If anyone was curious.

Anyone like the Bill Cosby hip hop song?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Contrary to PZ Meyer's contention it looks like Beckwith's denial of tenure was unrelated to his scientific viewpoints.

Or at least not just that. In the bigger picture, it looks like Beckwith's main sin is that he questions the dogma of philosophical naturalism. And, he's a thoughtful conservative. Baylor has some real soul searching to do. Some might say, Baylor needs to search for its soul.

Someone on the Telic crew suggests a contributor, and if the candidate gets a majority of the votes, we'll invite him or her. As to who is being considered, I'd rather not make any public statement about it. In those cases in which a person does not get a majority of the votes, that would be like announcing that "the members of the secret club have voted, and we don't want to let this-or-that into our club house."

Don't forget to mention that my vote is up for sale.

C. Stephen Evans, a professor of philosophy and humanities, says he will consider resigning if the decision is not reversed. Mr. Evans, who calls himself a liberal democrat, says Mr. Beckwith is being "railroaded for his conservative views, even though he clearly merits tenure on the basis of his scholarly work and teaching."

Contrary to PZ Meyer's contention it looks like Beckwith's denial of tenure was unrelated to his scientific viewpoints.

I'd buy your version of front-loading if it didn't require the knowledge of the next 3 billion years of environmental contingencies. Front-loading has limits (noise, degredation, unknown future contingencies) Front-loading with persistent side-chain feedback control can adapt, and what we see in biology is adaptation, not just reaction.

Interestingly, we are switching roles. The mechanism I am suggesting doesn't have to be very effective as a predictor. It could be pretty darn lousy and limited. All it has to be is good enough to raise the likelihood of nearly impossible complexities to a level that allows them to happen.

I am not discounting side-chain feedback. If fact, that is a good suggestion because it would significantly amplify the effectiveness of the proposed Predictive Process.

While side-chain feedback helps, it has difficulties standing alone. What controls the biogentic design? The biogentic design would be rudderless and as unguided as the mainstream evolutionary theory. That is why "front-loading" is a common ID topic.

"How is it decided who you will add as a contributor to the site?"

Someone on the Telic crew suggests a contributor, and if the candidate gets a majority of the votes, we'll invite him or her. As to who is being considered, I'd rather not make any public statement about it. In those cases in which a person does not get a majority of the votes, that would be like announcing that "the members of the secret club have voted, and we don't want to let this-or-that into our club house."

To Krauze…
I suspect most of the quotes about a telic principles of nature and/or telic processes trace back to William Dembski. Here is an example of him speaking on the subject…

"ID is not an interventionist theory. Its only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe."

http://www.ideacenter.org/cont...

From this, I am deducing Dembski's "telic process" is the design agent (not external to nature, but part of it).

Concerning the prediction nature of front-loading, Chunkdz responded with…

It doesn't, unless the designer can predict the future. Even then, front-loading can't be claimed intrinsically to cover every contingency

While it doesn't have "to cover every contingency", front-loading is inherently predictive. Information about the future must be involved in a front-loading process. Now it is my turn to say "this doesn't mean it is supernatural" or even perfect. Even human designers predict future needs, events, etc. The "I" in ID is there because of the need to predict. If the designer doesn't need to predict he/she/it could be as dumb as a… Darwinian process.

The fact that it sounds like science fiction shouldn't be a detriment. The Atom Bomb was pure science fiction at one time. Ok, "Predictive Process" doesn't sound as cool as "Intelligent Design" but, it is more scientifically supportable (e.g. "Quanta can transcend time."). It supports most, if not all, the evidence ID proponents are pointing to. As a bonus, it directly contradicts mainstream evolutionary theory. If it turned out to be valid, it would vindicate the entire ID movement.

Why isn't it getting more attention?

I will close with that Thought Provoking question.