Navigation
Recent Comments
- timi on October 21, 2004 08:46 PM
- sl page on October 7, 2004 08:47 AM
- G3 on July 26, 2004 10:04 AM
- Robert O'Brien on July 26, 2004 02:49 AM
- Robert O'Brien on July 26, 2004 02:37 AM
- rs on May 29, 2004 06:39 PM
- CD318 on May 29, 2004 08:34 AM
- Bob Maurus on May 29, 2004 04:57 AM
- Bob Maurus on May 28, 2004 09:30 PM
- Pim van Meurs on May 28, 2004 09:22 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by John M. Lynch on May 20, 2004 02:31 PM
ISCID is the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. Over at Stranger Fruit, Jerry Don Bauer (no stranger to the ISCID boards) makes a number of statements regarding peer-review and ID:
There is a ton of peer reviewed lituraure [sic] out there-Both ARN and ISCID put out quarterly journals in this area, along with many others. You could have gotten by with that statement 2 or 3 years back, but not today. …
[ID] literature [is] being peer reviewed is it not? In fact, the very purpose for ISCID is peer review. Look at all the peer reviewed books out on the subject. Look at the papers on other sites
In what follows, I want to briefly examine these claims.
Now, let’s start with the “papers on other sites.” It’s the “Bibliography of Supplementary Resources For Ohio Science Instruction” which the Center for Science and Culture produced as representing “important lines of evidence and puzzles that any theory of evolution must confront, and that science teachers and students should be allowed to discuss when studying evolution … The publications represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism (the prevailing theory of evolution taught in biology textbooks), discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins.” The majority of the authors are respected scientists - none of that literature comes from ID supporters, Discovery fellows and their fellow travellers. Note what JDB is claiming - this is ID literature that is peer-reviewed. It is not. Literature that “challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism (the prevailing theory of evolution taught in biology textbooks), discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider” is not de facto support for ID - to think such is to commit a logical fallacy.
This list has been analyzed by the National Center for Science Education which sent a questionnaire to at least one of the authors of every publication listed in the Bibliography, asking them whether they considered their work to provide scientific evidence for “intelligent design.” None of the 26 respondents (representing 34 of the 44 publications in the Bibliography) did; many were indignant at the suggestion.
So, as yet, we see no evidence of peer-reviewed papers expliciting testing or providing positive evidence for intelligent design. The ARN journal (Origins and Design) is largely defunct and has been discussed here. Let’s look at Progress in Complexity, Information and Design - the journal of ISCID, paying attention to its review procedures.
Articles accepted to the journal must first be submitted to the ISCID archive. To be accepted into the archive, articles need to meet basic scholarly standards and be relevant to the study of complex systems. Once on the archive, articles passed on by at least one ISCID fellow will be accepted for publication.
As Dembski notes, “this review process emphasizes creativity and exploration over criticism and censorship” and was developed in reponse to Tipler’s article “Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?” (link). As part of an extended tirade againt peer-review of research and funding proposals, Tipler proposes a second tier of publishing which “will consist of publishing a paper in the journal automatically if the paper is submitted with letters from several leading experts in the field saying ‘this paper should be published.’ … A genius could interact directly with another genius.” So there we have the PCID quality control - a single “genius” member of the editorial board vouches for the paper and it’s in. As someone who has both published and refereed papers, I don’t like that one bit and perhaps this explains why no one of note has published in PCID.
Given this, let’s look at who has actually published in PCID. (I have omitted the October 2003 issue devoted to philosophy of mind because as a purely philosophical issue it has little relevence to the application of design to biological evolution).
ISCID Fellows
Robert C. Koons - Professor of philosophy at University of Texas, Austin
Bill Dembski (x4) - Associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University
Michael J. Behe - Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University
Paul Nelson - With the Discovery Institute
Jonathan Wells - With the Discovery Institute
Forrest M. Mims - Self-employed atmospheric scientist
Christopher M. Langan - President of the Mega Foundation which provides “aid, support and camaraderie to the ‘severely gifted’ in order to help these creative individuals realize their dreams.”
Karl D. Stephan (x2) - Associate Professor, Department of Technology, Texas State University
Neil Broom - Associate professor, Department of chemical and materials engineering, University of Auckland
Non-fellows
John R. Bracht (x2) - Graduate student, Department of Biology, University of California, San Diego.
James A. Barham - Graduate student, History & Philosophy of Science, Notre Dame
Dermott J. Mullan (x2) - Professor of Astrophysics at University of Delaware
Philip R. Page - Technical Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Jolanta Koszteyn - Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Science
Piotr Lenartowicz - Professor, School of Philosophy and Education, Cracow
Arie S. Issar - Emeritus professor, J. Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
Granville Sewell - Associate Professor of Mathematics, University of Texas El-Paso
Phillip L. Engle - Data modeller with Mellon Bank
Jakob Wolf - Professor, Department of Systematic Theology, University of Copenhagen
Quinn Tyler Jackson - “author and researcher”
Iain G.D. Strachan - Computer science, AEA Technology, Harwell, U.K.
Frank J. Tipler - Professor, Department of Mathmatics, Tulane University.
David Owen - Graduate student, Software engineering, West Virginia University
John A. Davison - Department of Biology, University of Vermont
Darel R. Finley - unable to find any information; perhaps attached to MD Anderson Cancer Center in some capacity, but not as clinical or scientific faculty.
Richard A. Johns - unable to find any information
Joshua A. Smart - unable to find any information
That’s a total of 27 authors accounting for 31 papers. Twelve of these papers (38.7%) were written by members of the PCID editorial board - this seems just a little incestuous to me. Still, let’s assume that the board are being “fair and balanced” (as we have no idea of the acceptance rate of papers and the source of papers that are rejected, we can only assume this). It is noticable that the authors above are largely minor scientists at best and graduate students or unknowns at worst - Tipler may be the exception, but his paper offered no science. Organismal biologists are notably in the minority. Indeed, equally as noticable is that the papers published offer no new biological data or experiments. Frankly, even if the peer-reviewing process is stringent, no attempt is being made to provide and test explicit design hypotheses within the biological realm.
So in summary, what do we have? Firstly, neither Wells, Behe, Dembski nor Nelson appear to be currently publishing original research in mainstream scientific journals. Secondly, the research cited by ID supporters is not produced by ID supporters, and these authors do not see their research as supportive of the Discovery Institute’s anti-evolutionary program. Lastly, PCID’s review system is unorthodox and has not yielded any substantive advances in scientific inquiry being largely philosophical discussions, anti-establishment rhetorical diatribes or rehersals of jaded arguments from probability.
Here are my friendly suggestions if ISCID members and design advocates want to be taken seriously.
Dembski’s stand that he has “gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print … And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more.” (The Chronicle of Higher Education Dec. 21, 2001), positively hurts any hope that ID has in becoming accepted among the larger scientific community. Publish papers.
Publish in peer-reviewed journals in philosophy, statistics, mathematics and complexity theory. Journals such as Complexity would, I’m sure, be interested in what they have to say (indeed that very journal has published a review by Bracht of Stu Kauffman’s Investigations). Therein they can workout their theories of design and its detection to their heart’s content. If the paper gets rejected - resubmit. If it gets rejected again, feel free to post it unrefereed online and make bitter comments about what Tipler calls the “pygmies standing in judgement on giants.” Dembski has failed to publish qua mathematician and has proceeded directly to self-publishing. That is a mistake.
If ID has something to say about biological evolution, do biological research - not literature surveys, statistical simulations, thought experiments, etc. Generate biological hypotheses that come from the design perspective. Make sure these hypotheses can differentiate between evolutionary and design predictions. Test them using observation or experiment. Rinse. Repeat. Despite what Phil Johnson and others say, radical ideas do get published in mainstream journals. (Tipler implicitly admits this in his paper, as all his Nobel winners did get their papers published in mainstream journals eventually, just not their first-choice journals.)
Only then will the “pygmies” take the “giants” seriously.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/221
Comment #2494
Posted by Alton Naur on May 20, 2004 10:07 PM (e) (s)
“Tipler proposes a second tier of publishing which “will consist of publishing a paper in the journal automatically if the paper is submitted with letters from several leading experts in the field saying ‘this paper should be published.’ … A genius could interact directly with another genius.””
In fact, this is exactly how publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America works. Get a NAS member and two of his friends to attest to the quality of your paper, and it’s in. NAS members, certified geniuses that they are, can also “contribute” papers with no review at all. This is one of the reasons it publishes over 16,000 pages per volume. It also has a conventionally-reviewed mode, in case you don’t know anyone famous. PNAS has worked like this since 1914; a number of other prestigious society journals work the same way.
Comment #2495
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on May 20, 2004 11:02 PM (e) (s)
Alton Naur,
I think that is the way PNAS used to work, but they had problems in the 80s with a few NAS members publishing crackpot theories in PNAS. PNAS has three different tracks.
Track I. An Academy member may “communicate” manuscripts for others that are within the member’s area of expertise. Prior to submission to PNAS, the member obtains outside reviews of the paper from at least two qualified referees, each from a different institution and not from the authors’ institutions. The names and contact information, including e-mails, of referees who reviewed the paper, along with the reviews and the authors’ response must be included.
Track II. Authors (members or non members) may submit their manuscripts directly to the PNAS office. In a cover letter, authors may recommend appropriate Editorial Board members, NAS members who are expert in the paper’s scientific area, and qualified referees. The Editorial Board may choose a member as editor for the paper who is not on that list or may reject the paper without further review. The member-editor conducts the review of the paper as described for Track I. A list of members including research interests is on the PNAS home page (see NAS members): www.pnas.org. The name of the member-editor, who may remain anonymous to the author until the paper is accepted, will be published in PNAS as editor of the article.
Track III. An Academy member may submit his or her own manuscripts for publication. Members’ submissions must be accompanied by the name of knowledgeable colleague(s) who reviewed the paper, along with the review(s).
All Tracks. Manuscripts submitted under any of the three tracks are evaluated by the Editorial Board. The Board may reject manuscripts without further review or may subject manuscripts to review and reject those that do not meet the standards of the journal. Manuscripts rejected by one member cannot be resubmitted through another member. When revisions are requested prior to final decision, revised papers must be received within three months or they will be treated as new submissions.
In the journal, Track I, II, and III papers are distinguished respectively as “Communicated by,” “Edited by,” and “Contributed by” the responsible member. Track II papers have an additional identifying footnote.
Comment #2496
Posted by Richard Wein on May 21, 2004 12:58 AM (e) (s)
Let’s get this clear. The only requirements for publication in PCID are (1) that the article “meet basic scholarly standards and be relevant to the study of complex systems” and (2) that the article be approved by any one of the 50+ Fellows, and this Fellow may even be the author of the article! The approving Fellow can be self-appointed and need not have any relevant expertise. The idea that this constitutes “peer review” is a joke.
Add to this the fact that most, if not all, of the Fellows are proponents of a particular belief (ID) rejected by the vast majority of scientists and that many of them are politically active in support of this belief, and it becomes clear that ISCID and PCID exist primarily for the promotion of this one belief. It’s not surprising, then, that when you look at the actual content, it turns out to be largely the usual ID pseudoscientific junk.
Comment #2497
Posted by Ed Darrell on May 21, 2004 02:20 AM (e) (s)
To the extent that the PNAS is open to all comers, it is worthy of note that there are precious few papers advancing “intelligent design” ideas in PNAS. I suggest this is one further piece of evidence that there is no science in ID.
Also, apart from the recent flaps about what is governmental peer review, federal research grants have relatively tight standards about what is peer review, in order to make more standard the analyses of the publication records of grant applicants. After some problems in the early 1980s, Congress imposed the possibility of criminal penalties for falsely claiming peer review where none exists.
Has anyone else noticed that, in addition to there being no discernible research agenda from ID, none of the ID advocates gets federal funding based on their claims of peer review of ID? One might be reminded of the Arkansas trial in 1981 where, when put under oath and penalty of perjury, each creationist noted that there is no science basis to creationism, but instead their views are informed by their interpretation of scripture.
Could any ID advocate pass muster as an “expert” in the area under any state’s rules for expert witnesses? I doubt it.
Comment #2498
Posted by Frank J on May 21, 2004 05:39 AM (e) (s)
John Lynch said:
“Darel R. Finley - unable to find any information; perhaps attached to MD Anderson Cancer Center in some capacity, but not as clinical or scientific faculty.”
Maybe this is why:
http://www.alienryderflex.com/evolution/default.html…
Comment #2499
Posted by Alex Merz on May 21, 2004 06:08 AM (e) (s)
Of couse, one can self-publish and earn a Nobel Prize in Physiology. Peter Mitchell did it with the famous grey books, (which I have facsimile copies of), and he did it with a body of theory (chemiosmotic coupling) that was viewed by many of his colleagues as utterly heretical. Of course, the grey books contained the extended arguments; Mitchell ALSO published papers in the peer-reivewed biochemical and physiological literature. And he did most of his work in a nonacademic setting, a self-funded laboratory in the English countryside. Ultimately, he swayed even his sternest critics including Paul Boyer. (See P D Boyer, B Chance, L Ernster, P Mitchell, E Racker, E C Slater, 1977, Ann Rev Biochem 46:955 for the review that was, in effect, the field’s announcement that a paradigm shift had occurred.)
It is difficult to convey to people without some biochemical background how revolutionary Mitchell’s ideas were. I think this is *the* classic modern case in which biologists were convinced to adopt a totally new explanatory model in the face of accumulating data.
But there (at least!) two important differences between Mictchell and the ID crowd, however. First, Mitchell vigorously engaged his colleagues in the field. He went to meetings and maintained a voluminous correspondence with his critics. He did not wander off to start new institutes, new journals that were isolated from the field. He actively engaged and confronted his critics. He never seriously entertained the possibility that his critics were too “hidebound” or “reactionary” to change their views. He knew that the onus was on *him* to sharpen his arguments, and that his efforts would be for naught if he could not convince his colleagues. (In fact, one could say the same of Darwin himself!)
Second, Mitchell’s theory made specific predictions, and he did experiments - lots of experiments - to test these predictions. Merely proposing the first and second chemiosmotic hypotheses would not have been sufficient for a paradigm shift or a Nobel Prize. Modern biology is, above all, a synthesis of theory (or model-building, if you prefer) with vigorous biological experimentation and observation. That, in my view, is the critical difference between a genius like Mitchell, and a crank like Dembski.
Comment #2501
Posted by Marcus Good on May 21, 2004 08:10 AM (e) (s)
Re: Finley’s site.
“Intermediate-like creatures such as Archaeopteryx or the therapsids could be a designer’s early prototypes.”
“Creationists such as myself are open to consider many possible ways that God might have chosen to create life, but are required by the empirical evidence to discard most of these ways, including discarding evolution.”
I’m tempted to assume that this implies God has trouble getting organisms right on the first try..
Comment #2505
Posted by Navy Davy on May 21, 2004 09:39 AM (e) (s)
Do y’all mind if I ask another stupid question?
Is this site named “Panda’s Thumb” or is it, “Get Dembski”?:)
Here’s my background:
1. I am an attorney, specializing in cancer cases;
2. I, therefore, have to hire zillions of experts (pathologists, biochemists, oncologists, etc,) at usurious rates (sometimes up to $500/hour!)
3. I, therefore, have to cross-examine the other side’s expensive, well-qualified experts at trial;
4. I, therefore, know just enough science to make me dangerously, incompletely informed;
5. I also get to see, first hand, numerous schisms in the scientific/medical community on numerous issues;
6. But, I rarely see the rancor and teeth-gnashing exhibited in this debate, Evolution v. ID.
Here’s my observations:
1. This site has some serious intellectual fire-power. It is an outstanding resource. Well Done!;
2. But after reviewing most of the posts and comments, I now understand the reasons behind the rancor;
a. The evolution crowd does not believe ID is even a theory, nor that evolution is less than a fact.
b. The ID crowd is, partly, motivated by theologists, not scientists.
Hence, a schism in communications. Hence, the rancor.
My proposed solution:
1. Evolution be treated as the dominant theory;
2. ID be treated as the minority theory;
3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable;
4. If so, devise suitable tests and test them both;
5. Analyze the results to see if the theories are proven more likely than not true, or more likely than not false;
6. Make some good real world predictions about each theory;
7. Worry less about the characters of the persons promoting theories or their motivations, and more about the theories, test results and predictions themselves; and
8. Avoid rancor and ad hominem. Humor is always a good balm;
Again, I say this as man who has an undying affection and respect for science and scientists, who really has no stake in the outcome, and who, instinctively, on a lay level, tends to accept evolution as the best explanation of origins and cause.
Cheers, y’all.
Comment #2506
Posted by shiva on May 21, 2004 10:07 AM (e) (s)
Navy Davy,
I am not a man of science either - unless you count my undergrad degree in Physics acquired >20 years ago. I am a middle-level employee in a large organisation - that treats me pretty well. I am concerned that pseudoscientists are given so much mileage in the US and more that my children will have to learn the junk they peddle - I live now in Ohio. I know enough of science to know that your solution - nothing more than passing a fiat - is wrong, obsolete, discredited and pretty much useless. PT exists to provide a forum for practicing scientists as well as those who believe in science even if they don’t make a living out of it. So there is no question of thinking in terms of “dominant theory” minority theory”, etc, weighing the evidence etc., since the managers of this site and its wellwishers intend to stick to the scientific method like leeches since there hasn’t been any other for a few centuris now. Each one of the processes your suggest in your list #3 to 8 have already been done by science and been dicked by the pseudoscientists running the what-shall-i-call-it ID movement. It is hard to avoid references to Dembski as a person because that is pretty much all you see when he writes - because when I have heard him talk once on a video in a debate with Genie Scott and a Christian philosopher from U.Notre Dame - Genie trounced him on matters of science and the philosopher from ND (sorry for forgetting your name) tore his ‘theories’ about religion and faith. When after being refuted like this at every debate and after his errors, howlers and misquotes have been pointed out every time, a person continues to parrot the same point - one cannot help but question what the person is up to. Bill may be a great guy to have a beer with - I don’t know. But as far as his work in science is concerned it is no work at all. Humor is a good balm but can be dangerous. Because whenever I read Dembski and his students I can’t help splitting my sides in laughter. I need all the humor I can get!
Comment #2507
Posted by gbusch on May 21, 2004 10:24 AM (e) (s)
RE: Finley’s site
RE: Evolutionists
“By deliberately concealing strong negative evidence, they are in gross violation of the scientific attitude.”
Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to grossly excuse the inability to substantiate one’s opinion.
Comment #2508
Posted by Johnnie C. on May 21, 2004 10:29 AM (e) (s)
Navy Davy
I am also attorney but have the added advantage of having a Ph.D. in molecular biology from UC Berkeley.
Courtrooms are the best venues (most of the time) for quickly ending a dispute between two parties. But I am sure you appreciate the fact that courtrooms are not the best venues for determining the merits of a scientific theory.
I’m rather surprised to see you admit that you know next to nothing about the issues being debated here and yet you feel compelled to offer a “proposed solution.”
Your solution strikes me as rather quaint.
1. Evolution be treated as the dominant theory;
No scientist doubts that evolution occurred. In terms of the mechanism responsible for evolution, the “theory” of natural selection has been the dominant theory for over 100 years because it works to explain what scientists observe and because it has made useful predictions which have been proven again and again.
2. ID be treated as the minority theory;
What about the theory that a giant space bat pooped out the earth and all its inhabitants and fossils unintentionally? Why should we not treat that as the minority theory as well? Can you prove that didn’t happen?
3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable;
(1) is testable and has been tested thousands of times and tests are consistent with the theory. (2) has not even been sufficiently articulated to be testable. There are no testable predictions from ID.
4. If so, devise suitable tests and test them both;
See (3).
5. Analyze the results to see if the theories are proven more likely than not true, or more likely than not false;
See (3). Geez, you really aren’t familiar with this area.
6. Make some good real world predictions about each theory;[quote]
Done, over and over again. There are literally mountains of peer-reviewed research which support evolution. There is NOTHING for ID. NADA. ZILCH.
[quote]7. Worry less about the characters of the persons promoting theories or their motivations, and more about the theories, test results and predictions themselves;
This is where my senses start tingling, Navy Davy, because surely as an attorney you realize that evidence of bias is great for impeachment. The fact that ID creationists almost entirely consist of non-scientist non-biologist religious figures who are funded by a conservative religious think tank is a fact that can NOT be ignored in this “debate.”
As an attorney, you may believe that the obvious impeachment value of this information is attenuated by the possibility that the jury will be sympathetic towards the inane religious hucksters. I give the average American more credit — although just a little bit more credit. :) Thus far, our track record is pretty good against the ID hucksters.
8. Avoid rancor and ad hominem. Humor is always a good balm;
I agree. I tell you what. Why don’t you educate yourself on the issues here and debate a freak like Jerry Don Bauer for a couple days. We’ll see how humorous you feel after that.
Comment #2510
Posted by shiva on May 21, 2004 10:47 AM (e) (s)
….processes your suggest in your list #3 to 8 have already been done by science and been <<dicked>> by the pseudoscientists….
I meant to say <<ducked>>
Comment #2512
Posted by shiva on May 21, 2004 11:00 AM (e) (s)
Superstition of every sort is the norm among a majority - rationalism be damned. But rarely anywhere in the world do you find pseudoscientists so well funded and feted as you do in the US. France has its share of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists - but the mainstream intellectual establishment treats them as cranks. I cannot think of any legislative body in the world excepting the US Congress that has ever invited pseudoscientists to testify about their theories. M.M.Joshi former HRD Minister in India despite being a qualified physicist and encouraging cutting edge research in the basic sciences tried to give a leg up to astrology and other junk. He has lost his seat in parliament this time; but even at the height of his powers he never managed to gain any legislative mileage for his crank theories - even as the scientific establishment in India continued to invite him for all sorts of scientific conferences. In Australia despite there being a well funded creationist movement there is no official legitimacy of any sort for junkscience. Richard Milton in the UK who wrote a pseudosientific tract on evolution (and referenced profusely in Cornelius Hunter’s anti-science ID apologia) was laughed out of the mainstream and is today considered a minor distraction.
Comment #2514
Posted by Navy Davy on May 21, 2004 11:31 AM (e) (s)
Johnnie C.,
I am also attorney but have the added advantage of having a Ph.D. in molecular biology from UC Berkeley.
Great. What do you do as an attorney? How do you use your background as a molecular biologist?
I am sure you appreciate the fact that courtrooms are not the best venues for determining the merits of a scientific theory.
….Except for the Scopes Monkey Trial. Didn’t you see “Inherit the Wind”? :)
I’m rather surprised to see you admit that you know next to nothing about the issues being debated here and yet you feel compelled to offer a “proposed solution.”
I feel “compelled” to do no such thing. Why the silly haughtiness? It makes me think you’ve never tried a case in your life. Gotta be friendly to convince a jury. Also (as I said), I do know a few (perhaps many) things about cancer.
Your solution strikes me as rather quaint.
Quaint? Seems kind of clear and straightforward to me. Form a hypothesis and test it.
2. ID be treated as the minority theory;
What about the theory that a giant space bat pooped out the earth and all its inhabitants and fossils unintentionally?
Good theory! Can it be tested?
Why should we not treat that as the minority theory as well?
You can if you want! Forgive me, if I prefer not to join you, though. Seems kinda goofy to me.
Can you prove that didn’t happen?
Either you’ve never tried a case or you have, but have chosen not to employ those elementary logic skills here.
3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable;
(1) is testable and has been tested thousands of times and tests are consistent with the theory.
Great. Don’t need thousands, just 1. What’s the best test, in your view?
(2) has not even been sufficiently articulated to be testable. There are no testable predictions from ID.
Well, if true, ID folks need to either sufficiently articulate or go away.
5. Analyze the results to see if the theories are proven more likely than not true, or more likely than not false;
See (3). Geez, you really aren’t familiar with this area.
And, besides your credentials (appeals to authority rarely work), you’ve made exactly ZERO substantive comments. You’re like the poster boy for Kuhn’s, “The Structure of Scientific Revolution.” A know-it-all, who has nothing to say.
Done, over and over again. There are literally mountains of peer-reviewed research which support evolution.
Again, don’t need “mountains.” Just 1, thanks. Preferably, the most convincing one, too. I’d like to hear each side’s best — kinda like the World Series.
There is NOTHING for ID. NADA. ZILCH.
Sorry, hyperbole ain’t persuasive. I’m sure some ID proponents have (a) an articulable theory and (b) a proposed means to test it. This, of course, doesn’t mean the test will convince me (or anyone else) that the theory is true.
This is where my senses start tingling, Navy Davy, because surely as an attorney you realize that evidence of bias is great for impeachment.
I don’t care if your senses are “tingling’ or not. This is Law school stuff. Both sides are biased in what they believe. In the scientific arena of ideas, I’m interested in what is TRUE or not.
The fact that ID creationists almost entirely consist of non-scientist non-biologist religious figures who are funded by a conservative religious think tank is a fact that can NOT be ignored in this “debate.”
Perhaps. Proposed compromise: Defer issues of bias until AFTER examinations of the theories.
As an attorney, you may believe that the obvious impeachment value of this information is attenuated by the possibility that the jury will be sympathetic towards the inane religious hucksters.
Incoherent. Also, ad hominem.
8. Avoid rancor and ad hominem. Humor is always a good balm;
I agree. I tell you what. Why don’t you educate yourself on the issues here and debate a freak like Jerry Don Bauer for a couple days. We’ll see how humorous you feel after that.
I’ve read some of JDB’s posts. He may be wrong, but I wouldn’t call him a freak or you a freak.
Question to the crowd: How many of you endorse my sober, thoughtful, humorous, non-controversial approach as opposed to, well,…. Johnnie C’s ?approach?
Cheers, y’all. (Still a damn good site, too!)
Comment #2515
Posted by Andrew on May 21, 2004 11:47 AM (e) (s)
As yet another attorney, I disagree with Navy Davy.
I would analogize the ID crowd to the plaintiff’s lawyer in mediation who begins the discussion with an exhorbitant demand in a frivolous case. By starting at (say) $25 million, the lawyer hopes to wear out the other side and collect a significant sum, even though the actual value of his case may be virtually nothing.
Similarly, the actual value of ID is zero. Zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Navy Davy can plead, “this is hyperbole!” as much as he likes, but it doesn’t change the utter lack of value that ID has had in the scientific community. Five dozen threads here at Panda’s Thumb attest to that.
To that end, bringing ID to the table is a mistake. They don’t get to make a demand; they’re not worth a counteroffer. They should be the subject of a motion to dismiss.
That’s what we’re doing.
Comment #2516
Posted by Scott Simmons on May 21, 2004 11:52 AM (e) (s)
(2) has not even been sufficiently articulated to be testable. There are no testable predictions from ID.
Well, if true, ID folks need to either sufficiently articulate or go away.
It is, and they do, but they won’t.
ID consists entirely of expressions of incredulity aimed at the methods and conclusions of legitimate biologists. It makes no predictions, has produced no research program, and is not falsifiable. And if you can find an example of anything produced by any ID’er that contradicts that, please share it. I’ve given up looking, myself …
Comment #2517
Posted by Adam Marczyk on May 21, 2004 11:55 AM (e) (s)
My proposed solution:
1. Evolution be treated as the dominant theory;
2. ID be treated as the minority theory;
3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable;
4. If so, devise suitable tests and test them both;
This sounds like a pretty good plan to me. Now all we need to do is get some advocates of ID to show that their hypothesis is testable and propose some tests by which we could either accept or reject it. I mean, surely supporters of the mainstream theory shouldn’t be the ones who have the burden of proof of coming up with ways to test any idea anyone proposes, right? The people who are proposing the alternative should be the ones coming up with tests for it. So, let’s throw it back to the ID advocates: what specific tests would confirm or falsify intelligent design? As soon as they answer this question, we can begin.
Comment #2518
Posted by DaveS on May 21, 2004 11:59 AM (e) (s)
Is it just me, or does there seem to be a lot of attorneys reading The Panda’s Thumb? I wonder why that is. Curious.
Comment #2519
Posted by shiva pennathur on May 21, 2004 12:21 PM (e) (s)
Navy Davy,
Attorney/scientist says <<I am sure you appreciate the fact that courtrooms are not the best venues for determining the merits of a scientific theory.>>
Navy says<<….Except for the Scopes Monkey Trial. Didn’t you see “Inherit the Wind”? :)>>
Please read Carl Zimmer’s Evolution - companion volume to the PBS TV series of the same name and you will find what scientists think of the trial and the movie - not much. If you believe that evolution is here to stay because of the trial or the movie - I am sorry you have a lot of catching up to do.
Comment #2520
Posted by DaveS on May 21, 2004 12:23 PM (e) (s)
Howdy Navy Davy,
Except for the Scopes Monkey Trial. Didn’t you see “Inherit the Wind”? :)
Perhaps this was said in jest. There was no scientific evidence presented in the Scopes trial.
The adversarial approach would not work well in science. For one thing, there is never a verdict. Scientific theories must always be amenable to change given new data or a superior explanation of existing data. All scientists have the same goal, to find the best explanation. Also, the adversarial approach assumes two mutually exclusive and exhaustive positions on the issue. There is often more than two sides to any given scientific issue.
Gotta be friendly to convince a jury.
The jury in this case doesn’t care how friendly you phrase your argument. Only how good it is.
Seems kind of clear and straightforward to me. Form a hypothesis and test it.
Yep, that’s the way.
Good theory! Can it be tested?
Testing is important. Unfortunately, the ID folk claim that we can know nothing of the designer or the means by which they(it) designed, even in principle, using their “theory”.
You can if you want! Forgive me, if I prefer not to join you, though. Seems kinda goofy to me.
Something isn’t a ‘minority theory’ simply becuase it’s believed by a minority. It must first have the characteristics of a scientific theory in the first place. ID does not.
Great. Don’t need thousands, just 1. What’s the best test, in your view?
Scientific theories are generally supported or not on the weight of the accumulated evidence rather than using a ‘magic bullet’ mentality.
Well, if true, ID folks need to either sufficiently articulate or go away.
They have found a third option. Ignore the scientific process altogeher and go over the scientist’s heads to the public at large.
Again, don’t need “mountains.” Just 1, thanks. Preferably, the most convincing one, too. I’d like to hear each side’s best — kinda like the World Series.
Even the World Series is decided in 4-7 games, not one. I recommend you check out Doug Theobald’s article over at Talk Origins.
Sorry, hyperbole ain’t persuasive. I’m sure some ID proponents have (a) an articulable theory and (b) a proposed means to test it.
They do? This is news. How can it be tested? Certain claims by it’s advocates may be testable, but ID itself cannot be tested as there nothing to prevent the designers from mimicking evolution.
In the scientific arena of ideas, I’m interested in what is TRUE or not.
Science is not about truth, it’s about evidence.
Perhaps. Proposed compromise: Defer issues of bias until AFTER examinations of the theories.
First the IDers need to propose a theory, then test it.
Comment #2521
Posted by Navy Davy on May 21, 2004 12:26 PM (e) (s)
DaveS,
Between trials, I have free time. My field is cancer. Work with many pre-eminent cancer scientists, some who are members of National Academy of Science. So, they inundate me with genes, chromsomes, mutations, mitosis, which is similar to this stuff. I find it fascinating, then I stumbled on to this site.
Adam Marcyzk,
Fully agreed. Are there any ID folks, who want to accept the challenge? Specifically, we want:
1. An articulated theory; and
2. A suitable means to test the theory.
We also want the same from the Evol crowd, too. But, please, NO more lawyers:)
Comment #2522
Posted by Andy Groves on May 21, 2004 12:28 PM (e) (s)
Is it just me, or does there seem to be a lot of attorneys reading The Panda’s Thumb? I wonder why that is. Curious.
Have you looked around the Thumb recently? The amount of beer on the floor alone is enough to launch scores of liability suits.
Andy “….and its about time for the Aquatic Ape to bite someone again….” Groves
Comment #2524
Posted by shiva on May 21, 2004 12:50 PM (e) (s)
Navy Davy,
Something on “Theory”. Scientists love theories that open up more questions not ones that shut down enquiry - as long as the theory itself isn’t coming out of a crank hypothesis. Because when we look at predictions arising from a theory we are looking at what it doesn’t predict and why. Which is why even today half-a-dozen are investigating gravity - a 17th century model that many might wrongly assume has been tied up and put away. So once you come to a point where you can explain an event you look for things you can’t. Logically so, scientists giving a wide berth to IDists want to know what’s the next stop for ID. OK ID created you me and everything else. Now who/what is that IDesigner? How does he/she/it create? Considering Bill D has decided that creation violates the known physical; laws, is the dashed thing amenable to physical laws at all or are I.Dists going to come up with the 4th law of motion, the 4th Law of Thermo. etc.?
I guess that is the final step in the “ID revolution”?
Comment #2525
Posted by Nate Barrister on May 21, 2004 01:16 PM (e) (s)
“I agree. I tell you what. Why don’t you educate yourself on the issues here and debate a freak like Jerry Don Bauer for a couple days. We’ll see how humorous you feel after that.”
Haha, Jerry’s presence on the net is in itself an argument to pick on ID-ers, imho.
Comment #2526
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 21, 2004 01:47 PM (e) (s)
May I suggest that we please refrain from using ad hominems. I understand the frustations involved as I have also tried to communicate with Jerry Don but I find the use of ad hominems to be overly distracting, unnecessary and counter-productive.
Comment #2527
Posted by Johnnie C. on May 21, 2004 01:54 PM (e) (s)
Navy Davy
When I said that my senses were tingling, I was referring to a feeling of doubt regarding the honesty of some statements you made, particularly your statement that you “tend” “to accept evolution as the best explanation of origins and cause.”
Based on what you’ve written here, I think you are less than truthful about where your allegiances lie. If I’m wrong … sue me. ;)
Also, I am troubled, although not particularly surprised, to find that an attorney who deals with “expensive experts” from the NAS in cancer cases appears to know so little about the nature of scientific research or the current state of understanding of molecular evolutionary biology.
Why don’t you ask one of your National Academy experts whether they believe that it is mathematically impossible for E.coli to have evolved its flagellum and that, therefore, the flagellum must have been “intelligently designed”?
Also ask them if they’d like to go on the record about their beliefs, i.e., would they be willing to discuss their beliefs here on Panda’s Thumb?
Of course, if I was an attorney on the other side of one of your cases and I was looking for a statement to impeach your expert’s credentials, I think the fact that your expert has publicly proclaimed his belief in a wacky fringe theory promulgated by a political think tank that has virtually NO support from the scientific community would be great evidence for impeachment. I’d have that expert quacking like a duck in no time.
Comment #2528
Posted by Matt Inlay on May 21, 2004 01:55 PM (e) (s)
Navy Davy,
Sorry if I’m bringing this off topic, but I am also interested in cancer research. I was wondering if I could get your opinion on the following passage, which I came across in an article the other day:
“I quickly learned from reviewing the recent scientific literature that cancer is not correlated with any consistent pattern of DNA mutations, but it is correlated with abnormalities at the chromosomal level — a phenomenon called “chromosomal instability” (Lengauer et al., 1998). Chromosomal instability, in turn, is correlated with centrosome abnormalities — particularly the presence of extra or enlarged centrosomes. A growing number of researchers regard cancer not as a DNA disease, but as a “centrosomal disease” (Brinkley and Goepfert, 1998; Pihan et al., 1998; Lingle and Salisbury, 2000).”
In your experience, is DNA mutation correlated with cancer?
You probably see a very different side of cancer biology than I do. I’m just curious what your take on this notion is.
Comment #2530
Posted by Jim Anderson on May 21, 2004 02:07 PM (e) (s)
Matt,
Sounds like Jonathan Wells’ article over at ISCID. I read it, and even to my non-biologist mind, it sounded flaky. (And hey—any other teachers out there? We’re not *all* lawyers.)
Comment #2531
Posted by DaveS on May 21, 2004 02:07 PM (e) (s)
Specifically, we want:
1. An articulated theory; and
2. A suitable means to test the theory.We also want the same from the Evol crowd, too. But, please, NO more lawyers:)
1. and 2. already been done for Evol. So has 3. (Testing of the theory as per Step 2.), and it’s been passed. Passed as much as any other theory we have in science anyway.
Hmmm….navy…lawyer. Could it be you’re in the JAG office and know Catherine Bell? And know her phone number??
*JK* :smile:
Comment #2532
Posted by Russell on May 21, 2004 02:07 PM (e) (s)
Fully agreed. Are there any ID folks, who want to accept the challenge? Specifically, we want:
1. An articulated theory; and
2. A suitable means to test the theory.We also want the same from the Evol crowd, too. …
Umm… I think we in the “Evol crowd” have been doing that for the past century and a half.
Russell (not a lawyer)
Comment #2533
Posted by Navy Davy on May 21, 2004 02:18 PM (e) (s)
Matt Inlay,
Hey, a friendly voice! When Lengauer refers to “chromosomal instability” of a cancer cell he is referring to an observed phenomenom called “aneuploidy” That’s Greek for “Not-good-chromosomes”
Most every cancer scientist agrees that all solid tumors are aneuploid. Most scientists beleive this condition is a consequence of numerous DNA mutations gone bad.
A few scientists believe that the aneuploidy condition is a cause of cancer in the cell. Meaning, no aneuploidy, then no cancer. They are not too big on “tumor suppressor” genes. Their view is that certain carcinogens, such as asbestos fibers or tar from cigarettes, interfere with cell mitosis, thereby ‘scrambling’ all that nice, orderly DNA sequence, which, as you know, is the hallmark of cancer. No beneficial mutations here!
Johnie C,
Could you please stop writing me? You bore me.
Cheers, y’all.
Comment #2534
Posted by Johnnie C. on May 21, 2004 03:17 PM (e) (s)
Navy Davy asks
Johnie C, Could you please stop writing me? You bore me.
Ha ha. How nice of you to ask. I’ll respond to your posts whenever I feel like it, thank you very much. “Motion denied.”
Have you called up one of your “zillions of experts (pathologists, biochemists, oncologists, etc,)” to ask them their opinion about ID creationism yet? What about one of those “pre-eminent cancer scientists, some who are members of National Academy of Science” ?
Navy Davy, I note with disappointment (but not surprise) that you’ve utterly failed to acknowledge what people here have told you about the status of the “debate” between evolutionary biologists and creationists, a debate which you are clearly unfamiliar with.
I don’t care if you choose to ignore my posts (apparently you’re a rather sensitive creature), but it strikes me as odd that you chose to ignore everyone else’s post and refused to thank everyone else for taking the time to respond thoughtfully to your “thoughtful” and “humorous” proposals.
Comment #2535
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 21, 2004 03:35 PM (e) (s)
*****Here are my friendly suggestions if ISCID members and design advocates want to be taken seriously.*****
Oh, I can assure you that we are taken seriously. On these boards consisting mainly of radical naturalists we are demeaned, of course, and usually trolled to the point that we eventually leave before any points can be made. We profoundly threaten the religion of secular humanism. But it’s not this case in the real world. You might be surprised at the large amount of Universities that welcome our lectures. And our books sell like hot cakes.
*****Dembski’s stand that he has “gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print … And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more.” (The Chronicle of Higher Education Dec. 21, 2001), positively hurts any hope that ID has in becoming accepted among the larger scientific community. Publish papers.******
Although I might agree that Dembski has become rich in selling books and now has little incentive to do anything else, there are many of us out here that just do the science.
You also need to point out that Dembski is a philosopher, not a scientist, so I don’t believe one could expect many scientific papers from him. And thus you will find a lot of the peer review on that forum to be based more on philosophy than science.
But, there are many scientists who take an interest in ISCID and you will find two papers over there right now being examined by Idists, one I presented by Elsberry and Wilkins and another presented by Dr Wells on biophysics. I’m sure that research will follow well’s paper in time.
******Publish in peer-reviewed journals in philosophy, statistics, mathematics and complexity theory. Journals such as Complexity would, I’m sure, be interested in what they have to say (indeed that very journal has published a review by Bracht of Stu Kauffman’s Investigations).*****
Right. John has also been published by the Santa Fe Institute. That’s another reason why your argument stands refuted that Idists are not published in reputable journals. How many has Behe been published in? Heck I don’t know but he has papers over at PubMed even as we speak.
****If ID has something to say about biological evolution, do biological research - not literature surveys, statistical simulations, thought experiments, etc.*****
We DO biological research. Your entire argument is based on fallacy because you seem to think that if the abstract does not state, “Ok, I’m an Idist and this stuff can only be used in ID,” then its not a paper ‘on” intelligent design.
The truth of the matter is that much of this research has already been done and peer reviewed by others.
I recently introduced a study by evolutionary biologists Eyre-Walker and Keightley of the UK showing devolution of the human genome in our evolutionary walk from Chimp. There is no reason for me to do this research all over again because its been done. And this is a good example of biology supporting ID. The researchers don’t have to be ‘converted’ to anything in order to do research that supports the tenets of ID. That’s a common myth among our detractors.
Also, I hope you understand that its very difficult for people who do not believe in macroevolution to get a PhD in evolutionary biology. <;0)
Comment #2536
Posted by Booji Boy on May 21, 2004 03:54 PM (e) (s)
evolutionary biologists Eyre-Walker and Keightley of the UK showing devolution of the human genome in our evolutionary walk from Chimp.
Actually this was first demonstrated in the late 70s in Cleveland by Mark Mothersbaugh and Jerry Casale.
Comment #2537
Posted by Navy Davy on May 21, 2004 03:59 PM (e) (s)
Johnnie C,
Anyone who is has both a PHd in Molecular Biology and a law degree — means they probably couldn’t cut it in either field. Way too much schooling, way too little experience.
Ha ha. How nice of you to ask. I’ll respond to your posts whenever I feel like it, thank you very much. “Motion denied.”
I doubt you’ve ever argued a motion in court.
Have you called up one of your “zillions of experts (pathologists, biochemists, oncologists, etc,)” to ask them their opinion about ID creationism yet? What about one of those “pre-eminent cancer scientists, some who are members of National Academy of Science”?
I guess you can’t read. The experts I work with deal with cancer — particularly a nasty little bugger called, “mesothelioma” mostly caused by asbestos. I have no idea what any of these scientists think of ID. Never once broached the subject. If you want me to ask them, I will.
Navy Davy, I note with disappointment (but not surprise) that you’ve utterly failed to acknowledge what people here have told you about the status of the “debate” between evolutionary biologists and creationists, a debate which you are clearly unfamiliar with.
Huh? What about Marczyk above?
I don’t care if you choose to ignore my posts (apparently you’re a rather sensitive creature),
Actually, I was waiting to find an ID proponent to take up the challenge. My wife does say I have sensitive skin, though.
but it strikes me as odd that you chose to ignore everyone else’s post and refused to thank everyone else for taking the time to respond thoughtfully to your “thoughtful” and “humorous” proposals.
See above. Clearly, the ball is in the ID court to: (a) articulate a theory and (b) propose a suitable test. My job is merely to referee
Really, Johnnie C, we could waste a lot of space with witticisms and snideness, but I actually like to learn things. Hopefully, you are not representative of the scientific community, because you have nothing of interest to say. Undeniably, you are not representative of the legal community — I think I can safely say that.
But, Cheers, anyway.
Comment #2538
Posted by Russell on May 21, 2004 04:06 PM (e) (s)
Also, I hope you understand that its very difficult for people who do not believe in macroevolution to get a PhD in evolutionary biology.
Another glaring example of bias in academia: people who do not believe in gravity are systematically prevented from getting PhDs in physics!
Comment #2539
Posted by Frank J on May 21, 2004 04:25 PM (e) (s)
Navy,
ID is not a “minority theory,” but a strategy to misrepresent evolution to unsuspecting audiences. That’s why IDers mostly target secondary school science curricula instead of conducting relevant research. Their “evidence for design” is not in itself an alternative to evolution. Dembski himself said that ID can accommodate all the results of “Darwinism.” At best their arguments could provide a scientifically irrelevant personal commentary of evolution - sort of the flip side of what Dawkins does. But only if they stick to “design” and avoid misrepresenting evolution.
But occasionally IDers will state an alternative hypothesis that conceivably could be alternative to our current hypotheses of abiogenesis, and possibly even challenge the current theory of evolution (although it would probably be, technically, just another theory of evolution). But since IDers don’t bother to test the hypotheses that they occasionally do make, they simply aren’t doing relevant science.
Consider this: Kenneth Miller and John Haught, for example, speak very openly of their belief in design. Meanwhile, Christian Schwabe and Periannan Senapathy have proposed what you might call “minority theories” that challenge not only evolution, but even common descent (Behe and Dembski don’t even challenge common descent). This site is not “out to get” Miller, Haught, Schwabe or Senapathy.
Comment #2540
Posted by Johnnie C. on May 21, 2004 04:31 PM (e) (s)
My job is merely to referee.
How gracious of you.
[quote] I have no idea what any of these scientists think of ID.
Really? Not a clue? Statistically speaking, of course, you should be able to make a very good guess. But you really have no idea what to expect from them, huh? Fascinating.
If you want me to ask them, I will.
Yes, please do. And report back!
What about Marczyk above?
Har. What a joke. You ignored 90% of what Adam wrote and then completely contradicted his post when you said
[quote]We also want the same from the Evol crowd, too[/[quote]
And who is “we” by the way, Navy Davy?
Man, I would *love* to watch you perjure all over yourself in court sometime. In what state do you defend asbestos manufacturers?
Comment #2541
Posted by Navy Davy on May 21, 2004 04:34 PM (e) (s)
Jerry Don Bauer,
I am a disinterested party — meaning I have no stake, professional, emotional or otherwise in whether Evolution or ID is the better substantiated theory. I’m a lawyer, not a science geek, er, I mean, scientist.
Ignoring the static of certain comedians on this thread, it seems to me the main critique of ID is that it lacks (a) an articulable theory and (b) a suitable test to assess the theory.
In that vein, I proposed the following:
1. Evolution be treated as the dominant theory;
2. ID be treated as the minority theory;
3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable;
4. If so, devise suitable tests and test them both.
A fine gentleman, named Andrew Marczyk wrote in response, “This sounds like a pretty good plan to me.”
He proposed, specifically, that ID advocates identify “specific tests [that]would confirm or falsify intelligent design.”
Question to you:
(1) Will you agree to a civil debate (perhaps on a new thread) against Marczyk or his designee?
Cheers,
Navy Davy (Self-Appointed Justice of the Peace for scientific inquiry:)
Comment #2542
Posted by Navy Davy on May 21, 2004 04:52 PM (e) (s)
Frank J,
Good post. You make a lot of sense. You state:
But since IDers don’t bother to test the hypotheses that they occasionally do make, they simply aren’t doing relevant science.
That’s what I’m trying to resolve. I want ID to form a discrete hypothesis and test it. If they can’t do this, then it seems to me the theory isn’t valid and should melt away.
To be fair, though, my courtroom mentality is hard-wired to ensure 2 sides of every issue. So, I would want the Evolution crowd to do the same: form a theory and test it. I think it would be a fascinating and worthwhile debate.
Johnnie C,
Why would I defend asbestos manufacturers? Everyone knows asbestos causes lung cancer and mesothelioma. I didn’t think anyone disputed this. There is a small faction who say, though, that an SV-40 virus also causes mesothelioma. They say that this virus contaminated the first polio vaccinations, which were derived from Monkey kidneys. True claim! Don’t know if it will wash though.
You are still irritating, BTW. I will pay you $$$ to stop writing me!!!
Comment #2543
Posted by Matt Inlay on May 21, 2004 05:10 PM (e) (s)
Navy Davy,
Jim Anderson is correct. The passage I quoted is from page 3 of the latest article by Jonathan Wells, entitled Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research.
It seems the primary disagreement between you and others in this thread is that you feel ID should be given some consideration as a theory, while most of the other people here feel it deserves none. Since you know more about cancer than you do evolutionary biology, you might be interested how one of the primary advocates of intelligent design views cancer biology.
Comment #2544
Posted by Navy Davy on May 21, 2004 05:55 PM (e) (s)
Matt Inlay,
A crafty trap! How devious:)
But, I was addressing Lengauer, not Wells, who is citing Lengauer as part of a some larger argument about ID or game theory or something else.
Your initial succinct question was:
In your experience, is DNA mutation correlated with cancer?
My answer is an emphatic, “Yes.” In fact, I can’t imagine anyone of ANY discipline saying “No”
Chromosomal instability as a potential cause of cancer has been around since 1914 or so, when Boveri first postulated it. I don’t think it’s that controversial. But, more importantly, I have no idea how it would come into play with issues of ID or Evolution. That’s seems way tangential.
You write:
It seems the primary disagreement between you and others in this thread is that you feel ID should be given some consideration as a theory, while most of the other people here feel it deserves none
You guys are killing me:) I don’t think ID should be given some consideration … I think it should be clearly articulated, so as to be either refuted or confirmed by proper testing.
If refuted, it should be given NO consideration. If confirmed, it should be studied further. Not a big deal.
Cheers, y’all.
Navy Davy
Comment #2545
Posted by Johnnie C. on May 21, 2004 06:14 PM (e) (s)
I don’t think ID should be given some consideration … I think it should be clearly articulated, so as to be either refuted or confirmed by proper testing.
Spoken like a true lawyer.
Comment #2546
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 21, 2004 08:12 PM (e) (s)
*****1. Evolution be treated as the dominant theory*****
It certainly is in academia. I might differ whether it is in other arenas, but this can be discussed.
*****2. ID be treated as the minority theory;*******
It certainly is as I doubt many scientists even know what it is.
*****3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable;*****
Fine and I might add falsifiable under the Popperian thought of the scientific method.
*****4. If so, devise suitable tests and test them both.*****
Certainly
*****He proposed, specifically, that ID advocates identify “specific tests [that] would confirm or falsify intelligent design.”
Question to you:
(1) Will you agree to a civil debate (perhaps on a new thread) against Marczyk or his designee?*****
Yes, this would be a pleasure. There seems much misunderstanding of even what ID is on this particular forum.
Comment #2547
Posted by RBH on May 21, 2004 09:09 PM (e) (s)
Regarding this proposed debate, I’d request that yuou all take it somewhere like Infidels, where there are facililties for formal debates. Set the debate up here and do the debate here. The Rules and Procedures for Formal Debates are here. Read the last URL - Rules and Procedures - first.
RBH
RBH
Comment #2549
Posted by Matt Inlay on May 21, 2004 10:03 PM (e) (s)
Navy Davy,
Sorry, that wasn’t meant as a trap. I just didn’t want to bias your response.
Chromosomal instability as a potential cause of cancer has been around since 1914 or so, when Boveri first postulated it. I don’t think it’s that controversial.
Nor do I, but notice that Wells implies that chromosomal instability and DNA mutation are completely separate events. You have to admit, the notion that chromosomal instability, in the absense of mutation, as a cause of cancer is extremely controversial.
But, more importantly, I have no idea how it would come into play with issues of ID or Evolution. That’s seems way tangential.
You’ll have to read the Wells article if you want an answer. I’m not even gonna try to answer that.
I apologize if I didn’t sum up your argument correctly. If you explore ID for any length of time, you’ll soon realize that there is no theory of ID beyond the one sentence summary of ID that I’m sure anyone on this forum, on either side of the debate, can paraphrase for you. There’s a very specific reason for that, which you allude to in the last sentence of your post.
You should check out the Wells article. At least the first 3 pages. I’m curious what your thoughts are on it.
Comment #2550
Posted by Bonnie on May 21, 2004 10:12 PM (e) (s)
Johnny C. wrote:
Navy Davy, I note with disappointment (but not surprise) that you’ve utterly failed to acknowledge what people here have told you about the status of the “debate” between evolutionary biologists and creationists, a debate which you are clearly unfamiliar with.
OK, if the status of the “debate” is that there is no debate, then why are so many people beating a dead horse?
Why does a website like this even exist? If there is truly no threat, why are so many people acting as if there is?
Why not just ignore the idiots and wait for the whole thing to blow over?
And if it won’t just “blow over” because lots of ignorant, deceived people are jumping on the bandwagon, so what? I guess this would show that evolution has produced the crowning achievement of a victory by the stupid and deceived.
If you are an evolutionary scientist, why not just carry on in your work, knowing that eventually it will be vindicated if indeed it supports what is evident?
Frank J. wrote:
ID is not a “minority theory,” but a strategy to misrepresent evolution to unsuspecting audiences.
Now why would anyone want to do that? To get rich? To bolster their ego? Surely there are easier ways to do that.
Comment #2551
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 22, 2004 12:00 AM (e) (s)
Jerry: There seems much misunderstanding of even what ID is on this particular forum.
Well, I can understand your confusion about what ID really is or isn’t but why should we care?
Comment #2552
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 22, 2004 01:24 AM (e) (s)
Why do you troll me through every forum I’ve been in for the last 3 years if you don’t care about, ID, Francis?
Comment #2553
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 22, 2004 02:27 AM (e) (s)
David, just one other note before I go crash for a few hours. I want to be fair to whomever is choosen to debate ID if this gets that far, as my intention is not to demean anyone.
This person will need a firm grasp of science, be mathematically competent and must at least have studied thermodynamics at the university level as this will get extremely heavy. ;)
Thanks and good night, all.
Comment #2554
Posted by shiva on May 22, 2004 04:59 AM (e) (s)
Jerry says,
<<You also need to point out that Dembski is a philosopher, not a scientist, so I don’t believe one could expect many scientific papers from him. And thus you will find a lot of the peer review on that forum to be based more on philosophy than science>>
Jerry check out this link
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.10.Scott_Respo…
I don’t want to tangle with Bill’s copyright lawyers, so I am not pasting those lines where he claims his book(?) TDI qualifies as scientific literature - based on one reference to his work - which refers to a phrase that Bill’s book doesn’t contain. Jeffrey Shallit has already fisked and filleted Bill every which way possible. In fact your contention that Bill’s work is more philosophy than science will surprise Bill a lot more than any one of us out here. Thanx anyway for owning up on behalf of Bill
Comment #2556
Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on May 22, 2004 05:27 AM (e) (s)
Navy Davy, in case you have forgotten about the other topic [Newspeak from the Ministry of Truth], I have returned to our conversation there, also covering some of your remarks here. Sorry for being late in in responding.
Pete
Comment #2559
Posted by Russell on May 22, 2004 10:01 AM (e) (s)
OK, if the status of the “debate” is that there is no debate, then why are so many people beating a dead horse?
Why does a website like this even exist? If there is truly no threat, why are so many people acting as if there is?
There IS a social/political debate, generally between “Religious Rightists” and “Secularists” about whether it is appropriate to force schools to teach “both sides” as science, even though ID does not meet any normal definition of science. The fact that there is NO scientific debate (i.e. discussion of ID in scientific journals, national/international meetings of professional scientists, etc.) is part of the reason ID does not meet any normal definition of science.
Why not just ignore the idiots and wait for the whole thing to blow over?
And if it won’t just “blow over” because lots of ignorant, deceived people are jumping on the bandwagon, so what? I guess this would show that evolution has produced the crowning achievement of a victory by the stupid and deceived.
Or defeat of the intelligent but complacent.
If you are an evolutionary scientist, why not just carry on in your work, knowing that eventually it will be vindicated if indeed it supports what is evident?
Nothing would make me happier. Unfortunately, in the meantime the highly motivated and mobilized forces of the Religious Right are busy installing a pulpit in my child’s science class.
Frank J. wrote:
ID is not a “minority theory,” but a strategy to misrepresent evolution to unsuspecting audiences.
Now why would anyone want to do that? To get rich? To bolster their ego? Surely there are easier ways to do that.
Religion and Politics. (Sometimes it’s hard to tell them apart).
Comment #2565
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 22, 2004 12:57 PM (e) (s)
I think peer review from Cambridge University referees should be pretty solid. And I must admit that I’m quite surprised to learn there is an: “International Journal of Fuzzy Systems.”
Good read. Thanks
Comment #2566
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 22, 2004 01:15 PM (e) (s)
*****The fact that there is NO scientific debate (i.e. discussion of ID in scientific journals, national/international meetings of professional scientists, etc.) is part of the reason ID does not meet any normal definition of science.*****
Well, there is tons of scientific debate out there that’s not difficult to find if one does not look for it with their hands covering their eyes. And I can assure you that we do schedule regular debates, lectures and meetings. The biggest meeting in the ID movement is sponsored annually by Biola University.
******And if it won’t just “blow over” because lots of ignorant, deceived people are jumping on the bandwagon, so what?******
It won’t blow over because it is based on truth. The ID argument cannot be refuted in debate by anyone. There is not one tenet of ID that can be refuted logically or experimentally. This is why so many secular humanists are in a tizzy. They simply cannot reason their way passed this and it so frustrates them. Check out the debate on John’s site he links to above.
*****Unfortunately, in the meantime the highly motivated and mobilized forces of the Religious Right are busy installing a pulpit in my child’s science class.*****
With all due respect, you say this only out of ignorance of the subject. There are no gods, creators or creations anywhere in the science of ID. We would have no idea who the designer was. It could have been another race, an astronaut or your Uncle Frank. There is no empirical evidence to point to the identity of a designer and hence, we don’t even muse in this area. There will be no pulpits anywhere installed by us.
Comment #2567
Posted by Russell on May 22, 2004 01:41 PM (e) (s)
Well, there is tons of scientific debate out there that’s not difficult to find if one does not look for it with their hands covering their eyes. And I can assure you that we do schedule regular debates, lectures and meetings. The biggest meeting in the ID movement is sponsored annually by Biola University
Point me to one that’s not held at a Bible College.
There is not one tenet of ID that can be refuted logically or experimentally
Which, not coincidentally, is true of religious tenets in general.
With all due respect, you say this only out of ignorance of the subject. There are no gods, creators or creations anywhere in the science of ID. We would have no idea who the designer was. It could have been another race, an astronaut or your Uncle Frank. There is no empirical evidence to point to the identity of a designer and hence, we don’t even muse in this area. There will be no pulpits anywhere installed by us.
With all due respect… what an arrogant presumptuous thing to say! I have spent way more time than I’d like listening to the ID advocates who actually are trying to install their “science” in my kid’s curriculum. DO NOT presume to tell me I’m ignorant of their agenda; they’re very up front about it. So who is this mythical non-relgiously motivated “us” for whom you claim to speak?
Comment #2568
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 22, 2004 02:11 PM (e) (s)
Do a PubMed search for Michael Behe. Go over to ISCID and read the paper on biophysics being presented by Wells.
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=…
Visit the quarterly journal on ID put out by Access Research Network here:
http://www.arn.org/odesign/odesign.htm…
Read Dembski and co’s quarterly here:
http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php…
Go to PubMed and search for design. I did and only 18391 papers popped up.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=…
Read the vast number of papers hosted by DI:
You guys are going to have to get off this argument because it is a fallacious one not based on fact.
*****Which, not coincidentally, is true of religious tenets in general.*****
Show me the religion in this: Intelligent Design: A science based on probability employed to detect design. So are all the archeologists and paleontologist who employ methodology to detect design in a find, really just religionists? How about the vast number of Pansmermians (Many of them atheists) that have subscribed to ID since the days of astrophysicist Hoyle?
*****With all due respect… what an arrogant presumptuous thing to say! I have spent way more time than I’d like listening to the ID advocates who actually are trying to install their “science” in my kid’s curriculum. DO NOT presume to tell me I’m ignorant of their agenda; they’re very up front about it. So who is this mythical non-relgiously motivated “us” for whom you claim to speak?*****
I would really have no idea what people are trying to install in your kids classroom. Early on there were many creationists who climbed onto the design curriculum because they did not understand it and felt it somehow supported their religion.
It does not. And today the degreed scientists involved in ID are steering it firmly toward where any science should be: under the guidance of methodological naturalism inherent in the scientific method.
So, Tell me, you have my curiosity aroused; what tenets of ID do you believe not to be science?
Comment #2569
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 22, 2004 02:15 PM (e) (s)
Jerry points to Biola University when discussing ID’s relevance to science. What is the relevance that ID proponents meet regularly? Why not focus on the real issues namely that ID’s propositions have been found to be 1) scientifically wanting 2) scientifically meaningless 3) scientifically fruitless.
Not much scientific debate either inside ID nor outside ID seems to be indicating that ID has anything scientific to offer. In fact, as Jerry points out, ID’s refusal/inability to identify the designer explains why ID has failed scientifically.
So typically, patterns that are likely candidates for design are first identified as such by some unspecified (“mysterious”) means, then with the pattern in hand S picks out side information identified (by unspecified means) as relevant to the particular pattern, then sees whether the pattern in question is among the various patterns that could have been constructed from that side information. What this means, of course, is that Dembski’s design inference will not be particularly useful either in initial recognition or identification of design.
p. 159 Del Ratzsch Nature design and science
and
“I do not wish to play down or denigrate what Dembski has done. There is much of value in the Design Inference. But I think that some aspects of even the limited task Dembski set for himself still remains to be tamed.” “That Dembski is not employing the robust, standard, agency-derived conception of design that most of his supporters and many of his critics have assumed seems clear.”
Comment #2570
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 22, 2004 02:20 PM (e) (s)
Jerry: Go to PubMed and search for design. I did and only 18391 papers popped up.
Nice equivocation on the term design. How many of these papers are relevant to intelligent design I wonder.
ISCID hardly contributes anything scientifically relevant, neither does ARN. Wells himself is on the record that his paper is really nothing specifically relevant to ID.
Jerry then continues:
A science based on probability employed to detect design. So are all the archeologists and paleontologist who employ methodology to detect design in a find, really just religionists?
False premise, false conclusion. Could Jerry please show how paleontologists and archaeologists apply the design filter? It should become quickly obvious that these do NOT use the limited approach of appeal to ignorance chosen by ID.
ID is clearly motivated religiously and while some try to present it as a scientific endeavour, it should be clear that ID has failed to show itself scientifically relevant and many have shown how ID’s approach is meaningless. Even Del Ratzsch suggests as much.
Comment #2571
Posted by Ed Darrell on May 22, 2004 02:45 PM (e) (s)
NavyDavy, if you don’t mind,would you tell us what the tests are to qualify an expert witness in your state (or states)? You clearly have a lot of experience in getting expert witnesses through voir dire to testify in court, so I seek the value of your experience.
And then, if you can, can you find anyone who advocates “intelligent design” who can qualify as an expert on intelligent design?
Thank you.
Comment #2572
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 22, 2004 02:49 PM (e) (s)
******And then, if you can, can you find anyone who advocates “intelligent design” who can qualify as an expert on intelligent design?******
I’ve studied it since its inception. I don’t know if I’m an expert, but I probably can answer most questions you might have or point you to someone who can. I would me more than glad to help you, if you so wish.
Comment #2573
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 22, 2004 02:56 PM (e) (s)
Well, names would be helpful Jerry
Comment #2574
Posted by Jerry Don Bauer on May 22, 2004 03:44 PM (e) (s)
WHAT IS ID?
ID is not creationism. Creationism is a distantly related subject in some ways, perhaps. One notable relationship we must consider is that ID emerged from the scientific arm of Creationism. However, it did not take long for this young fledgling science to completely remove itself from the supernatural as degreed scientists came onboard to steer intelligent design firmly into the auspices of the scientific method.
Modern Creationism is quite different in that it seeks to describe the creation process as well as the creator and in order to achieve this, often theology, scripture and other support means not based strictly on science are employed.
ID does not consider a creation; it just employs science to detect design in tissues and artifacts. And what would creators, deities, spirits, religion or metaphysics or anything not directly shored up by scientific t
Comment #2492
Posted by Duane Smith on May 20, 2004 09:30 PM (e) (s)
Is the claim about “papers on other cites” supporting ID a logical fallacy or just an old fashioned lie?