RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: ID "theory" is dead on the vine, Signs of its demise....< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
cdesign proponentsist



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2007,16:46   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 07 2007,15:47)
Everyone's favorite Morphodyke has been whining that not only is ID not dying, it's thriving.  Dimbski is always bragging about how ID is catching on in some 3rd world country (just look at his Google gaffs for evidence).  Yet most everyone with more than two brain cells is pretty much convinced ID "theory" is either dead or on its last leg.  Here are a few bits of evidence that I think are worth mentioning, and note the Amazing Steve Story posted this on PT and I asked if I could repost it here, it's too good to ignore.

 
Quote
William Dumbski, 2002:

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.


 
Quote
Paul Nelson, 2004:

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


 
Quote
Jonathan Moonlight Wells, 2007:

“I don’t think I’m obligated to propose an alternate theory,” Wells publicly stated. “I don’t pretend to have an alternate theory that explains the history of life.”


 
Quote
Behe in the vise:

(Rothschild)Q. And I’m correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed?

(Behe)A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.

Q. And you haven’t undertaken to try and figure out those?

A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful.

Q. It would be a waste of time?

A. It would not be fruitful.


 
Quote
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design:

Contact Information

ISCID
66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 1800
Princeton, NJ 08542

609-924-4424 (general)

The essay contests at ISCID have been cancelled, the conferences have been cancelled, the student workshops have been cancelled, the online chats have been cancelled. The ID ‘journal’ hasn’t put anything out since 2005.
I’ve emailed two different ‘editors’ of that journal, asking when the next issue was coming. No response. So I just dialed that phone number. After it rang for a while, a fax machine tried to pick up.


And let's not forget overwhelming evidence where at least 4 ir 5 IDers post at least once a week.  

After Dover they were all "this won't stop us, this is not our waterloo, we have not yet begun to fight" but it did stop them.  What have they done since Dover other than whine like babies?  And where are all the ID conferances?  

I think this pretty much makes a good case for the fact that ID as a theory is not really dead because it never came to life.

Other than UD (the home for wayward creationists) and the non-stop press releases from the DI, is there ANY evidence that ID even exists?

Quote
I think this pretty much makes a good case for the fact that ID as a theory is not really dead because it never came to life.


Scientifically, that quote is dead on, but in terms of the survival of ID "theory", I feel that it's irrelevant. ID's survival has never depended upon science but rather upon mimicry of science (as the meme thread has been discussing), and I think the Biologic Institute is further evidence that the show will go on. They've got people with degrees, a handful of papers that they claim support ID, and soon a research institution to call their own. Pump out a few more irrelevant papers about how knocking out genes or mutating some proteins kill cells, maybe get one published, and it'll be like Dover never happened.

I feel like people are too optimistic in believing that the ID is a done deal. The Creation Museum was still able to drum up the $25 million needed for construction long after YEC got shot down in the courts, and I don't see why ID should fare worse.

--------------
"Believe it or not, it really helps that the other side thinks we’re such morons." -Dembski

The ID epiphany: Nothing in ID makes sense until you accept they're trying to look stupid.

  
  7 replies since Mar. 07 2007,15:47 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]