The issue of proving a negative comes up fairly often in Intellignet Design and creationism debates. The short answer is that you can't do it. At least, you can't do it in the real world in any absolute sense. If, however, the rules of the game, the …

The 1st and 2nd Laws have to do (in this context) with whether perpetual motion machines can exist at all, and not specifically with whether they can be built naturally or not. I understand that you are using this as an analogy but it seems to me that this is a critical aspect of - and flaw in - the argument. If perpetual motion machines cannot exist then they cannot be built - that is the infinity of possible paths by which they might be built or arise are all ruled out. However, if something can exist according to known laws then it is effectively impossible to state that no possible (natural) path exists to explain its existence. Stated differently, you have to examine all possible paths from A -> B and rule them all out. I don't see how that can be done since there are an infinity of such paths. If A or B cannot exist then you're home and dry but if they can then you're stuck.

So, essentially, you are looking for laws that say whether the mechanism for producing an object or mechanism - whose existence is not in itself precluded by physical law - is possible or not. For example, mixing CO2 with water does not produce methane but a cow does a pretty good job of converting CO2 and water into methane via the intermediary of eating grass. That is a very unlikely path and we only know it exists because we observe it. However, it boils down to an unlikely path being possible which involves catalysts (enzymes). In fact, there is clearly some probability that anything in the universe can change into anything else given sufficient energy.

I can't think off-hand of any "laws of nature" that allow that something can exist but state that no possible path exists which can lead to it. The best that can be said is that some path is improbable provided that you have enough knowledge of the system to construct the relevant probability distribution (e.g., an electron from the Chloride ion in the salt on my french fry in New York has a small probability of being LA).

So it's back to probabilistic arguments based on unknown probability distributions. The very laws of nature that ID is looking for are, therefore, laws unlike any which are currently known.

Ethel

"If evolutionary biologists were to take Behe's advise, we would be in approximately the same position as Lord Kelvin: that is, at the brink of massive voluntary stupidity."

Evolution isn't always a positive thing. Anyway, I think you greatly exaggerate the implications of taking Behe's advice. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't claim that everything, nor even most things, in Nature or Biology are "irreducibly complex", which would leave room for quite a bit of scientific research and growth in those areas. He is just pointing out that if the concept of IC is valid, and if something is found to be IC, then it would be fruitless to pursue research into naturalistic origins for the IC "object".

(By the way, you may know quite a bit about biology, but it might benefit you to learn more about Christianity and the Bible before commenting on either. You really don't understand the nature of faith, or salvation, I'm afraid. [Nothing personal.])

You wrote, "I'm not quite sure what these questions are supposed to mean, but let me make another attempt at explaining what I was asserting in my recent post."

Since you are a scientist and a skeptic of design, you qualify as a "peer reviewer." Thus, I am trying to see what you, an ambassador for the peer reviewers, need from ID.

You argued that if IDT is indistinguishable from deism (DEI), " both would be entirely without scientific value, since both IDT and DEI would thereby accept the operation of all natural laws as both necessary and sufficient to produce all natural objects and processes." In other words, for IDT to be of "scientific value," it must find something that natural law cannot possibly account for. You make this clear by then adding:

This means that if we are to distinguish between IDT and DEI (and, by extension, from TET) it must be incontrovertably shown that natural laws as they now exist are insufficient to produce existing natural objects and processes.

So in order for ID to be of "scientific value," the peer reviewer needs a proof of something that natural laws cannot possibly explain. The peer reviewer needs signs and miracles.

This demand, of course, is a demand that others adopt the "god-of-the-gaps" approach, as they look for something science (invoking only natural law) cannot explain and try to argue that science could never possibly explain it. So when you say, "As to the "God-of-the-gaps" argument (GOG), that is precisely what Behe and Dembski's arguments are," we need to add that this is because that is precisely what Allen MacNeill, the peer reviewer, demands from ID.

So we have a situation where you demand X and then complain/criticize when someone tries to give you X. Or am I missing something?

"As the creationist attacks science with god-of-the-gaps arguments, what could he possibly find that might cause someone like MacNeill to think the creationist is on the right track? Or is the creationist supposed to leap to this demonstration, all by himself, in a single bound?"

I'm not quite sure what these questions are supposed to mean, but let me make another attempt at explaining what I was asserting in my recent post. Michael Behe has asserted that acceptance by scientists of his doctrine of "irreducible complexity" would save them a lot of unnecessary work (sorry, couldn't find the exact reference), since they would no longer have to find natural explanations for something that had only a supernatural explanation.

It would be difficult to imagine something more antithetical to the spirit of empirical science. In 1900, Lord Kelvin stated "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement" (and five years later, Albert Einstein published his paper on special relativity, revolutionizing physics). If evolutionary biologists were to take Behe's advise, we would be in approximately the same position as Lord Kelvin: that is, at the brink of massive voluntary stupidity. Natural science has progressed only insofar as it has not accepted statements and theories like Behe's, but has continued to search for empirically verifiable naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. ID theory does just the opposite: it asserts (on the basis of virtually no empirical evidence) that such a search is both unnecessary and unwise. This isn't science, it's quite literally anti-science.

As to the "God-of-the-gaps" argument (GOG), that is precisely what Behe and Dembski's arguments are. Again, to assert that natural objects and processes have supernatural causes (and therefore cannot be explained with reference to known natural laws) is to make any further attempt to find such natural causes unnecessary. This is nothing more than an attempt to preserve the gaps in the GOG argument, so as to retain some tiny domain for the influence of the kind of pitiful naturalistic deity they seem to be committed to defending.

Well, that would explain why my computer seems to be cursed.

"Problem is the discussion wasn't merely moved it was eliminated. The memory hole isn't an off-topic forum it is a trash can."

Actually, when I moved it there I was under the impression that people could post comments in the Memory Hole, but apparently not …

Problem is the discussion wasn't merely moved it was eliminated. The memory hole isn't an off-topic forum it is a trash can.

Of course, if someone set out to convince MacNeill, his colleagues would denigrate such efforts as "creationism," an "attack on science," and "the god-of-the-gaps approach."

Yet if you think about it, an incontrovertible demonstration that natural laws are insufficient to produce existing natural objects and processes sounds like the end point of an a long investigation. So this makes me wonder. As the creationist attacks science with god-of-the-gaps arguments, what could he possibly find that might cause someone like MacNeill to think the creationist is on the right track? Or is the creationist supposed to leap to this demonstration, all by himself, in a single bound?