Is Intelligent Design dead?

[Meleagar]

In any event, seeing as ID books and papers are being published, public opinion is on the upswing and that many ID researchers are laying the groundwork and framework for a more considered and appropriate challenge in establishing ID as science, I would say that ID is certainly not dead.

It's just getting started, IMO, much to the chagrin of those that wish it would just go away.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Meleagar, you've been avoiding this question like the plague.

What specific phenomenon from the biological realm does ID provide a "better explanation" for? How was it determined to be "designed"? What mechanism does ID propose for its appearance?

And what ID papers are being published? So far, all you've posted are examples of ID advocates publishing papers that have nothing to do with ID.

[Aussie]

Quote by: Raastee If people can not disprove gods, then I.D. is alive.

The earth looks flat, therefor it must be flat, there's also references in the bible. That's about the crux of the ID argument also.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus Meleagar, you've been avoiding this question like the plague. What specific phenomenon from the biological realm does ID provide a "better explanation" for? How was it determined to be "designed"? What mechanism does ID propose for its appearance? And what ID papers are being published? So far, all you've posted are examples of ID advocates publishing papers that have nothing to do with ID.

All fully answered already in this thread and the other one in philosophy and religion.

[Meleagar]

Hey Barts,

You'll be happy to know that Eugene V Koonin agrees with you in this paper; the probabilistic resources of our universe aren't near enough to generate the FSCI necessary for life - so he invokes infinite chance in the form of a multiverse - IOW, infinite numbers of universes that supply all the chance anyone needs - for anything, really.

One of the byproducts of such infinite universe scenarios, however, is that it is much more likely that we exist as, or within, a Boltzmann Brain fluctuation than an actual material universe where evolution actually occurs.

Appeals to infinite chance also means that it is inevitable that life on many planets was designed by other forms of intelligences that simply appeared via quantum fluctuations.

In any event, appeals to such structures of infinite chance by abiogenesis researchers are not scientific; they are just means of avoiding the blatant improbability of life forming from chance physiochemcial interactions.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Quote by: Meleagar All fully answered already in this thread and the other one in philosophy and religion.

No you haven't. That's another standard internet creationist ploy; avoid a question until the thread gets cumbersome to go through, and then claim "I already answered that"...of course without specifying the post where you did.

If you know the answer to the question, rather than giving vague meaningless responses, just answer them in your own words.

What specific phenomenon from the biological realm does ID provide a "better explanation" for? How was it determined to be "designed"? What mechanism does ID propose for its appearance?

And what ID papers are being published? So far, all you've posted are examples of ID advocates publishing papers that have nothing to do with ID.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus No you haven't. That's another standard internet creationist ploy; avoid a question until the thread gets cumbersome to go through, and then claim "I already answered that"...of course without specifying the post where you did.

It's also a standard internet ploy to keep asking the same questions over and over, mischaracterizing them ad infinitum until the other party tires of giving the same answers and correcting the mischaracterizations, then claim that they never did answer the questions and are avoiding them.

I'm under no obligation to address your ad nauseaum mischaracterizations, obfuscations, denials and red herrings. If you have some correct math from a peer-reviewed, scientific paper that solves the combinatorial problem and rebuts the information theory limitations, then provide it.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Again we see why ID has failed miserably in the arenas of science and law. Neither allows advocates to ignore questions, whereas on the internet it's standard practice for creationists...so much so, it's almost expected.

[Meleagar]

Behe-McWhorter interview on bloggerheads tv.

[barts]

Quote by: Meleagar Behe-McWhorter interview on bloggerheads tv.

If you google "Michael Behe" dozens of videos show up that demonstrate that Behe is as wrong as Lamarck. But perhaps you're not interested in those.

[Meleagar]

Another peer-reviewed ID paper supporting and detailing the FSCI problem:

Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information
The Abstract:

Genetic algorithms instruct sophisticated biological organization. Three qualitative kinds of sequence complexity exist: random (RSC), ordered (OSC), and functional (FSC). FSC alone provides algorithmic instruction. Random and Ordered Sequence Complexities lie at opposite ends of the same bi-directional sequence complexity vector. Randomness in sequence space is defined by a lack of Kolmogorov algorithmic compressibility. A sequence is compressible because it contains redundant order and patterns. Law-like cause-and-effect determinism produces highly compressible order. Such forced ordering precludes both information retention and freedom of selection so critical to algorithmic programming and control. Functional Sequence Complexity requires this added programming dimension of uncoerced selection at successive decision nodes in the string. Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).

From the conclusion:

In summary, Sequence complexity can be 1) random (RSC), 2) ordered (OSC), or functional (FSC). OSC is on the opposite end of the bi-directional vectorial spectrum of complexity from RSC. FSC is usually paradoxically closer to the random end of the complexity scale than the ordered end. FSC is the product of nonrandom selection. FSC results from the equivalent of a succession of integrated algorithmic decision node "switch settings." FSC alone instructs sophisticated metabolic function. Self-ordering processes preclude both complexity and sophisticated functions. Self-ordering phenomena are observed daily in accord with chaos theory. But under no known circumstances can self-ordering phenomena like hurricanes, sand piles, crystallization, or fractals produce algorithmic organization. Algorithmic "self-organization" has never been observed despite numerous publications that have misused the term. Bone fide organization always arises from choice contingency, not chance contingency or necessity.

Until Darwinists can account for the FSCI, their theory is insufficient for describing the rise of functional biological information.

[Meleagar]

Another, more recently published intelligent design paper (the International Journal of Molecular Sciences) here describes physiodynamic (and any form of natural selection processes) as incapable of producing the necessary FSCI, and challenges scientists who disagree to falsify the null hypothesis. From the conclusion:

The capabilities of stand-alone chaos, complexity, self-ordered states, natural attractors, fractals, drunken walks, complex adaptive systems, and other subjects of non linear dynamic models are often inflated. Scientific mechanism must be provided for how purely physicodynamic phenomena can program decision nodes, optimize algorithms, set configurable switches so as to achieve integrated circuits, achieve computational halting, and organize otherwise unrelated chemical reactions into a protometabolism. To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut [9]: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.

Now, does anyone here have a published article that shows such mechanical and selective processes to be up to the task of generating the FSCI that evolution requires?

Intelligent design dead? Judge for yourselves. Not only not dead, but delivering knock-out, specific scientific challenges to Darwinism in mainstream journals.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Um, Meleagar....what does that article have to do with evolution? The abstract starts off with...

"To what degree could chaos and complexity have organized a Peptide or RNA World of crude yet necessarily integrated protometabolism?"

I want you to say to yourself (out loud) "Abiogenesis is not evolution" and repeat 100 times.

Also, what does this have to do with ID?

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Wow, what a bizarre paper. Arguing that "intelligence" (humans) cannot play any role in experimental investigation into origins of life scenarios and that evolutionary algorithms must be "stripped of artificial selection" and "desired products"? That's the whole point of such algorithms!

This paper is just a long-winded attempt to wave away valid research on the basis that "humans were involved". Well of course humans were involved...that's how we conduct experiments! There is no way to completely eliminate human involvement in origins research; it just can't be done. Even if we set up a giant vat of molecules and left it alone for 100,000 years, ID people would still argue "But you made the vat and you put the reagents in, so it doesn't count!"

But, after looking at the journal's review standards, it's not surprising to see such ridiculous arguments get through.

[barts]

Quote by: Meleagar Until Darwinists can account for the FSCI, their theory is insufficient for describing the rise of functional biological information.

Even if you were right, it doesn't follow that there is a designer. That's your problem. The falsification of one theory doesn't entail another.

At any rate, something for inquiring minds: More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science from real scientists published in real journals.

It would seem that the whole notion of irreducible complexity is shaping up to be nonsense. With that gone, what's left for ID?

[Meleagar]

Quote by: barts Even if you were right, it doesn't follow that there is a designer.

ID theory doesn't postulate a designer.

That's your problem. The falsification of one theory doesn't entail another.

Entail? The falsification of one theory does make it less of a candidate for "best explanation"; ID is the only theory at the plate that can currently explain the FSCI.

At any rate, something for inquiring minds: More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science from real scientists published in real journals.

Except that your link wasn't to a peer-reviewed scientific paper, nor was it written by a scientist.

It would seem that the whole notion of irreducible complexity is shaping up to be nonsense. With that gone, what's left for ID?

If it's nonsense, how can it be falsified? Lots of scientific theories and hypothesi are falsified; the reason they can be falsified is because they are not "nonsense", but rather make specific, falsifiable claims that scientific research can support or contra-indicate. Is every scientific theory that has to reformulate old ideas and come up with new ones "nonsense"? If so, that makes Darwinian evolution the most nonsensical theory of all time.

[Meleagar]

Another thing to note, Barts, is why you and others feel it is necessary to disparage those scientists who are working on ID, researching it and publishing papers, by implying that they are not "real" scientists producing real science and publishing it in "real" scientific venues.

What exactly do you want from them? Wouldn't you want any scientists who are investigating and researching an alternative theory from the mainstream to do research, produce papers, and have them go through the peer-review process to publication? Why do you and others feel it necessary to use such invective against them nad their work by calling their work "nonsense" and their theory "dead"?

Not that it supports ID, but don't you realize that this is exactly what happened with the Wright Brothers, Edison, and countless other scientists who worked on theories that opposed conventional, consensus scientific thought?

Such invective, ridicule and dismissal only demonstrates that the such theories threaten the close-minded belief system of those that feel the need to attack and ridicule those theories and make character and professional insinuations against those who reserach them.

An unbiased mind is not compelled to lace their commentary on the research of other, fully accredited scientists with personal and professional derogatory remarks and constantly resort to motive-mongering.

In any event, the thread isn't about whether or not ID is true, but if it is "dead"; the fact that it is producing more peer-reviewed and published papers than ever, and that its books and other media are selling better than ever, and that as the public becomes more informed about what ID actually is they endorse it more, indicates that ID is far from dead, but is rather thriving.

[barts]

Quote by: Meleagar ID theory doesn't postulate a designer. Entail? The falsification of one theory does make it less of a candidate for "best explanation"; ID is the only theory at the plate that can currently explain the FSCI. Except that your link wasn't to a peer-reviewed scientific paper, nor was it written by a scientist.

No "Designer', no intelligence. No ID.

It doesn't matter if the only theory left in the debate is ID. It still doesn't make it true by default. You still have demonstrate that its precepts are valid. IDists haven't done that, yet.

The link referred to a paper published by scientists. The citation was in the article:

Citation: “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine.” By Abigail Clements,1, Dejan Bursac, Xenia Gatsos, Andrew J. Perry, Srgjan Civciristova, Nermin Celik, Vladimir A. Likic, Sebastian Poggio, Christine Jacobs-Wagner, Richard A. Strugnell, and Trevor Lithgow. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106 No. 33, August 25, 2009.

You didn't read the article did you?

[barts]

Quote by: Meleagar In any event, the thread isn't about whether or not ID is true, but if it is "dead"; the fact that it is producing more peer-reviewed and published papers than ever, and that its books and other media are selling better than ever, and that as the public becomes more informed about what ID actually is they endorse it more, indicates that ID is far from dead, but is rather thriving.

In a very early post, I said that I thought that ID was not dead. As long as ID can be sold to creationists for a reasonable profit, there will be people who will create dubious intellectual "products" for them to buy. ID will live. Astrology lives, too. And so do Ponzi schemes. All because a small group of people profit from them.

[barts]

Quote by: Meleagar If it's nonsense, how can it be falsified? Lots of scientific theories and hypothesi are falsified; the reason they can be falsified is because they are not "nonsense", but rather make specific, falsifiable claims that scientific research can support or contra-indicate. Is every scientific theory that has to reformulate old ideas and come up with new ones "nonsense"? If so, that makes Darwinian evolution the most nonsensical theory of all time.

ID relies on a supernatural myth: an intelligent designer. I'm aware this is denied in order to appear more science-like. But it's a canard. The fact that designs appear in nature is not evidence of intelligence. Are snowflakes a consequence of intelligent design, because they follow a distinctive pattern? I doubt IDists would claim that. Yet at other levels of existence, because they perceive a gap in human knowledge, the plug in "intelligence." Sounds a lot like the creationists "god of the gaps" to me.

Real scientists who thought ID had merit would be looking for the designer. As real physicists look for fundamental forces and particles. IDists, as you point out, take the most fundamental aspect of their theory off the table. Perhaps because they fear that if they look for the designer, they'll find nothing.