34 Responses to “Intelligent design and science (this time, with feeling)”

1. Aagcobb Says:
   December 29th, 2005 at 5:31 pm

   I would point out that the judge's ruling is not binding on the NSF since it was not a party to the litigation, nor is it located in the Middle District of Pa., nor was my research proposal under consideration by Judge Jones since it didn't even exist at the time of the ruling, nor could it be construed as violating the Lemon test since you have concluded that my research proposal is empirically testable, thus its primary effect is not religious, nor does it involve excessive entanglement with religion, nor does it have a religious purpose.

   Or I could, as a practical matter, simply accept the grant under the NSF's conditions, and either let others draw their own conclusions about its implications for ID, or ignore their prior conditions when I publish since they have no right under the 1st Amendment to prevent me from expressing my views about ID.

Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 5:31 pm

2. MikeGene Says:
   December 29th, 2005 at 5:33 pm

   Yes, but judge relied on the "scientific experts" to reach his decision. Another name for the experts is "peer reviewers."

   The judge has simply inscribed in stone the perceptions that are widespread and in control.

Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2005 @ 5:33 pm

3. Krauze Says:
   December 29th, 2005 at 5:40 pm

   Hi Aagcobb,

   The example was an excercise to determine the criteria used by Judge Jones to rule that intelligent design was unscientific. Speculations about juristiction and the 1st Amendment are besides the pont.

Comment by Krauze — December 29, 2005 @ 5:40 pm

4. Mark Nutter Says:
   December 29th, 2005 at 6:17 pm

   If the NSF thought that Judge Jones ruled that "intelligent design" was inherently unscientific, I would point out that by "intelligent design," Judge Jones was referring to the Intelligent Design movement, documenting my point by citing the specific details used by Judge Jones himself in his 139-page ruling to justify his conclusion, and showing how he consistently addresses, not the theoretical possibility of conducting an objective, scientific inquiry into intelligent design, but rather the actual, historical events and practices which happened (or did not happen, e.g. rigorous scientific research and peer review in the relevant fields, etc) leading up to the Dover case. The ruling itself documents very clearly that it was the de facto ID movement which Judge Jones found to be unscientific, whether or not there is (or could be) a legitimate scientific inquiry that could be called by the same name.

   And if the NSF still refused funding, why not turn to the Discovery Institute, or some of the other wealthy backers who spent so many millions on the ID PR campaign? Surely if so many are willing to donate money to lobby school boards and produce Hollywood-class pro-ID movies like Privileged Planet, there must be somebody who would be willing to put up the capital to do some actual science, right?

Comment by Mark Nutter — December 29, 2005 @ 6:17 pm

5. Krauze Says:
   December 29th, 2005 at 7:09 pm

   Hi Mark,

   Where in Judge Jones' ruling does he distinguish between ID the idea and ID the movement? As for Dr. Smith seeking funding from the Discovery Institute, wouldn't that make him part of the ID movement?

Comment by Krauze — December 29, 2005 @ 7:09 pm

6. Aagcobb Says:
   December 29th, 2005 at 7:11 pm

   Sorry Krauze, I'm just a simple unfrozen caveman lawyer. Your "science" is strange and frightening to me. All I know is that US district court decisions have limited precedential value and governmental capacity to engage in prior restraint of protected speech is severely limited by the 1st Amendment.

Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 7:11 pm

7. Rock Says:
   December 29th, 2005 at 7:12 pm

   The problem with "testability" is that one never knows, prior to a test, what is or is not testable. The problem with making "test-ability" a test, is that it depends solely upon our ability to devise a test.
   It would certainly seem odd for anyone (certainly nowadays) to conclude that matter isn't made of atoms because the persons who formulated the theory were incapable of testing it.
   Testability is not a test. Tests are tests. And scientific theories, typically, contain propositions that aren't tested, and even some which can't be tested. Aren't testable. Not testable by those who propose them.
   Do scientists class all propositions that they haven't tested or can't test (given present abilities) as "supernatural"
   I don't think they do?
   So what do scientists themselves think are "supernatural explanations" Scientists rather than federal judges?
   Do scientists even really think about such things?

Comment by Rock — December 29, 2005 @ 7:12 pm

8. Krauze Says:
   December 29th, 2005 at 7:22 pm

   Hi Aagcobb,

   "Sorry Krauze, I'm just a simple unfrozen caveman lawyer."

   Then stop thinking about it as a lawsuit against the NSF, and start thinking about it as a little game of what-if. It's like on of those scenarios used in situational ethics classes: Imagine that you're 5 people aboard a liferaft that only has provisions enough for 4. What do you do? Talking about how I got the regulated standard of provisions wrong won't answer my question.

   "Your "science" is strange and frightening to me."

   Why? I got the definition straight from Judge Jones' ruling.

Comment by Krauze — December 29, 2005 @ 7:22 pm

9. doctor(logic) Says:
   December 29th, 2005 at 8:42 pm

   Krauze,

   Suppose you build a predictive theory that has some mechanistic parts and some supernatural parts. Only the mechanistic parts generate testable predictions, no?

   So what do the supernatural parts do in the theory? At best, they are restatements of existing data. They are not inferences from the data, and they are not predictive. Therefore, the supernatural should never appear in any scientific theory.

   So far, ID has no predictions. It states hypotheses about experience that are untestable. If you hypothesize that an object is an improbable configuration of matter, you are proposing at test of mechanistic probability distributions, not a design hypothesis. You can't get design by default.

   An actual ID theory (if one is ever proposed) says specifically how and why the object was designed, and predicts other, independent observations.

   For example, if you observe a bridge, you can't just predict the supports which suspend the roadway, because you already observed that the roadway was supended. Predicting the supports is just predicting the bridge you already observed. You have to predict something independent of the bridge that illustrates its utility to its designer (e.g., humans who could build the bridge and use it).

   Utility is what produces predictions in design theories. This is why you have to say something about the designer (and what would be useful to the designer) to get predictions out of ID.

   Everyone knows that IDists think the designer is God (who is not only supernatural, but has no utility for matter at all), and so no predictions are ever possible. Judge Jones threw the book at ID because it is transparently a religious enterprise. DI is getting millions for ID from religious backers, despite the fact that ID can produce neither evidence nor prediction.

Comment by doctor(logic) — December 29, 2005 @ 8:42 pm

10. Joe G Says:
    December 29th, 2005 at 9:41 pm

    The following is a relevant passage from What the heck was that judge thinking?

    3. Judge Jones wrongly claims that intelligent design "requires supernatural creation." (p. 30, emphasis added)

    Contrary to Judge Jones, there was extensive evidence in the trial record and documents submitted in briefs that intelligent design does NOT "require supernatural creation." Indeed, Judge Jones seems to willfully misrepresent the claims of intelligent design scientists, who consistently have made clear from the very start that empirical evidence cannot tell one whether the intelligent causes detected through modern science are inside or outside of nature. For extensive documentation of this fact, see Appendix A to the Discovery Institute amicus brief submitted in the case, available here.

    As a scientific theory, all ID claims is that there is empirical evidence that key features of the universe and living things are the products of an intelligent cause. Whether the intelligent cause involved is inside or outside of nature cannot be decided by empirical evidence alone. That larger question involves philosophy and metaphysics.

    To justify his false claim that ID requires a supernatural cause, Judge Jones also completely misrepresents the content of the textbook Of Pandas and People. He claims at one point that "Pandas indicates that there are two kinds of causes, natural and intelligent, which demonstrate that intelligent causes are beyond nature." (p. 30) In fact, Pandas explicitly and repeatedly makes the opposite claim: Intelligent causes may be either inside or outside of nature, and empirical evidence alone can't determine which option is correct. Pandas made this distinction even in its early drafts, one of which emphatically stated that "in science, the proper contrary to natural cause is not supernatural cause, but intelligent cause." (FTE Amicus Brief, Appendix B, Document B; emphasis added.) Also consider the following passages from the edition of Pandas actually used in Dover (both of these passages were highlighted for Judge Jones in Appendix A of the FTE amicus brief):

    "If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist."(Of Pandas and People, 2nd ed., 1993, pg. 7; emphasis added)

    "Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science." (Of Pandas and People, 2nd ed., 1993, pg. 126-127; emphasis added)

    Again, the intelligent causes detected through empirical evidence may be either inside or outside of nature; and contrary to Judge Jones, this point is made in the very book he cites to justify his position. Incredibly, Judge Jones at another point in his opinion (p. 25) misinterprets the Pandas' quote on p. 7 as further proof that ID requires a belief in a supernatural cause, claiming:

    In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas' rhetorical statement, "what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]" and answer: "On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy."

    Contrary to Judge Jones, the above statement clearly does NOT concede that "the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science." Instead, it merely reaffirms that empirical science cannot determine whether the intelligent cause detected resides inside or outside of nature. That further determination requires more than empirical science. Far from being merely "rhetorical," this claim is central to the definition of intelligent design as a scientific theory, and it is reaffirmed and further explained in other passages in Pandas that the Judge ignores (such as the passage on pp. 126-127 cited above).

    However as I stated in another thread ID is all about what science should be about- conducting the research and allowing for the design inference.

    However if one could convince the NSF that the ONLY way to decipher the code (make sense of DNA to the point we know it like we know C++) is by thinking in terms of a crytographer trying to decipher an intelligently constructed, meaningful message that had been encrypted and transmitted.

    Richard Dawkins tells us, "The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." Perhaps there is a very good reason for that.

    Bill Gates says, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've created."

    Again why couldn't there be something objectively correct to what these guys say? What if the only way to understand DNA is via the design inference, but the ruling in Dover, although not legally binding outside that very small parcel, has reaching, rippling effects that prevent the funding for the research?

    Once people realize that science is all about reality, regardless of the social-polical fallout, the better a place we will live in.

Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 9:41 pm

11. Joe G Says:
    December 29th, 2005 at 9:42 pm

    Umm social- political fallout (first day with my new right hand)

Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 9:42 pm

12. tika Says:
    December 29th, 2005 at 11:33 pm

    At the risk of posting on topic:

    I really can't understand all the ID whining over Judge Jones' ruling, except a major league case of sour grapes.

    Have you guys read through the whole ruling? The Judge ruled on the evidence that was presented to him at the trial.

    He didn't rule on Dembski's books, or the DI's stated goal, or the Raeleans. He ruled on the evidence that was presented to him at the trial.

    Judge Jones bent over backward in the ruling to give clear and concise reasons as to why he made his decisions. He made it clear that it was solely based on things put before his eyes and ears in that courtroom.

    If the IDers wan to point fingers, they need to point at the Dover school board for being such lying dupes, or Behe for being such an arrogant ass, or the DI for bailing out, or Dembski for chickening out.

    Don't blame the Judge for making the correct call just because the ID side presented no positive evidence AND screwed up big time.

Comment by tika — December 29, 2005 @ 11:33 pm

13. WhirlingBlade Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 3:45 am

    @Krauze

    How would TQA advice our hypothetical scientist to respond to this hypothetical demand?

    I have two contigent answers:

    1) If I wanted the grant, I would simply change some minor semantics and continue on. "Hi, I propose an algorithm which will distinguish artifacts from natural structure. Imagine the potential for space exploration!".

    Nor would I be being dishonest. I'd love a solid method to distinguish a computer from a tree, irrespective of who designed the computer or why. (I am aware of Specified Complexity and the Explanatory Filter).

    2) If I wanted to make a point, I'd go to court.

Comment by WhirlingBlade — December 30, 2005 @ 3:45 am

14. TQA Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 6:14 am

    Manual trackback: I've responded here

Comment by TQA — December 30, 2005 @ 6:14 am

15. Joe G Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 9:54 am

    Krauze asks:
    Indeed, how can supernaturalness by itself be "sufficient" to rule that intelligent design is unscientific, independent of the criterion that supposedly provides its justification?

    It can't for a simple reason:

    In any case, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, debate about methodological rules of science often forms part of the practice of science, especially during times when established paradigms are being challenged. Those who reject the "teach the controversy" model on the grounds that ID violates the current rules of scientific practice only beg the question. The present regime of methodological rules cannot prevent the controversy for the simple reason that those rules may themselves be one of the subjects of scientific controversy. page xxv of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

    Then there is Newton, Kepler, Galileo et al. who conducted their research under the premise of a divine creator. Will Judge Jones have all of their findings thrown out of the science classroom in his district? Or do they fall under some obscure "grandfather clause"

    Judge Jones, had he been versed in science, would have understood that science, when conducted propoerly, has to follow the data, regardless of what it leads to.

    As Scott Minnich states- "If the evidence leads to the metaphysical then so be it."

    Dr Behe informs us:

    "It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality. It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed. This fact immediately suggested a singular event-that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size.

    To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event-the creation, the beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many physicists in voicing his disgust with such a notion:

    "Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind"

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 9:54 am

16. Rock Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 11:03 am

    The "rule" is a philosophical and legal fiction. Scientists don't observe the rule.
    Eavesdropping, I hear, "God does not play dice with the universe." And the response (Hilarious!), "Don't tell God what to do!"
    Assuming "God" is supernatural, I should think that this is an idiotic doctrinal dispute between two religious nuts"”and not one of the most important theoretical debates in the history of modern physics.
    Why is it that Einstein & Bohr can get away with introducing "God" into a scientific argument, but IDers can't?
    Is it because for Einstein & Bohr "God" is mere rhetorical device, a placeholder for complex physical conceptions and theories? They don't argue much about God any further, at least not by name, or in traditional theological terms. But I don't why I should presume they are not arguing about God at all. How do I know that a body of complicated physical theories aren't placeholders for "God"?
    But, in this context, the question is if science has centuries old ground rules against supernaturalistic explanations, why do Einstein and Bohr mention God at all in the context of a scientific discussion? Don't they know the rules?
    Of course they don't, because there is no such rule!
    I think Einstein & Bohr would be appalled at the very idea of a federal judge deciding what are the rules of science!
    They may be even more appalled to hear that the scientific community at large remains silent over this bit of outrageaous presumption and that some scientists even applaud it!
    What's next? Federal judge repeals Law of Gravity?!
    The judge's legal criteria are just applicable in that case. Everyone is well aware of Newton's religious motivations. We know he identifies gravity with the mind of God. We know he uses God to fill the gaps in his theory, requiring miraculous interventions by God to "save the phenomenon." We know his scientific peers criticized his "law of gravity" because it smacked of the "supernatural" to them, even invoking a scientific "rule" that forbids it. We know he published his theory w/o peer-review. And that his theory "explains" nothing except by a mathematical artifice, md^2.
    The whole things smacks of religious rigmarole to me. I don't think schoolchildren should be exposed to this sort of nonsense! LOL Does the Law of Gravity pass the Lemon test?
    Law of Gravity! Phssst!

Comment by Rock — December 30, 2005 @ 11:03 am

17. Joe G Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 11:21 am

    Rock asks:
    What's next? Federal judge repeals Law of Gravity?!

    Once the judge understands that natural processes can't account for the laws of nature or the origin of nature, what other choice is there?

    "The laws that govern nature are not beholden to scientific inquiry because they are laws. And therefore not subject to the same standards as science. The law of graivity simply is and no one is allowed to figure out how it came to be because it always was."

    What did Newton say:

    Though these bodies may, indeed persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws… [Thus] this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.

    But we all know now that Newton wasn't a scientist- yeah right.

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 11:21 am

18. MikeGene Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 11:25 am

    Hi Rock,

    I don't think Pasteur and his fellow scientists were aware of this rule also. Notice what he says in his address given at the Sorbonne Scientific Sioree on April 7, 1864 -

    "Heated controversies, such as those which arise today among our scientists, are all the more lively, all the more impassioned, for having their counterpart in popular opinion, which, as you know, is always divided between two schools of thought, as old as the hills; these days we call them "materialism" and "spiritualism.""

    I guess we're supposed to believe that today science is completely insulated from popular opinion by the power of the magic white lab coat.

Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2005 @ 11:25 am

19. Joe G Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 11:51 am

    You can put Dr. Planck into the mix of those who didn't undertand the "rule":

    "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

    Which is evidence that in the 20th century the "rule" was unknown to scientists.

    Who is responsible for this? Who had the responsibility to tell the scientsists of the "rules" they must play by? Why didn't some of the greatest scientists who ever lived not get the message?

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 11:51 am

20. poikilotherm Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 12:50 pm

    Gee whiz guys. You want crazy stuff in science? Make it work for you.

    Who the heck cares what a bunch of dead guys thinks is and isn't science? In here and now, what this judge thinks doesn't mean that much either.

    Man, if the indignation was matched by productivity ……… ……… ….

Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 12:50 pm

21. Rock Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 12:52 pm

    "Let no one enter here who does not have faith"
    Inscription over the door on Max Plank's Laboratory

    The very idea that scientists have "rules" for explanations is ridiculous. Apparently they only have one rule, explanations are not supernaturalistic"”even though knows what that's supposed to mean. Did the judge provide me with any practical guidance as to what, as a scientist, I am allowed to say or not say? (Better yet, did he publish his findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. LOL)
    I understand perfectly what Einstein & Bohr are explaining to each other and I think everyone else would too.
    (Supposedly Bohr said that not only did God play dice with the universe, but sometimes God hides the dice! LOL)
    As E&B continued their converstation they addressed directly their peers in terms that only their peers would understand (and few others). Scientists, like everyone else, tailor their explanations to the audience. I think most schoolchildren would understand what they were talking about (even if their teachers don't). But, of course one couldn't recount the conversation in a public school classroom. Or describe even the kind of non-threatening, pusillanimous "scientistic mysticism" that E&B professed. (Which seems to be so popular among physicists and mathematicians, and other "New Age" types. LOL)
    As if it was not important to know! As if it was not a factor in scientists thinking and therefore their explanations.
    It is a "pretend rule." The judge has basically told educators that in teaching science one must pretend that "supernaturalistic" beliefs have nothing to do with science.
    Scientists themselves aren't terribly "politically correct" about that. They won't accept such a "gag rule" even while they may think it should apply to others.
    It is stupid (and therefore no less than should be expected from the bench of a federal court) and hypocritical (and no one ever accused a lawyer of that before!).
    And it is absolutely unacceptable in science! It's unthinkable!
    IDers have strange supernatural beliefs. (Not any stranger than some I've read about in science!) But natural scientists have never treated all such "supernatural beliefs" the same, contrary to the erroneous criticism that such beliefs are categorically, definitively, philosophically, or methodologically, or in any other way, excluded from science.
    A few years ago John Earman & John Norton published a lengthy and important series of critical reviews. The subject? A supernatural being (also a magical device) called "Maxwell's Demon." Maxwell's Demon is certainly supernatural in the sense that by force of will he (She? It?) acts miraculously to violate known, well-established natural law. Scientists have published literally hundreds of papers on this supernatural being! (And E&N note that the notices of the demon's demise, his exorcism at least, are a bit premature. Scientists are showing more interest in this gremlin all the time! And under a variety of disguises.) Earman & Norton indicate that many efforts to scientifically "exorcize" the demon have failed. They argue that the demon's father, one of the most famous figures in the history of science, James Clerk Maxwell, didn't want the demon exorcized, "He was on the Demon's side!"
    Earman's & Nortons's conclusion, "The Demon lives!"
    Whaat?!
    I'm sorry, but any scientist who knows the rules cannot be seriously arguing about "Maxwell's Demon" in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Apparently these scientists haven't heard of the latest federal court ruling.

Comment by Rock — December 30, 2005 @ 12:52 pm

22. jazzraptor Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 1:14 pm

    Isn't the Demon equal to information?

    Maxwell's Demon = CSI

Comment by jazzraptor — December 30, 2005 @ 1:14 pm

23. jmcd Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 1:42 pm

    I certainly do not think it reasonable to ban scientific research because of percieved theistic implicatioins or motivations. To do so would be absurd given the history of science. I am willing to entertain the notion that design can be empirically demonstrated. That said, I do not think that such a feat has been accomplished yet.

    IC may be right, but I find it very unlikely and cannot understand how onw would arrive at such a conclusion. It is counter to everything we know about the universe.

    CSI is a bit more convincing, but not yet anything to rest your hat on. Computer programs will generate complex and specified patterns with "random mutations" given appropriate rules. Furthermore, the critique on ET's ability to create the living world we see today in a few billion years relies on assumptions of genetic change that are now outdated. Given that we know so little about the methods of genetic change it is unlikely that any realistic statistical probability analysis will be possible for some time.

    I think the problem that many have with ID is that they percieve it to be a search for supernatural forces or occurences. Such a search would be inherently unscientific because you would be looking for forces or occurences that could never be explained in any scientific way. Another problem with such a search is that everything we know about the universe tells us that it operates according to physical laws or rules. Perhaps life may be an exception, but to assume so requires an irrational leap of belief.

    My problem with ID is that I don't see its predictive or explanatory power. Right now I primarily view ID as a metaphysical stance but not a scientific theory. I make a design inference, but I see that as a philosophical statement.

    Therefore I think Dover was the right ruling for primarily the wrong reasons.

    p.s. Newton was an intuitive genius but decidedly incorrect on his more metaphysical observations about the natural world.

    "Though these bodies may, indeed persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws"¦ [Thus] this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
    Today we know this to be false.

Comment by jmcd — December 30, 2005 @ 1:42 pm

24. Rock Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 2:14 pm

    "Today we know this to be false."

    We know it to be false via the application of an arbitrary, philosophical and legal, "explanatory rule," or via a scientific test?

    And apparently Einstein & Bohr were unaware of the either the rule or the test, because its easy for me to see them as arguing over the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being," which neither seems to reject.

    I'm sure I would have heard of such a test. But I don't ever recall it. Spare me the details of the test though and explain to me the rule. LOL

Comment by Rock — December 30, 2005 @ 2:14 pm

25. jazzraptor Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 2:42 pm

    I think the Dover decision along with the general hostility in academia is chilling. I've considered going back to school to study bioinformatics and evolutionary computation in order to pursue some ideas regarding ID. Given the environment, it would probably be a mistake to do so. (And I'm an agnostic!)

Comment by jazzraptor — December 30, 2005 @ 2:42 pm

26. Rock Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 5:47 pm

    "For the moment, I think that the supernatural nature of ID represents perfectly reasonable grounds for ruling it unscientific. It's a fairly quick test to apply, it doesn't seem to yield ambiguous results, and it has very worked well so far. However, things can change, if only in theory. I do not believe that any of the ID proponents will be able to devise a positive test for Intelligent Design. If a positive test is devised, I think that a reasonable argument could be made that ID is no longer a supernatural explanation. But if a positive test is devised for design and if design is still felt by most to be a supernatural explanation, then (and only then) I think it would be reasonable to revisit the question of whether or not supernatural explanations should be excluded from science."
    http://thequestionableauthorit...

    I'm sorry, but what was the test again? I didn't read that part. The test that is "quick," and "unambiguous." I have been searching really hard for such a test for nearly five years now. (Sorry, IDers, but I have.) Please, I'm begging you, please don't tell me it's a "legal" or "philosophical" test. I am a scientist.

Comment by Rock — December 30, 2005 @ 5:47 pm

27. Rock Says:
    January 1st, 2006 at 3:07 pm

    "For a moment, let's try to get away from philosophical discussions about interpretation, and consider some possible consequences of this ruling. Let's say that Dr. Smith has formulated a hypothesis" that the very air surrounding us is filled with potentially malevolent invisible creatures that enter into us causing disease. (?!)
    NIH to Dr. Smith: We regret to infomr you, Dr. Smith, but the request for your grant to test this hypothesis has been rejected. Here at the NIH we believe that supernatural explanations, which your hypothesis plainly is, are not testable. "To the best of our knowledge, based on a long history of scientific investigation, it is quite simply not possible to scientifically test for supernatural causation."

Comment by Rock — January 1, 2006 @ 3:07 pm

28. Rock Says:
    January 1st, 2006 at 3:14 pm

    NIH to Dr. Smith: In closing, we recommend that you pursue a line of research consistent with the prevailing theoretical paradigm here at the NIH"”Disease is caused by an imbalance of vital humours. (LOL)

    (This is a fun game! Anyone else wanna give it a shot? Just how many theories of "supernatural causation" are their in natural science?!)

Comment by Rock — January 1, 2006 @ 3:14 pm

29. Douglas Says:
    January 1st, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    jazz,

    "I think the Dover decision along with the general hostility in academia is chilling. I've considered going back to school to study bioinformatics and evolutionary computation in order to pursue some ideas regarding ID. Given the environment, it would probably be a mistake to do so. (And I'm an agnostic!)"

    In case you weren't aware, I am currently pursuing a Master of Science in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science (otherwise known as "What?") at a university in South Bend, Indiana (I just started - I've actually only completed ONE master's course so far). That university just recently (within the past two years, I believe) began a program in Informatics, and just last semester hired their first professor of Bioinformatics. This semester will be the first time (I'm pretty sure) a Bioinformatics course will have been taught at the university. Interesting stuff, bioinformatics.

    Anyway, I happened to notice the textbooks for the Bioinformatics course while I was hunting down my textbooks for this coming semester - it was the first I was aware that such a course was to be offered. So, I hunted down one of the Informatics professors, and talked with him a bit about bioinformatics. He took me to his office, and was showing me some relevant books, when I noticed a coffee mug on one of his shelves with a verse from the Book of Proverbs. I mentioned the mug to him, and he shared that for a number of years he had worked on typesetting various Bible translations, and we talked for awhile about the Bible, and Creation/Evolution. He does NOT believe in Common Ancestry, nor Evolution.

    Basically, I just wanted to point out that the field is not completely overrun by those who would persecute scientists who don't believe in Evolution. Those who wouldn't do so are, of course, few and far between, but apparently they are there. And there'd be MORE, if you decided to join their ranks, you know (that is, you yourself would add at least ONE to their number).

Comment by Douglas — January 1, 2006 @ 4:21 pm

30. Krauze Says:
    January 1st, 2006 at 6:04 pm

    Hi Jazz,

    "I've considered going back to school to study bioinformatics and evolutionary computation in order to pursue some ideas regarding ID."

    You should go. I'd love to see those ideas fleshed out, and there's no reason to make your ID-friendly views common knowledge.

    And Douglas, you should have told the professor about this place. The more the merrier.

Comment by Krauze — January 1, 2006 @ 6:04 pm

31. Douglas Says:
    January 1st, 2006 at 8:00 pm

    Krauze,

    I might do that, if I get more chances to talk with him. (He has a Bachelor's degree from MIT [in some science field], and a PhD in Pharmacology [if I remember correctly] from Johns Hopkins University.)

Comment by Douglas — January 1, 2006 @ 8:00 pm

32. Douglas Says:
    January 1st, 2006 at 8:02 pm

    (Oh, but he has been working with computers and programming for 20 years or more, and is pursuing the same Master's degree that I am [again, if I understood him correctly]. I'm not sure what his other educational accomplishments and degrees might be, if any.)

Comment by Douglas — January 1, 2006 @ 8:02 pm

33. onething Says:
    January 2nd, 2006 at 2:05 pm

    jmcd,

    Such a search would be inherently unscientific because you would be looking for forces or occurences that could never be explained in any scientific way. Another problem with such a search is that everything we know about the universe tells us that it operates according to physical laws or rules.

    I cannot understand why having an intelligent designer in any way negates that the universe operates according to laws and rules. Nor can we be sure what can or cannot be explained in a scientific way. And further, if God herself can never be apprehended by science, that does not mean that clues to her existence and activities will not be found. The only question is, how well hidden?

    Perhaps life may be an exception, but to assume so requires an irrational leap of belief.

    Do you think your car goes against the laws of nature? Was its design and manufacture done by interrupting the laws of nature? And yet, seeing that the answer is no, could the car have evolved itself?

    In what way is it an irrational leap of faith to believe that the origin of life can only come from some prior life?

    IC may be right, but I find it very unlikely and cannot understand how one would arrive at such a conclusion. It is counter to everything we know about the universe.

    That depends on what universe you live in. It is mostly a matter of perception, interpretation, understanding. What kind of universe do you live in? Why do you say you come to a design inference philosophically, yet find it irrational in every way? Philosophy must be rational.

    My problem with ID is that I don't see its predictive or explanatory power.

    You don't see it. Have a little faith in Truth! Isn't truth the only thing that matters? And if ID is true, don't you suppose that the explanatory power will come?

    [Thus] this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
    Today we know this to be false.

    What??!! Please explain your universe. In my universe, we have laws of motion and mass and gravity but we don't understand them fully, don't know their origin, and have scientists who say that the basic laws "just are" which is pretty much what religious people say about God.

Comment by onething — January 2, 2006 @ 2:05 pm

34. doctor(logic) Says:
    January 2nd, 2006 at 2:30 pm

    onething,

    What??!! Please explain your universe. In my universe, we have laws of motion and mass and gravity but we don't understand them fully, don't know their origin, and have scientists who say that the basic laws "just are" which is pretty much what religious people say about God.

    The difference is that physical laws are causally connected with observation, and they make predictions and explain phenomena.

    An explanation is a solution to a puzzle that makes the pieces of the puzzle logically necessary. Without any set of rules, there's no logical necessity, and, hence, no explanation.

    God theories don't ever make predictions and they explain nothing. They are consistent with whatever you see, no matter what you see. What is the difference between saying "God explains X" and "I can't explain X"

    This gets down to the reason why jmcd is correct, and ID isn't explanatory. ID doesn't make any of what we observe a logical necessity. If it did, it would be making a prediction. No prediction, no explanation.

Comment by doctor(logic) — January 2, 2006 @ 2:30 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.