It was published in 1944, a classic of the twentieth century. See, the physics of biology has been an aspect of life known to be definitive for a long time. The concept of order from order is an insight that echoes across the field and sub-fields of biophysics to this day. Manifestation is mostly habit. The habit is, in the case of life, telic in nature and in a systems sense. Illya Prigogine's Order Out of Chaos is also a must. I don't know if either of these scientists are atheist or religious, but see, when you're doing actual science, it doesn't matter.

It is entirely evident to me that life designs itself with some sense of purpose. It strives mightily to adapt, survive and reproduce even though it's essentially a 100% fatal condition of matter. Always has been evident. I don't need anyone's approval to know that for myself, and I don't need the atheist corner of biology's bad boyz club to confirm it for me. I'd just like science to do what it does best - follow the evidence, produce useful knowledge. Insisting on random causation for who and what we are is never going to cure what ails us. Some understanding of what goes right with us could tell us a lot about how to handle what goes wrong. Biology with purpose. It won't hurt science a bit.

However, everyone is aware that none of the contributors (definitely not Bradford) will offer tangible hypotheses much less defend them.

Tangible hypotheses are already existent, and incoming studies occasionally lend strength to those hypotheses. Much cutting edge work on configuration design, MT biophysics and state-switchers is proprietary these days, we don't read about it in the daily science press. We do get the weekly dose of "challenges dogma" or "outside Neodarwinian predictions" or like-minded codewords.

There are likely to be many more telic mechanisms of evolution than there are Neodarwinian mechanisms (which consist of RM-NS). Many mechanisms contributing to the process that are recognized as *not* random are already present in modern evolutionary biology, better understandings and tools will return more. Front-loading looks like a fine hypothesis for the 'surprising' incoming evidence that evolvability may be a quality of all cellular life forms on earth. Irreducible complexity is actually incorporated (with careful wording) in the functional definition of the ever-popular critic's cop-out concept, emergence. Epigenetics - the idea that there's a whole other level of inherited trait-shaping chemical coding on top of the inadequate number of genes in our DNA - is also enjoying great interest and research funding these days, lending support for the EAM hypothesis. Then there's chromatin biophysics, histone coding, etc., etc., etc.

The culture warriors joined the army to defend their metaphysics, not to defend science. Creationists were never any serious threat to science, even less as the power of modern science grows. It's only when science no longer serves the public's interests that it's threatened, and when that happens it's threatening itself. The public doesn't have to support it, and won't if they don't get what they want/need out of it. Sure, funding across the board is going to suffer as economic recession throws millions out on the streets and tens of millions out of work. They've much, much more important things to think about than whether evangelical atheists and evangelical Christians still hate each other.

Mike's Front Loading and Design Matrix proposals were something tangible. It is what made Telic Thoughts unique, that and a tolerance for dissenting opinions.

You can dissent all you like. There's no guarantee it'll fly, since this isn't the Swamp. Nor is it PZ's Happy Hate-Fest. Or even the amen choir at UD. But unless you're seriously off-topic or fouling the nest or playing games, it'll usually stand.

How many open Rabbit threads do you think are going to occur now that Mike Gene is gone?

I'm not that fond of rabbits. But I am fond of poodles, Maine coon cats and nubian goats. Open threads aren't that hard to post. Nor are guest posts.

The ID Movement can, and probably will, prevail because things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. The religious movement has been eating away at the foundations, setting up their network and gathering followers. The Movement's leaders are patient, like you. But they aren't waiting for the science. Science isn't what is going to get them into power. It is politics. The political pendulum is swinging and its amplitude is growing. If you don't think we can end up with a president worse than GW Bush when the pendulum swings their way again, you are fooling yourself.

Oh, alarmist twaddle! After nearly 8 years of Neocons this country can't go any farther into the pockets of the religious right without courting revolution. No, the public isn't getting what it wants/needs or even hopes for from science anymore. And it's not just the grand weekly promises that this researcher or that is on the verge of curing cancer (or ALS or Alzheimer's or whatever). The people no longer have basic health care - you know, the kind where you can get your broken bones set and your cuts stitched and your infection cured with antibiotics. Even if you've got insurance they won't pay, there are a dozen RICO suits out there right now charging them with racketeering. The Bushies have skewed the funding so badly it's a wonder anything gets done. Our current ranking in life expectancy - #47 - makes the point blindingly clear.

Even the religious right is turning. We all really do understand that we NEED science if we want to live in a modern world with nice stuff and a chance to reach retirement age. But we need food, clothing, shelter and transportation more.

With Mike Gene gone, the scientific discussions on Telic Thoughts will become faint echoes of "Gene Gems" that Bradford and others will try to prop up. However, everyone is aware that none of the contributors (definitely not Bradford) will offer tangible hypotheses much less defend them. Mike's Front Loading and Design Matrix proposals were something tangible.

Mike's ideas have been favorably mentioned many times by me and other TTers since his last post. His ideas have been mentioned less favorably by some critics. Noone including me can duplicate Mike's unique style and considerable substance. But I don't see his critics flocking to support front loading either.

It sounds like you have made your choice. I can't say that I am overly surprised, but I had to at least try. I owed you that much.

FWIW, here is my prediction…

With Mike Gene gone, the scientific discussions on Telic Thoughts will become faint echoes of "Gene Gems" that Bradford and others will try to prop up. However, everyone is aware that none of the contributors (definitely not Bradford) will offer tangible hypotheses much less defend them. Mike's Front Loading and Design Matrix proposals were something tangible. It is what made Telic Thoughts unique, that and a tolerance for dissenting opinions.

How many open Rabbit threads do you think are going to occur now that Mike Gene is gone?

How many times have Mike and I had heated discussions in one thread only to have Mike promote one of my comments in another thread to a Guest Post?

Open, honest conflict isn't a bad thing. It is a form of communication. Different views have been brought out and information has been exchanged, thanks to Mike's openness.

Because of Mike's willingness to share the TT microphone, people have learned more than the latest Culture War gossip. For example, I think we (you included) managed to provide some useful scientific information about Quantum Mechanics and how it might play a role in life.

The ID Movement can, and probably will, prevail because things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. The religious movement has been eating away at the foundations, setting up their network and gathering followers. The Movement's leaders are patient, like you. But they aren't waiting for the science. Science isn't what is going to get them into power. It is politics. The political pendulum is swinging and its amplitude is growing. If you don't think we can end up with a president worse than GW Bush when the pendulum swings their way again, you are fooling yourself.

Are you really sure you really want to encourage division "unabated"?

Let me close by restating the TT About Us…

We are a group of individuals, coming from diverse backgrounds and not speaking for any organization, who have found common ground around teleological concepts, including intelligent design. We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation.

She might have meant it to be rhetorical, but I believe there is a point to separating the SCIENCE of ID from the movement and goals sought by the Discovery Institute and its fellows.

Actually, I agree with Roger that your criticisms are far too obviously political - your own participation as Culture Warrior - to offer any clear distinction one way or the other. Science does what science does, and will eventually follow the evidence even if the die-hards don't like it. The ID supporters who are scientists write about their take on the issues just like you do on internet forums like this.

The DI can have whatever goals it wants, and is free to work toward them all it likes. I don't mind, and you shouldn't either. All partisans on all sides have the very same freedom of speech, there's no need to upend the Constitution to make you happy. Meanwhile, science marches on. The die-hards don't weigh any more on PZ's end of the spectrum than they do on DI's end. Telic Thoughts exists to facilitate some independent thought, not to parrot anybody's talking points.

This plays directly into which direction Telic Thoughts will be taking now that Mike Gene is no longer at the helm. // This is more than an association with a label, it is about accepting an overriding goal.

We need no overriding goal, TP. Far as I've been able to determine, no one here is aiming to start (or finish) a revolution. Some version of telic design will be incorporated into evolutionary biology if some version of telic design is operative in evolution. No one can invent it from scratch and make science believe it's science, and no one can stop science from embracing it if it's evident (and I believe it is). The way individuals choose to think about it is their own business. I for one dislike wannabe mind-tyrants enough not to try and be one myself.

Is Telic Thoughts going to continue to pursue a balanced treatment of the science of looking for purposeful design in life and nature, or is it going to become just another gathering point for culture warriors trying to replace "…materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" through the use of tailored scientific arguments?

I don't know. Maybe if there were fewer comments from culture warriors pushing their personal agendas, we'd all know the answer. But since neither you nor I is a paid-to-play researcher in evolutionary biology, what we have to say is going to be thought and opinion, not biological science. You'll have this on internet forums not restricted to a small group of research scientists, I see no reason to change it.

It would be a shame if Telic Thoughts became the type of blog where comments like this are discouraged.

You can compliment Penrose on his theories all you like, TP. No one here has ever tried to stop you. He's written four-plus books about the subject anyone can purchase and read for themselves, just like books published by Dembski and Behe and Wells and such. Again, the science is the science, people are free to draw whatever inferences from it that tickles their fancy.

P.S. to Joy. That is the point of having TT distance itself from the Discovery Institute's version of ID.

I still don't see the point. TT need not distance itself from DI because TT *is not* the DI and is not affiliated with the DI. The linkage is an inference you've drawn all on your own, and it obviously bothers you a lot. What you think doesn't bother me, because I don't care what inferences you draw in your culture war against all things DI. It impacts me not a bit, and is almost as boring as your harping on Penrose's completely non-empirically demonstrable Theory of Everything. String theories aren't a big subject here either, you'll notice. There's no point, though I'm sure there's some Yahoo groups out there talking endlessly about them. Ho, hum.

Roger Penrose has not demonstrated scientifically that consciousness exists at all, much less is responsible for all things that exist in our corner of space-time. That it sounds good and might account for the obvious teleology in life and evolution is of mere passing interest. It is not going to end the culture war that never ends, and if you were to look at it realistically, you'd know that.

Simply repeating "there's no such thing as randomness" is a little like ruby slippers and "there's no place like home." It's not going to impress metaphysical materialists who depend upon random causation to support their religious views, and it's nothing new to metaphysical spiritualists who already believe everything has a cause. The dueling metaphysics goes on unabated, always will.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of pointing out that my personal opinion of Behe's book isn't relevant to this discussion.

I am trying to keep the discussion revolving around the question Joy posed in the opening post. That is…

What is the point?

She might have meant it to be rhetorical, but I believe there is a point to separating the SCIENCE of ID from the movement and goals sought by the Discovery Institute and its fellows.

This plays directly into which direction Telic Thoughts will be taking now that Mike Gene is no longer at the helm.

This is more than an association with a label, it is about accepting an overriding goal.

Is Telic Thoughts going to continue to pursue a balanced treatment of the science of looking for purposeful design in life and nature, or is it going to become just another gathering point for culture warriors trying to replace "…materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" through the use of tailored scientific arguments?

The following is something I submitted to Uncommon Descent earlier today. It hasn't made it out of UD purgatory yet even though multiple comments have including two from Atticus Finch. I won't be surprised if it never surfaces. It is in response to a comment made by Paul Giem that was promoted to thread status by BarryA…

This is a good comment, Paul.

And my compliments to BarryA for promoting it.

IMO, this is the kind of ID Science discussions we should be having instead of the constant philosophical back-and-forth that is the norm.

That being said, let him offer my take on a few key points.

First of all, space-time makes up the geometry of the observable universe. Therefore "time" is a component of the universe not outside it. Time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.

Scientists can only measure the 13.7 billion years starting from a point after the spark of the Big Bang. The spark itself could be thought of as taking an infinite amount of time.

It is no more rational to talk about time before the Big Bang as it is to talk about something being South of the South Pole.

Sir Roger Penrose has a hypothesis about how increasing entropy is evidence of universe slowly losing its property of time.

In an attempt to clarify; a photon, itself, experiences no time (because it travels at the speed of light). The increasing entropy of the universe implies that eventually everything will be as timeless as a photon. At that point the universe will have lost its property of time. This appears to be the same condition as the start of the Big Bang.

Obviously, this explanation is greatly simplified and will need further details.

As for life being needed to create life, this comes down to definitions. I happen to think there is a property in Quantum Mechanics similar to consciousness. It might also be thought of as what Dr. Dembski has referred to as "telic organizing principles in nature" which I understand is an ID alternative.

I offer there is scientific evidence that supports the contention that quantum effects are interconnected in space and time. I also suggest that it can be argued (with evidence) that this quantum interconnection is a key element for consciousness in living things.

I think most ID proponents would agree that consciousness is life and would qualify for the life giving rise to life.

Excuse my incompleteness of this comment might be too long already.

I offer it as something to think about.

It would be a shame if Telic Thoughts became the type of blog where comments like this are discouraged.

P.S. to Joy. That is the point of having TT distance itself from the Discovery Institute's version of ID.

As you are aware I make a distinction between the ID Movement and ID Science.

Not really. I know you claim a lot of distinctions, but you don't really articulate any objective criteria for such distinctions. Kind of like the ethics you couldn't well define beyond what you like and what you don't.

Case in point being your take on Behe's new book.

I kid you not that I was hoping Behe's followup book would at least show a glimmer of continuing the boldness of his first book. But alas, the siren song of the Movement was apparently too strong.

I'm not sure what you think reeks of "ID movement" and what would be science. You go on to say:

If Behe really wanted to answer his critics he would have offered positive arguments in support of a clear hypothesis. Instead, Behe followed the standard creationist tactic of questioning “Darwinism”. While this played well with the faithful, it did little to support ID as a scientific argument.

There are numerous critics offering numerous criticisms, and this did address a subset of those. It surely didn't address all, and maybe not yours, but Behe chose those he thought worthy, and that he had good arguments and/or evidence for. Behe has the arguments he has based on the evidence he sees. Not sure that he wouldn't like clearer evidence and more positive arguments. But he only has what he has.

Now, since he is a Darwinian skeptic, like creationists are, it is surely technically true that he is using a "standard creationist tactic". Much as Bush critics are using a "standard Al Queda tactic" when they criticize Bush. And the same could be said of Clinton critics. But most folks see that labeling as deliberately provocative and disingenuous. It's either beyond the pale to question Darwinism or MET or whatever you want to call it, or it is not. And if it is out of bounds, can it still be science?

So though his books might inevitably bring some comfort to some creationists, I think Behe thinks that where the evidence leads. If he is just making stuff up, that is pretty easily demonstrated. But I don't see that criticsim. I see stuff like the things that you write, that has no substance and is largely ad hom, and criticism that he isn't pushing your idea or Mike Gene's. It's like criticizing the latest Batman movie because it isn't a nature documentary, because you like those. You can write your own book, just like Mike did.

ID Science isn't supposed to be limited to investigating only things that support the goal's of the Discovery Institute and its Senior Fellows, right?

And what makes you think Behe is "limiting" himself out of some concern for the "Movement". I see no evidence of that. A more rational view of Behe's relationship to the "movement" is that they have overlapping interests.

Thank you for responding. I enjoy our exchanges.

As you are aware I make a distinction between the ID Movement and ID Science. While Mike Gene indicated this made me a "rather unique" critic in the positive sense, I wouldn't be surprised that you don't agree.

I am a critic of the ID Movement while providing support of ID Science.

It is easy to simply assert the existence of statements as opposed to providing quotes and links as I have. However, this is more than just quotemining "gotcha" statements. Dr. Wells isn't just another ID proponent. The quotes I provide go to show the overall goal of the movement promoted by the Discovery Institute clearly outlined in its Wedge Document…

"* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God." link

This is consistent with Dr. Well's "be afraid, very afraid" statement which I quoted and linked to earlier in this thread. Dr. Wells is a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.

Dr. Dembski is also a Senior Fellow. Here is a quote he posted on his web site on 16 June 2006…

"The problem is not that evolution implies God does't exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility."

Once again, this is consistant with the stated goal of replacing "…materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding".

Computerist's reaction is the honest and ethical one. It amounts to saying "so what?". He (she?) and I disagree and this subject, but it is an honest disagreement.

BTW, here is the link to what Dembski's statement was modified to after the implications of the original started being discussed in the blog sphere.

Dembski added a parenthetical that indicated that "…space aliens who seed the Earth, time travelers, and telic organizing principles in nature are ID alternatives…" even if they are "…way down the totem pole for most people."

Whether it is way down on the totem pole or not of the ID Movement, these alternatives are what I see as ID SCIENCE. There is scientific evidence that life on Earth was a result of contamination from space. There is also scientific evidence that quantum mechanics can provide for telic organizing principles in nature.

ID Science is supposed to be about following the evidence wherever it leads, right?

ID Science isn't supposed to be limited to investigating only things that support the goal's of the Discovery Institute and its Senior Fellows, right?

Do you really want to be associated with "be afraid, very afraid" Wells and other Discovery Institute fellows?

Doesn't bother me a bit. The statement is largely a bit of trash talking. I've read analogous and worse stuff from ID critics.

But I understand it plays into your obsessions.