Evidence of design

[sfs]

Is a theory determined by some objective standard or whether random people on the internet understand it?

"Presents a coherent argument" is an objective standard. What you quoted failed to meet that standard.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You reject it because it is a religion?

No, that's not what I said.
You might want to read it again.

Is using known forces now in operation to explain past events an argument from ignorance?

I have no idea what you are talking about

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The theory of evolution and intelligent design theory aren't mutually exclusive. That doesnt support your claim ID has been falsified and Behe said so. Still waiting to see where Behe said that.

Read the transcript of the Dover case. It's easy to find with a quick google search.
In it Behe, under oath, admitted (among many other things) that if ID is a scientific idea, then so is astrology.

Take a hint.

 

[Loudmouth]

So it can be shown from slight successive steps that those gears appeared on a planthoppers legs?

We can show slight successive steps which produced the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

 

[Kylie]

Read the transcript of the Dover case. It's easy to find with a quick google search.
In it Behe, under oath, admitted (among many other things) that if ID is a scientific idea, then so is astrology.

Take a hint.

And here it is:

5 Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your
6 testimony over the last two days, you used a looser
7 definition of "theory," correct?
8 A I think I used a broader definition, which is more
9 reflective of how the word is actually used in the
10 scientific community.
11 Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said
12 it s just based on your own experience; it s not a
13 dictionary definition, it s not one issued by a scientific
14 organization.
15 A It is based on my experience of how the word is
16 used in the scientific community.
17 Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader
18 than the NAS definition?
19 A That s right, intentionally broader to encompass
20 the way that the word is used in the scientific community.
21 Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.
22 A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more
23 broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.
24 Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is
25 synonymous with hypothesis, correct?
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
BEHE - CROSS
38
1 A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it
2 can also include the National Academy s definition. But in
3 fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in
4 many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other
5 times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition
6 reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses
7 it in other ways.
8 Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the
9 definition of hypothesis?
10 A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover
11 hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact
12 well substantiated and so on. So while it does include
13 ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also
14 includes stronger senses of that term.
15 Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a
16 scientific theory, correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Under that same definition astrology is a
19 scientific theory under your definition, correct?
20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a
21 proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical,
22 observable data and logical inferences. There are many
23 things throughout the history of science which we now think
24 to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which
25 would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one,
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
BEHE - CROSS
39
1 and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and
2 many other -- many other theories as well.

And the source for that is here: https://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/trial_transcripts/2005_1018_day11_pm.pdf

You can read the rest of the transcripts, from the other sessions and other days, here: https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts

 

[Vaccine]

And which article was that? I don't recall you linking to an article.

In any case, let me guess. The article was not written by a scientists, but by a journalist who only used the term "gears" as a shorthand way of providing a description which would be readily understandable by the average Joe Schmuck reading it.

It was written by a scientist. They used the term gears.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6151/1254

 

[Vaccine]

Have you read his testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover?

Yes. It doesn't support your claim "falsified by Behe's own standard, which he has conceded to".

He's been vindicated though:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...-to-flagellum-evolutionary-narrative-refuted/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...more-embarrassing-facts-behes-dbb-vindicated/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe087901.html

 

[Vaccine]

I meant what I said. You stated a hypothesis and offered absolutely nothing in support of it. The hypothesis was, "if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI". You go on to propose ways of finding CSI, but offer no support for the actual hypothesis, which is that designed object always have high levels of CSI.

What you said was basically you don't understand the terms which isn't a valid objection to a theory. Imagine the absurdity of someone saying I object to natural selection because how is 'nature' capable of 'selecting' something. Or that a gene can't actually 'drift'. Or that there's no logical connection between selection pressure and natural selection. Natural selection, selection pressure, and genetic drift are real. It's just a childish objection claiming the terms like 'specified' make no sense.

Irreducible complexity and specified complexity remain reliable tests for design. Behe identified several irreducibly complex structures. And Meyer identified the coded information necessary for the origin of life as specified complexity.

 

[Vaccine]

I don't see why not. I suggested a couple of potential starting points earlier; it doesn't take much imagination to see how successive improvements could be made - but if I couldn't, or if nobody could, it wouldn't mean they could not evolve.

But claiming an inexplicable cause for which there is no evidence, such as magic, pixies, God, spirits, or energy beings from another dimension, is never justifiable.

A starting point and Darwinblather doesn't show slight successive steps to accomplishing gears.
We observe gears are the products of intelligence.
Which is more parsimonious, the explanation that requires imagination, or an inference based on direct observation?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We observe gears are the products of intelligence.

I'm not interested in your semantic 'just so' story. I'm still waiting for a response to my question in post #89. Just calling something 'gears' does not make it a product of intelligence, any more than saying that burrs are plant versions of Velcrotm means they're made in a factory.

Which is more parsimonious, the explanation that requires imagination, or an inference based on direct observation?

Hmm... so that would be the use of some imagination to apply a simple principle VS a fallacious inference that implies an inexplicable intelligence that raises more (unanswerable) questions that it answers. Tricky one...

 

[sfs]

What you said was basically you don't understand the terms which isn't a valid objection to a theory.

I said nothing of the sort. If you are unable to respond to my post, just say so. Replacing what I actually said with something you wish I'd said does no good at all.

Try it one more time. Your hypothesis is that designed objects always have high levels of CSI. What reason do you have for thinking that hypothesis is true? I'm not asking for how you figure out whether something has CSI or not; I'm asking what the evidence is that CSI is a characteristic of designed objects. (I'd also like to know why CSI is a characteristic only of designed objects, but first things first.)

It's just a childish objection claiming the terms like 'specified' make no sense.

Again, why are you responding to statements I didn't make? I didn't say "specified" makes no sense as a term. I said there are no experimental tests for whether something is specified.

Irreducible complexity and specified complexity remain reliable tests for design.

So you claim, and yet you are unable to offer any support for your claim whatever. Why exactly am I supposed to be taking this argument seriously?

 

[Kylie]

It was written by a scientist. They used the term gears.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6151/1254

Ah, cool.

Still doesn't mean that all gears must be designed.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes. It doesn't support your claim "falsified by Behe's own standard, which he has conceded to".

He's been vindicated though:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...-to-flagellum-evolutionary-narrative-refuted/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...more-embarrassing-facts-behes-dbb-vindicated/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe087901.html

My Goodness! I am completely overwhelmed. I almost have to admit that God is the incompetent tinkerer you envisage. But not quite. I believe I will stick for a while yet with my God, who created the universe in all its glory and who doesn't have to fuss periodically with various biological structures to make them work properly. I know you think I'm just fooling myself, but there it is.

 

[mzungu]

In the Dover trial, evidence found from the Discovery institute proved that ID was nothing more than Creationism in disguise.
ID cannot be a scientific theory simply because it lacks a Theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the Dover trial, evidence found from the Discovery institute proved that ID was nothing more than Creationism in disguise.

Negatory.

Not Creationism ... Intelligent Design.

 

[mzungu]

Negatory.

Not Creationism ... Intelligent Design.

AV, I know you did not watch the video but perhaps you can access the court transcripts and see for yourself the irrefutable evidence that shows how the Discovery institute merely supplanted the word creationism with ID in the book Of Pandas and People.
Of course you are entitled to believe what you may but does not truth matter?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, I know you did not watch the video ...

You post a 1 hour and 51 minute video and expect me to watch it.

I mean ... really?

... but perhaps you can access the court transcripts and see for yourself the irrefutable evidence that shows how the Discovery institute merely supplanted the word creationism with ID in the book Of Pandas and People.

Are these the same courts that got the Bible kicked out of school and the Ten Commandments removed from our courthouse lawns?

 

[Speedwell]

I mean ... really?Are these the same courts that got the Bible kicked out of school and the Ten Commandments removed from our courthouse lawns?

Yes. The courts that got Fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study kicked out of the schools and a Ten Commandments monument put up by a judge who declared that all other kinds of Christianity were crap taken off his courthouse lawn. Well played, I'd say.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. The courts that got Fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study kicked out of the schools and a Ten Commandments monument put up by a judge who declared that all other kinds of Christianity were crap taken off his courthouse lawn. Well played, I'd say.

The can do what they're programmed to do for all I care.

But if they think I'm going to accept Intelligent Design as Creationism in my heart, they can think twice.

 

[mzungu]

You post a 1 hour and 51 minute video and expect me to watch it.

I mean ... really?Are these the same courts that got the Bible kicked out of school and the Ten Commandments removed from our courthouse lawns?

The presiding judge was one appointed by President Bush and this judge was a creationist.
If the truth really matters to you then please do take the time to watch the video. It is not an attack on Christianity but a documentation of how some people professing to be Christians could stoop so low as to masquerade their agenda with falsehoods in order to deceive.
If however you decide not to watch it then it matters little as the truth did prevail and those people were exposed.