong figures? What problems do you have with CSI?
If Jerry had looked at the links he would have realized that these linked to pages authored by Wesley and thus are in his own words. That Jerry is unable to rebut these arguments is quite telling but not surprising to me.
Perhaps Jerry will follow Wes’s advice and read the papers which show the many problems with ID?
Jerry: LOL….Pim, you are stringing together meaningless quotes from me from across several forums involving subjects that, I’m afraid, are not even related to one another.What is your point, do you have one?
That your quotes are meaningless, erroneous, contradicted by fact? At least we agree about the lack of meaning in these quotes. They show and support my argument that your understanding of concepts of entropy are, how do I say this in a nice manner, well, eh lacking?
Comment #2244
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 15, 2004 01:25 PM (e) (s)
*****That’s fascinating. Risible, but fascinating. Jerry somehow believes that I have not yet put arguments on these topics “in my own words”.
If Jerry had bothered to open up a browser window and look at any of the URLs that I provided, he would have found my name prominently displayed on each of them. If Jerry had bothered to read the critique of CSI that I referenced before, he would already know the answers to his questions. *****
So what? What is your argument? I could send you to several of my writings as well. Are you suggesting I can use my own writings to back up my arguments?
Why not address the argument head on? The Idist on here seems to not be afraid to discuss the subject. Now I have offered you several specific questions, and I’m afraid if you don’t address, them you will logically have to admit that you have no argument against CSI:
1) What problem do you have with CSI?
2) Is it Dembski’s version of an upper limit barrier you are having trouble with?
3.) Do you feel there is no such thing in reality as an upper limit barrier?
*****There is another paper with my name on it that critiques the “explanatory filter”. This one was published in Biology and Philosophy back in November of 2001.
Jerry might consider checking out the authorship of referenced words before claiming that someone has not put an argument in their own words. Jerry might even go to the uncommonly difficult length of plugging a search into Google like “elsberry ‘intelligent design’” and see what pops out before insinuating that no such arguments exist.*****
I don’t WANT links to abstract papers and Google searches. I know they are out there. What I want from Wesley is for him to back up his arguments with logic, or to quit posting assertions he has no reasonable evidence with which to back up. Please cease from sending me to papers that you hope will make your arguments for you. If you have legitimate arguments on any tenet of ID, now is your chance to have them addressed.
Comment #2245
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 15, 2004 01:35 PM (e) (s)
*****Andrew, there is really no simple “logical and consistent manner” to address JDB.*****
LOL…Yes, there is. And my posts have tried to remain steadily consistent to the subject as is allowed to be in this type of flame forum. Go back and dissect the ICS I gave you. If you cannot, then the assertions on here that there is no such thing as an ICS stands refuted by logic.
Address Wesley’s problems with CSI. If those on this forum cannot do so, then those on here must admit that they have no logic to refute CSI.
Go back and address the thermodynamics I gave you and the studies by Eyre-Walker and Keightly I gave you. If no one can do so, then this forum must admit that macroevolution has been refuted right here in front of God and everybody, and ID stands proudly.
I don’t see how anyone can get any more specific than this.
*****His arguments are so far out, that to address them requires long explanations of very basic principles of biology and physics.*****
We have time. <;0)
Comment #2246
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 15, 2004 01:45 PM (e) (s)
Jerry is moving the goalposts: So what? What is your argument? I could send you to several of my writings as well. Are you suggesting I can use my own writings to back up my arguments?
Remember what Jerry asked ?
So, why don’t you place an argument in your own words
Well, the papers are written by Wesley and thus present the argument in his own words.
Jerry tries: Why not address the argument head on? The Idist on here seems to not be afraid to discuss the subject. Now I have offered you several specific questions, and I’m afraid if you don’t address, them you will logically have to admit that you have no argument against CSI:
FIrst of all Wes did address the argument head on, which is probably why Jerry is shying away from reading and discussing the links provided by Wes. In addition if not answering questions were to be seen as ‘having no arguments’ then Jerry is admitting defeat in many (past) threads in which he can be observed to address and answer many of the relevant questions.
Jerry: What I want from Wesley is for him to back up his arguments with logic, or to quit posting assertions he has no reasonable evidence with which to back up.
In other words, do not bother Jerry with facts and evidence. Wes has provided in depth rebuttals of CSI and other arguments and claims by Dembski. That Jerry is unwilling to address them probably should be interpreted as admission of defeat? Or does Jerry’s ‘logic’ not apply to himself?
Jerry: Go back and address the thermodynamics I gave you and the studies by Eyre-Walker and Keightly I gave you. If no one can do so, then this forum must admit that macroevolution has been refuted right here in front of God and everybody, and ID stands proudly.
These claims have been addressed and shown to be fallacious on various forums. That Jerry despite many attempts to educate him about the concepts of entropy continues to repeat the same nonsense merely supports my point. Empty claims of refutation of macro evolution based on fallacious arguments just are not very impressive. But perhaps you can present the argument in your own words in a coherent and scientifically sound manner?
Comment #2248
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 15, 2004 01:55 PM (e) (s)
From the Eyre-Wlaker paper
If deleterious new mutations are accumulating at present, this could have damaging consequences for human health, but this would depend critically on the frequency distribution of fitness effects of mutant alleles, about which we know little.
Comment #2250
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 15, 2004 02:11 PM (e) (s)
Now lets explore on of Jerry’s erroneous claims
ID is based heavily on thermodynamics and one aspect of ID thermo is this postulate which has been around for years: ‘With the spreading of loose information, entropy will increase.’
Since genes are information, ID would predict that rather than an evolution of complexity within the human genome just the opposite, or devolution of the genome toward disorder would be occurring. Well, the only study ever done on the human genome by evolutionary biologists is in and this is exactly what is happening. Here’s the abstract:
If Jerry is correct that ID would predict the devolution then it seems that given the evidence ID has been disproven.
But I doubt that Jerry’s arguments logically follow from entropy, information and complexity arguments. In fact, as I have explained to Jerry countless times, actual research has shown how simple concepts of variation and selection can increase the information/complexity in the genome and decrease its entropy.
Check out the work by Schneider, Adami, Lenski, Ofria and countless others who have applied the concepts of entropy and information in a less haphazard manner to show why Jerry’s ad hoc arguments should be rejected.
See Figure 1 to see how fitness in experiments with ecoli can be shown to increase.
Another interesting Paper: On the Reorganization of Fitness During Evolutionary Transitions in Individuality or Does complexity always increase during major evolutionary transitions?
Comment #2252
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 15, 2004 02:34 PM (e) (s)
*****Schneider, Adami, Lenski, Ofria and*****
Pim, you troll me in every forum I ever enter. You were just thoroughly defeated on the above stuff at ARN where you admitted you had no more argument to offer and were going to take some time off to study.
Now you are going back to square one as if that debate never took place. You seem the naturalist equivilent of Dwayne Gish.
Please post to someone, who don’t know who you are.
Comment #2253
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 15, 2004 02:43 PM (e) (s)
Why not address the argument head on? The Idist on here seems to not be afraid to discuss the subject. Now I have offered you several specific questions, and I’m afraid if you don’t address, them you will logically have to admit that you have no argument against CSI:
Sorry, your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. The notion that an argument I made elsewhere can be avoided simply because I don’t cut and paste it at the whim or demand of every antievolutionist I run across is ludicrous. I’d never get anything done in Jerry-world.
Maybe that’s the idea. I notice over on ARN that Bill Dembski is urging Salvador Cordova to write rebuttals of my arguments, rather than addressing them himself.
If Jerry wants to ignore my arguments, that’s his prerogative. But it doesn’t say anything about the logical status of those arguments that Jerry prefers to remain ignorant of them.
Comment #2254
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 15, 2004 02:44 PM (e) (s)
Jerry: Pim, you troll me in every forum I ever enter. You were just thoroughly defeated on the above stuff at ARN where you admitted you had no more argument to offer and were going to take some time off to study.
I guess that this means that by Jerry’s own admissions, he has admitted defeat?
I never said that I had no more arguments to offer, nor did Jerry ever address the Lenski, Adami, Ofria and other references I provided to him. Somehow Jerry seems to follow me around to other boards though ready for more ‘punishment’. I am not sure why but I will happily expose Jerry’s errors and unfamiliarity with entropy to all.
So stop embarassing yourself with your claims Jerry, I never were ‘defeated’ on ARN. Only in Jerry’s mind but if people are interested check out the following threads on ARN
A Formal Statement of ID Theory
Pay special attention to my posting
I will likely be unable to contribute to these threads for the next week or two. I am looking forward to exploring in more depth the issues exposed namely the ‘appeal to ignorance’ argument of the DNA Turing machine by Salvador and the problems with Jerry’s entropy calculations. I hope that Jerry will find the time to apply the correct formulas to his entropy calculations.
And compare that with Jerry’s ‘interpretation’ of my statement.
Comment #2255
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 15, 2004 02:51 PM (e) (s)
Oh yes, Jerry’s ideas were also thoroughly refuted on the ISCID thread where Jerry was posting as Chronos.
Gedanken states is well
e has not demonstrated that the entropy must be increasing, simply because his argument confuses the positive value of entropy with a delta or change of entropy in a positive direction. Even if there were an argument that demonstrated this was a positive delta, Chronos has decided not to give such an argument and relies on the value being positive — an irrelevant issue.
Then Chronos has not demonstrated that change over time requires an decrease in entropy. (Or any particular change in entropy — for example changes occur and they are different, but they have the same number of informational or microstates and thus S has not changed.)
Comment #2257
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 15, 2004 03:12 PM (e) (s)
*****Sorry, your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. The notion that an argument I made elsewhere can be avoided simply because I don’t cut and paste it at the whim or demand of every antievolutionist I run across is ludicrous. I’d never get anything done in Jerry-world.*****
So, I take it that you cannot answer the questions I posed to you? If you cannot, just honestly admit that there is nothing you have to suggest specified complexity does not exist and there is therefore, no reason it cannot be mathematically quantified.
Even if you were to reason us past Dembski (which you won‘t), you are going to have to take on the science of archeology which uses design techniques every day in their field to detect design in artifacts.
Even if you ‘dis’ archeology you are going to have to go against the pre-Dembski version of the EF that has been used in science for eons. I was taught this technique as a chem major a full 20 years before anyone had ever hear
Comment #1958
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 9, 2004 02:19 AM (e) (s)
Excellent essay. Welcome back Wesley, I missed your hard hitting though fair contributions. Once again you have hit the nail by exposing in detail the underlying problems with ID.
That more recently ID proponents are retreating into front loading is not surprising given the problems ID is facing to propose scientifically relevant hypotheses.
In the end, the retreat to front loading is understandable from a scientific and theological perspective.