Could you substantiate that claim with something from the real world? Or is this "vague accusation" the best you can dish out?

Art sez:
I know how I would ask questions about evolution and the flagellum. I don't see any authentic interest on the parts of IDists in doing likewise.

Ummm shouldn't it be the evolutionists asking the questions about the alleged evolution of the flagellum? Aren't they the people telling us it evolved via some blind watchmaker-type process- yes they are.

So why is it they don't come up with something that would substantiate that claim?

…Also, Art whines about controls and wants me to give him a lab manual on performing such experiments.

Not a lab manual, but just an indication that the proposed experiment can accomplish the task at hand. I don't believe that it does.

Such demands aren't relevant to me. I'm not a biologist so stating a precise method of experimentation is beyond my scope. Nonetheless, true biologists do know what environments, say, a flagellum is optimal for. So why not pressure the relevant microbes in such a medium?

How many organisms? Over what time periods? How does one "find" the evolved (or, for that matter, designed) outcome? And the controls? What about the controls?

As it stands, the "experiment" that Behe has been pushing wouldn't pass muster at an elementary school science fair. It gives no chance of yielding a conclusion (either way) and it is uncontrolled. Uncontrolled experiments that cannot provide answers to testable hypotheses may be part of the new science that we can expect in the Post Wedge ID world, but they have no place in an authentic science.

Furthermore, evolution and evolving have been experimented with for decades by biologists with bacteria, fruit-flies and other forms of life. Surely, Art does not mean to imply that when it comes to things such as the flagellum, evolution some how (conveniently?) becomes untestable.

I know how I would ask questions about evolution and the flagellum. I don't see any authentic interest on the parts of IDists in doing likewise.

Isn't that how it would go in any field? Make an observation, come to a consensus- intentionally designed or the design is illusory- and THEN decide what to do with that determination.

Take archaeology. A well respected science. Archaeolgists depend on artifacts from which they can draw an inference. But first they must determine an artifact from a natural object (that being an object created by nature acting alone). Only then can they try to determine what the artifact was used for (function), how it was made and who made it (although via written history they may have an idea of the who but are looking for verification of the documentation). Or they could determine that particular artifact isn't of any use to what they are trying to accomplish, continue digging at the site or decide to move to another hopefully more promising site (keeping a small crew back at the first site just in case).

Then take an archaeologist who thinks that the design inference is tantamount to "giving up", what kind of future would that person have in their field?

"Sir take a look at this vase. It is obviously an artifact"

"Don't fool yourself. You are giving up by not looking for a natural cause for that shape. Now get back to work and don't come back until you have done so."

Doesn't make sense does it?

ID critics & anti-IDists are always saying that ID isn't science because it doesn't attempt to answer questions about the designer- such as its capabilities; the implementation process/ mechanism of design (how); when or where it was designed.

But that is exactly why ID is scientific. Because it forces us to ask those questions.

I have always maintained that ID isn't interested in answering those questions but IDists are. I have always maintained that is the same as the ToE not being concerned with life's origins but evolutionists are. I never could or will understand why anti-IDists can't understand that pure & basic logical connection. But anyway…

IDists understand that in order to possibly answer those questions there is quite a bit of work to be done. However the more & deeper the pap we have to waste our time fending off, the less amount of time we can spend on the doing part.

The first is the detection- that is why gets archaeologists going. Then we look for more while others are going over the first. We fit the pieces together, unless of course we find a short-cut, but the answer turns out to be 42* but we don't know the question. (those darn mice)

*Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevany sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely. Del Ratzsch page 5 of Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science

or as I refer to it as anything that nature, acting alone, could not or would not do.

Run for your life!

About the only people who believe in analyzing statements based on supposed intents and motivations to try to define them as "religious" are the textual degenerates of the American Judiciary. If you're going to begin to think as they do then you may as well just pull whatever you want to say out of your own penumbra and leave it at that.

The Constitution says "In the year of our Lord…" which placed God as sovereign over time rather like the sentiment "Under God…" and so we come to the point of declaring that the Declaration and the Constitution are unconstitutional. Not to mention the fact that they use the letter "T" which looks suspiciously like a cross and then there's the presidential seal which has an eagle on it, which some native Americans hold sacred religiously. Oh my.

Why has the American Republic become the material of satire? It's what Jefferson said would happen given the tendency of the Judiciary from the beginning.

Aacobb:
Thats just a vague notion, Joe,

Actually it has been well defined- information that is.

Aacobb:
unless you can tell me when anyone has observed a nonhuman intelligence originate information in a biological organism.

Can you demonstrate a barrier or a difference between information in a biological organism and plain ole information?

Aacobb:
I also don't appreciate your use of the typical creationist tactic of quote mining me.

What are you talking about?

Aacobb:
I didn't agree with Behe that ID is falsifiable; I agreed with him that we can't have it both ways.

Behe said that you can't have it both ways by saying that ID has been refuted/ falsified and/ or setting out to empirically falsify it and then out of the other side of your mouth claim it can't be tested. IOW logic and reason dictate if it can be falsified, as ID can be, then it can be tested.

Aacobb:
IDism is unfalsifiable, and there is no evidence against it, since it makes no positive factual statements about design which can be tested.

Both CSI and IC have been defined. If we observe unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes fulfilling those definitions then ID, as it currently stands, is falsified. Pure and simple- that is how it works in science.

Thats not a positive statement about ID, Dane, its a negative statement about evolutionary theory. Even if scientists succeeded in evolving bacteria with falgellum from those which lacked it, that does nothing to falsify an ID theory, since there is no ID theory to falsify. Besides which, IDists would never admit any such experiment did falsify ID.

Is your logic regarding two mututally exclusive options is failing you, Cob? Do you not realize that evidence against one is evidence for the other? Also, Art whines about controls and wants me to give him a lab manual on performing such experiments. Such demands aren't relevant to me. I'm not a biologist so stating a precise method of experimentation is beyond my scope. Nonetheless, true biologists do know what environments, say, a flagellum is optimal for. So why not pressure the relevant microbes in such a medium? Furthermore, evolution and evolving have been experimented with for decades by biologists with bacteria, fruit-flies and other forms of life. Surely, Art does not mean to imply that when it comes to things such as the flagellum, evolution some how (conveniently?) becomes untestable.

Also, the complaints about ID-ists not buying such evidence, and there being no ID theory are all irrelevant to my point about empirically confirming the supposed creative forces of nature alone. As far as my comment is concerned, once we test the power of nature in this manner (depending on what the results are) then we can try ironing out the issues of who's convinced of what and issues regarding an 'ID-theory'. Until then, they don't concern my point.

You wrote:

"Thats just a vague notion, Joe, unless you can tell me when anyone has observed a nonhuman intelligence originate information in a biological organism."

The notion may be vague, but vague notions are used by us all the time. Many of the notions we operate with on a daily basis are vague, but they are still perfectly usable for all that.

I'm curious, though, as to why it should be necessary for anyone to observe a nonhuman intelligence originating information.

The point is that we have observational evidence that intelligent beings have certain powers (and these observations also show us that nonhuman beings of a comparable level of intelligence would have similar powers). These powers include the ability to bring about irreducibly complex systems.

On the other hand, we have no observational evidence that RM+NS can bring about irreducibly complex systems.

Thus, the ID hypothesis is better than the RM+NS hypothesis for explaining the origin of irreducible complexity.

I'm not at all sure why observation of nonhuman intelligences is in any way necessary for concluding that intelligent beings can have powers not possessed by undirected processes.

Are you familiar with Dembski's claim at his blog? Apparently, there is more than one side to the story of Templeton-ID relations. Are you assuming that the version you heard is correct even when you don't know all the details?

http://www.uncommondescent.com...

I'm new commenting to this group blog, although I've been reading it for a while. I appreciate the high quality of the blogs, and also the even-handed yet firm way the bloggers have of dealing with various unnecessarily rude ID critics.

Regards,

Omar