My own view, in embryonic form, is that life is a form of technology that was designed to "download" information from the environment and, in conjunction with the front-loaded state, gave rise to what we call evolution.

I would imagine that you are famiiiar with the work that William Jeffrey has performed with cavefish.

From his homepage:

Eye development is initiated in the cave fish embryo but the eye arrests later in development… Cave fish embryonic lens cells undergo extensive programmed cell death, which has widespread effects on eye development. Transplantation experiments indicate that a lens obtained from a surface fish donor is sufficient to rescue eye development in a cave fish host, showing that the lens is a major regulator of eye degeneration.

Pretty cool, and supportive, IMO, of what you've stated above.

Behe was already proved wrong with the bacteria flagellum. It's been shown that it evolves naturalistically.

Thanks for showing us once again how Darwinian propaganda machine has been successful in misrepresenting the truth. In reality, contrary to your claims there is no bit of empirical research and evidence to show us that The Flagellum could have evolved purely by naturalistic means. Darwinian realm is a place where hypothesis, theoretical papers and works of imaginations are disguised as scientific hard proofs.

You ask, "Mike what would need to change for you, to make ID qualify as science?"

What I would need is to see the hypothesis of intelligent design generate a track record of experimental success that generates novel understanding about the biotic world. And as unpleasant as it may seem, given my sociological perspective of science, some non-ID members of the scientific community would have to acknowledge it as science (while not necessarily agreeing with the conclusions/assumptions).

Hi kallikak,

You write:

Personally, I don't think ID is Creationism in disguise, but I do feel that the idea has been exploited for religiously motivated purposes. But I also don't think ID is science. Science is a process"¦ something that you actively perform. While the writings of some of the major ID proponents have provided a useful basis for science to proceed from, it has yet to produce anything that can be described as science.

I think this is very well stated.

I would have to wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Indeed the entire process of evolution appears, at least in my mind to be an unzipping of information that changes in response to environmental signals and cues in some manner. The unfolding of the fossil record and what we can infer re: origins of life appears to require an increase in biological information"¦ or at the very least the use of biological information in a variety of 'contexts.'

My own view, in embryonic form, is that life is a form of technology that was designed to "download" information from the environment and, in conjunction with the front-loaded state, gave rise to what we call evolution.

In any case, great post"¦ and I hope to become a regular commenter here now that I've broken the ice so to speak.

Well, great comments on your part. I'll be looking forward to reading more.

And of course, welcome to Telic Thoughts!

Behe was already proved wrong with the bacteria flagellum. It's been shown that it evolves naturalistically.

No it hasn't.

While I've not posted much here, I've lurked for some time, and have enjoyed the ambiance on this particular blog. In particular, I feel that Mike Gene approaches the subject with a healthy dose of skepticism, which I appreciate and admire.

Personally, I don't think ID is Creationism in disguise, but I do feel that the idea has been exploited for religiously motivated purposes. But I also don't think ID is science. Science is a process… something that you actively perform. While the writings of some of the major ID proponents have provided a useful basis for science to proceed from, it has yet to produce anything that can be described as science.

I also believe that Mike makes an incredibly important distinction re: biological information, with the following statement:

Many proponents of mainstream ID argue that that information increase over evolutionary time cannot be explained by natural means. I don't agree.

I would have to wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Indeed the entire process of evolution appears, at least in my mind to be an unzipping of information that changes in response to environmental signals and cues in some manner. The unfolding of the fossil record and what we can infer re: origins of life appears to require an increase in biological information… or at the very least the use of biological information in a variety of 'contexts.'

Sometimes I wonder how appropriate any analogy we can make to information as we understand it to biological information is. More and more evidence suggests that biological information is constrained at multiple levels. The recent info re: synonymous mutations seems to demonstrate this perfectly. In addition to the linear information, and structural components present in DNA… apparently DNA… or more technically mRNA sequence, and codon usage can affect protein folding. Amazing… and more or less constrained in a manner unlike any information, I am aware of…

In any case, great post… and I hope to become a regular commenter here now that I've broken the ice so to speak.

(" Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces nontrivial optimized algorithmic function at its destination. Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity.

Organization requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic.(In this statement,Trevors and Abel drive a wedge between Science and Darwinian Dogma-platolives)

Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings. Physical switch settings allow instantiation of nonphysical selections for function into physicality. Switch settings represent choices at successive decision nodes that integrate circuits and instantiate cooperative management into conceptual physical systems. Switch positions must be freely selectable to function as logic gates. Switches must be set according to rules, not laws. Inanimacy cannot "organize" itself. Inanimacy can only self-order. "Self-organization" is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. "Self-organization" provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term "self-organization" erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information…Unfortunately, others since have continued to blur the distinction between order and organization [32], [33], [36], [37], [38], [54], [63], [64], [65], [66],  [67], [68], [82], [95],[123] and [137]. The illegitimate merging of the two concepts now seems almost universal. The "category error" of logic theory leads to countless faulty inferences. Anti-informationists often appeal to epigenetic factors, prions, self-replicating peptides, regulatory proteins and small RNAs to argue life is merely physical without need of formal genetic algorithmic control mechanisms. "The appearance of design" [38] is all that is granted to the most highly organized phenomenon known to science, that of life. A corollary of this perspective is to often view cases of merely self-ordered objects and events as being evidence of self-organization. "Self-organization vs. Self-ordering Events in Life-origin Models" "Physics of Life Reviews." by David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors July 2006.")

Why do so many scientists reject ID? Variety of reasons. But I would assume a pre-existing faith commitment to atheistic materialism which requires a creation story for it to be true.