How much has the landscape changed?

by Guts

[poll id="3"]

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 18th, 2008 at 12:24 am and is filed under Culture Wars, Intelligent Design. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

42 Responses to “How much has the landscape changed?”

Rob R. Says:
November 18th, 2008 at 2:42 am
# Better for ID/ID-related endeavors

Can't see how. Bush said he thought 'both sides should be explored' (or something like that) and that didn't seem to matter any. I believe that both Obama and Biden are on record as opposing 'teach the controversy.' Not sure how a left versus a right political landscape changes anything.

# Worse for ID/ID-related endeavors

For 'ID Movement' related endeavors perhaps.

# Irrelevant, bias exists regardless of our current government makeup.

No doubt that's true. I think that ID isn't an issue for most people, therefore, not likely an issue for government. Ultimately, it's an issue for scientists to resolve, so I'd hope the government will stay out of the way. Everyone's way. At the end of the day the Bush administration didn't seem to help the 'cause' any, I reckon the Obama administration will be equally uninvolved.

Irrelevant, if the research is good enough.

That got my vote. In the end what else is there?

Comment by Rob R. — November 18, 2008 @ 2:42 am

Alan Fox Says:
November 18th, 2008 at 11:39 am
To paraphrase Gandhi:

"ID-related endeavour? That would be a very good thing."

Have I overlooked examples of such endeavours? Without examples, it is hard to answer the poll questions.

Comment by Alan Fox — November 18, 2008 @ 11:39 am

Guts Says:
November 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Have you been in a bubble the past decade? There were ID conferences, legal pushes to get it taught in school, there's a research center, etc.

Comment by Guts — November 18, 2008 @ 11:50 am

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I choose #2:

“Worse for ID/ID-related endeavors”

I think that people have three basic opinions in regards to ID:

1. ID is science.

2. ID is dangerous.

3. ID has some interesting ideas.

Unfortunately, the last 2 elections has empowered people that hold to position #2. These are people with a “neo-authoritarian” mindset. If they can’t win the debate with persuasion they’ll use legal and political power to repress those ideas with which they disagree. That has been their track record for the last decade. Now that they have more power it’s only going to be worse.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 19, 2008 @ 10:32 pm

don provan Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 3:53 am
I think that people have three basic opinions in regards to ID:
1. ID is science.
2. ID is dangerous.
3. ID has some interesting ideas.

The most common position is "ID is wrong but ignorable", at least among non-supporters if not in general. (Of course, I'm discounting those that think ID is just some kind of modern way to express Christianity.) I've found that only the critics that have really studied ID in depth consider it dangerous.

Anyway, to answer the question, I would guess "worse for ID". But #4 was a good laugh, although I suppose it's also correct, in the if-my-great-aunt-had-wheels-she'd-be-a-bus kinda way.

Comment by don provan — November 20, 2008 @ 3:53 am

Alan Fox Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Have you been in a bubble the past decade?

No. I only heard of ID by chance three years ago. Viewed from abroad, the movement has not amounted to much and seems in terminal decline.

There were ID conferences, legal pushes to get it taught in school, there's a research center, etc.

But "where's the beef?" Dembski and Marks can only produce mathematical models that purport to disprove evolution. Notwithstanding their modelling does not match reality, proving A wrong does not prove B right.

An on-line definition of endeavour gives:

1. A conscientious or concerted effort toward an end; an earnest attempt.
2. Purposeful or industrious activity; enterprise.

An earnest attempt to give ID some scientific credentials is overdue.

Comment by Alan Fox — November 20, 2008 @ 7:33 am

Guts Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Alan wrote:

No. I only heard of ID by chance three years ago. Viewed from abroad, the movement has not amounted to much and seems in terminal decline.

Anti-ID activists have been saying that for years, but it seems not only alive and well, but broadening (e.g. front-loading was born recently inspired by Behe's writings).

But "where's the beef?" Dembski and Marks can only produce mathematical models that purport to disprove evolution.

Huh? You really are in a bubble. You should check out their research center website they've done much more than just mathematical models.

Comment by Guts — November 20, 2008 @ 3:19 pm

don provan Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
But "where's the beef?" Dembski and Marks can only produce mathematical models that purport to disprove evolution.

Huh? You really are in a bubble. You should check out their research center website they've done much more than just mathematical models.

From the research page, we get three "Areas of Research": "The origin and role of information in biology", "Functional constraints and design constraints", and "Design patterns and hallmarks". Offhand, this looks like "mathematical modules that purport to disprove evolution". (I actually looked a little deeper once a while back, and that's, in fact, all I found — well, all I found that wasn't pure rhetoric — but I have to admit I haven't looked lately.)

Comment by don provan — November 20, 2008 @ 8:09 pm

Guts Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Don wrote:

Offhand, this looks like "mathematical modules that purport to disprove evolution".

Experiments with proteins, which include computer simulations, are not just mathematical models (not modules) that "purport" to "disprove evolution". In fact, Alan's description is extremely sloppy , but I tend to read charitably.

Comment by Guts — November 20, 2008 @ 10:43 pm

don provan Says:
November 21st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Experiments with proteins, which include computer simulations, are not just mathematical models (not modules) that "purport" to "disprove evolution".

I think we're off topic. Perhaps you would you like to blog a new conversation on the subject, or point me to an existing one (perhaps this one?).

Comment by don provan — November 21, 2008 @ 12:46 pm

Guts Says:
November 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
lol how is it off-topic? You claimed that all they were doing were making mathematical models, that is quite obviously false.

Comment by Guts — November 21, 2008 @ 12:55 pm

don provan Says:
November 21st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
As I'm sure you know, the topic is "How much has the landscape changed?" I didn't think discussion of a particular research report was related. Now that I've been corrected, could you provide a link to the research report you want to discuss? I haven't looked at more than one or two, and not recently, but the ones I saw that were at the level you are discussing did nothing to support the ID assertions, but merely depended on the ID assertions to draw their conclusions. I guess I forgot to mention "smoke screen" when describing the research. But, again, maybe I just haven't seen the stunning research you are talking about, so please point me to it.

Comment by don provan — November 21, 2008 @ 4:40 pm

Alan Fox Says:
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
You should check out their research center website.

I followed your link, Nelson. I have to agree with Don. On this page there is a list of publications, which I presume you are offering as evidence of ID research. From a perusal of the titles, nothing leapt out at me which would indicate ID endeavour. Would it be any trouble to indicate which paper would be a good example of such endeavour and why?

Comment by Alan Fox — November 22, 2008 @ 12:00 pm

Guts Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Don:

I haven't looked at more than one or two, and not recently, but the ones I saw that were at the level you are discussing did nothing to support the ID assertions, but merely depended on the ID assertions to draw their conclusions. I guess I forgot to mention "smoke screen" when describing the research. But, again, maybe I just haven't seen the stunning research you are talking about, so please point me to it.

You guys say the same thing no matter what is being discussed. It's very obvious though that you didn't even read anything at all, as one of the more prominent papers listed dealt with not an ID assertion, but a traditional assumption that exterior positions on proteins should be easy to change.

Comment by Guts — November 24, 2008 @ 12:13 am

Guts Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Alan Fox:

From a perusal of the titles, nothing leapt out at me which would indicate ID endeavour.

That makes absolutely no sense. You yourself defined endeavor as:

A conscientious or concerted effort toward an end; an earnest attempt.

The research center as a whole fulfills that definition.

Would it be any trouble to indicate which paper would be a good example of such endeavour and why?

The entire thing is an endeavor:

Biologic Institute is a non-profit research organization founded in 2005 for the purpose of developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology and exploring its scientific implications. Its founding was made possible by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which continues to support its ongoing work.

All of the research they've done which includes stuff done pre-2005, is part of this endeavor.

Comment by Guts — November 24, 2008 @ 12:15 am

don provan Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 5:09 am
You guys say the same thing no matter what is being discussed.

Could you be more specific? What is it we say?

It's very obvious though that you didn't even read anything at all,

I believe I said that I hadn't looked at this lately, didn't I?

… as one of the more prominent papers listed dealt with not an ID assertion, but a traditional assumption that exterior positions on proteins should be easy to change.

Why would we look for or comment on something like that? The topic is ID and ID-related endeavors. Why are you bringing up a paper about something else?

Comment by don provan — November 24, 2008 @ 5:09 am

Alan Fox Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Me:

From a perusal of the titles, nothing leapt out at me which would indicate ID endeavour.

Nelson:

That makes absolutely no sense.

I'll try to be clearer. You gave a link where I could find ID-related endeavour. I read a list of papers. From their titles, I could not identify a specific paper that demonstrated ID-related endeavour. Could you select a paper that, in your view, best demonstrates ID-related endeavour? I will then do you the courtesy of reading it. I hope that is clear, now.

Comment by Alan Fox — November 24, 2008 @ 6:05 am

Guts Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Don wrote:

Could you be more specific? What is it we say?

Um, what I quoted.

Don writes:

Why would we look for or comment on something like that? The topic is ID and ID-related endeavors. Why are you bringing up a paper about something else?

This is getting quite hilarious. You come into this thread making completely false claims, and then run away and claim it's off topic when I point it out. Why not instead just admit your errors?

Comment by Guts — November 24, 2008 @ 1:49 pm

Guts Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Alan:

Could you select a paper that, in your view, best demonstrates ID-related endeavour? I will then do you the courtesy of reading it. I hope that is clear, now.

Again, that makes absolutely no sense. The research center is an endeavor, ID related in all it's glory. Whether you agree or disagree with a particular conclusion of a single paper is irrelevant.

I know your're not used to this way of thinking, but why don't you try reading one or two before making a decision as to whether their endeavor is worthwhile. If you disagree with one of their papers, describe it here first, then explain in detail why you disagree with it.

Comment by Guts — November 24, 2008 @ 1:53 pm

don provan Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Um, what I quoted.

You do remember that your claim was, "You guys say the same thing no matter what is being discussed," don't you? I'm absolutely positive I've never before said what you quoted.

This is getting quite hilarious. You come into this thread making completely false claims, and then run away and claim it's off topic when I point it out. Why not instead just admit your errors?

I'll be happy to admit any errors as soon as you explain them to me. The subject of this thread is ID's current state. The claim (which I didn't make, by the way) was, "But 'where's the beef?' Dembski and Marks can only produce mathematical models that purport to disprove evolution." Obviously this is in the context of ID research, so non-ID research, no matter how successful and important, is beside the point: it could be done anywhere by anybody. In this context, only research that requires an ID atmosphere — what Alan's been calling "ID endeavor", since the original blog used that term — seems relevant to me. You seem to be saying we should take into account non-ID research because it's posted on an ID web site, but we're not seeing why we should.

I think that's a fair account of the conversation, but I'd admit I'm entirely at error and apologize profusely, if it helped you to post a link to a specific research paper you'd like us to consider as evidence that ID research has gotten some scientific credentials. This conversation started because Alan claimed ID hadn't gotten any creds yet. Since you apparently believe it has, why don't you just point to specific examples? You tried pointing to a web site, but I've looked at it in the past and Alan looked at it just now, and neither of us found the evidence you were suggesting. It's true that that could easily be our fault, but that's why you, who presumably knows what proof you're talking about, should tell us what to look at to find what we missed.

I have read one or two. More actually. So let's move on to where you actually show us the papers that show ID is a productive line of research. I don't understand why you're so resistent to performing this simple task when you act as if the right papers are so easy to find.

Comment by don provan — November 24, 2008 @ 2:26 pm

Alan Fox Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
The research center is an endeavor, ID related in all it's glory. Whether you agree or disagree with a particular conclusion of a single paper is irrelevant.

Assuming for the moment setting up a website is ID-related endeavour, then "irrelevant period" is the most appropriate response to your poll.

I know your're not used to this way of thinking, but why don't you try reading one or two before making a decision as to whether their endeavor is worthwhile. If you disagree with one of their papers, describe it here first, then explain in detail why you disagree with it.

But you tell me the papers are irrelevant! Surely, assuming you have read them, you must have a favourite. And remember I am not making any claims. You stated there was ID-related endeavour going on. If it is just the fact that the website has been set up then of course I concede the point

Comment by Alan Fox — November 24, 2008 @ 3:57 pm

Guts Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Don wrote:

I'll be happy to admit any errors as soon as you explain them to me. The subject of this thread is ID's current state. The claim (which I didn't make, by the way) was, "But 'where's the beef?' Dembski and Marks can only produce mathematical models that purport to disprove evolution."

Actually you did make it:

you wrote:

Offhand, this looks like "mathematical modules that purport to disprove evolution".

Of course, that's not true. But I'm glad you're distancing yourself from that statement at least, that shows honesty.

Don:

Obviously this is in the context of ID research, so non-ID research, no matter how successful and important, is beside the point:

I have no idea what you're talking about, I never pointed to any non-ID research.

don:

I think that's a fair account of the conversation, but I'd admit I'm entirely at error and apologize profusely, if it helped you to post a link to a specific research paper you'd like us to consider as evidence that ID research has gotten some scientific credentials.

I already did discuss one, I just didn't specifically point it out because I wanted to know if this was really true:

I actually looked a little deeper once a while back, and that's, in fact, all I found — well, all I found that wasn't pure rhetoric — but I have to admit I haven't looked lately

If you truly looked a little deeper, especially a while back, you'd recognize which paper i'm referring to (which is listed at the research center site). Of course it's possible you just don't remember.

Comment by Guts — November 25, 2008 @ 12:06 am

Guts Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Alan wrote:

Assuming for the moment setting up a website is ID-related endeavour, then "irrelevant period" is the most appropriate response to your poll.

The Biologic Institute is a research center that publishes papers and conducts reasearch, not just a website.

Alan:

But you tell me the papers are irrelevant! Surely, assuming you have read them, you must have a favourite. And remember I am not making any claims. You stated there was ID-related endeavour going on. If it is just the fact that the website has been set up then of course I concede the point

You're really confused as to the meaning of endeavor, I told you your agreement or disagreement with a particular paper is irrelevant as to whether there is currently an endeavor. I'm already discussing a specific paper with don, and you are welcome to join in. Why won't you discuss one, didn't you read/understand any?

Comment by Guts — November 25, 2008 @ 12:08 am

don provan Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Guts,

I have no idea why you're being so cagey.

Comment by don provan — November 25, 2008 @ 3:21 am

Guts Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:47 am
I thought I had made that clear. You claimed:

[the ones you saw] that were at the level you are discussing did nothing to support the ID assertions, but merely depended on the ID assertions to draw their conclusions. I guess I forgot to mention "smoke screen" when describing the research.

And yet you can't even recognize one of the most prominent papers that "were at the level [I] was discussing". Did you just make this up?

Comment by Guts — November 25, 2008 @ 3:47 am

Zachriel Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Guts: You should check out their research center website they've done much more than just mathematical models.
…
don provan: Offhand, this looks like "mathematical modules that purport to disprove evolution".
…
Guts: Experiments with proteins, which include computer simulations, are not just mathematical models (not modules) that "purport" to "disprove evolution".
…
don provan: Perhaps you would you like to blog a new conversation on the subject, or point me to an existing one.
…
Guts: You claimed that all they were doing were making mathematical models, that is quite obviously false.
…
don provan: Now that I've been corrected, could you provide a link to the research report you want to discuss?
…
Guts: It's very obvious though that you didn't even read anything at all
…
don provan: Could you be more specific? What is it we say? … I believe I said that I hadn't looked at this lately, didn't I?
…
Guts: Um, what I quoted… You come into this thread making completely false claims, and then run away and claim it's off topic when I point it out. Why not instead just admit your errors?
…
don provan: So let's move on to where you actually show us the papers that show ID is a productive line of research.
…
Guts: If you truly looked a little deeper, especially a while back, you'd recognize which paper i'm referring to (which is listed at the research center site).
…
don provan: I have no idea why you're being so cagey.
…
Guts: And yet you can't even recognize one of the most prominent papers that "were at the level [I] was discussing".

Um, can you simply point to the paper?

Comment by Zachriel — November 25, 2008 @ 9:12 am

Guts Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Sure, I was referring to Extreme Functional Sensitivity paper written by Axe, it was the first and made the most noise "a while back". It was touted by Dembski, Behe, and even Simon Conway Morris in his book Life's Solution . I'm not surprised no one recognized it, but it is quite funny given all the claims being thrown about in this thread by the anti-id activists.

Comment by Guts — November 26, 2008 @ 1:39 am

don provan Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 3:33 am
Sure, I was referring to Extreme Functional Sensitivity paper written by Axe, it was the first and made the most noise "a while back". It was touted by Dembski, Behe, and even Simon Conway Morris in his book Life's Solution . I'm not surprised no one recognized it, but it is quite funny given all the claims being thrown about in this thread by the anti-id activists.

Thank-you. Do you mean "Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors" (J Mol Biol. 2000 Aug 18;301(3):585-95)? The abstract says nothing about ID. Could you expand on why this is an example of ID "not only alive and well, but broadening"?

And not to put to fine a point on it, but this paper was published eight years ago: hardly a good example to bring up when the topic was the decline of ID today. Did you not understand what Alan was asking for?

Comment by don provan — November 26, 2008 @ 3:33 am

Guts Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 3:43 am
Don:

Thank-you. Do you mean "Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors" (J Mol Biol. 2000 Aug 18;301(3):585-95)? The abstract says nothing about ID.

So what? The abstract doesn't have to contain the words "Intelligent design" in order to have implications for ID concepts.

Don writes:

Could you expand on why this is an example of ID "not only alive and well, but broadening"?

The evidence that ID is alive and well is the fact that Axe now heads an ID research institute and that recently a book was published that takes ID in a different direction, and thus, "broadening".

Don:

And not to put to fine a point on it, but this paper was published eight years ago: hardly a good example to bring up when the topic was the decline of ID today. Did you not understand what Alan was asking for?

It doesn't matter if it was published 100 years ago, it is quite relevant to existing research, which is why it is currently listed at the website. And besides, there are other papers listed that are more recent and more that are currently being worked on.

Comment by Guts — November 26, 2008 @ 3:43 am

don provan Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 4:00 am
The abstract doesn't have to contain the words "Intelligent design" in order to have implications for it.

Sure. I didn't see the implications, though. Sorry. Can you lay them out for me?

The evidence that ID is alive and well is the fact that Axe now heads an ID research institute and that recently a book was published that takes ID in a different direction.

Oh. Well, you pointed us to that research page. Why did you do that if that wasn't the evidence?

I'm starting to feel like your just jerking us around. Do you have a case or not? Do you expect me to track down the book — again, a vague reference instead of anything reasonable like a concrete reference — and buy it, just so after I read it and still find no case, you can say, "Oh, the book wasn't the evidence, it was…", acting like it's my fault you can't prove your point?

Comment by don provan — November 26, 2008 @ 4:00 am

Guts Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 4:16 am
Don:

Sure. I didn't see the implications, though. Sorry. Can you lay them out for me?

Ok, so can I get an admission that this:

From the research page, we get three "Areas of Research": "The origin and role of information in biology", "Functional constraints and design constraints", and "Design patterns and hallmarks". Offhand, this looks like "mathematical modules that purport to disprove evolution". (I actually looked a little deeper once a while back, and that's, in fact, all I found — well, all I found that wasn't pure rhetoric — but I have to admit I haven't looked lately.)

was made up first? You obviously didn't read it if I have to explain it to you even though you claim here that you looked "a while back". For example, how exactly is a structure based approach to studying whether proteins are low, median, or high in informational content a "smoke screen"? How exactly is it just "rhetoric"? How is it just a "mathematical module" ? Nothing that you claimed makes any sense.

Don:

Oh. Well, you pointed us to that research page. Why did you do that if that wasn't the evidence?

How isn't it evidence? It's the fruits of a research lab headed by Axe himself.

Don:

I'm starting to feel like your just jerking us around. Do you have a case or not? Do you expect me to track down the book — again, a vague reference instead of anything reasonable like a concrete reference — and buy it,

LOL how many ID books are you aware of that are explicitely about front-loading? Please reference them. I sincerely hope that you are not completely ignorant in this area as well, that would put you in a far worse situation than you are currently in.

Comment by Guts — November 26, 2008 @ 4:16 am

don provan Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Guts,

Here's the lesson to learn:

Saying "it looks like it to me" is not an argument. Pointing and saying "See?" does not make it an argument. To make an argument, instead of sending someone to look, you take them there and show them.

When you don't do that, not only do you not convince us, you start to make us wonder if you have a case at all. Since you gave us the option of not going to look, we start to wonder if you were bluffing about there being any evidence there to begin with. In addition, we start to wonder if you can explain the evidence, or if you only think there's evidence there because someone told you there was.

This is all obvious to anyone that knows how to evaluate an argument, and it has nothing to do with science or the scientific method or materialism. The fact that you seem unaware of it suggests to me that you are have not actually evaluated the ID arguments in general or the specific claim of ID being healthy, you just believe them for reasons other than the impartial analysis that Alan and I are attempting. Is that the case? If so, we don't need to waste any more time.

Comment by don provan — November 26, 2008 @ 8:04 pm

Guts Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Don wrote:

Saying "it looks like it to me" is not an argument. Pointing and saying "See?" does not make it an argument. To make an argument, instead of sending someone to look, you take them there and show them.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I always referenced a lab experiment and never said "see". What is obvious is even now, you have not responded to any of my questions. Which leads me to believe that everything you said in this thread, you just made up.

It's too bad because I was really looking forward to you explaining how an experimental substitution to a protein is just "rhetoric" or a "mathematical module". Oh well.

Comment by Guts — November 26, 2008 @ 10:06 pm

don provan Says:
November 27th, 2008 at 6:47 am
I always referenced a lab experiment and never said "see".

First of all, you haven't at any time in this thread "referenced" a lab experiment: you claim they are there, and you expect us to go find them.

Second, referencing a lab experiment without actually explaining how it relates to the case you're making is, in fact, saying "See?"

Third, you are the one making a case, so it doesn't make any sense for you to ask me questions, and even less for me to waste time answering them.

Look, I'm trying to help you. An effective case works regardless of the audience. Stop trying to focus this on me and focus on making your case, instead.

Comment by don provan — November 27, 2008 @ 6:47 am

Bradford Says:
November 27th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I retraced the ongoing exchange and reached this comment which I believe to be a critical point.

Don: Offhand, this looks like "mathematical modules that purport to disprove evolution".

Guts: Experiments with proteins, which include computer simulations, are not just mathematical models (not modules) that "purport" to "disprove evolution". In fact, Alan's description is extremely sloppy , but I tend to read charitably.

Don's comment is interesting in that it narrowly interprets other studies on protein properties. Having cited one such study months ago I'm aware of the likelihood of Don's reaction. In effect, "you're not trying to disprove evolution are you?" It's a soundbite with extraneous overtones injected into the conversation.

Models which caste doubt on the plausibility of an evolutionary sub-component also can be interpreted as exactly those points in a process where a telic input is identified. It may be a suspicion leading to further empirical investigations. Guts need not respond to the "disproving" allegation. Instead postive elements can be pointed to that experiments would be aimed at addressing.

Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2008 @ 10:23 am

Zachriel Says:
November 27th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Bradford: Models which caste doubt on the plausibility of an evolutionary sub-component also can be interpreted as exactly those points in a process where a telic input is identified. It may be a suspicion leading to further empirical investigations.

All the scientists of my acquaintance are very straightforward in their work. If they want to say something of relevance, they say it. That's because they are actually interested in the details of their work. It's intrinsic to how a paper is written. You state your hypothesis, the expectations, the test and the results. If a paper is about Intelligent Design, they would certainly say so because entailing is at the core of the hypothesis. We judge a paper by its influence on your peers, so if the results are suggestive of new avenues of research, then you explicitly state this too. That is the very nature of a scientific paper.

It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material. — Watson & Crick, Nature 1953.

Comment by Zachriel — November 27, 2008 @ 10:42 am

Bradford Says:
November 27th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Zachriel: You state your hypothesis, the expectations, the test and the results. If a paper is about Intelligent Design, they would certainly say so because entailing is at the core of the hypothesis.

They would not want to specify a link to intelligent design if they know what's good for them. Not unless they wish to spend the remainder of their careers limited to a small group of asssociates. The model here is the origin of life. If you read specific papers focused on possible natural extra-cellular sources of amino acids for example, you find there is nothing about the formation of a cell which is needed to make the point established in the paper itself. Yet abiogenesis can be mentioned as there are no sanctions attached to the concept. No ill will likely coming your way for making the link. Research is not proprietary with respect to conclusions made from the data.

Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2008 @ 12:39 pm

Guts Says:
November 27th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Don:

First of all, you haven't at any time in this thread "referenced" a lab experiment: you claim they are there, and you expect us to go find them.

Simply not true. I referenced Extreme Functional Sensitivity, by Axe. That paper that you linked to is a lab experiment. Can't you even tell the difference between armchair work and bench work?

Don:

Second, referencing a lab experiment without actually explaining how it relates to the case you're making is, in fact, saying "See?"

You claimed to have looked really deep into it "a while back" and claimed that you saw nothing but rhetoric and "mathematical modules" , I asked how a lab experiment is nothing but rhetoric and/or "mathematical modules" you still haven't answered my question.

Don:

Third, you are the one making a case, so it doesn't make any sense for you to ask me questions, and even less for me to waste time answering them.

That is completely false, I just set up a poll and was asked to give an example of an endeavor. I gave one, then you started making all these ridiculous claims that you can't back up.

Comment by Guts — November 27, 2008 @ 10:58 pm

don provan Says:
November 28th, 2008 at 12:50 am
I referenced Extreme Functional Sensitivity, by Axe. That paper that you linked to is a lab experiment. Can't you even tell the difference between armchair work and bench work?

Can you tell the difference between "mentioning" and "referencing"? And you only said "Extreme Function Sensitivity" (which isn't actually the name of the paper, by the way) after Alan and I both begged you to stop hinting and tell us what it was.

You claimed to have looked really deep…

I said no such thing. I said I only briefly looked at one or two. But it doesn't matter what I said. The point is that to make a case, you make a case: it makes no sense to assume that the person that asked you about the case already knows what that case is.

That is completely false, I just set up a poll and was asked to give an example of an endeavor. I gave one, then you started making all these ridiculous claims that you can't back up.

My mistake. Alan and I both thought you were making the case that the research you pointed to constitutes evidence that ID is healthy. If you don't think that case can be made, we can go back to Alan's suggestion that the research doesn't show health and growth, but, instead, is just rehash and rhetoric based on the original, tired claims.

You keep bringing up the paper and asking questions about it, but I only have the abstract, and it doesn't mention "information content" at all. My experience with ID "researchers" using "information content" is that they simply depend on Dembski's claims about "information content" and in no way do anything to confirm them. This is smoke screen, not research. But without actually seeing this paper — you'd think a research institute dedicating to fostering an idea would provide access to its research — I cannot answer your specific questions about what this paper is doing. But, if you'd just tell me why you think this paper advances the case for ID (hint: saying "measure information content" doesn't do it), then we could discuss that.

Comment by don provan — November 28, 2008 @ 12:50 am

Guts Says:
November 28th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Don:

Can you tell the difference between "mentioning" and "referencing"?

Um no I have no idea what the difference is. I referenced the title and the author of a lab experiment.

Don:

And you only said "Extreme Function Sensitivity" (which isn't actually the name of the paper, by the way) after Alan and I both begged you to stop hinting and tell us what it was.

No I said:

Sure, I was referring to Extreme Functional Sensitivity here

And this was after Zachriel asked me. I'm not quite sure why you keep making things up.

Don wrote:

You claimed to have looked really deep…

I said no such thing.

Yes you did:

you wrote:

I actually looked a little deeper once a while back, and that's, in fact, all I found — well, all I found that wasn't pure rhetoric

Stop making things up for crying out loud.

Don wrote:

My mistake. Alan and I both thought you were making the case that the research you pointed to constitutes evidence that ID is healthy.

That is my point, the Biologic Institute contains staff ranging from biologists to computer scientists all with the common goal to advance intelligent design as a scientifically sound model. How that isn't an endeavor is beyond me. I was not making a case that all their research is sound, that is a different argument.

Don:

I cannot answer your specific questions about what this paper is doing. But, again, if you'd just tell me why you think this paper advances the case for ID (hint: saying "measure information content" doesn't do it), then we could discuss that.

The paper sets out to establishe proteins as functionally isolated islands, ie high in informational content (although not as high as some would like).

Comment by Guts — November 28, 2008 @ 1:01 am

don provan Says:
November 28th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Um no I have no idea what the difference is. I referenced the title and the author of a lab experiment.

A reference goes beyond simply naming the paper and helps your audience actually find it. At least, that's the way I was using the term.

The paper sets out to establishe proteins as functionally isolated islands, ie high in informational content (although not as high as some would like).

Not much to go on, but from the trivial nature of what you describe, I would conclude that it takes as a given Dembski's position that "informational content" is important and useful and can be measured in a way derived from Dembski's modeling. Smoke screen. To actually imply progress in ID research, it would need to do something more, such as actually demonstrating a relation between the informational content in the proteins and intelligence.

For future reference "a little deeper" means something entirely different than "really deep".

Comment by don provan — November 28, 2008 @ 1:48 am

Guts Says:
November 28th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Don wrote:

A reference goes beyond simply naming the paper and helps your audience actually find it. At least, that's the way I was using the term.

You seem to have found it pretty easily, ever heard of google?

Don:

Not much to go on, but from the trivial nature of what you describe, I would conclude that it takes as a given Dembski's position that "informational content" is important and useful and can be measured in a way derived from Dembski's modeling.

Uhh no, it has nothing to do with Dembski's modeling. It has to do with not a lot of protein substitions that can recover protein functions when changed. It's obvious that you still havne't read the paper and yet you are quick to call it a "smoke screen", although you've abandoned all the other ridiculous claims (rhetoric, mathematical module).

Don:

For future reference "a little deeper" means something entirely different than "really deep".

Oh ok, maybe we need a "mathematical module" filled with "rhetoric" to tell the difference, a "smoke screen" would come in handy to weed out the little deepers from the really deeps. Those fake deepers suck don't they?

Comment by Guts — November 28, 2008 @ 1:59 am

How much has the landscape changed?

42 Responses to “How much has the landscape changed?”

Featured Books