Are IDists finally doing research?

[Pete Harcoff]

Spotted this over at IIDB. Looks like there might actually be some actual research into ID going on, as reported by New Scientist.

"We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design," says George Weber, the only one of Biologic's four directors who would speak openly with me. "The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism."

"We need all the input we can get in the sciences," Weber told me. "What we are doing is necessary to move ID along."

Ronald Numbers, a historian at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has studied creationism, views it in a different light. The lab's existence will help sustain support within the anti-evolution community, he says. "It will be good for the troops if leaders in the ID movement can claim: 'We're not just talking theory. We have labs, we have real scientists working on this.'"

Now the real question is to see if they can actually produce anything relevant and get it published in peer-reviewed journals.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Spotted this over at IIDB. Looks like there might actually be some actual research into ID going on, as reported by New Scientist.

It will be interesting to see what ID research looks like. I supsect it will look a lot like theory anyway, since it proposes a mechanism that does not carry with it any descriptions as to what that mechanism is.

It will probably look like a philosophy department, or the early Catholic Church. Staffed with a bunch of St. Anselms and Aquinases.

What will their first "experiments" consist of? What kind of equipment do they use?

Interesting indeed.

 

[Hydra009]

What will their first "experiments" consist of?

Basically, it looks like their going to look at "the origin of metabolic pathways in bacteria, the evolution of gene order in bacteria, and the evolution of protein folds" and try to claim that these cannot be produced through evolution.

And also attempting a computer simulation of evolution where evolution can't produce the right results, as a counterpoint to the 2001 simulation from Michigan State program that did.

 

[trivista]

Basically, it looks like their going to look at "the origin of metabolic pathways in bacteria, the evolution of gene order in bacteria, and the evolution of protein folds" and try to claim that these cannot be produced through evolution.

And also attempting a computer simulation of evolution where evolution can't produce the right results, as a counterpoint to the 2001 simulation from Michigan State program that did.

Something tells me the source code for the evolution simulation will be locked up very tight and will never see the light of day.

 

[Hydra009]

Something tells me the source code for the evolution simulation will be locked up very tight and will never see the light of day.

Probably. The part of the article that strikes me as a odd was "It would not be surprising if Biologic wanted to challenge the impact of Pennock's work by finding a counter-example in which a computer simulation fails to produce complexity by random mutation alone."

Maybe they're just going back to their infamous abiogenesis probability roots. Who knows.

At any rate, attempting actual science in an actual lab is better than this lol.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Probably. The part of the article that strikes me as a odd was "It would not be surprising if Biologic wanted to challenge the impact of Pennock's work by finding a counter-example in which a computer simulation fails to produce complexity by random mutation alone."

Maybe they're just going back to their infamous abiogenesis probability roots. Who knows.

At any rate, attempting actual science in an actual lab is better than this lol.

Hydra, check your link, it reads idurc when you roll over it but takes me here http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1738.txt when I click it. very strange

 

[Parmenio]

ID is impossible to even being to argue using rational means since it assumes an irrational answer (God). Can you imagine an argument like this: "Well we can't even imagine any natural answer for this, so it must have been God."

If that is to be considered science I shouldn't have gotten docked for not knowing the 8th step in a reverse chemical synthesis on my OChem II final when I put "GOD" as the mechanism. Just because we don't know now doesn't mean that physical law does not allow for it.

 

[Hydra009]

Hydra, check your link

My bad. It's fixed now.

 

[SLP]

Spotted this over at IIDB. Looks like there might actually be some actual research into ID going on, as reported by New Scientist.







Now the real question is to see if they can actually produce anything relevant and get it published in peer-reviewed journals.

Thats all well and good - but shouldn't they have done all this FIRST?????

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Thats all well and good - but shouldn't they have done all this FIRST?????

You are still stuck in materialistic conceptions of science. Remember, the conclusion comes first.

 

[Jig]

ID is impossible to even being to argue using rational means since it assumes an irrational answer (God). Can you imagine an argument like this: "Well we can't even imagine any natural answer for this, so it must have been God."

If that is to be considered science I shouldn't have gotten docked for not knowing the 8th step in a reverse chemical synthesis on my OChem II final when I put "GOD" as the mechanism. Just because we don't know now doesn't mean that physical law does not allow for it.

There are non-Christians (even atheists) within the ID movement.

They argue for a designer. Who or what that designer is, is not what they are looking for.

Neo-Darwinism is the status quo, this over-powering current scientific paradigm is the dominating view point. I wouldn't expect ID to be treated any other way. All scientific paradigm shifts include major theories going through crisis and completely reject the new paradigm trying to squeeze in. In fact, ridicule of ID is necessary. It is only logical the scientific "enlightened" would fight and attack such a shift from occuring.

Anyway....lets say a designer did exist. How would you go about testing for this?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

They argue for a designer. Who or what that designer is, is not what they are looking for.

Yes, because they already know it's the Christian God.

 

[Hydra009]

There are non-Christians (even atheists) within the ID movement.

Yes. Specifically, Raelians. And I'm not exactly sure that's something to be proud of.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/his_holiness_ra.html

Intelligent Design appeals to a broad spectrum of people - everyone from creationists to biblical literalists to UFO nuts.

 

[Pesto]

They argue for a designer. Who or what that designer is, is not what they are looking for.

That is one of my biggest problems with ID. In any other realm of investigation, when an "intelligent agent" is thought to be behind something, there needs to be at least some claim of what that "intelligent agent" is.

For example, who designed and built this thing? Probably one of these things.

 

[birdan]

Neo-Darwinism is the status quo, this over-powering current scientific paradigm is the dominating view point. I wouldn't expect ID to be treated any other way. All scientific paradigm shifts include major theories going through crisis and completely reject the new paradigm trying to squeeze in. In fact, ridicule of ID is necessary. It is only logical the scientific "enlightened" would fight and attack such a shift from occuring.

Anyway....lets say a designer did exist. How would you go about testing for this?

Is argument from martyrdom one of the argumentative fallacies? It sure should be. An alternative explanation of the non-acceptance of ID by the scientific mainstream would be that it is that its hypotheses have been refuted, scientifically. Irreducible complexity and specified complex information are the twin pillars of the ID hypothesis, and both have been shown to be erroneous. Since those forays of ID into the realm of science have been shown to be incorrect, what is left? Just a belief. And that doesn't cut it in science. It has nothing to do with your perceived persecution complex; it has everything to do with bad science.

Einstein overturned the "dominating view point" of 19th century physics in short order, with his "scientific paradigm shift". No great amounts of martyrdom or persecution were involved from the scientific community. Why? Because his theory of special relativity was sound science, and it actually answers questions in physics. Two characteristics sorely lacking in ID.

 

[Parmenio]

I back ID, I just don't think it's science. It's faith. I believe that God created the natural laws upon which our world is based, and from those laws life abounded. It's just my faith that it was my God who started it all. I suppose I hold a very special version of ID, as I disagree with the rednecks in Kansas, but I really don't see it as necessarily hobbling evolutionary theory.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I back ID, I just don't think it's science. It's faith. I believe that God created the natural laws upon which our world is based, and from those laws life abounded. It's just my faith that it was my God who started it all. I suppose I hold a very special version of ID, as I disagree with the rednecks in Kansas, but I really don't see it as necessarily hobbling evolutionary theory.

The designer you support seems far more broad-minded and intelligent than the harried, nit-picking engineer of Dembskiism.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

There are non-Christians (even atheists) within the ID movement.

Really? Name 3?

All scientific paradigm shifts include major theories going through crisis and completely reject the new paradigm trying to squeeze in.

All scientific paradigm shifts also depend on verifiable experiments or new data that suggests such a paradigm shift is the way to go. Does ID have this?

Anyway....lets say a designer did exist. How would you go about testing for this?

Identify areas where good design would dictate so and so as the most efficient structure to achieve so and so function.

Unfortunatley, the simplist glance at any biological system will see that such design is remarkably absent... all organisms are a collection of hodge podge jury rigging, adaptation and co-option of previous structures... no way in heck if you were designing a human from scratch any competent designer would but the gas intake and the fluid intake right next to each other. Not to mention the abortion that is the human spine or retina...

 

[Edx]

Really? Name 3?

Technically he is correct. Raelians, I think, are atheist and there are many non-Christian Creationists like Muslims and Hindus.

Of course while it is technically correct, it still kind of misrepresents the situation.

 

[Siderite]

I back ID, I just don't think it's science. It's faith. I believe that God created the natural laws upon which our world is based, and from those laws life abounded. It's just my faith that it was my God who started it all. I suppose I hold a very special version of ID, as I disagree with the rednecks in Kansas, but I really don't see it as necessarily hobbling evolutionary theory.

I think Parmenio is right on the money with his statement.