Prove it or remove it challenge

[Paterfamilia]

So instead of addressing his arguments, you resort to ad-hominem. You got the thread closed for review last time you went this route.

This was in regard to my saying that Ken Miller is an ideologue huckster.

I do (with reservations) withdraw and apologize for that characterization. I will address his arguments when it seems appropriate and timely.

In review of what he says in a variety of sources, he seems like a good man and a good scientist, with a couple of glaring (and inexplicable) exceptions.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Hypnotized by the flashing lights ha ha! If I stare at them long enough will I be convinced to believe in "the force"?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

How could I have been shown to be in error about irreducible complexity when you havent even told us what you think irreducible complexity is?

Well, you seem to admire Behe. Is it safe to assume that you agree with his definition if irreducible complexity? If so, he was shown to be in error. Do you have a specific definition of IC in the context of biology? If so, please present it. IC is a PRATT argument, but i'm interested if you have a different definition.

 

[Paterfamilia]

"ID is thus not merely a negative argument against evolution but is based upon finding in nature the types of complexity which in our experience derive from intelligent causes.

Stephen Meyer makes this point clear in a scientific paper published in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington: “Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent.”

This specified complexity, also called complex and specified information (CSI), is a tell-tale indicator that intelligence was at work. Meyer explains why this makes for a positive—not negative—argument for design: “by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation.”

In addition, design theorists do not limit or identify the causal entity. In other words, there is no direct invocation of a particular deity, or any deity at all.

Coulda been aliens.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Well, you seem to admire Behe. Is it safe to assume that you agree with his definition if irreducible complexity? If so, he was shown to be in error. Do you have a specific definition of IC in the context of biology? If so, please present it. IC is a PRATT argument, but i'm interested if you have a different definition.

Would you mind citing your source for the debunking of Behe's definition?

If it's the Dover trial, then the answer is that the Dover ruling was made against a strawman. That's the primary objection to the outcome. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Dover should have never happened. Zealots pushed for ID in the schools too soon, and Jones made the politic decision that he had to make. He had to rule against the strawman characiture that the plaintiffs presented.

What is PRATT please? I am not familiar with that.

 

[Nithavela]

Would you mind citing your source for the debunking of Behe's definition?

If it's the Dover trial, then the answer is that the Dover ruling was made against a strawman. That's the primary objection to the outcome. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Dover should have never happened. Zealots pushed for ID in the schools too soon, and Jones made the politic decision that he had to make. He had to rule against the strawman characiture that the plaintiffs presented.

What is PRATT please? I am not familiar with that.

Point Refuted A Thousand Times

It's a usual acronym on this board, made for many arguments, most of which have been done a lot of times. You are trotting them out by the dozen.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Would you mind citing your source for the debunking of Behe's definition?

Let's go right to Ken Miller. I will link the entire article and you can pick anything out of it that you think has been refuted.

"the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum – the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life".

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

If it's the Dover trial, then the answer is that the Dover ruling was made against a strawman.

What is the strawman? The Dover case was ID arguing that ID is a viable scientific theory and should be taught along side evolution. It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that ID is NOT scientific. Sorry, you lost.......in embarrassing fashion and have lost many other cases as well.

Zealots pushed for ID in the schools too soon.

Wouldn't have mattered when they would have pushed for it, they would have lost either way. It's NOT science. That was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of law. It is also a violation of the establishment clause and is creationism in different clothing.

and Jones made the politic decision that he had to make.

Because ID is wrong. He saw the evidence and made the correct ruling.

What is PRATT please? I am not familiar with that.

Previously Refuted A Thousand Times. Irreducible complexity is a PRATT. Would you care to present a new argument?

 

[Paterfamilia]

My beef with Ken Miller, and the strawman that was ID at Dover:

"At the Dover trial, Ken Miller asserted under oath that intelligent design is merely “a negative argument against evolution” which requires an appeal to the supernatural: “It is what a philosopher might call the argument from ignorance, which is to say that, because we don't understand something, we assume we never will, and therefore we can invoke a cause outside of nature, a supernatural creator or supernatural designer.”6 Dr. Miller even stated this holds true in all cases: “The evidence is always negative, and it basically says, if evolution is incorrect, the answer must be design.”"

It's hard to describe his testimony as anything other than perjury. He is certainly an intelligent guy, and would know that his rendition does not match contemporary ID theory.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Let's go right to Ken Miller.

Previously Refuted A Thousand Times. Irreducible complexity is a PRATT. Would you care to present a new argument?

I already did.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Negative strawman definition of ID - "We can't explain the diversity of life on earth through Darwinian processes. Therefore, the God of the bible must have created everything that has been created in six days". As a result, please put a full stop any further scientific inquiry; we have all the answers we need.

The bold part is where Ken Miller and most others really get stupid, which is why I called him an ideologue huckster. Get him in a church parking lot and he sings a different song. He seems like a good guy otherwise.

---------------------------
Real definition of ID - DNA (and other things) manifest specified complex coded system arrangements that store and/or communicate information. By our repeated and uniform experience (without exception) specified coded information originates from intelligence.

 

[Hoghead1]

It appears, Paterfamilia, that ID people are very contradictory. On one hand the universe is designed by some sort of intelligent mind. On the other, they see no need for God. They say they don't want to speculate on the nature of the cause, but they have already defined it as having intelligence. Anyone can plainly see this doesn't make sense. Also, it is not necessary the case that evolution denies the existence of God. For example, I believe that it is God who makes possible evolution.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I already did.

What post #?

Negative strawman definition of ID - "We can't explain the diversity of life on earth through Darwinian processes. Therefore, the God of the bible must have created everything that has been created in six days". As a result, please put a full stop any further scientific inquiry; we have all the answers we need.

How is it a strawman when Barbara Forest demonstrated in her testimony that the words "creationism" were changed to "intelligent design" to hide their true agenda?
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/forrests-testimony-creationism-id

How about a quote from the judge: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.''

The bold part is where Ken Miller and most others really get stupid, which is why I called him an ideologue huckster. Get him in a church parking lot and he sings a different song. He seems like a good guy otherwise.

Here you go again, attacking someone instead of their arguments. This is a terrible habit you have. You should really work on it. Please address Ken Miller's or anyone else's arguments and not your opinion of their character.

Real definition of ID - DNA (and other things) manifest specified complex coded system arrangements that store and/or communicate information. By our repeated and uniform experience (without exception) specified coded information originates from intelligence.

And what tests were run to confirm this hypothesis? What falsifiable test was run against it to make sure you weren't wrong? How many scientific peer reviewed journals have been published on this? How many times have they been cited in other papers? The answer is zero.

This is why it's NOT science. Your hypothesis is not testable and therefore has no explanatory power and cannot make predictions about the natural world.

 

[Paterfamilia]

It appears, Paterfamilia, that ID people are very contradictory. On one hand the universe is designed by some sort of intelligent mind. On the other, they see no need for God. They say they don't want to speculate on the nature of the cause, but they have already defined it as having intelligence. Anyone can plainly see this doesn't make sense. Also, it is not necessary the case that evolution denies the existence of God. For example, I believe that it is God who makes possible evolution.

Well you could say that. However, since panspermia is an option championed by none other than Francis Crick, it can't be excluded as a possibility.

No one says they see no need for God, and I didn't say that. It's very disappointing that you would make that erroneous attribution.

I certainly agree that basic evolution theory makes no predictions about a deity. However, it would be disingenuous of us to not point out the truth that the theory as practiced specifically excludes any other than purely naturalistic explanations.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think that we should take into consideration the character of creation-science people. A person's character says much about what you can expect from them. There is a lot of literature out there. Nobody can read all of it. I have to have some quality control over what I choose to listen to. First thing I do is look at the individual's credentials. If someone is going to take about science, I want to see some big cred3entials and big evidence presented. It's bad enough when you listen to experts and they sometimes screw up. That is a warning how much worse it would be if you listen to unqualified amateurs. What I continually find with creation-science literature is too many [proponents sport either bogus degrees or no real scientific education, not to mention they generally lack any theological education. In addition, more than one has gotten into serious legal trouble. Missler, for example, was sued for plagiarism, of which he was found guilty. If he would have been on a university faculty and done that, he would have been instantly fired. You cannot trust people like that. So, again, I think it is important to take into consideration to character of the source.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Hey JFM, I am not going to take the time to answer all of your stuff right now. But off the top of my head:

Please give me a break on my style; if I counted back on this thread how many times I've been called a liar and a fool and ignorant etc, it would dwarf the number of times I have used similar descriptors.

Miller's a grown man. He'll wear the shoes that fit him. When he says stupid things he gets called stupid for it. (Stupid is not a character trait by the way. Of course perjurer is...)

I think the count is up to around 90 published papers. I have no idea how many citations. Another evolutionist fallacy bites the dust. Perhaps you should come forward a bit from Dover and find out where the state of the science is. I hope you're open to some reading.

I don't know what standardized scientific tests have been offered or run to determine if sometHing is a specified complex coded information system. I did cite an earlier study relative to linguistic similarities in DNA. Does that count?

In philosophy, we would call it a properly basic belief that coded information is in fact information, but there would have to be some criteria.

As I said earlier, I think the more appropriate venue for teaching ID would be the philosophy or religion department.

Wait for Darwinism to utterly collapse ha ha before it goes into the science class, a bit more matured as well. Ha ha

 

[Paterfamilia]

I think that we should take into consideration the character of creation-science people. A person's character says much about what you can expect from them. There is a lot of literature out there. Nobody can read all of it. I have to have some quality control over what I choose to listen to. First thing I do is look at the individual's credentials. If someone is going to take about science, I want to see some big cred3entials and big evidence presented. It's bad enough when you listen to experts and they sometimes screw up. That is a warning how much worse it would be if you listen to unqualified amateurs. What I continually find with creation-science literature is too many [proponents sport either bogus degrees or no real scientific education, not to mention they generally lack any theological education. In addition, more than one has gotten into serious legal trouble. Missler, for example, was sued for plagiarism, of which he was found guilty. If he would have been on a university faculty and done that, he would have been instantly fired. You cannot trust people like that. So, again, I think it is important to take into consideration to character of the source.

Yeah I agree 100%.

You know, I think some people conflate literal scripture interpretations with valid faith in God. I dont think there is much question about that.

So in their minds a questioning of literal 6 24 hour days of creation is tantamount to a questioning of the efficacy of the blood of Christ. It's a scary assault on their faith.

We should have some patience with that, in my opinion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

My beef with Ken Miller, and the strawman that was ID at Dover:

"At the Dover trial, Ken Miller asserted under oath that intelligent design is merely “a negative argument against evolution” which requires an appeal to the supernatural: “It is what a philosopher might call the argument from ignorance, which is to say that, because we don't understand something, we assume we never will, and therefore we can invoke a cause outside of nature, a supernatural creator or supernatural designer.”6 Dr. Miller even stated this holds true in all cases: “The evidence is always negative, and it basically says, if evolution is incorrect, the answer must be design.”"

It's hard to describe his testimony as anything other than perjury. He is certainly an intelligent guy, and would know that his rendition does not match contemporary ID theory.

So why didn't the ID lawyers at Dover call him out on it?

 

[Hoghead1]

I read you post, FutureAndHope. Trouble is, it is more like a tirade from someone who has trouble understanding science and evolution than a reasoned discussion. Also you tend to attack one's character with absolutely no evidence what you say is true. If you do not understand the scientific jargon or how and why they interpret the fossil record the way they do, you should take some basic courses in this subject matter.

 

[Hoghead1]

Perjure himself, Paterfamilia? Are you kidding? He hit right on the money. Time and again creation-science people function on the dubious assumption that if evolution can be proven wrong, creationism is right. That's why they are always knocking mainstream science. As I say, and as Miller is saying, this is a bogus argument. Also, as I am sure Miller is aware of, you cannot play fast and loose with the concept of God, introducing it whenever you feel so inclined. That's a good way to get shot down because you used God when a simpler, scientific could be found. So, you need to carefully work out exactly what evidence would demand a God to explain. I submit there are such cases.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Perjure himself, Paterfamilia? Are you kidding? He hit right on the money. Time and again creation-science people function on the dubious assumption that if evolution can be proven wrong, creationism is right. That's why they are always knocking mainstream science. As I say, and as Miller is saying, this is a bogus argument. Also, as I am sure Miller is aware of, you cannot play fast and loose with the concept of God, introducing it whenever you feel so inclined. That's a good way to get shot down because you used God when a simpler, scientific could be found. So, you need to carefully work out exactly what evidence would demand a God to explain. I submit there are such cases.

No, he didn't hit right on the money. Creation science is not the same thing as ID. I think I have represented the differences pretty thoroughly. If you still disagree, well just have to leave it at that.

I don't understand your "shot down" reference. Would you mind expanding please?