I think you may well be right about Mike's approach, and he certainly starts from a definite hypothesis about what happened, in marked contrast to the ID movement. I would also tend to agree with Bradford's comment that Mike was fair with the evidence (as far as I was able to judge). My objection is that Mike seems to be blaming the evolutionists for IDists adopting a negative approach.

I honestly wasn't trying to convey that point, although I probably worded it poorly. The point I was trying to make is this:

Darwin himself laid out ways that his theory could be disproven. Because of the appeal of his theory, it quickly spread and took root. Teleologists and skeptics responded by looking for areas of weakness and Darwin helped them focus in this regard. The negative approach was born because a) Darwin's theory was so powerful (and thus seemed threatening) and b) there wasn't much to work with in developing a positive teleological approach. Now, the second quote above outlines a hypothetical "“ a clear "what if?" The point being that if Darwin himself took a purely negative approach against the special creationist views of his day, I doubt very much he would have developed a scientific theory. Thus, the message to the reader (assumed to be largely ID-sympathetic) was supposed to be "learn from Darwin."

The basic theme of The Design Matrix is to begin thinking about design on its own terms; a positive, investigative approach rather than a grab bag of criticisms and attacks.

Zachriel: Nearly all alpha particles pass through gold foil, most with very small deflections. Only a tiny percentage are significantly scattered. In particular, "the number of α particles emerging from a scattering foil at an angle Φ with the original beam varies as 1/sin^4(Φ/2)." This tiny percentage, however, is sufficient to show that the positive charge of the atom is concentrated into a very small area.

Joy: You had said, "Nearly all alpha particles pass through gold foil." That is incorrect.

Joy, I've provided you several cites already, including the original papers. Here's a simplified description:

Even when a thin sheet of gold foil is placed in the path of the rays, most of them pass through it very easily…

* The vast majority of alpha particles pass straight though a piece of metal foil as if it was not there.
* Some alpha particles are deflected (scattered) by an angle of about 1º as they pass through the metal foil.
* About 1 alpha particle in 20,000 (for gold) hits something and bounces back (is being reflected).

The bottomline is: Do you have a theory that offers better predictions?

Yes I do Pixie, its called 'goal-directed design'.

I can make actual predictions with that theoretical model.

The probability for that model to account for the evidence is more realistic.

….contained within the genome of many cells are the pseudogenes. I would not consider a pesudogene the product of design (which means they can serve as good markers of common descent) simply because the have no function. They cannot be structurally and functionally decomposed, since there is nothing to decompose. However, if it turns out that a particular pseudogene does have a function, the status of its origin might have to be re-evaluated since the criterion of structural and functional deomposition would no longer discard it a a candidate for design.

You had said, "Alpha particles DO NOT 'pass through gold foil.'" That is incorrect.

You had said, "Nearly all alpha particles pass through gold foil." That is incorrect.

This is a highly controlled experiment with a highly contrived situation and specialized tools, designed to test the 'size' of atomic nuclei (and alpha particles). I thought maybe you were trying to illustrate Pixie's point about initial conditions and extraneous factors with something intelligently designed and couldn't figure out why. I now see it was just another totally irrelevant throw-away.

The Theory of Evolution makes many empirical predictions, many of which are detailed on the Talk Origins Archives.

Anybody can make empirical 'prediction' that they observe what they observe when they observe it. I don't find that very pertinent to anything but consciousness, nor does it answer computerist's actual question.

TO admits that current evolutionary theory has "low power" to make future predictions. You can go ahead and admit that.

So then you would also agree that legumes designed rhizobia?

Once more as I've already made clear I've concluded that the ants show foresight based on specific actions, their killing of only certain aphids for example. And I've concluded that they have designed certain aspects of the aphids because concrete changes were brought about in the aphids due to this foresight.

What similar actions do the legumes do to the rhizbia and what changes result from them? I've yet to see anything comparable here. What am I missing?

So if ants were biologically programmed to kill aphids in response to their sex hormone, you would agree that ants do not use foresight when killing?

What do you mean "in response to"? It's possible that we humans are biologically programmed to want to save for a rainy day does that mean that we are not showing foresight when we do so?

Joy: In nature (or any unnatural situation in which you might find yourself surrounded by alpha tunneling out of some decaying atom of this or that), alpha particles can't even manage to get through a few centimeters of thin air, much less solid objects.

You had said, "Alpha particles DO NOT 'pass through gold foil.'" That is incorrect.

Joy: Thus I don't see how this relates to computerist's question about the total lack of predictive abilities of evolutionary theory.

Computerist said, "that 'response' from talkorigins gives no future predictions", suggesting that computerist may not understand the nature of scientific predictions. We predict observations. Hence, the example as a clarification. The Theory of Evolution makes many empirical predictions, many of which are detailed on the Talk Origins Archives.

Here is an experiment for you find out what possible reason an ant would kill only these certain aphids other than forsight

So if ants were biologically programmed to kill aphids in response to their sex hormone, you would agree that ants do not use foresight when killing?

The answer is Yep on both counts

Very interesting. So then you would also agree that legumes designed rhizobia?

Yeah, well, that's then the question of what design is.

It never ceases to amaze me when folks wonder about the meanings of common words from here http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

Design
1.
a. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent:
b. To formulate a plan for; devise:
2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form:
3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect:
4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
v.intr.
1. To make or execute plans.
2. To have a goal or purpose in mind.
3. To create designs.

How could such a thing not be the result of intelligence?

Just because it's a specific behavior doesn't not mean that the ants know in advance what is going to happen to the colony of aphids they keep when they kill the ones bent on sexual reproduction.

Here is an experiment for you find out what possible reason an ant would kill only these certain aphids other than forsight

Do you think the ants who do the killing actually know about the increase of genetic diversity through sexual reproduction

No but the question of knowing something is a question of consciousness not intelligence does a computer know anything when it predicts a chess move I will make based on my past history? Probably not. Does it show foresight? yep

and decide that it would be good for the future or the whole ant colony if genetic diversity was minimized?

Deciding between two options is about freewill not intelligence deciding based on what is good for future of the colony is about morals not intelligence

The only relevant questions are do the ants show foresight and do they design

The answer is Yep on both counts

Peace