RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 >   
  Topic: IDC != AntiEvolution?, Discuss...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,12:12   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:35)
BTW Darwin used "Creator" (capital "C") in the sixth edition- a released version- of "On the Origins of Species".

IOW according to Darwwin the theory of evolution is a creationist theory.

Now I know someone will cry that Darwin explained that.

Well the publishers and authors of "Of Pandas and People" explained tehir position also yet you maggots still misrepresent them.

How about convince AiG that Darwin published a creationist theory.

Of course, Darwin wasn't trying to publish a textbook for public schools in a country with separation of church and state, was he?

Not that anyone is going to teach science out of OoS, any edition. You might find it in history of science, just like you will find "endowed by their Creator" in American history class.

But lets look at how well Pandas, Design of Life, and Explore Evolution are doing in the science classes of public schools of an English speaking country with a state established Christian religion - Britain.

<crickets/>

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,12:14   

crud, the editor took a big chunk of the middle of my post out.  So much for 'preview'.

The part that's missing is where you compare your results to an object that is of known design (like a car) and random values for your measurements.  Then you can do some statistical tests on the results and see if there is any difference.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2575
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,18:16   

Me:

Quote
Time to quite the bluffing, Joe. Lay the cards down.  Or are you just going to revert to grade-school "I know you are but what am I" taunts again?


Joe:
Quote
What is your evidence- you know the evidence that supports your position?

Why don't you do some science already?


--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4880
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,20:37   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:55)
         
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?


Here's a free legal lesson... when one is giving direct testimony as a witness, or if one is a lawyer questioning a witness on direct, and one refers to some matter that would otherwise not be legitimate for the opposition to broach, that is called "opening the door". The opposition then gets to pursue that matter, since its legitimacy as a topic is stipulated by the side that broached it. Many a fine legal strategy has gone down in flames because someone gets a bit carried away in what they reference, and the opposition then has the opportunity to go after something that could have otherwise been withheld from the trial record.

Note above that Joe G. references the "explanatory filter", thus opening the door for discussion on that topic.

Now flashback to last November when this was explained to Joe G. previously:

         
Quote

           
Quote

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?


Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) article provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.

More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I worked through the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2137
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,21:26   

Thanks Wes. What is most fun watching creationists like Joey belly flop into a dry pond is that they cannot even master the basics of their own position.

I have got to finish "Dembski's complexity gets hammered and screwed."

Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 24 2010,19:34

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2575
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,10:58   

Everyone was so excited about invited GI Joe here, I was expecting something more... interesting.  Ho hum.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,18:59   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2010,20:37)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:55)
           
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?


Here's a free legal lesson... when one is giving direct testimony as a witness, or if one is a lawyer questioning a witness on direct, and one refers to some matter that would otherwise not be legitimate for the opposition to broach, that is called "opening the door". The opposition then gets to pursue that matter, since its legitimacy as a topic is stipulated by the side that broached it. Many a fine legal strategy has gone down in flames because someone gets a bit carried away in what they reference, and the opposition then has the opportunity to go after something that could have otherwise been withheld from the trial record.

Note above that Joe G. references the "explanatory filter", thus opening the door for discussion on that topic.

Now flashback to last November when this was explained to Joe G. previously:

           
Quote

           
Quote

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?


Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) article provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.

More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I worked through the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.

Talk about leaving the door open- Well Wes you brought up rigor.

Please give us an example of a technical standard of rigor pertaining to the blind watchmaker thesis- or whatever your position is.

Tell us how we would quantify or test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via blind, undirected processes?

As for the validity of "specification" how do you think archaeologists determine rock from artifact?

Do you think they flip a coin?

No they look for signs of work- ie a specification.

How do forensic scientists determine accident from natural cause from criminal activity?

Do they also flip a coin?

Yes it is true that "specification" can be as simple as "it looks designed".

But if something looks designed and cannot be accounted for via any other known mechanism, then we should be allowed to carry on with the design inference.

See also:

The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins

and
part 2

But anyway I am really interested in seeing the technical standard of rigor as applied to the theory of evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,19:01   

And BTW- Nothing says "We are a bunch of dishonest cowardly assholes" better than changing your opponents words.

You faggots must be very proud of yourselves...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,19:18   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:01)
And BTW- Nothing says "We are a bunch of dishonest cowardly assholes" better than changing your opponents words.

You faggots must be very proud of yourselves...

Hey, Joe? You kiss your momma with that mouth?

BTW, if you are throwing another tantrum in hopes of getting Expelled, you might ask Guts how that worked out for him.  He came here and thumped his chest and threw around the most profane insults he could muster, but he never got banned.  So, you might try pacing yourself.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,19:27   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,19:18)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:01)
And BTW- Nothing says "We are a bunch of dishonest cowardly assholes" better than changing your opponents words.

You faggots must be very proud of yourselves...

Hey, Joe? You kiss your momma with that mouth?

BTW, if you are throwing another tantrum in hopes of getting Expelled, you might ask Guts how that worked out for him.  He came here and thumped his chest and threw around the most profane insults he could muster, but he never got banned.  So, you might try pacing yourself.

I am just blending in asshole.

You must think it is OK to change the words of your opponents.

My mother would tell me to find the asshole faggot who did that and kick his ass and make sure he can't do that again.

BTW I can go on like this for years.

But that is only because I know you punks couldn't support your position if your lives depended on it.

So all this is just pure entertainment.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,19:36   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:27)
I am just blending in asshole.

You must think it is OK to change the words of your opponents.

My mother would tell me to find the asshole faggot who did that and kick his ass and make sure he can't do that again.

BTW I can go on like this for years.

But that is only because I know you punks couldn't support your position if your lives depended on it.

So all this is just pure entertainment.

Well, I suppose it runs in the family.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,19:39   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 25 2010,19:36)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:27)
I am just blending in asshole.

You must think it is OK to change the words of your opponents.

My mother would tell me to find the asshole faggot who did that and kick his ass and make sure he can't do that again.

BTW I can go on like this for years.

But that is only because I know you punks couldn't support your position if your lives depended on it.

So all this is just pure entertainment.

Well, I suppose it runs in the family.

And cowardice must run in yours...

Oh well

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,20:08   

Can you answer questions?  This symbol '?' means that we are asking you for information.

You refusing to provide information, especially some of the politely worded requests, just makes you look like a foul-mouthed jerk.

Are you a Christian?  If so, you're setting a really horrible example.  If not, then you are still setting a really horrible example.

Now, answer some questions or go away.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2575
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,01:44   

Joe will now respond with something deep and pithy like "How about you answer my questions, asshole faggot?"

It's always "I know you are but what am I" with GI Joe.  Baseless assertions with zero evidence, zero data (wait, I think I hear GI Joe gearing up for another "I know you are but what am I").

God, you're boring, Joe.  Even Robert Byers is more fun than you.

Come on, say something concrete and testable so everyone can embarrass you.  Betcha can't.

Bore.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,02:24   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 24 2010,12:08)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:22)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 24 2010,11:11)
Hey Joe,

What would you teach in an inteligent design course?

Hey why don't you focus on the OP?

Is that simple concept too much for you to understand?

Joe,

Excuse me but you mentioned about ID being taught in school in the OP. Why is wanting to know what you want to have taught off-topic?

Look Joe not only is this in your OP, it is the header.

Quote

Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.


So what do you want to "present" to the kids?

Hey Joe,

What would a class for ID teach?

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,02:33   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 26 2010,00:24)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 24 2010,12:08)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:22)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 24 2010,11:11)
Hey Joe,

What would you teach in an inteligent design course?

Hey why don't you focus on the OP?

Is that simple concept too much for you to understand?

Joe,

Excuse me but you mentioned about ID being taught in school in the OP. Why is wanting to know what you want to have taught off-topic?

Look Joe not only is this in your OP, it is the header.

 
Quote

Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.


So what do you want to "present" to the kids?

Hey Joe,

What would a class for ID teach?

[li'l Joe]
Just look in any biology textbook, asshole!
[/li'l Joe]

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4880
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,05:53   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,18:59)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2010,20:37)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:55)
                 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?


Here's a free legal lesson... when one is giving direct testimony as a witness, or if one is a lawyer questioning a witness on direct, and one refers to some matter that would otherwise not be legitimate for the opposition to broach, that is called "opening the door". The opposition then gets to pursue that matter, since its legitimacy as a topic is stipulated by the side that broached it. Many a fine legal strategy has gone down in flames because someone gets a bit carried away in what they reference, and the opposition then has the opportunity to go after something that could have otherwise been withheld from the trial record.

Note above that Joe G. references the "explanatory filter", thus opening the door for discussion on that topic.

Now flashback to last November when this was explained to Joe G. previously:

                 
Quote

                 
Quote

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?


Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) article provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.

More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I worked through the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.

Talk about leaving the door open- Well Wes you brought up rigor.

Please give us an example of a technical standard of rigor pertaining to the blind watchmaker thesis- or whatever your position is.

Tell us how we would quantify or test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via blind, undirected processes?

As for the validity of "specification" how do you think archaeologists determine rock from artifact?

Do you think they flip a coin?

No they look for signs of work- ie a specification.

How do forensic scientists determine accident from natural cause from criminal activity?

Do they also flip a coin?

Yes it is true that "specification" can be as simple as "it looks designed".

But if something looks designed and cannot be accounted for via any other known mechanism, then we should be allowed to carry on with the design inference.

See also:

The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins

and
part 2

But anyway I am really interested in seeing the technical standard of rigor as applied to the theory of evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

Back over at the thread about Telic Thoughts, Steve Story observed:

   
Quote

One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant.


Now back to the current response.

"Rigor" is not a particular topic. Pull that in court and see how far you get.

To follow Joe G.'s digression, though, one finds that rigor is common in evolutionary science. Joe G. asked for an example, so one that deals with modes of speciation  would be

 
Quote

Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154, p.295-302.


Within that, they analyzed isotope ratios to test and exclude a hypothesis of depth parapatry as being operative in the O. universa speciation event.

Alternatively, open the journal Evolution at random and ask yourself the question, "Could Joe G. write something as rigorous as this article?"

But Joe's response, it seems, is rather reminiscent of something he wrote to me months ago. Here's my response from then:

 
Quote

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.


Let's have a look at some of Joe G.'s "discussion" in his links.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

Also the EF is a process YOU can choose to use or not. The “beauty” of the EF is that it is not pre-determined for a design output. It forces you to consider the alternatives first.

So what do these guys have to say?

   "We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational, [it would inhibit the course of science from even addressing phenomena that are not currently explicable.]"

Just how can a process that you can choose to use or not do something like that?

The EF is just if you have a question about how X came to be that way.


I've restored the remainder of the sentence in square brackets above.

One might note the conditional phrasing in our original statement. Then again, if one isn't particularly interested in reading for comprehension, one might not.

If one is applying Dembski's "design inference" as widely as Dembski himself asserts one ought to, there is no difficulty in seeing that our critique stands.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

They go on to say:

"[We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational,] and that Dembski's assertion that the filter reliably identifies rarefied design requires ignoring the state of background knowledge. If background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly."

As I said that goes for all of science. It is the nature of the beast. And that is why we call them scientific INFERENCES. Notice the title of Dembski’s book is “The Design INFERENCE”.

And I am still in the paper’s ABSTRACT!

From my experience a paper built on faulty premises is doomed to fail. And this paper passed peer-review!!!


It may be characteristic of science that inferences are not absolute, but it is not characteristic of Dembski's unretracted claims of reliability. Nor is it characteristic of science to ignore the state of background information and make declarations that further background knowledge cannot alter the result of an inference, as is the case for Dembski's claims.

WRE:

 
Quote

For instance, Dembski brushes off a criticism concerning the reliability of his "explanatory filter" by noting that the objection is the problem of induction, but fails to either solve the problem of induction or retract the claim of reliability. That's philosophical humor, by the way. Dembski is not going to solve the problem of induction. That means that he should have retracted his claim of reliability. Just to be clear, let's see what Dembski means by saying that his Explanatory Filter/Design Inference/Specified Complexity criterion is reliable.

   I want, then, to argue that specified complexity is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I want to argue that the complexity-specification criterion successfully avoids false positives -- in other words, whenever it attributes design, it does so correctly.

   -- WA Dembski, "No Free Lunch", p.24

The above is not a typical statement for "scientific inquiry". It describes the operation of an oracle, not an inference.

Some may object that "success" need not refer to the 100% reliability that Dembski's words above seem plainly to invoke. But we have further testimony from Dembski that that is exactly what is meant.

   [...] Biologists worry about attributing something to design (here identified with creation) only to have it overturned later; this widespread and legitimate concern has prevented them from using intelligent design as a valid scientific explanation.

   Though perhaps justified in the past, this worry is no longer tenable. There now exists a rigorous criterion complexity-specification for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pre-theoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). The great breakthrough in philosophy of science and probability theory of recent years has been to isolate and make precise this criterion. Michael Behe's criterion of irreducible complexity for establishing the design of biochemical systems is a special case of the complexity-specification criterion for detecting design (cf. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box).

   What does this criterion look like? Although a detailed explanation and justification is fairly technical (for a full account see my book The Design Inference, published by Cambridge University Press), the basic idea is straightforward and easily illustrated. [...]


   -- W.A. Dembski, "Science and design", First Things, Oct. 1998, http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html, last accessed 2002/01/20.

Further, Dembski has never bothered to propose an effective empirical test methodology for his Explanatory Filter. Instead, it has been left to critics like myself to propose empirical methods of determining whether Dembski's claims of reliability have any grounding in fact.

Dembski has, so far, not analyzed potential counterexamples. I proposed at Haverford College last June that Dembski "do the calculation" for the Krebs citric acid cycle and the impedance-matching apparatus of the mammalian middle ear. Dembski has not done so.


Joe G.:

 
Quote

Skipping down to the end they have their own flow chart. This one has “Don’t Know”, “regularity” and “chance”. IOW we don’t know but we know it wasn’t via agency involvement. Truly pathetic.


Joe G. obviously missed our discussion of ordinary design inferences.

 
Quote

So a revision to Dembski's filter is required beyond the first "Don't-know" branch. This sort of knowledge of designers is gained empirically, and is just another kind of regularity assignment. Because we know what these designers do to some degree of accuracy, we can assess the likelihood that E would occur, whether it is the creation of skirnobs or the Antikythera Device. That knowledge makes E a HP event, and so the filter short-circuits at the next branch and gives a design inference relative to a background knowledge set Bi available at time t. So now there appears to be two kinds of design - the ordinary kind based on a knowledge of the behavior of designers, and a "rarefied" design, based on an inference from ignorance, both of the possible causes of regularities and of the nature of the designer.


So the "don't know" options in our flow chart do not -- contrary to Joe G.'s falsehood about them -- exclude conclusions of design. They do avoid an erroneous conclusion of rarefied design, where there is no warrant to invoke a design inference based on what is known.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

I wonder if these clowns think that all the success people have had using the EF or some reasonable fasimile thereof, is just an illusion?

I also wonder if they have a better process for detecting design without being biased toward that end?


Yes, that's what the distinction between ordinary design inferences and rarefied design inferences was about. But one has to read the article to comprehend that.

Later, Jeff Shallit and I produced an alternative method we called specified anti-information (SAI) premised on the universal distribution. It can be found in the appendix to our long essay on Dembski's CSI.

Joe G.:
 
Quote

Part 2- It gets worse-

For some reason these clueless desk jockeys think that “design” is the default position when all other nodes get passed. Not so.

To reach the design inference there has to be signs of work, counterflow or some recognizable pattern. Or else we default to “it could be explainable by some small chance event”, i.e. “we don’t know”.

To get to “design” it not only has to pass through the other nodes. It has to have that second part also.

So it looks like this peer-reviewed paper is nothing but a strawman.


If Joe were familiar with Dembski's work, he might have recalled that Dembski provided propositional logic for his explanatory filter on page 49 of "The Design Inference". There, one finds that specification is used simply as another way of eliminating chance. Design is defined by Dembski as the set-theoretic complement of regularity and chance. (Later, Dembski collapses "regularity" into "chance" as well.)

Nor is "chance" equivalent to "don't know". Dembski's own pronouncements on what is decideable via his "design inference" do not admit that further evidence can bear upon a decision once the "explanatory filter" is applied. Even where Dembski does admit the "explanatory filter" cannot be used (the Oklo nuclear reactors), it is as a preliminary to use of the EF, not as a decision-point within the EF.

Nope, no straw involved, just actually reading what Dembski has claimed.

Joe G.:

Quote

Proudly strutting their strawman around, they say the following about “Charles”:

"    Although he has not heard of Dembski's filter, he knows the logic: whatever cannot be accounted for by natural law or chance must be the result of design."

That has nothing to do with Dembski. You jerks made that up because you don’t know what you are talking about. Obviously neither did the people who “reviewed” it.

If I were Dembski I would have sought out the both of you and knocked your teeth out.


Dembski has had several opportunities to get in my face about this if he thought I had gotten pp.36 or 49 of "The Design Inference" wrong. We were on stage together in 2001, 2002, and 2006. So far, I still have my teeth. Why should that be the case?

Perhaps it has something to do with this... William A. Dembski, "The Design Inference", p.36:

 
Quote

Defining design as the set-theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance guarantees that the three modes of explanation are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.


Apparently, Joe G. has either not read Dembski or not understood Dembski.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,08:14   

"boom" said Chriton as he activated the device and created a solar system sized black hole.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,09:46   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,17:27)
BTW I can go on like this for years.


Well that at least has been amply demonstrated.  

Quote
So all this is just pure entertainment.


Yes, amazingly, right again! But trust me: we're getting more of it.  Oodles and oodles more.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4880
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,20:53   

Commence fisking...

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?


Having seen the NCSE files on flareups around the country and world, it is an absolute commonplace that antievolution advocates will be offered the compromise that they can have their views on origins incorporated into a "comparative religions" course. To my knowledge, the antievolution advocates have never expressed the slightest interest in this sort of alternative. They uniformly want their non-science stuff taught in science class as if it were science.

The case in Lancaster, CA of a "philosophy" inter-term elective showed that the content included a bunch of young-earth creationism arguments -- exactly the stuff at issue in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. The decision there wasn't an affirmation for good science; it was a rejection of disguised sectarian views being injected into the public school curriculum. Simply choosing a different topic to inject the same sectarian content into doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.


I'm unfamiliar with that usage of "properly", which, by my reckoning, would have to be something like "if ID is presented [with a mix of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and convenient omissions tendentiously slanted in IDC's direction] the kids would [be indoctrinated into the view] that ID is NOT anti-evolution."

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

In What is evolution?, Larry Moran, professor, biologist, evolutionist and staunch anti-IDist, all but proves that neither ID NOR Creation (baraminology) are anti-evolution.


Seems like Joe G. isn't actually reading for comprehension... again. The linked article does no such thing.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

I say that because both allow for changes in allele frequency. Both allow for populations to change via mutation, heredity and differential survival.


IDC and baraminology are not antievolutionary because of rejecting every single tenet of evolutionary science; they are antievolutionary because they insist that non-testable, unscientific concepts must be accepted and particular evolutionary concepts must be rejected. The fact that IDC advocates, baraminologists, and their cheerleaders sometimes grant that certain trivial amounts of evolution might be said to occur doesn't make their movement something that "antievolutionary" would be inaccurate to apply as a description.

And, in fact, one does not have to go far to find that the "accepting" nature of IDC advocates is a Twainian exaggeration. If we took the sometime protestations that they accept "microevolution" seriously, we'd expect that the IDC literature would be free of criticism of examples at the level of evolution happening within populations. But the IDC literature is replete with criticism of examples of microevolution, whether it may be antibiotic resistance in bacteria, industrial melanism in moths, or beak size changes in finches. It seems that the relevant property of things that IDC advocates object to is not whether something falls within microevolution or macroevolution, but whether it presents a compelling example of some aspect of evolution, period.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

The only thing ID argues against is blind watchmaker-type processes (accumulating genetic accidents) having sole dominion over the changes.


Joe G. apparently hasn't opened the pages of Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution", which expresses outrage over several examples of evolution that are clearly microevolutionary. Wells' book was pitched as a "wedge book" by the Discovery Institute and widely promoted by the DI. Wells is not the only IDC advocate to target microevolutionary examples of evolution, and it is not at all difficult to find such examples, which makes Joe G.'s eagerness to spew such easily-exposed falsehood a bit puzzling.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search (weasel)- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism).


I'll pass over Joe G.'s confusion concerning "Weasel" and note that we've already disproved this class of universal claim. IDC advocates commonly target things other than mechanism, as in Rob Crowther and Casey Luskin's fairly recent apoplectic fits over the status of the Tiktaalik fossils.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

So why do people need to misrepresent ID?

That is much easier than actually having to do something. And it works as long as ignorance prevails.

And that is why they cannot afford to have it presented- their lies will be exposed.


Funny how what shows up as exposed above are falsehoods by Joe G.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

I just started reading "Why Intelligent Design Fails", and have already encountered numerous strawman arguments.

Gary Hurd, for example, talking about the EF says that design is the default once chance and regularity have been eliminated. Yet the flowchart he copied says that isn't so.

Ya see not only do chance and regularity need to be eliminated but a specifcation has to be met.

But anyway I jumped to Gary's chapter because he is a familiar anti-IDist.


I'll refer Joe G. to our exchanges just above and also Dembski's "The Design Inference" pages 36 and 49 for why Hurd is right and Joe G. is, again, spewing falsehoods.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?


Well, the fact that the IDC advocates take issue with just about anything (remember Wells and his icons), not just mechanism, and not giving microevolutionary examples a pass, as Joe G.'s assertions would indicate that they should. That and "cdesign proponentsists". And trying to write evolution out of the 1999 Kansas science standards. And proposing "critical analysis" as a "compromise", only to slide in the usual IDC and creation science arguments into the Ohio school curriculum. And proposing a redefinition of science whenever they comment on science standards. And many, many other reasons as well.

That should be sufficient for the fisking.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,21:48   



--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2137
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,22:08   

Very nice Wes. Always a pleasure.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Henry J



Posts: 4752
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,23:54   

It's funny how whether ID is anti-evolution seems to depend on which ID advocate is talking, and who they're talking to at the time. I guess that's a side effect of not having a clear consistent definition of what the heck ID is or says.

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4880
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2010,05:41   

I've added a link to my reply on the EF to Google Sidewiki on Joe G.'s two pages at his blogs that reference Wilkins and Elsberry 2001. Anyone going there who checks the Sidewiki content will now have a link back to here.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2010,06:22   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2010,05:41)
I've added a link to my reply on the EF to Google Sidewiki on Joe G.'s two pages at his blogs that reference Wilkins and Elsberry 2001. Anyone going there who checks the Sidewiki content will now have a link back to here.

LOL. I think you have already killed Joe's "arguments" here and I am now watching you kick a corpse. Admittedly, the corpse probably does not know it is dead (and it is still amusing to watch).

Funny thing. A fair amount of UD IDiots seem to watch this site, but very few dare to comment. That could possibly be a thesis subject in psychology.

  
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,07:50   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2010,05:53)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,18:59)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2010,20:37)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:55)
                 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?


Here's a free legal lesson... when one is giving direct testimony as a witness, or if one is a lawyer questioning a witness on direct, and one refers to some matter that would otherwise not be legitimate for the opposition to broach, that is called "opening the door". The opposition then gets to pursue that matter, since its legitimacy as a topic is stipulated by the side that broached it. Many a fine legal strategy has gone down in flames because someone gets a bit carried away in what they reference, and the opposition then has the opportunity to go after something that could have otherwise been withheld from the trial record.

Note above that Joe G. references the "explanatory filter", thus opening the door for discussion on that topic.

Now flashback to last November when this was explained to Joe G. previously:

                 
Quote

                   
Quote

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?


Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) article provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.

More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I worked through the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.

Talk about leaving the door open- Well Wes you brought up rigor.

Please give us an example of a technical standard of rigor pertaining to the blind watchmaker thesis- or whatever your position is.

Tell us how we would quantify or test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via blind, undirected processes?

As for the validity of "specification" how do you think archaeologists determine rock from artifact?

Do you think they flip a coin?

No they look for signs of work- ie a specification.

How do forensic scientists determine accident from natural cause from criminal activity?

Do they also flip a coin?

Yes it is true that "specification" can be as simple as "it looks designed".

But if something looks designed and cannot be accounted for via any other known mechanism, then we should be allowed to carry on with the design inference.

See also:

The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins

and
part 2

But anyway I am really interested in seeing the technical standard of rigor as applied to the theory of evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

Back over at the thread about Telic Thoughts, Steve Story observed:

     
Quote

One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant.


Now back to the current response.

"Rigor" is not a particular topic. Pull that in court and see how far you get.

To follow Joe G.'s digression, though, one finds that rigor is common in evolutionary science. Joe G. asked for an example, so one that deals with modes of speciation  would be

   
Quote

Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154, p.295-302.


Within that, they analyzed isotope ratios to test and exclude a hypothesis of depth parapatry as being operative in the O. universa speciation event.

Alternatively, open the journal Evolution at random and ask yourself the question, "Could Joe G. write something as rigorous as this article?"

But Joe's response, it seems, is rather reminiscent of something he wrote to me months ago. Here's my response from then:

   
Quote

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.


Let's have a look at some of Joe G.'s "discussion" in his links.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

Also the EF is a process YOU can choose to use or not. The “beauty” of the EF is that it is not pre-determined for a design output. It forces you to consider the alternatives first.

So what do these guys have to say?

   "We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational, [it would inhibit the course of science from even addressing phenomena that are not currently explicable.]"

Just how can a process that you can choose to use or not do something like that?

The EF is just if you have a question about how X came to be that way.


I've restored the remainder of the sentence in square brackets above.

One might note the conditional phrasing in our original statement. Then again, if one isn't particularly interested in reading for comprehension, one might not.

If one is applying Dembski's "design inference" as widely as Dembski himself asserts one ought to, there is no difficulty in seeing that our critique stands.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

They go on to say:

"[We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational,] and that Dembski's assertion that the filter reliably identifies rarefied design requires ignoring the state of background knowledge. If background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly."

As I said that goes for all of science. It is the nature of the beast. And that is why we call them scientific INFERENCES. Notice the title of Dembski’s book is “The Design INFERENCE”.

And I am still in the paper’s ABSTRACT!

From my experience a paper built on faulty premises is doomed to fail. And this paper passed peer-review!!!


It may be characteristic of science that inferences are not absolute, but it is not characteristic of Dembski's unretracted claims of reliability. Nor is it characteristic of science to ignore the state of background information and make declarations that further background knowledge cannot alter the result of an inference, as is the case for Dembski's claims.

WRE:

 
Quote

For instance, Dembski brushes off a criticism concerning the reliability of his "explanatory filter" by noting that the objection is the problem of induction, but fails to either solve the problem of induction or retract the claim of reliability. That's philosophical humor, by the way. Dembski is not going to solve the problem of induction. That means that he should have retracted his claim of reliability. Just to be clear, let's see what Dembski means by saying that his Explanatory Filter/Design Inference/Specified Complexity criterion is reliable.

   I want, then, to argue that specified complexity is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I want to argue that the complexity-specification criterion successfully avoids false positives -- in other words, whenever it attributes design, it does so correctly.

   -- WA Dembski, "No Free Lunch", p.24

The above is not a typical statement for "scientific inquiry". It describes the operation of an oracle, not an inference.

Some may object that "success" need not refer to the 100% reliability that Dembski's words above seem plainly to invoke. But we have further testimony from Dembski that that is exactly what is meant.

   [...] Biologists worry about attributing something to design (here identified with creation) only to have it overturned later; this widespread and legitimate concern has prevented them from using intelligent design as a valid scientific explanation.

   Though perhaps justified in the past, this worry is no longer tenable. There now exists a rigorous criterion complexity-specification for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pre-theoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). The great breakthrough in philosophy of science and probability theory of recent years has been to isolate and make precise this criterion. Michael Behe's criterion of irreducible complexity for establishing the design of biochemical systems is a special case of the complexity-specification criterion for detecting design (cf. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box).

   What does this criterion look like? Although a detailed explanation and justification is fairly technical (for a full account see my book The Design Inference, published by Cambridge University Press), the basic idea is straightforward and easily illustrated. [...]


   -- W.A. Dembski, "Science and design", First Things, Oct. 1998, http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html, last accessed 2002/01/20.

Further, Dembski has never bothered to propose an effective empirical test methodology for his Explanatory Filter. Instead, it has been left to critics like myself to propose empirical methods of determining whether Dembski's claims of reliability have any grounding in fact.

Dembski has, so far, not analyzed potential counterexamples. I proposed at Haverford College last June that Dembski "do the calculation" for the Krebs citric acid cycle and the impedance-matching apparatus of the mammalian middle ear. Dembski has not done so.


Joe G.:

 
Quote

Skipping down to the end they have their own flow chart. This one has “Don’t Know”, “regularity” and “chance”. IOW we don’t know but we know it wasn’t via agency involvement. Truly pathetic.


Joe G. obviously missed our discussion of ordinary design inferences.

 
Quote

So a revision to Dembski's filter is required beyond the first "Don't-know" branch. This sort of knowledge of designers is gained empirically, and is just another kind of regularity assignment. Because we know what these designers do to some degree of accuracy, we can assess the likelihood that E would occur, whether it is the creation of skirnobs or the Antikythera Device. That knowledge makes E a HP event, and so the filter short-circuits at the next branch and gives a design inference relative to a background knowledge set Bi available at time t. So now there appears to be two kinds of design - the ordinary kind based on a knowledge of the behavior of designers, and a "rarefied" design, based on an inference from ignorance, both of the possible causes of regularities and of the nature of the designer.


So the "don't know" options in our flow chart do not -- contrary to Joe G.'s falsehood about them -- exclude conclusions of design. They do avoid an erroneous conclusion of rarefied design, where there is no warrant to invoke a design inference based on what is known.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

I wonder if these clowns think that all the success people have had using the EF or some reasonable fasimile thereof, is just an illusion?

I also wonder if they have a better process for detecting design without being biased toward that end?


Yes, that's what the distinction between ordinary design inferences and rarefied design inferences was about. But one has to read the article to comprehend that.

Later, Jeff Shallit and I produced an alternative method we called specified anti-information (SAI) premised on the universal distribution. It can be found in the appendix to our long essay on Dembski's CSI.

Joe G.:
 
Quote

Part 2- It gets worse-

For some reason these clueless desk jockeys think that “design” is the default position when all other nodes get passed. Not so.

To reach the design inference there has to be signs of work, counterflow or some recognizable pattern. Or else we default to “it could be explainable by some small chance event”, i.e. “we don’t know”.

To get to “design” it not only has to pass through the other nodes. It has to have that second part also.

So it looks like this peer-reviewed paper is nothing but a strawman.


If Joe were familiar with Dembski's work, he might have recalled that Dembski provided propositional logic for his explanatory filter on page 49 of "The Design Inference". There, one finds that specification is used simply as another way of eliminating chance. Design is defined by Dembski as the set-theoretic complement of regularity and chance. (Later, Dembski collapses "regularity" into "chance" as well.)

Nor is "chance" equivalent to "don't know". Dembski's own pronouncements on what is decideable via his "design inference" do not admit that further evidence can bear upon a decision once the "explanatory filter" is applied. Even where Dembski does admit the "explanatory filter" cannot be used (the Oklo nuclear reactors), it is as a preliminary to use of the EF, not as a decision-point within the EF.

Nope, no straw involved, just actually reading what Dembski has claimed.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

Proudly strutting their strawman around, they say the following about “Charles”:

"    Although he has not heard of Dembski's filter, he knows the logic: whatever cannot be accounted for by natural law or chance must be the result of design."

That has nothing to do with Dembski. You jerks made that up because you don’t know what you are talking about. Obviously neither did the people who “reviewed” it.

If I were Dembski I would have sought out the both of you and knocked your teeth out.


Dembski has had several opportunities to get in my face about this if he thought I had gotten pp.36 or 49 of "The Design Inference" wrong. We were on stage together in 2001, 2002, and 2006. So far, I still have my teeth. Why should that be the case?

Perhaps it has something to do with this... William A. Dembski, "The Design Inference", p.36:

 
Quote

Defining design as the set-theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance guarantees that the three modes of explanation are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.


Apparently, Joe G. has either not read Dembski or not understood Dembski.

We,

Nice rant.

Too bad for you that if "specification" is not observed the design in not inferred.

IOW one can eliminate chance and necessity but if there isn't any specification then design is not the default.

As for your "rigorous" example- RotFLMAO!

YECs accept speciation Wes.

Do you have any examples of rigor pertaining to- for example- the alleged evolution of vision systems?

That would include the genes involved and the modifications to the genome that allowed for such a thing.

As for the EF Dembski even says that future knowledge may upset the design inference. And tat is how it is with scientific inferences.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,07:56   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2010,20:53)
Commence fisking...

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?


Having seen the NCSE files on flareups around the country and world, it is an absolute commonplace that antievolution advocates will be offered the compromise that they can have their views on origins incorporated into a "comparative religions" course. To my knowledge, the antievolution advocates have never expressed the slightest interest in this sort of alternative. They uniformly want their non-science stuff taught in science class as if it were science.

The case in Lancaster, CA of a "philosophy" inter-term elective showed that the content included a bunch of young-earth creationism arguments -- exactly the stuff at issue in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. The decision there wasn't an affirmation for good science; it was a rejection of disguised sectarian views being injected into the public school curriculum. Simply choosing a different topic to inject the same sectarian content into doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.


I'm unfamiliar with that usage of "properly", which, by my reckoning, would have to be something like "if ID is presented [with a mix of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and convenient omissions tendentiously slanted in IDC's direction] the kids would [be indoctrinated into the view] that ID is NOT anti-evolution."

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

In What is evolution?, Larry Moran, professor, biologist, evolutionist and staunch anti-IDist, all but proves that neither ID NOR Creation (baraminology) are anti-evolution.


Seems like Joe G. isn't actually reading for comprehension... again. The linked article does no such thing.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

I say that because both allow for changes in allele frequency. Both allow for populations to change via mutation, heredity and differential survival.


IDC and baraminology are not antievolutionary because of rejecting every single tenet of evolutionary science; they are antievolutionary because they insist that non-testable, unscientific concepts must be accepted and particular evolutionary concepts must be rejected. The fact that IDC advocates, baraminologists, and their cheerleaders sometimes grant that certain trivial amounts of evolution might be said to occur doesn't make their movement something that "antievolutionary" would be inaccurate to apply as a description.

And, in fact, one does not have to go far to find that the "accepting" nature of IDC advocates is a Twainian exaggeration. If we took the sometime protestations that they accept "microevolution" seriously, we'd expect that the IDC literature would be free of criticism of examples at the level of evolution happening within populations. But the IDC literature is replete with criticism of examples of microevolution, whether it may be antibiotic resistance in bacteria, industrial melanism in moths, or beak size changes in finches. It seems that the relevant property of things that IDC advocates object to is not whether something falls within microevolution or macroevolution, but whether it presents a compelling example of some aspect of evolution, period.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

The only thing ID argues against is blind watchmaker-type processes (accumulating genetic accidents) having sole dominion over the changes.


Joe G. apparently hasn't opened the pages of Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution", which expresses outrage over several examples of evolution that are clearly microevolutionary. Wells' book was pitched as a "wedge book" by the Discovery Institute and widely promoted by the DI. Wells is not the only IDC advocate to target microevolutionary examples of evolution, and it is not at all difficult to find such examples, which makes Joe G.'s eagerness to spew such easily-exposed falsehood a bit puzzling.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search (weasel)- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism).


I'll pass over Joe G.'s confusion concerning "Weasel" and note that we've already disproved this class of universal claim. IDC advocates commonly target things other than mechanism, as in Rob Crowther and Casey Luskin's fairly recent apoplectic fits over the status of the Tiktaalik fossils.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

So why do people need to misrepresent ID?

That is much easier than actually having to do something. And it works as long as ignorance prevails.

And that is why they cannot afford to have it presented- their lies will be exposed.


Funny how what shows up as exposed above are falsehoods by Joe G.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

I just started reading "Why Intelligent Design Fails", and have already encountered numerous strawman arguments.

Gary Hurd, for example, talking about the EF says that design is the default once chance and regularity have been eliminated. Yet the flowchart he copied says that isn't so.

Ya see not only do chance and regularity need to be eliminated but a specifcation has to be met.

But anyway I jumped to Gary's chapter because he is a familiar anti-IDist.


I'll refer Joe G. to our exchanges just above and also Dembski's "The Design Inference" pages 36 and 49 for why Hurd is right and Joe G. is, again, spewing falsehoods.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?


Well, the fact that the IDC advocates take issue with just about anything (remember Wells and his icons), not just mechanism, and not giving microevolutionary examples a pass, as Joe G.'s assertions would indicate that they should. That and "cdesign proponentsists". And trying to write evolution out of the 1999 Kansas science standards. And proposing "critical analysis" as a "compromise", only to slide in the usual IDC and creation science arguments into the Ohio school curriculum. And proposing a redefinition of science whenever they comment on science standards. And many, many other reasons as well.

That should be sufficient for the fisking.

1- "IDC" exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

2- The ONLY definition of "evolution" that is anti-ID- and therefor by extension ID is anti- that specific definition ONLY- is the blind watchmaker thesis- <b>“Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.</b>


3- Jonathan Wells is NOT ID. Dr Behe accepts Common Descent.

4- JW is to ID as Dawkins is to the ToE- a side show.

Otherwise it can be said that the ToE is an atheistic theory and as such falls under the separation laws.

So what we have is Wes, not understanding evolution, spewing his ignorance.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,07:57   

So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,08:09   

Joe, are you ever going to put forth any positive evidence for ID, other than "I can sees it"?

When are you going to fill in the blanks on the ID science report I typed up for you?  You know where you have actual values for specified complexity and you compare those values to things that are of known design and known randomness.

Until you do that, your IDs are just a waste of electrons.

I'd also like to point out that Wells, Dembski, and Behe ARE ID.  They created it (well, after blatantly stealing it from Paley).  You haven't written several books on ID.  Until you do, then they get to decide what ID is, not you.

And they have all decided that ID is a religious program with no scientific merit.  So, are you going to stand up to Dembski and tell him that he's wrong and that ID isn't religious?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,08:32   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,08:09)
Joe, are you ever going to put forth any positive evidence for ID, other than "I can sees it"?

When are you going to fill in the blanks on the ID science report I typed up for you?  You know where you have actual values for specified complexity and you compare those values to things that are of known design and known randomness.

Until you do that, your IDs are just a waste of electrons.

I'd also like to point out that Wells, Dembski, and Behe ARE ID.  They created it (well, after blatantly stealing it from Paley).  You haven't written several books on ID.  Until you do, then they get to decide what ID is, not you.

And they have all decided that ID is a religious program with no scientific merit.  So, are you going to stand up to Dembski and tell him that he's wrong and that ID isn't religious?

Ogre,

Are you going to put fortth any positive evidence that supports your position?

BTW Dr Behe accepts Common Descent- meaning ID does not argue against Common Descent. And all three say ID is scientific.

It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested.

Now what?

You still don't have any way to test your claims.

All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs.

So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008/02/supporting-intelligent-design.html><b>Supporting ID</b></a>

and

<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-evidence-for-intelligent-design.html><b>more evidence for ID</b></a>

You do realize that you can falsify ID just by substantiating the claims of your position?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
  178 replies since Feb. 24 2010,09:34 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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