Altenberg 16?

[sfs]

Google "lee bowman" and "melanie is correct" to see some of my views on a 'creation' scenario.

Well, you do seem to be willing to narrow down the agent to being a supernatural one, but beyond that I couldn't find anything about mechanism, specific actions, or timing. The only concrete prediction you made that I noticed was that drug resistance in bacteria arises from existing genetic variation, which is well known to be wrong.

 

[Lee Bowman]

The only concrete prediction you made that I noticed was that drug resistance in bacteria arises from existing genetic variation, which is well known to be wrong.

I'm certain that as a geneticist, you've are better informed regarding the mechanism(s) of bacterial drug resistance. I had stated at the Spectator blog:

... Most observed evolutionary function is for a) adaptation, and b) diversity. Both are 'designed in' processes, the first to aid in survival, and the second so that each progeny has diverse features 'beyond' a mere blending parental imbued traits. IOW 'extended diversity', so that we-don't-all-look-alike. I also predict that most genetic variations of those types are from a pool of variant trait genes existant within the genome, rather than mutations. Antibiotic immunity would come from a pool of adaptive genes as well.

Although I still feel that adaptive genetic variants may be resident to a degree for some traits (pigmentation, hair and fur charateristics, bone struture variants, cephalic index variations, and beak size), others are arrived at via mutations, and in the case of bacterium, plasmids encoding for efflux pumps, which may produce antibiotic resistant enzymes. An interesting video gives a brief overview for the non-geneticist audience at youtube. ("Super Bugs - Bacterial Drug Resistance).

Given the complexity and sophistication of these proceses, it almost appears that bacteria were 'designed' to survive to the end. Since DNA/RNA, yeast, fungi and monocellulars appear designed at stage one, could they ultimately survive to the final stage?

Or does this merely substantiate my tentative conclusion (based on observation) that earthly biologic existence was intended to be competetive and combative?

Regarding my take on the supernatural, I feel that the term is somewhat nebulous, since it could mean beyond observation or comprehension, infinite and eternal, or simply existing outside of the natural realm.

My opinion is that our overseer(s) are cosmic entities, spirit based, and exist within the natural universe. My views, subject to revision, are that there is a Supreme God, overseeing a hierarchy of angelics, and that we are of a direct lineage. Due to the competetive/ combative nature of life forms (ourselves included), there may have been multiple designers (gene tweakers), but likely operating under a Supreme Authority.

 

[Washington]

Some theories or hypotheses can be falsified, some cannot. And Karl Popper admitted as much. From the 'falsifiability' treatise on Wikipedia,

But these were not what he considered to be scientific theories, but rather those like Marxism and psychoanalysis. So, unless one wants to create an exception to empirical falsifiability, which hasn't been done here, we are obliged to accept it as stated.

The popular example is the 'black swan' example. The statement that "All swans are white" is falsified by finding a black one. But theories like evolution are multifaceted, and cannot be easily falsified.

Easy or not is hardly relevant, is it.

Same for Intelligent Design.

No it isn't the same. ID is not subject to falsifiability because its existence is not open to scientific investigation.

ID, however, could be falsified by establishing natural evolutionary pathways for the most complex systems and structures in biology, an ongoing quest by science.

And exactly which characteristics of the intelligent designer are open to the rigor of scientific investigation and verification, an investigation that would first have to establish the existence of the designer? Yet, in a sense ID could be falsified if it rose to the level scientific study, but it simply doesn't. It doesn't qualify to play in Popper's ball game.

Regarding the falsification of NDE for IC structures, that has effectively already occurred, due to the failure to speciate (the rigorous definition, not Mayr and Dobzhansky's watered down definition of speciation) bacteria or fruit flys, which are focused upon due to their rapid gestation times.

So because no black swan has yet been found OR been produced in a laboratory, their lack of known existence falsifies the contention that they could exist. A failure to create a new species of bacteria, fruit flies, or anything else is nothing more than evidence of that failure, and that's all. Moreover, this notion of irreducibly complex structures is nothing more than a leap to conclusion because such a conclusion nicely serves the interests of ID. A "Sounds good like a good claim, so let's go with it, guys," kind of thing. The fact is, IC has never been shown to be true, but only the object of wishful thinking.

You buy the conclusion by some that all scientific theories are falsifiable? How would you falsify the Big Bang, Multiverse Theory, or the various quantum theories?

The exact how is not germane to falsifiability, only the possibility; a possibility that can even lie outside the current abilities of humankind. Given the proper tools of investigation can science investigate the phenomenon? Yes. Need those tools now exist? No.

The assertion the ID isn't scientific is ridiculous, and based on faulty logic.

So, an intelligent designer can be shown to exist by using the scientific method. So tell us, how one would go about doing this. Just what tools and techniques of science would be best to investigate what characteristics of this designer?

SCIENTIFIC TOOLS

1. _______________________

2. _______________________

3. _______________________

4. _______________________

5. _______________________


SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUES

1. _______________________

2. _______________________

3. _______________________

4. _______________________

5. _______________________


INVESTIGABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DESIGNER

1. _______________________

2. _______________________

3. _______________________

4. _______________________

5. _______________________
​

I base my skepticism on the failure of experiments and computer modeling to do what it has set out to do; empirically replicate speciation events.

Guess this is where we have some grounds in common. I too base my skepticism on the failure of current day claims, however these include the claims of the Christian religion, such as a loving god, peace on earth, and everlasting life.

Regarding ignorance, we are all ignorant of much that resides in the physical world. But rather than saying, I guess God did it and letting it go on that note, design theorists don't stop there, at least the new crop of ID investigators

And exactly what are these investigators actually investigating? And how about a link or two to them?

 

[Lee Bowman]

"You buy the conclusion by some that all scientific theories are falsifiable? How would you falsify the Big Bang, Multiverse Theory, or the various quantum theories?"
​

The exact how is not germane to falsifiability, only the possibility; a possibility that can even lie outside the current abilities of humankind. Given the proper tools of investigation can science investigate the phenomenon? Yes. Need those tools now exist? No.

But if not falsifiable, not science. I regard multiverse or parallel universe theories, in particular those with the 'infinite' qualifier, to not only be not observable, empirically testable or falsifiable, but not in any way valid science.

So, an intelligent designer can be shown to exist by using the scientific method. So tell us, how one would go about doing this. Just what tools and techniques of science would be best to investigate what characteristics of this designer?

I never stated that ID was about detecting, analyzing, quantifying, nor empirically testing the existence of an entity, only the verification (by statistical verification or falsification, or by well founded deduction), 'design inferences'. Not the designer(s), but the evidences of design. And that, my friend, properly done would constitute valid, empirical and forensic science.

I've heard the rebuttal, "Who designed the designer et al" (infinite regress), (David Hume et al), and the simple reply is ID is not about the designer or designers, but about detecting design inferences. A designer hypothesis could follow, but ID at this point does not address that. And again, forensic and dated/ historic or ancestral design inferences can be considered valid science unless perhaps, the design/ creative activities were of a miraculous nature, i.e. defying natural laws. There is no requirement that that be so. So at this stage at least, the hypothesis of tweaking genetic code, a guided process within the genome can be hypothesized to be non-supernatural.

So would this hypothesis be deemed heretical to the Christian perspective? Not necessarily, since God could have used natural means to create bio forms, and still be the author of and director of those events. ID investigations should in fact not seek to go further than design detection IMO, for the obvious reason of the preservation of sanctity and respect for our overseer. At that point, acknowledgment of a directed, purposeful existence could follow by logic, with acceptance of any chosen religious tenets and creeds being a a 'faith based' and personal agenda. Design verification would certainly lower the barriers to faith for many, but would not require it.

To conclude, I see why both scientists and religionists find fault with ID. But with the limits I have proposed, there is no harm to either camp. TE would still be valid, but would allow for intervention beyond presumably setting the stage and then leaving the theater. I therefore see no harm in allowing a pursuit of 'design detection'.

Or should we simply drop the subject, and accept 'hard' evolutionary theory as true, despite the undeniable evidences of intentionality and design?

 

[Lee Bowman]

Guess this is where we have some grounds in common. I too base my skepticism on the failure of current day claims, however these include the claims of the Christian religion, such as a loving god, peace on earth, and everlasting life.

I am a Christian (by choice), but do not accept much of the Old Testament as error free. It is seen via the 'man filter', however divinely inspired. A lack of scientific understanding, agenda (certain authors may have had one), testimony via oral tradition, and the numerous problems with language (not just translation, but colloquial and cultural use and abuse), bring on unavoidable errors. Even variations in our own understanding of the English language introduces errors in interpretation.

I accept the tenets of forgiveness and salvation, but have some doubts regarding "original sin", and that no physical death preceded the fall. But I am science based in my thinking, and therefore skeptical of certain imbued beliefs. If I get judged for that, so be it. But I do seek truth daily, not just via scripture, by by empirical means. That's just me, and I'm sure there are many more of the same accord.

So what's the alternative? Atheism or agnosticism? Sure, but rational thought taken to those extremes is simple denial of obvious truths. The details may be enigmatic, and difficult for the analytical mind to embrace, but not the conclusion.

"Regarding ignorance, we are all ignorant of much that resides in the physical world. But rather than saying, I guess God did it and letting it go on that note, design theorists don't stop there, at least the new crop of ID investigators"
​

And exactly what are these investigators actually investigating? And how about a link or two to them?

The ones I'm targeting (via 'rational thot' alone) are the new crop of scientists. If one out of 100 is convinced, they will be the ones to take to the particle accelerators and electron microscopes with an open mind on the subject of origins, and will carry the cross of design detection to wherever it leads.

 

[laconicstudent]

despite the undeniable evidences of intentionality and design?

Citation?

 

[Washington]

only the verification (by statistical verification or falsification, or by well founded deduction), 'design inferences'.

So it's inferred design by statistical verification OR deduction. And just what data do you suggest comprise this statistical verification? And just what form does your deduction take, which is falsifiable?

Not the designer(s), but the evidences of design.

So LGM stands as an equal possibility with Jehovah? Truly? Okay.

And that, my friend, properly done would constitute valid, empirical and forensic science.

No it wouldn't, but just so you know, the issue isn't that interesting, nor do I consider it important enough to spend time on, so I won't be explaining myself.

I've heard the rebuttal, "Who designed the designer et al" (infinite regress), (David Hume et al), and the simple reply is ID is not about the designer or designers, but about detecting design inferences.

Maybe in your circle of friends, but not in the wide wild world of intelligent design. But go ahead and redefine ID as you like, just don't try to pass it off as its true function. Above ALL ELSE the thrust and goal of ID is to disparage and kill off evolution. Period!

And again, forensic and dated/ historic or ancestral design inferences can be considered valid science unless perhaps, the design/ creative activities were of a miraculous nature, i.e. defying natural laws.

So, just what are these scientifically arrived at inferences? A citation of the relevant scientific work and publications would be appropriate here.

So would this hypothesis be deemed heretical to the Christian perspective? Not necessarily, since God could have used natural means to create bio forms, and still be the author of and director of those events.

As well as having used evolution as his tool of creating diversity, as many believers claim. Something that evolutionary theory has no quarrel with.

To conclude, I see why both scientists and religionists find fault with ID. But with the limits I have proposed, there is no harm to either camp.

Having redefined ID as you have, I too see no harm. For both scientists and those of faith I honestly don't think your form of ID will make much impact. Scientists will dismiss it as non-science, and some of the religious, seeing that it doesn't attack evolution with the ferocity they've come to expect, will dismiss it as an ineffectual weapon in their battle to protect their faith.(More to the point, the leaders of ID won't see it as the money maker that their current hysterics is)

Or should we simply drop the subject, and accept 'hard' evolutionary theory as true, despite the undeniable evidences of intentionality and design?

Spoken like a true ideologue. But, yes, I do think we should we simply drop the subject and accept 'hard' evolutionary theory as true.

So what's the alternative? Atheism or agnosticism? Sure, but rational thought taken to those extremes is simple denial of obvious truths. The details may be enigmatic, and difficult for the analytical mind to embrace, but not the conclusion.

As you can tell, I've found agnosticism to be the best alternative. While in some ways it's not as satisfactory as having a firm conviction one way or the other, I've found a satisfaction in being true to my approach to life: unless you can convince me beyond a reasonable doubt don't expect me to buy. And, of course, those truths that are so obvious to you are not so obvious to me. I guess I've come to the position I have by refusing to allow my emotions and psychic needs to influence my consideration of what is most likely true.

 

[sfs]

Some theories or hypotheses can be falsified, some cannot. And Karl Popper admitted as much.

Popper's belief that falsification was central to demarcating science has largely been discredited in the philosophy of science, I believe. Some sort of testability for scientific hypotheses, using empirical data, does still seem to be central to the scientific enterprise, however.

You buy the conclusion by some that all scientific theories are falsifiable? How would you falsify the Big Bang,

The Big Bang has already passed important empirical tests. Had there been no cosmic background radiation, or had it not had anything like a black body spectrum, or had the cosmic abundances of light elements been very different, the Big Bang would likely have been rejected.

Multiverse Theory, or the various quantum theories?

Those aren't normally considered scientific theories, but rather different interpretations. Physicists are generally aware of what can be tested empirically and what can't, and they do make the distinction between theory and interpretation.

 

[sfs]

Although I still feel that adaptive genetic variants may be resident to a degree for some traits (pigmentation, hair and fur charateristics, bone struture variants, cephalic index variations, and beak size),

You might note the strong evidence that genetic variants yielding adaptive changes to human pigmentation arose by mutation (rather than standing variation). Why do you feel that such variants are "resident", rather than arising by mutation? Are any of them the sort of thing that would be unlikely to arise by mutation? If the genetic differences can easily be produced by mutation, and we know that mutation occurs frequently, why the feeling that some other mechanism is involved?

Given the complexity and sophistication of these proceses, it almost appears that bacteria were 'designed' to survive to the end. Since DNA/RNA, yeast, fungi and monocellulars appear designed at stage one, could they ultimately survive to the final stage?

"Almost appears" designed is not a scientific argument, of course. I'm still looking for some concrete evidence, or the deductive arguments you have mentioned, in favor of design.

Or does this merely substantiate my tentative conclusion (based on observation) that earthly biologic existence was intended to be competetive and combative?

Does what substantiate your conclusion? Could you be less vague?

 

[Lee Bowman]

"Given the complexity and sophistication of these proceses, it almost appears that bacteria were 'designed' to survive to the end. Since DNA/RNA, yeast, fungi and monocellulars appear designed at stage one, could they ultimately survive to the final stage?"
​

"Almost appears" designed is not a scientific argument, of course. I'm still looking for some concrete evidence, or the deductive arguments you have mentioned, in favor of design.

"Or does this merely substantiate my tentative conclusion (based on observation) that earthly biologic existence was intended to be competetive and combative?"
​

Does what substantiate your conclusion? Could you be less vague?

My point about bacteria was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. In the previous comment, I had mentioned their virulence and that drug-resistance was becoming endemic and killing off the population.

So here, I conjectured that bacterium might win out in the end, returning us to a monocellular realm. That was more humor than reality. However, my tentative 'conclusion' that earthly life was meant to be "challenging and combative" is indeed substantiated by many problems, increasing antibiotic resistance of bacteria being the one mentioned here.

 

[sandwiches]

My point about bacteria was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. In the previous comment, I had mentioned their virulence and that drug-resistance was becoming endemic and killing off the population.

So here, I conjectured that bacterium might win out in the end, returning us to a monocellular realm. That was more humor than reality. However, my tentative 'conclusion' that earthly life was meant to be "challenging and combative" is indeed substantiated by many problems, increasing antibiotic resistance of bacteria being the one mentioned here.

So, your idea is that life is tough on Earth?? What made think that? The fact that life is tough on Earth?

If you're implying intelligent, deliberate intent behind the natural fight for sutrvival, there's nothing that empirically indicates that, only speculation and opinion.

 

[Lee Bowman]

If you're implying intelligent, deliberate intent behind the natural fight for sutrvival, there's nothing that empirically indicates that, only speculation and opinion.

That's why I termed it 'tentative'. The question of theodicy has irked theologians from the beginning of recorded history to present day. I don't claim to have the answer, but my guess is that it is intentional, and more the result of imbued free will than of 'original sin'.

 

[sfs]

However, my tentative 'conclusion' that earthly life was meant to be "challenging and combative" is indeed substantiated by many problems, increasing antibiotic resistance of bacteria being the one mentioned here.

But where's the substantiation that earthly life was designed at all, for any purpose?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

It was "meant to be be" because it is? The anthropic principle does not impress me, and is a logical fallacy.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

yeah I love how the Original post is now ignored for an "ID Sucks" party.

Any examples of these Emeritus profs who are no longer afraid for their funding and job and admit to ID?

That's not something to brag about... endorsing the sort of bullying that causes people to fear for their jobs because they disagree with a consensus is despicable. Don't give me any "oh but ID is just religion" nonsense... if someone can earn their way to the position of an Emeritus prof, then presumably, their opinons have allowed them to be useful enough to do so, and they are likely intelligent enough to have good reasons for thinking as they do. That said, why should we punish them for speaking their mind? Even if you disagree with them and are going to continue to be pushy about how obviously stupid you think their opinions are, you would be nothing but a bigot if you rail on religion for forcibly silencing opposition (as if that were somehow its prime characteristic) then do the same thing yourself.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

It was "meant to be be" because it is? The anthropic principle does not impress me, and is a logical fallacy.

No its not. In my experience, the arguments that allegedly debunk it tend to be fallacious or they ignore either the scope, or other important characteristics of the argument itself.

 

[Split Rock]

That's not something to brag about... endorsing the sort of bullying that causes people to fear for their jobs because they disagree with a consensus is despicable.

When did I endorse such behavior? I mearly asked for some examples, because frankly, I don't buy that it happens. Ben Stein's movie, for example, is supposed to provide such examples, but they were grossly misportrayed in the movie.

Don't give me any "oh but ID is just religion" nonsense... if someone can earn their way to the position of an Emeritus prof, then presumably, their opinons have allowed them to be useful enough to do so, and they are likely intelligent enough to have good reasons for thinking as they do. That said, why should we punish them for speaking their mind?

The courts have established that I.D. is a form of creationism. That said, if anyone can come up with a scientific hypothesis or theory that predicts intelligent design, that would be great. Should people be punished for speaking their mind? No. Show me a real example of this, and we can discuss it.

Even if you disagree with them and are going to continue to be pushy about how obviously stupid you think their opinions are, you would be nothing but a bigot if you rail on religion for forcibly silencing opposition (as if that were somehow its prime characteristic) then do the same thing yourself.

Again, I am not promoting stiffling of free speech. I was asking for examples of the assertions of the ID camp, that they are indeed, being silenced.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Sorry SR I misread you.

No one has an opinion on the Altenberg 16's criticism of the mechanism of evolution?

 

[Lee Bowman]

The courts have established that I.D. is a form of creationism.

The second part of the Dover Kitzmiller decision sided with the Plaintiff's position that ID is 'Creationism in a cheap tuxedo', basing it on several of NCSE shills' testimony, by some unfounded IC (irreducible complexity) refutations by Kenneth Miller, and by drivel by Robert Pennock, John Haught, and Brian Alters.

Defense witnesses were sparse, and the defense team was lax in objecting to 'leading the witness' during Michael Behe's testimony (several key instances), and objecting to theatrics, (a stack of literature placed where Behe had to crane his neck to peer around it. The literature was not proof of anything conclusive [no actual citations], but merely a Comedy Central type put-on. It elicited giggles from the audience, and a smile from the judge).

Judge Jones, who has admitted in interviews to having no prior biology knowlege, or familiarity with IDs actual proposals, received his science education in the courtroom.

Further, he based his decision on the actions of a religiously oriented school board, themselves unfamiliar with ID. In addition, the bogus 'ID is Creationism' edict only applies to the Dover school district.

And yet, many (you included) give that decision credence as valid, authorative and universally applicable!? Au contraire mon ami, rather, it is an ipso facto argument from authority, with no substance whatsoever.

That said, if anyone can come up with a scientific hypothesis or theory that predicts intelligent design, that would be great. Should people be punished for speaking their mind? No. Show me a real example of this, and we can discuss it.

A reviewer of the book 'Slaughter of the Dissidents' by By Prof. Jerry Bergman, cites a few examples from the book:

* The noted astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe, no creationist himself, nevertheless spoke out in favor of two-model teaching, and in return he received death threats and "chilling letters and taped telephone calls for months." (The quote is from Discover Magazine, hardly a bastion of creationist bias.)

* One of Tom Jungmann's professors at San Jose State wrote in a letter of reference (accidentally mailed to Jungmann), that "since he did not believe in evolution, and had other associated religious constraints" he had been required to do additional work for his Master's degree in biology, and was not recommended for Ph.D. studies, in spite of excellent work in his Master's degree program.

* Professor John W. Patterson at Iowa State University "actually believes that it is the university's responsibility to terminate creationists and rescind their degrees! Even students with excellent grades who produce highly regarded work should be denied their degree ... and should be expelled from the university if it is discovered that they are Darwin skeptics."

* A highly regarded seminar on the interaction of religion and faith, led by Dr. Richard Bube at Stanford, was found to be unsuitable because "it openly discussed the `relationship between only the Judeo-Christian religion and science.'" A departmental committee decided that "only a `critical examination of the religious perspectives was permissible.'"

* Professor Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University began to doubt that the chemical evolution theory, on which he had co-authored a college textbook, was adequate to explain the origin of life. For this he was dubbed a "creationist." His department chair told him, "I order you not to discuss creationism in your class. You can regard that as a direct order!" Kenyon asked him to define what he meant by creationism, and got only a vague reply. (Sounds familiar.)

Then there's this: Search 'california science center' and 'lawsuit'.

Again, I am not promoting stiffling of free speech. I was asking for examples of the assertions of the ID camp, that they are indeed, being silenced.

The science and academic community has indeed instituted a fascist campaign to stifle criticism of the naturalistic paradigm of natural selection. This is the true 'science stopper', rather than the hypothesis that evolutionary processes were intervened with (data added), by the directed action of one or more intelligences over vast time.

I'm curious as to which 'side' you side with?

 

[Lee Bowman]

Sorry SR I misread you.

No one has an opinion on the Altenberg 16's criticism of the mechanism of evolution?

They haven't released an official position yet, or a revised TEO proposal. Keep in mind the political pressure that these scientists are under, and what they will likely face if they dissent to a degree deemed unacceptable by their peers and regulatory organizations (AAAS, NAS, NIH), or by political activists like the NCSE.

I predict that their voiced opinions will be moderate, perhaps even restrained, due to fears of reprisals. Moreover, I would conjecture that there is not even universal agreement within the group, making a TEO revision proposal even more difficult.

Suzan Mazurs book may reveal what the group declines to admit publicly.