"ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel"

[In situ]

I am watching a youtube video with the provocative title "ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel".

At 22:26 the ID panel was asked why a Darwinian research approach should be given up in favor for an ID approach. Before that (from 16:24 and forward) the ID panel was presented with example research results by the Darwinian approach on (claimed) irreducible complex system. As answer, an almost 15 minutes long criticism of the Darwinian research result was done by Michael Behe.

The question was reformulated at 36:11, and the ID panel was again confronted on what research and data the ID approach have produced. Steven Meyer answered this by saying "that is your research program ... go for it, we love it, but we got a different research program ... we should not stop doing what we are doing".

That is all fine and well, but what research is the ID movement doing then and why should we prefer the ID approach? That question was left unanswered by both Behe and Meyer. I have to say, I find their respond, not only empty worded, but very embarrassing beyond words to express.

Why did Behe and Meyer not answer a direct question, when they had the chance to explain for everyone what ID research is about, but instead decided to make a lengthy criticism to the Darwinian research approach?

May the answer be that ID does not do any research and as such got no data to present, instead all ID got, and does, is criticism of current knowledge gaps in the Darwinian approach? This would then be the old "god of the gaps" fallacy. As such Meyer and Behe can keep play their (pseudoscientific) rhetoric argumentation game forever since there will always be gaps in our knowledge they can fall back to - as Behe clearly demonstrated when he conceded there might exists a function for the parts of an irreducible complex system but still maintains the idea the system is irreducible complex since he now turn to claim there is no viable evolutionary path in where the parts possible can come together to form the system. Thus the games of the god of the gaps goes one....

 

[SkyWriting]

I am watching a youtube video with the provocative title "ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel".

I bought some of those Giant ID wipes for my floor. They work great!

 

[In situ]

I bought some of those Giant ID wipes for my floor. They work great!

And your point is?

 

[Papias]

... ID does not do any research and as such got no data to present, instead all ID got, and does, is criticism of current knowledge gaps in the Darwinian approach? This would then be the old "god of the gaps" fallacy. As such Meyer and Behe can keep play their (pseudoscientific) rhetoric argumentation game forever ...

Right.

It is worth noting that “irreducible complexity” is not evidence against evolution. ID is of course based in IC, or “irreducible complexity” (that something is IC if removing any part makes it nonfunctional, and that IC proves that the thing was designed and could not evolve). But it ignores the fact that evolution often *removes* parts. Thus evolution builds things up part by part, then, when the system no longer needs former parts, removes them. Thus making a system that you can't get to by just *adding* parts.

In fact, based on evolution, the scientist Hermann Mueller predicted IC (he called it “interlocking complexity”) in 1939. He predicted that evolution would result in many IC systems, and that the fact that they would cease to function if one part were removed would be evidence that they evolved. The evolutionary origin of something that ceases to function if one part is removed is easy to understand. Hmmm, easy example…

Imagine a fishapod that gets it’s oxygen through gills. Now put that fishapod in low oxygen, stagnant waters, where it can get enough oxygen to live, but not enough to exercise strenuously. Then allow an internal sac to evolve into a lung, by which it can gasp air and get a little additional oxygen. The selective advantage of this is that even a poor lung gets the animal at least a little more oxygen than the gills alone supplied. As the lung evolves to be more efficient, soon the fishapod can venture onto land for short periods of time using the lung for oxygen. It (well, it’s descendants) evolve to get their oxygen from the lung, and the gills evolve away. Now its respiratory system is irreducibly complex, because removing the lung renders it unable to breathe. The simple way to remember this process is “add a part, then make that part necessary”. Because evolutionary routes can often easily be seen for interlocking complex systems, IC often provides evidence for evolution, not for ID.

This works very well to explain the evolution of the blood clotting cascade or the Krebs cycle, and there are plenty of well established ways that evolution can result in something that is irreducibly complex or interlockingly complex (to use the original term). Some of these are duplication, dual use (use the same thing for two functions), the gradual perfection of a functioning part, deletion of a part, and so on. Some biological systems are indeed IC, and that does more to provide evidence for evolution than design, because after all, if one were to design a robust system, isn’t it a better design if it can survive the loss of one part (functional redundancy)? On a side note, the bacterial flagellum isn’t even an example of IC, because examples of bacterial flagellum exist with some of the parts missing, and they still work.

And of course, disproving a competing hypothesis, is NOT THE SAME as providing evidence FOR the ID hypothesis. To provide evidence for the ID hypothesis, look for evidence that it WAS designed, such as a little “made by god” nano-sized written stamps, or a written revelation that describes the nanoscale bacterial design dated to 3,000 years before humans could have developed that idea, or some other positive evidence. Showing evidence that a competing hypothesis (evolution) is wrong is NOT evidence for the chosen hypothesis (design by a god). Creationists mislead (intentionally or not, I don’t know) when they present evidence against evolution as evidence for creationism. Even if it is very good evidence against evolution, that’s all it is.


ID boils down to the argument from incredulity, which is “because I can’t see how (whatever) could have evolved, it must have been created". Simple reflection shows that this is the same as saying “because I don’t understand biology, you must accept that creationism is true.”.

Papias

 

[Atheos canadensis]

And your point is?

Pretty sure the point was humour.

 

[In situ]

And of course, disproving a competing hypothesis, is NOT THE SAME as providing evidence FOR the ID hypothesis.

And yet that is was ID people only do all the time. This strategic became very apparent in this panel discussion when the top ID scientist had to explain what "research" they are doing and what result they have achieved. And the answer (after 15 minutes rambling) was; yes we do research - just believe us on our words we do it! (That is: ID research got nothing).

It is an embarrassing answer in particular as it comes from people who are the "top" scientist of ID and as well are Christians...

 

[In situ]

Pretty sure the point was humour.

That did not escape me. Still I fail to to see in what direction the joke is intended. Thus my question remains.

 

[HitchSlap]

As such Meyer and Behe can keep play their (pseudoscientific) rhetoric argumentation game forever since there will always be gaps in our knowledge they can fall back to - as Behe clearly demonstrated when he conceded there might exists a function for the parts of an irreducible complex system but still maintains the idea the system is irreducible complex since he now turn to claim there is no viable evolutionary path in where the parts possible can come together to form the system. Thus the games of the god of the gaps goes one....

Was this video shot before, or after, he had his lunch handed to Behe in the courtroom?

 

[In situ]

Was this video shot before, or after, he had his lunch handed to Behe in the courtroom?

I would guess afterwards, since I believe Ken Miller made his case with the mouse trap in the court at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case (by wearing a mouse trap as clipper for his tie).

 

[HitchSlap]

I would guess afterwards, since I believe Ken Miller made his case with the mouse trap in the court at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case (by wearing a mouse trap as clipper for his tie).

Yes, indeed. It seems that Behe hasn't moved on from having to admit that under his definition of science/ID, astrology would have to be included as a discipline.

Meh, let me know when the DI actually "discovers" something, and stops letting real scientists do all the heavy lifting only to slide in Tom Cruise style, ala "Risky Business," and vomit "goddidit" over everything.

 

[In situ]

Yes, indeed. It seems that Behe hasn't moved on from having to admit that under his definition of science/ID, astrology would have to be included as a discipline.

Behe haven't elaborated his argument beyond that which he had in his book Darwin's Black Box. What he does now is ad hoc to defend that which reasonable cannot be defended.

Behe is molecularbiology's respond to the paleornitholgist Alan Fedduccia's never ending rhetoric about an archosaur origin of birds: despite tons of evidence to the contrary which shows bird falls well inside the therapod group Fedduccia instead completely turns around from super duper convergent evolution of dromaeosaurids and birds to instead claim dromaeosaurids are birds as well just for the sole purpose to be able to keep argue for an archosaur origin of birds - because it must be so. In the same fashion Behe argues; anything that once been stated to be irreducible complex will forever be argued to be irreducible complex, no matter the evidence against it (because extended evolution is implausible per unspoken presupposition by ID advocates).

The learning lesson from this is that none of us are immune to cognitive bias and it can play tricks on our mind, even though you posses a good education and should know better.

Meh, let me know when the DI actually "discovers" something

Sorry to had dissappointed you with the title...

 

[SkyWriting]

And your point is?

Admired by the ladies.

 

[In situ]

Admired by the ladies.

Are you saying you are not interested to contribute to the discussion but just trash posting?

 

[SkyWriting]

The learning lesson from this is that none of us are immune to cognitive bias and it can play tricks on our mind, even though you posses a good education and should know bette

Past events are always a matter of Faith.
Past events cannot be observed,
cannot be predicted or deduced
from physical evidence, and
cannot be tested experimentally.

First of all, one cannot observe the past. Items in the past may be remembered by some, but they cannot be seen, smelled, heard, tasted, or sensed in any way. Observation is an activity in the present that requires the use of the senses.

Secondly, one cannot predict the past. Prediction is an activity in the present that looks to the future, not the past. An attempt to use the scientific method to determine what happened in the past would be “retrodiction.” “Retrodiction” is a neologism for good reason: science cannot “retrodict.”

Thirdly, one cannot design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. Experiments or controlled observations might help one see if a situation is possible or not possible under a set of defined circumstances, but one cannot design an experiment that will replicate the complex variety of conditions that existed in the past — conditions that are often not known in full detail. An experiment or set of controlled observations also cannot provide information about the order and timing of past events.

 

[SkyWriting]

Are you saying you are not interested to contribute to the discussion but just trash posting?

I always post what I wish, and enough of what others want.
What you respond with is the amusement.

 

[Mark Stacy]

ID fools a lot of people and makes a lot of money for others.

TV evangelists in the US should be run out of town but what happens? they are looked up to and seen as successful people.

 

[SkyWriting]

ID fools a lot of people and makes a lot of money for others.

TV evangelists in the US should be run out of town but what happens? they are looked up to and seen as successful people.

I rarely even give them a second thought.

 

[Jimmy D]

Past events are always a matter of Faith.
Past events cannot be observed,
cannot be predicted or deduced
from physical evidence, and
cannot be tested experimentally.

First of all, one cannot observe the past. Items in the past may be remembered by some, but they cannot be seen, smelled, heard, tasted, or sensed in any way. Observation is an activity in the present that requires the use of the senses.

Secondly, one cannot predict the past. Prediction is an activity in the present that looks to the future, not the past. An attempt to use the scientific method to determine what happened in the past would be “retrodiction.” “Retrodiction” is a neologism for good reason: science cannot “retrodict.”

Thirdly, one cannot design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. Experiments or controlled observations might help one see if a situation is possible or not possible under a set of defined circumstances, but one cannot design an experiment that will replicate the complex variety of conditions that existed in the past — conditions that are often not known in full detail. An experiment or set of controlled observations also cannot provide information about the order and timing of past events.

Yes, yes, your favourite article. This discussion is about ID not how the scientific method should be applied to forensic science. Besides, as your article says...

Science is, or should be, about the truth. Truth in its abstract, spiritual or metaphysical forms is important, but science deals only with empirical truth. The scientific method has proven itself over time to be a reliable way to arrive at real, measurable, observable truth.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, yes, your favourite article.
Science is, or should be, about the truth. Truth in its abstract, spiritual or metaphysical forms is important, but science deals only with empirical truth. The scientific method has proven itself over time to be a reliable way to arrive at real, measurable, observable truth.

For good reason. No points made there are in dispute.
The past is not measurable, repeatable, or observable.
The only thing scientific about the past is the spiral
bound notebook used for recording history.

 

[Jimmy D]

For good reason. No points made there are in dispute.
The past is not measurable, repeatable, or observable.
The only thing scientific about the past is the spiral
bound notebook used for recording history.

I observe that yesterday at 7.57 PM (gmt) you made an 'humorous' post about giant wipes.