Since so many crtiics are deeply troubled by Intelligent Design and equate ID with Holocaust-denial, here's one possible solution to The ID Problem:
Laws that make denying or trivialising the Holocaust a criminal offence punishable by jail sentences will be introduced across the European Union, according to a proposal expecting to win backing from ministers Thursday.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
April 21st, 2007 at 9:30 pm
So then those who "trivialize" a non-telic approach to biology, they being akin to holocaust deniers, should then be subject to the same judicial remedies. Do I hear a second for this motion. Here, here now:!:
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
April 21st, 2007 at 9:32 pm
On second thought I think MG could have titled this blog:
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
April 21st, 2007 at 9:36 pm
We do not wish to offend anyone right? That was just mass death not genocide. Was Orwell brilliant or what?
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
April 21st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Mike,
I don't think this would solve the problem of ID, but it would at least give ID proponents a satisfying outlet for their martyr complexes.
Comment by keiths — April 21, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:26 am
Denying that the Holocaust happened is stupid and vile. But using the force of government from preventing such people from speaking their mind is a gross violation of the freedom of speech, and has no place in a free society. The EU proves once again that as far as the liberty of its citizens is concerned, it couldn't care less.
Comment by Krauze — April 22, 2007 @ 3:26 am
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 am
Speaking of freedom of speech, did you see that China has banned access to the popular internet site Boing Boing? No? That's probably because they haven't.
The city of Boston, however, has banned the site from its free, city-wide WiFi network. Boing Boing, of course, was among the first to make fun of Boston for its Mooninite scare overreaction.
Comment by Krauze — April 22, 2007 @ 3:42 am
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Ban ID by title? No, that would be a creationist solution, sorta like the ban on evolution in Tennessee from 1925 to 1967.
Better, we'll challenge IDists to do research and publish it. If they publish, they might find something useful and make their point. If they don't publish, they'll just look foolish, and put themselves in the same league with the ultra-religionist creationists.
Listen to what the IDists say, but make them bring evidence.
Most students of evolution are strong supporters of the First Amendment, having seen what travesties are committed by creationists.
Comment by edarrell — April 22, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Edarrell:
Yet as we have seen with our own eyes, what is much more likely to happen is that the critic will engage in character assassination, lump ID with creationism, and proclaim that ID is a "threat to science."
Thanks to the Internet, we have been getting to see how the peer reviewers think and behave. The validity of ID is not tied up in a sociological phenomenon known as "publishing." What matters are the arguments and data and the counter-arguments posed by the critics. Thus far, screaming that ID = Creationism while arguing for the existence of evolution and demanding to see the designer-in-action effectively exhausts the list of anti-ID arguments.
Actually, there is very little evidence that the critics truly "listen to what the IDists say." For example, as we have seen, most critics hear "God/religion/fundamentalism" when "ID" is spoken or written. Or consider the way in which edarrell actively twists my words according to the dictates of his own stereotypes.
Comment by MikeGene — April 22, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Hi Ed,
"Better, we'll challenge IDists to do research and publish it."
Of course, we all know how ID critics react when an ID supporter tries pursuing this challenge.
Comment by Krauze — April 22, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 am
Hi MikeGene,
Since mainstream IDism consists of anti-evolutionary arguments, arguing the evidence for evolution effectively counters it. Hobbies which don't rise to the level of science are too nebulous to counter; its like trying to battle fog. Given Europe's history, I understand why they would ban Holocaust-denial, but we don't do things that way in the U.S.; we fight lies with truth.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 23, 2007 @ 9:31 am
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"Given Europe's history, I understand why they would ban Holocaust-denial, but we don't do things that way in the U.S.; we fight lies with truth."
Speaking as a European myself, we've had that particular history for the last 68 years, and it hasn't been necessary to ban Holocaust denial so far. This decision has nothing to do with that part of our history and everything to do with overzealous bureaucrats in EU offices.
Comment by Krauze — April 23, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Hi Krauze,
You'll get no argument from me on that. I would strongly oppose any attempt in the U.S. to criminalize the expression of any opinion in regards to such an issue. I wonder if this has anything to do with the infamous conference in Iran?
Comment by Aagcobb — April 23, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"I wonder if this has anything to do with the infamous conference in Iran?"
Since that conference was an attempt to show that Iran has the same respect for freedom of speech as Europe – in Europe, you can mock Mohammed but not deny the Holocaust; vice versa in Iran – I hope not.
Comment by Krauze — April 23, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Aagcobb:
Since mainstream IDism consists of anti-evolutionary arguments, arguing the evidence for evolution effectively counters it.
This illustrates why Behe and others have chosen to emphasize support for common descent as opposed to mainstream evolution. The former entails a historic process that allows for some latitude about specific causal factors including ID friendly conclusions. The latter is linked to strict materialist paradigms in the minds of many including apparently Aagcobb.
Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
edarrell wrote:
What published research has specified the kind of evidence that would, if discovered, falsify the claim that the whole of evolutionary history is devoid of intelligent design?
It seems to me that asking IDists to publish research is disingenuous unless you specify in advance the kind of findings that you consider would support the ID hypothesis.
If no data would even qualify in your estimation as supportive of ID, then your demand that IDists come up scientific data is intellectually spurious.
Comment by stunney — April 23, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
April 24th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Hi Bradford,
That is correct, Bradford. The arguments of Behe and others that evolution cannot be explained without intelligent intervention are the same recycled arguments creationists have made for decades, and which have long since been refuted.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 24, 2007 @ 10:19 am
April 24th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Aagcobb:
Since Behe was referenced and I have some familiarity with his views, show me how (a) Behe's concept of irreducible complexity has been empirically refuted and (b) how his view of life's origin has been empirically refuted.
Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2007 @ 11:53 am
April 24th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Aagcobb:
(emphasis mine)
Let me suggest that only one argument made by the creationist community has been refuted — the age of the earth and of living organisms.
Comment by bFast — April 24, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
April 24th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
bFast, the age of living organisms has been refuted? Can you elaborate what this refers to?
Comment by Eric Anderson — April 24, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
April 24th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Hi Bradford,
Behe refuted IC himself in his paper with Snoke in which he calculated that the number of bacteria present in just a ton of soil could evolve an IC structure by point mutations alone in only 20,000 years. I don't know what Behe's views on the origins of life are, but since he's not a YECist and accepts common descent thats only relevant to abiogenesis, not evolution.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 24, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
April 24th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Aagcobb:
What IC structure would that be? All of them must be accounted for. Statements like this are opinions. Not to be confused with observation of the real thing. The gist of the IC concept lies not with mutations or even homologous proteins. It concerns natural selection and a capacity to generate a whole system through incremental changes. Each increment must yield a selective value. When actual systems are analyzed it is apparent that theoretical pathways require more than a dash of imaginative input to seem plausible. Proteins are not solo performers; they need to react with each other. Therein lies the rub for incremental paradigms.
Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
April 24th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Hi Bradford,
Well, it was Behe's opinion that a disulfide bond could evolve by point mutations alone, with no selective value, in a population of bacteria one could find in a ton of soil in only 20,000 years. But we see in your bolded comment that you are falling back into a typical creationist argument mode: you can't prove evolution did it in all circumstances, so I'm going to believe goddidit.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 24, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
April 24th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I see you are resorting to mindless cliches. The degree to which proteins are interrelated in their function has been a relatively recent revelation. Molecular biology has moved well past the simple notions of selection once advanced. We now know that a "simple" advantage like a giraffe's longer neck entails hundreds of genes that would have to "come online" in coordinated fashion for the neck's evolution to have occurred. Why should advocates of a random mutation process be exempt the scientific rigor that is typically demanded of causal scenarios. ID is pegged to new developments in knowledge. The mirror opposite of the Goddidit cliche is selection dunnit. If you want to claim that it did we deserve more than mere assertions to that effect.
Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
April 24th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Me:
Aagcobb:
Like I said, screaming that ID = Creationism while arguing for the existence of evolution and demanding to see the designer-in-action effectively exhausts the list of anti-ID arguments.
Understood. Yet if I were to abandon my hobby and rely on the experts, I'd find little more than screaming that ID = Creationism while arguing for the existence of evolution and demands to see the designer-in-action. It doesn't begin to address the really interesting stuff. So I am left with my hobby.
Comment by MikeGene — April 24, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
April 24th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Okay, so when they are not arresting Holocaust-deniers, they are busy nabbing the homeschoolers. They are sure tough on crime over there.
Comment by MikeGene — April 24, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
April 24th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
It's telling that the law upon which the authority is based stems from Adolf Hitler. But it makes sense for a totalitarian state to want to control the minds of its citizenry.
Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Just curious, did Behe also state that a disulfide bond is irreducibly complex in his opinion?
Comment by Eric Anderson — April 25, 2007 @ 1:11 am
April 25th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Hi Eric,
Yes.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 25, 2007 @ 8:35 am
April 25th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Hi MikeGene,
What is the really interesting stuff to you, Mike? I thought that ID ended with the inference that a particular biological structure was designed. To me, the interesting stuff would be when, how, why and of course who designed the structure, but as I understand it all of that is outside the scope of ID.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 25, 2007 @ 8:39 am
April 25th, 2007 at 10:50 am
MG: It doesn't begin to address the really interesting stuff. So I am left with my hobby.
The interesting stuff is how biological structures function. It also is the means by which the origin of life is understood. How biological organisms function will be studied as long as there are unknowns; the study of biology not being contingent on a resolution of historic origins. IDists tend to have a passionate interest in science that does not abate upon believing in design.
There are some inferences that can be drawn as to the designer. Less about the whys of it based on biology alone. As advocates of abiogenesis have stated, you work with what is available and continue looking for answers.
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2007 @ 10:50 am
April 25th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Aagcobb:
MY understanding of the issue (how I view ID) is that ID is interested in discovering how to define the phenomenon we understand as "intelligence" and then to discover the relation between intelligence and other natural systems. Furthermore, ID attempts to discover which phenomenon (if any) is a necessary result of or necessarily a result of the phenomenon known as intelligence. This is where informational systems and information theory comes into play. ID deals with so much more than just biological structures; it deals with complete (informational) systems. So far, the math behind articles such as those of Dr.s Trevor and Abel seems to hold that informational systems will not generate themselves through stochastic processes. Furthermore, intelligence has the capacity to generate informational systems. To simplify and make a long argument short, add it up and you just might get a correct answer. There is nothing "mystical" or religious going on here … unless you think that intelligence is inherently religious or "mystical."
Well, as far as I am aware, apart from psychoanalysis "why" questions can't be answered scientifically.
As to "when" and "how", those are definitely interesting questions that many scientists have and are working on. Ie: when did the first informational system appear in our universe? As to the how, when it comes to ID there are many opinions … some easier to test than others … all the way from "the universe is programmed to necessarily produce life" all the way to "an outside intelligence had to intervene and seed life." The initial, in my opinion is the more scientific and perhaps testable with mathematical and computer models and simulations, starting with an understanding among many phycisists and cosmologists that the universe itself is the result of the processing of information.
Now, this is where the "who" question comes in. However, I don't know if we can scientifically verify "who" even if a model positing the causal phenomenon as intelligence is the best and most coherent explanation, although that may be further possible ID research (such as the further research which nails the perpetrator after an examination of the forensic evidence posits an intelligent cause).
Comment by CJYman — April 25, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Krauze, still waiting for the first publication.
The funny thing is that this path was clear in 1982, after the Arkansas decision. You guys took only 25 years to figure that out, and it was spelled out very plainly.
I expect the ID lab will soon find that skies look blue, except when cloudy, or at night.
It's a start.
Comment by edarrell — April 25, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
I have addressed these all before and it has been a long day for me. Nevertheless, as one willing again to walk that extra mile, I think I'll make this a posting for the weekend.
Comment by MikeGene — April 25, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 2:07 am
edarrell wrote:
I expect the evolutionary naturalism lab will soon find that skies looking blue must have evolved somehow. Though oddly enough, some languages do not distinguish blue from green the same way English does.
Aagcobb wrote:
There is as yet simply no agreement or consensus among rational people about whether a science is or isn't possible that would be capable of determining whether a physical object of any sort"”-the universe, the Empire State building, electrons, a tree, a golf ball, a black hole, the Pyramids, or a bacterium"”-is or isn't the result of being designed by a mind.
Pursuing that question interests me.
If and when science gives well-established and clear criteria for evidence of intelligence and evidence of design, then we can ask the question of whether the biological data furnish us with types of evidence that meet those criteria.
In the meantime, it is premature for either IDers or Darwinians to say that there definitely is, or that there definitely is not, evidence of intelligent design in the biological data, because there are no established sciences for those concepts. We typically think that the existence of computers and computer code indicate intelligence and design. We need to make that inference more precise in order to be able to make, or rule out, a similar inference regarding biological data, if only because those data include computer codes, apparently.
It is not a good objection to say that we 'know' that computers and computer code are intelligently designed because we can see people at work doing the designing, and that this is why those cases are different from the evolution of species case. And that is because we don't, in fact, physically observe anyone's intelligent consciousness. What we literally see when we look at a computer scientist at work is complicated material bodies (such as a brain) in various states of mathematically intelligible motion. That's also what we see when we observe any life form or investigate its history. In other words, the cases of intelligent design that we 'know' about are no different in terms of physical observation from the cases in biology, except for the precise form and kinds of complexity involved. So, if science is meant to explain and investigate everything, there ought to be a scientific way of making precise what types of material motions and complexity of structure and function license an inference to intelligent design, and what types do not.
Comment by stunney — April 26, 2007 @ 2:07 am