If an approach doesn't yield experimental results, there can be two reasons: Either, the problem is theoretical, with the approach itself being useless. Or the problem is logistical, with the resources required to extract its potential lacking; a diverse network of researchers, money for equipment, lab assistants, and space rent, as well as a atmosphere that allows for tentative guesses and initial failures without the researchers having to fear for their careers.

I know that ID can lead to useful insights about biology, as I have myself experienced this, and know other people who have as well. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that shows a hold-up in the logistic resources of ID.

For some hints at how ID can be used to provide insights, see here and here.

Funny. The absence of evidence from peer-review demonstrates he still could be right. IOW he has not yet been refuted.

Show us the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates life can arise from non-living matter via some blindwatchmaker process or admit you cannot.

ericmurphy:
I've already shown you articles citing hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate exactly that.

Eric, that is a lie. That evidence does not exist. If it did Harvard wouldn't have just started a multi-million dollar venture to figure that out.

ericmurphy:
And in the meantime, I'd like you to show me one peer-reviewed article that demonstrates life could not have arisen from non-living matter, or admit that you cannot.

Seeing that is not how science works obviously I cannot. But seeing you don't know how science works I can understand your request. However the fact that I can't answer your request also shows it is impossible to falsify the anti-ID position. IOW the NDE can't be falsified using your criteria.

ericmurphy:
ID is not falsifiable.

You keep repeating as if that will make it come true. However reality says once you remove the requirement for a designer the design inference falls. That is how science works.

Miller has been refuted so many times it is difficult to believe anyone would rely on what he says. He will be refuted again in this trial.

No, this is the tangent you want to draw the discussion into. We can discuss the utility of ID later, but in this thread, the topic is Orr's claims that the TTSS is a precursor to the bacterial flagellum.

Good point. I think the thread's already been dragged there , but I guess I can agree with the statement that it hasn't been proven that the bacterial flagellum definitely evolved from the TTSS.

If I can discuss the epistemological issue just briefly, in answer to why the scientific community can "get away" with exploring the consequences of a "working assumption" is that such an assumption leads to results. So far, I think you'd agree that the opposite assumption hasn't led to quite as many results, wouldn't you?

Your statement that ID makes no claim that IC systems cannot evolve is ridiculous on its face: that claim is in fact central to ID.

Show me one IDists who says that IC systems cannot evolve. I know Dr. Behe states there isn't any evidence that IC systems can evolve via the Darwinian mechanism of random variations culled by natural selection but that does not mean they cannot evolve. Evolution has several meanings.

Let's not play word games. Behe claims that IC is a barrier to neodarwinian evolution. He's wrong.

My earlier posts conclusively demonstrated that the three premises that you say underpin ID have all been falsified.

Then one has to wonder why those arguments were not used in the court case in PA.

One of them already has, and we're only six days into the testimony. We're not even halfway through the plaintiff's case yet. And besides, the point of the case is not to show that ID is wrong. The point is to show that ID is an impermissible intrusion of religion into the science classroom.

And wait a minute — didn't you berate me earlier for mentioning court trials, telling me science isn't conducted in a courtroom? Didn't you state that even talking about court trials showed my ignorance of science?

Show us the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates life can arise from non-living matter via some blindwatchmaker process or admit you cannot.

I've already shown you articles citing hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate exactly that. I don't have a subscription to any peer-reviewed papers; in case you haven't noticed, most of them cost hundreds of dollars a year. If you want to read a peer-reviewed article showing evidence that life could have evolved from non-living matter, read the footnotes, write down the reference, and get a copy of the paper yourself. Unlike you, I have no reason to doubt that peer-reviewed papers say what the author says they say.

And in the meantime, I'd like you to show me one peer-reviewed article that demonstrates life could not have arisen from non-living matter, or admit that you cannot. Actually, you don't have to admit it. I already know that no such paper exists.

ID is falsifiable- I have told you how to do so and the fact that scientists are trying to falsify it refutes you. Alsao it has NOT been demonstrated that the mutation that allowed for nylon digestion was random.

ID is not falsifiable. You showed me how (not that I didn't already know) to falsify individual claims that ID makes. Falsifying those claims (which, for the record, has already happened) does not falsify ID. Read Ken Miller's testimony in the Kitzmiller case. You cannot falsify the assumption that life was designed. How many times do I have to say it? How could anyone prove that any mutation wasn't done on purpose? What has been demonstrated is that it would have been easy for a single mutation causing a frame shift to have occurred.

ID does not and never has said that IC systems cannot evolve and it never said that new information cannot be generated by blindwatchmaker processes.

I challenge you to present the evidence that supports your claim.

Read No Free Lunch. That's exactly the claim that Dembski makes: that undirected processes cannot generate new information. What do you think his "Law of Conservation of Information" is supposed to prove?

Miller's argument is worthless because it does not appear in a peer-reviewed journal. Also if no detail is given then all you have is a belief. And beliefs are not science. IOW beliefs are worthless.

Really? Then Behe's arguments are worthless because he has never published a paper on IC or the bacterial flagellum in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Miller's article "The Flagellum Unspun" is a draft of an article he subsequently published in a scientific journal, and in case you didn't read my response to Krauze, I cited four peer-reviewed papers on the non-IC-ness of the bacterial flagellum in that one post.

What "refutations"? I just merely pointed out the facts. One fact is we don't know if the transformations required by the NDE are even possible.

Has it been proven? No; of course not. The evidence that such transformations are not only possible but have actually happened is sufficiently overwhelming as to make your statement completely wrong.

One more thing- when you or anyone else can design life then you can say the designer is incompetent. However by saying it before you can do so makes you look even more incompetent or worse.

I don't make any claims to be able to design life. I can't direct a movie either; that doesn't stop me from saying that Ed Wood was an incompetent director.

"Anyway, I guess we're talking epistomologically here. How does it translate into a "belief" that it did evolve? I think it's more accurate to say that it's a working assumption that it did evolve, and therefore the question is, "how did it evolve?""

Yes, I think this is the position of the scientific community as well. It would be interesting to discuss why a worldwide community of researchers can get away with simply exploring the consequences of "a working assumption", without supporting that assumption, whereas teleologists must first demonstrate design to such a degree that the entire National Academy of Science is convinced.

However, this would lead us away from the topic, which is the statements you made earlier, claiming that Behe's thesis had been "killed". How exactly does an unsupported working hypothesis kill Behe's thesis?

"I think I've dealt with your question here in a way you might find illuminating."

Not really. Apart from some ID=religion memes, it was just a philosophical argument why others should accept your working hypothesis. In other words, there's no need to even look at the flagellum or the TTSS before concluding that they evolved.

"I guess my point is, whether you assume the flagellum was designed or that it evolved, either way you're going to want to investigate how it got to be where it is now, right?"

No, this is the tangent you want to draw the discussion into. We can discuss the utility of ID later, but in this thread, the topic is Orr's claims that the TTSS is a precursor to the bacterial flagellum.

That is false.

ericmurphy:
Your claim that all ID is is an inference of design is not only contradicted by most ID advocate but also by your own prior statements.

I said ID is about the detection and understanding of the design.

ericmurphy:
Your statement that ID makes no claim that IC systems cannot evolve is ridiculous on its face: that claim is in fact central to ID.

Show me one IDists who says that IC systems cannot evolve. I know Dr. Behe states there isn't any evidence that IC systems can evolve via the Darwinian mechanism of random variations culled by natural selection but that does not mean they cannot evolve. Evolution has several meanings.

ericmurphy:
My earlier posts conclusively demonstrated that the three premises that you say underpin ID have all been falsified.

Then one has to wonder why those arguments were not used in the court case in PA.

Show us the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates life can arise from non-living matter via some blindwatchmaker process or admit you cannot.

ericmurphy:
Nylon ingesting bacteria do not falsify ID because ID is unfalsifiable. Nylon ingesting bacteria falsify two central premises of ID, that IC systems cannot evolve, and that unidrected processes cannot generate new information.

ID is falsifiable- I have told you how to do so and the fact that scientists are trying to falsify it refutes you. Alsao it has NOT been demonstrated that the mutation that allowed for nylon digestion was random.

ID does not and never has said that IC systems cannot evolve and it never said that new information cannot be generated by blindwatchmaker processes.

I challenge you to present the evidence that supports your claim.

ericmurphy:
Your link to the Behe "rebuttal" of Miller, et. al. makes the same tired argument: that NDE doesn't have a detailed, step-by-step explanation of how the flagellum evolved. Such arguments are worthless.

Miller's argument is worthless because it does not appear in a peer-reviewed journal. Also if no detail is given then all you have is a belief. And beliefs are not science. IOW beliefs are worthless.

ericmurphy:
Your "refutations" of NDE arguements have been refuted over and over again, which you would know if you bothered to read anything other ID-friendly texts.

What "refutations" I just merely pointed out the facts. One fact is we don't know if the transformations required by the NDE are even possible.

One more thing- when you or anyone else can design life then you can say the designer is incompetent. However by saying it before you can do so makes you look even more incompetent or worse.

One more thing: Dembski thinks the nylonase-possessing bacteria doesn't present a problem for ID because the mutation seems "special" Duh! Any beneficial mutation is going to seem special! Does it seem designed? Not unless you think the designer is incompetent:

The new enzyme is 50 times less efficient than its precursor, as would be expected for a new structure which has not had time to be polished by natural selection. However, this inefficiency would certainly not be expected in the work of an intelligent designer. The genetic mutation that produced this particular irreducibly-complex enzyme probably occurred countless times in the past, and probably was always lethal, until the environment changed, and nylon was introduced.

– Dave Thomas, The Nylon Bug

You have your own personal version of ID that has little, if anything, to do with what most ID advocates claim for the theory. Your claim that all ID is is an inference of design is not only contradicted by most ID advocate but also by your own prior statements. You deny virtually every statement I make about ID, without reference to any supporting evidence whatsoever, and you change your position whenever it suits you. Your statement that ID makes no claim that IC systems cannot evolve is ridiculous on its face: that claim is in fact central to ID.

My earlier posts conclusively demonstrated that the three premises that you say underpin ID have all been falsified. Your response to my argument, that it "wasn't any good," is weak to the point of invisibility. You've presented no contrary evidence, no refutation, no counterarguments. In short, you've failed to address a single point I made. Your claim that NDE has not avanced the state of biological knowledge is laughable. Most of your claims as to the insufficiency of NDE are laughable, and most have been addressed to the satisfaction of virtually all biological scientists decades ago.

Nylon ingesting bacteria do not falsify ID because ID is unfalsifiable. Nylon ingesting bacteria falsify two central premises of ID, that IC systems cannot evolve, and that unidrected processes cannot generate new information.

Your link to the Behe "rebuttal" of Miller, et. al. makes the same tired argument: that NDE doesn't have a detailed, step-by-step explanation of how the flagellum evolved. Such arguments are worthless.

Your "refutations" of NDE arguements have been refuted over and over again, which you would know if you bothered to read anything other ID-friendly texts. You ask me to support my assertions, then refuse to read them, pretending that they don't exist.

If you think this is a way to win arguments, good luck to you.

You say you understand ID and then you post that. ID is about the detection and understanding of design. Period. It does not matter to ID how the design was implemented. The ONLY way to make any reasonable inference to that end is by studying the design.

then you say:

ericmurphy:
But ID states that IC systems cannot evolve, and that IC is therefore a hallmark of design.

ID does NOT make any such claim.

ericmurphy:
Joe, I've already shown that IC and CSI do not demonstrate design. Are you going to force me to repost all that stuff again?

By all means. It wasn't any good the first time you posted it and I doubt anything has changed since.

ericmurphy:
Does a design inference advance the state of biological knowledge? Not so far.

Has the NDE advanced the state of biological knowledge? Not yet.

Nylon digesting bacteria do not falsify ID

ericmurphy:
But I think all of this demonstrates that the flagellum is not IC, and that various parts of it evolved at various times for various functions.

But that type of argument has already been refuted:

Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions

Why does anyone think the bacterial nylon thingy presents a problem for ID or is evidence for the NDE?

Because it's an IC system: a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." It is essential to the metabolism of the species of bacterium that possesses it. It has definitely evolved in less than the last hundred years, because the nylon waste that it metabolizes did not exist in nature before 1930. But ID states that IC systems cannot evolve, and that IC is therefore a hallmark of design.

Based on these facts, it appears to me that the bacterial nylon thingy presents a problem for ID and is evidence for the NDE.