The same with Behe's claims that the blood-clotting cascade is irreducibly complex.

eh? — The blood clotting cascade is still irreducibly complex. It has not been falsified.

You cannot investigate ID by anything that I would call a scientific method - not until ID is prepared to say something about who, how, why or when. Until then all ID can do is investigate the improbability of non-teleogical hypotheses.

Hi Mark,

YEC is considered to fall under the "Big Tent" of ID, and I believe that it has been investigated, and falsified, scientifically. The same with Behe's claims that the blood-clotting cascade is irreducibly complex.

On the other hand, I am certainly not arguing that every proposition put forward in the name of ID is scientific in the first sense.

Like most words, the word "scientific" has multiple meanings. The meaning being used by Dawkins in this context is "investigable (at least in principle) by the methods of science." Another meaning is "well-supported by scientific evidence." These meanings are distinct. It is possible for something to scientific in the first sense, but not the second.

Some ID critics have made hay of the Behe's admission on the stand, at Dover, that astrology is scientific under the same criteria by which he classifies ID as scientific. I think this is a bit unfair to Behe, because he was using 'scientific' in the first sense during that particular bit of testimony. Astrology and ID are scientific in that sense, to the extent that they make testable predictions.

The real disagreement between Behe and his critics is whether ID is scientific in the second sense. Behe clearly thinks it is. Most ID critics (including me) think it is not.

Keiths

That's a nice clear post - but actually I don't think ID is scientific in the first sense. You cannot investigate ID by anything that I would call a scientific method - not until ID is prepared to say something about who, how, why or when. Until then all ID can do is investigate the improbability of non-teleogical hypotheses.

I think this the crux of Dawkins inconsistency. A specific claim about a supernatural (whatever that means) designer might be treated as a scientific hypothesis. But a generic claim - there is some designer but we are saying nothing about its powers or intents - that is not a scientific hypothesis.

If you go to Dawkins official website (or any atheist forum for that matter), you'll see how people are mostly seeking confirmations for their beliefs.. and overlooking some of the obvious loopholes in his reasoning

Dimasok,

Could you describe these "obvious loopholes" for us? I'd hate to think that I'm overlooking them.

Many God concepts do have predictable empirical consequences. For example, the YEC God has empirical consequences — consequences which do not obtain in nature — and so I maintain that the existence of the YEC God has been scientifically falsified.

Like most words, the word "scientific" has multiple meanings. The meaning being used by Dawkins in this context is "investigable (at least in principle) by the methods of science." Another meaning is "well-supported by scientific evidence." These meanings are distinct. It is possible for something to scientific in the first sense, but not the second.

Some ID critics have made hay of the Behe's admission on the stand, at Dover, that astrology is scientific under the same criteria by which he classifies ID as scientific. I think this is a bit unfair to Behe, because he was using 'scientific' in the first sense during that particular bit of testimony. Astrology and ID are scientific in that sense, to the extent that they make testable predictions.

The real disagreement between Behe and his critics is whether ID is scientific in the second sense. Behe clearly thinks it is. Most ID critics (including me) think it is not.

I'm not surprised. I'm reminded of Ken Miller's point about Dawkins and other popular science authors being partly responsible for the ID movement. Don't overlook the reach of Dawkins. He doesn't just make this argument on TV, he makes it in his #1 best-selling book. So think how this might affect the thinking of some average religious guy who is only partly paying attention to this whole debate.

Oh yeah, I know what you're saying.
If you go to Dawkins official website (or any atheist forum for that matter), you'll see how people are mostly seeking confirmations for their beliefs.. and overlooking some of the obvious loopholes in his reasoning

The average religious folks you mention… well, judging from what I read, I haven't seen that many conversions from their side after reading or gandering at Dawkins book, so I wouldn't be too worried about what that might do to them… Did you see appearances by Dawkins & Hitchens on national tv? Most if not all news reporters there don't give a damn about any evidence at all for that matter - and that gets Dawkins and his pal riled up… they don't understand that even if what they were saying was 100% correct (and it absolutely isn't), that wouldn't reach anyone but other people who already had atheistic tendencies long before they heard of attempts to disprove intelligent design on rational grounds. Wouldn't you agree?

I am worried that Dawkins might be too big for his breeches, but we shall see about that.. hopefully, he is wrong.

I'm not surprised. I'm reminded of Ken Miller's point about Dawkins and other popular science authors being partly responsible for the ID movement. Don't overlook the reach of Dawkins. He doesn't just make this argument on TV, he makes it in his #1 best-selling book. So think how this might affect the thinking of some average religious guy who is only partly paying attention to this whole debate.

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, I took some liberties for the sake of trying to add a little levity.

BTW, could I talk you into looking at my latest Third Choice rendition?

If you wanted to put it up as a Guest Post on Panda's Thumb, it might make for some interesting, and timely, discussions.

If Panda's Thumb put this video up I doubt it would result in a debate. A pep-rally maybe, but not a debate.

Um, you guys have pretty poor memory. We have had these debates on PT many times. Google PT on "'holy wars' atheism" for instance. After you have had a few dozen of these it ceases to become very interesting and people just decide to agree to disagree.

It would be incredibly foolish to say definitively that God does not exist and would seriously undermine anything Dawkins would say afterwards so he is not stupid and would not unreasonably kill God no matter what.