Reactions to Dover ruling
by KrauzeYak, yak, yak. There's more blogentaries on Judge Jones' Dover ruling that I know what to do with. Jonathan Witt and Ed Brayton have already scraped some lists together, but there's more out there.
Casey Luskin has listed the top ten things that Judge Jones did wrong. At The Panda's Thumb, Timothy Sandefur responds with a top-ten list of things that Judge Jones did right. Actually, Panda's Thumb has a lot of commentary on the decision. A lot.
Paul Nelson writes:
But of course it wasn't all over — see the headlines in your local paper and on the web today, 18 years after Edwards v. Aguillard and 23 after McLean v. Arkansas — because the debate at hand is not, at bottom, a legal matter. Sure, the federal courts (at all levels) in the United States frequently become entangled with "creationism" and now "intelligent design," but these legal proceedings turn out to be oddly repetitive moving picture shows in a flapping canvas tent. Although the title on the marquee changes, the plot is strangely the same. You have seen this movie before. You know how it ends: the "creationists" lose in the courtroom. And yet the debate about origins continues.
Carl Zimmer writes:
Months of media coverage of the trial had nurtured my dread. Again and again, reporters felt an obligation to give "equal time" to intelligent design advocates, without feeling an equal obligation to fact-check the claims that the advocates were throwing out. I assumed Judge Jones would follow suit.
Once I started reading the decision, I realized I couldn't have been more wrong.
William Dembski writes:
Ultimately, the significance of a court case like this depends not on a judge's decision but on the cultural forces that serve as the backdrop against which the decision is made. Take the Scopes Trial. In the minds of most, it was a decisive victory for evolution. Yet, in the actual trial, the decision went against Scopes (he was convicted of violating a Tennessee statute against teaching evolution).
John Wilkins writes:
This is, of course, a political fight. To them the law is just a tool to impose their own political influence. A loss here has no substantive implication, like, for example, ID is a load of religious dogma, but is only a temporary setback. So disparage the judge, call him an "activist" judge (which we know is code for "fails to get with the program" in right-speak), and keep the faithful hopeful. After all, gotta keep those donations rolling in.
Lawrence Selden of Darwinian Fundamentalist has a running commentary on the decision.
Jason Rosenhouse writes:
This is exactly what scientific critics of ID have been saying for years. In fact, as I read through the opinion, I am struck by the extent to which Judge Jones' opinion, based entirely on the evidence before him and the relevant caselaw, matches almost perfectly what people on my side of this have been saying for years.
David Heddle writes:
Too many people on both sides of the debate (including plenty of the most obnoxious bigmouths on the evolution side) are not doing any science. They are doing politics and talking or writing about someone else's science. ID scientists (that is, scientists who are pro-ID) should do research and write peer-reviewed papers the same way science has been done for, now, hundreds of years. The papers will not be ID papers"”they will be "politically" indistinguishable from other research papers. ID scientists should give talks, teach classes, attend conferences"”discussing and presenting what is indisputably science. Nothing makes a scientist more credible than an impressive vita. ID scientists should be working on having impeccable scientific credentials.
Steve Jones has a number of posts about the ruling.
I'm sure there's more out there. If you've written something I haven't mentioned, link to it in the comments, and I'll include it.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:55 pm
… Ultimately, the significance of a court case like this depends not on a judge's decision but on the cultural forces that serve as the backdrop against which the decision is made. Take the Scopes Trial. In the minds of most, it was a decisive victory for evolution. Yet, in the actual trial, the decision went against Scopes (he was convicted of violating a Tennessee statute against teaching evolution). …
This is where Dembski goes astray. In the end evolution was accepted not because it passed cultural tests, but because it passed scientific tests. All the cultural pressure in the world will not turn ID into a scientific theory.
Comment by doctormark2 — December 21, 2005 @ 8:55 pm
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:38 am
Jason Rosenhouse writes:
Behe in the NYTimes:
There is some agreement in the analysis between the two sides.
I think Behe hit the nail on the head. I thought this from the opinion was rather stunning:
The judge assumes that which was supposed to be at issue in the trial. No wonder he was so upset about the waste of time. But he bears part of the responsibility. He should have issued an injunction without a trial, or stepped aside because he had already made up his mind.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 22, 2005 @ 6:38 am
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:29 am
doctormark2:
In the end evolution was accepted not because it passed cultural tests, but because it passed scientific tests.
But evolution isn't being debated. Also there aren't any scientific tests that would substantiate the claims made by evolutionists- for example there isn't a way to test the premise of metazoans evolving on a planet that at one time only had populations of single-celled organisms. Not one of the alleged "great transformations" (see the PBS series Evolution) can be tested objectively.
Perhaps someday NDE will be put on trial so that every one can see just how non-scientific it is- or at least how non-scientific the claims made by evolutionists are.
It would also be nice to see the real ID put on trial. Not the cartoon version Jones III ruled against.
Also I wonder if all mentions of Newton in a Dover area science class will have legal repercusions. Newton was a Creationists who conducted his, according to Jones II, non-science via the assumption that all he observed and tested was the result of a divine Creator.
Comment by Joe G — December 22, 2005 @ 11:29 am
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Joe G said: "It would also be nice to see the real ID put on trial. Not the cartoon version Jones III ruled against."
Before the verdict, I don't recall anyone saying that the ID version being described at the trial was "cartoonish," in fact it seemed that both sides thought their case was well presented. Am I mistaken about this?
Comment by dogscratcher — December 22, 2005 @ 7:04 pm
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:05 pm
dogscratcher:
Before the verdict, I don't recall anyone saying that the ID version being described at the trial was "cartoonish," in fact it seemed that both sides thought their case was well presented. Am I mistaken about this?
The judge said that ID = Creationism (repackaged). He also allowed testimony that said that ID was based on scripture- ID, the real ID, is not based on scripture. That same person testified that IDists refer to themselves as ID Creationists- they don't. The judge then stated that all of ID's claims have been refuted by the scientific evidence- it hasn't. Also ID does not say anything about supernatural causation except to say that if the data leads to that infernce then so be it.
The ID that the judge ruled against is a cartoon version of the ID that Dembski, Behe, Meyers and Gonzalez (et al.) posit.
Comment by Joe G — December 22, 2005 @ 10:05 pm
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Joe G,
I think I understand your position better now, but would still defend the judge on his rulling. What you seem to be saying is that your brand of ID (Scientific ID for now) needs to be distinguished from creationist ID. I think you are honestly trying to create a legitimate science, but if so, in my opinion, you need to disassociate yourself from several things.
The first thing you need to disassociate yourself from is the term "Intelligent Design." I think it is you who are using this term in a non-standard way. "Intelligent Design" is a term defined not by judge Jones, the ACLU, or the "pro-evolution" forces. "Intelligent Design" is defined by the creationists who coined the term in the late eighties.
"Intelligent Design" was defined by creationists, for creationists to use as a smoke screen behind which to hide. This is abundantly clear if you simply look at the history of the book, "Of Pandas and People." By the definition of the people who coined the phrase, Intelligent Design does in fact equal creationism.
Don't blame judge Jones for painting you with the creationist brush, by embracing the term "Intelligent Design" you paint yourself with it.
So find a new term by which to define yourself. Personally, I don't think "scientific intelligent design" provides sufficient distance from the creationists, but that is your call.
Second, I think you need to disassociate yourself from the Discovery Institute. They have made it clear that despite the few scientists they boast, they are still essentially an ideological organization, not a scientific one. Just the fact that three of their most vocal spokespeople (Johnson, Luskin, and De Wolf) are lawyers and not scientists does not serve to bolster their claims of scientific integrity. When you think of the big names on the evolution side, they are all scientists and or philosophers. With the exception of Meyer, Behe and Dembski (possibly Minnich), when you think of the big names of the DI and therefore ID, they are lawyers or political scientists (West).
Third, I think you need to disassociate yourself from William Dembski. From one side of his mouth he says that ID is not religion, it is science, but from the other side he says, "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." How could a reasonably objective person not see that as evidence that at least his (Dembski's) version of ID is inherently religious?
On the one hand Dembski claims that ID does not require supernatural causation (it is naturalistic), but on the other hand, he rails against methodological naturalism: "So long as methodological naturalism sets the ground rules for how the game of science is to be played, (intelligent design) has no chance (in) Hades."
Personally, I don't think Dembski adds anything positive to the discussion, and I don't think in the end, any of his ideas will hold water. The only aspect of his thought that I have taken the time to analyze, the "Explanatory Filter," is, to put it bluntly, stupid.
SID will live or die not on Dembski's work, but more than likely on that of Minnich or someone new. If I were a betting man, he is where I'd be putting my money. But I wouldn't put my money on anything called "Intelligent Design," since it has been tainted, not by it's opponents, but by it's "creators."
Comment by dogscratcher — December 23, 2005 @ 1:25 pm
December 24th, 2005 at 9:10 am
dodgscratcher:
"Intelligent Design" was defined by creationists, for creationists to use as a smoke screen behind which to hide.
That doesn't make any sense seeing that there are still plenty of Creationists' organizations around who rail against ID. Creationists know and understand the difference between ID and Creation, Fair minded critics also know & understand the difference.
The book "Of Pandas & People" has less relevance to ID of today then "Of Origins of Species…" has on today's theory of evolution- IOW both have been replaced by more modern versions.
dogscratcher:
The only aspect of his thought that I have taken the time to analyze, the "Explanatory Filter," is, to put it bluntly, stupid.
That you would even say something like that tells me you don't know what you are talking about. The EF is the BEST process we (humans) have to determine design without being biased towards that end.
How do you detect design? Do you think scientists flip a coin?
ID has only been "tainted" in the eyes of those who have tainted it. Once the real ID is known the judge and those "tainters" will look pretty good with the egg dripping off from their faces.
Comment by Joe G — December 24, 2005 @ 9:10 am
December 24th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Joe G,
The EF is worthless as a detector of design because it is totally dependent on the background knowledge of the user. If a person with no knowledge of geology or chemistry were to use it, they would have to say definitively that something as common as a quartz crystal was designed (by Dembski's definition). Without the background in the proper sciences, things that appear contingent and complex, can easily be both necessary and mundane.
If Newton had used the EF to detect design in our solar system, similarly, he would have to conclude that all the planets being on the same plane was designed (even without the EF he concluded this). But that was only because of the current state of his knowledge. Under current models, it seems apparent that this is exactly what should happen.
To sum up, the EF can never give a definitive declaration of design, because as the knowledge of natural processes change, what once seemed contingent and complex, can become necessary.
This of course does not mean that it never detects design, just that when it does, unless you have a very clear understanding of the processes involved, it can give you a false positive (which Dembski denies).
What the EF does in fact do is make any natural phenomenon about which the process is not well understood, appear designed. A "design of the gaps" so to speak.
If this is the "best" process we have, it is, to put it bluntly, stupid.
Comment by dogscratcher — December 24, 2005 @ 12:05 pm
December 24th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Dear Krauze,
You wrote:
Well, that's what I wrote:
Fernando Castro-Chavez:
Comment by Fer — December 24, 2005 @ 1:33 pm
December 25th, 2005 at 9:16 am
dogscratcher:
The EF is worthless as a detector of design because it is totally dependent on the background knowledge of the user.
That is how science operates- knowledge.
dogsvratcher:
If a person with no knowledge of geology or chemistry were to use it, they would have to say definitively that something as common as a quartz crystal was designed (by Dembski's definition).
Why would anyone without the proper knowledge be playing with something that requires it?
dogscratcher:
Without the background in the proper sciences, things that appear contingent and complex, can easily be both necessary and mundane.
That is why any inference is double-checked.
dogscratcher:
If Newton had used the EF to detect design in our solar system, similarly, he would have to conclude that all the planets being on the same plane was designed (even without the EF he concluded this).
I doubt you would know what Newton would have done.
dogscratcher:
But that was only because of the current state of his knowledge. Under current models, it seems apparent that this is exactly what should happen.
Reality demonstrates that our current state of knowledge affords the design inference.Just read The Privileged Planet.
dogscratcher:
To sum up, the EF can never give a definitive declaration of design, because as the knowledge of natural processes change, what once seemed contingent and complex, can become necessary.
That is why it is called an inference:
pg. 91 of [I]The Design Revolution[/I]:
"The prospect that further knowledge will upset a design inference poses a risk for the Explanatory Filter. But it is a risk endemic to all of scientific inquiry. Indeed, it merely restates the problem of induction, namely, that we may be wrong about the regularities (be they probabilistic or necessitarian) which operated in the past and apply in the present."
IOW you cannot deny a current inference based on what the future may or may not bring.
dogscratcher:
This of course does not mean that it never detects design, just that when it does, unless you have a very clear understanding of the processes involved, it can give you a false positive (which Dembski denies).
Dembski doesn't deny it- see his quote above. Also the EF has yet to give a false positive when applied properly.
dogscratcher:
What the EF does in fact do is make any natural phenomenon about which the process is not well understood, appear designed. A "design of the gaps" so to speak.
That is your opinion but it is also meaningless.
dogscratcher:
If this is the "best" process we have, it is, to put it bluntly, stupid.
It could be but neither you nor anyone else has been able to 1) point out why with reasonable arguments or 2) Provide a better way to detect design.
The process works. Until someone can show that it doesn't work it ain't broken. And just because you have problems with understanding logic & reasoning is not reason enough to scrap something that works.
Comment by Joe G — December 25, 2005 @ 9:16 am
December 25th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Applying dogscratcher's "logic":
If I gave a trigonometry problem to a person who had never heard of trig and who only had basic math skills that would "prove" that trig is useless and therefore should be scrapped.
Comment by Joe G — December 25, 2005 @ 9:42 am
December 25th, 2005 at 10:04 am
Well, speaking for all Creationists, we only infer Design if God grants us a supernatural Revelation. Then, we go to court.
Comment by Douglas — December 25, 2005 @ 10:04 am
December 25th, 2005 at 10:32 am
dogscratcher:
The EF is worthless as a detector of design because it is totally dependent on the background knowledge of the user.
Are my oscilloscopes worthless as troubleshooting tools just bnecause some or even most people don't know how to use one? How about my signal generators, frequency counters and multi-meters? Are they also worthless because some or even most people don't understand how to properly use them? I won't even get into the other more complex tools one can find in my lab…
I know people that couldn't use a power tool if their life depended on it- by dogscratcher's "logic" all power tools are worthless. I guess that is except when they ain't like when I used them to build my deck (even though I am not a carpenter).
Comment by Joe G — December 25, 2005 @ 10:32 am
December 25th, 2005 at 11:42 am
"I know people that couldn't use a power tool if their life depended on it- by dogscratcher's "logic" all power tools are worthless. I guess that is except when they ain't like when I used them to build my deck (even though I am not a carpenter)."
Hey, I'M a carpenter, and I can tell you from first-hand experience, without even having to use the Explanatory Filter, that SOME power tools are, indeed, "worthless".
Comment by Douglas — December 25, 2005 @ 11:42 am
December 25th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
The only case that I know of where anyone even attempted to apply the EF to a biological entity was Dembski in No Free Lunch. In that case, the general consensus is that the application was unsuccessful (i.e gave a false positive) due to Dembski's inability to calculate meaningful probabilities for all possible naturalistic causes. As dogscratcher has alrady shown, this seems to me to be a basic fatal flaw in the EF.
Can you please provide other examples where the EF has been successfully applied to biological entities? I'm not up on current ID research, but there must be many examples by now, aren't there? Please provide the calculations done (or at least a link to the work), as I am very interested in checking them myself. Thanks.
Comment by tika — December 25, 2005 @ 3:55 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 8:26 am
tika sez:
The only case that I know of where anyone even attempted to apply the EF to a biological entity was Dembski in No Free Lunch. In that case, the general consensus is that the application was unsuccessful (i.e gave a false positive) due to Dembski's inability to calculate meaningful probabilities for all possible naturalistic causes.
Does anyone in that "general consensus" have any data that demonstrates that Dembski's application in NFL was unsuccessful? IOW can they or you provide the scientific data that shows the bacterial flagellum evolved via some blind watchmaker type process?
I would be very interested in checking that data for myself.
But anyways- how about applying the EF to life itself?
What does life require? According to science it requires at least 250-400 genes and their corresponding proteins. That alone equates to something greater than 4^300,000 nucleotide sequence-space specificity, which in turn calculates to less than 1 chance in 10^150.
However if you have ANY scientific data that demonstrates that life could arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process now would be a good to present it as that is the only data that would show the EF produced a false positive when life was the input.
Surely there must be many examples of demonstrated abiogenesis by now, aren't there?
Comment by Joe G — December 26, 2005 @ 8:26 am
December 26th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Joe G., you seem to have totally missed the question. You said above that the EF has yet to give a false positive when applied properly. That implies that you know of specific examples of where it was applied. I asked you to please provide those specific examples of where the EF was applied properly to a biological entity.
Of course, those probability figures are meaningless when discussing a specific example of the EF, unless you can demonstrate that that number you calculated for is the one and only combination that would allow for life to exist. It is well known that life has much protein functional redundancy (i.e many different protein sequences can perform the same general biological role), and great DNA coding redundancy (i.e many different sequences can code for the same protein). All of these facts which your simple-minded calculations ignore make those results worthless.
I'll ask again: please provide specific examples where the EF has been successfully applied to biological entities, and please provide the specific calculations done (or at least a link to the work).
If not, please retract your statement about the EF being properly applied. Thank you.
Comment by tika — December 26, 2005 @ 12:32 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
tika:
You said above that the EF has yet to give a false positive when applied properly.
I don't know of any. Do you?
tika:
That implies that you know of specific examples of where it was applied.
I have heard of such examples.
tika:
I asked you to please provide those specific examples of where the EF was applied properly to a biological entity.
That question does not follow directly from what I said. IOW one can have a successful trial of the EF without the input being biological.
However Wm. Dembski does so in "No Free Lunch" chapter 5 section 10.
Joe G. said: What does life require? According to science it requires at least 250-400 genes and their corresponding proteins. That alone equates to something greater than 4^300,000 nucleotide sequence-space specificity, which in turn calculates to less than 1 chance in 10^150.
tika:
Of course, those probability figures are meaningless when discussing a specific example of the EF,
Of course you would say that.
unless you can demonstrate that that number you calculated for is the one and only combination that would allow for life to exist.
Ya see tika- it is called a design inference not a design proof. As with ALL scientific inferences it is a tentative one but one that is derived via our current understanding of things.
tika:
It is well known that life has much protein functional redundancy (i.e many different protein sequences can perform the same general biological role), and great DNA coding redundancy (i.e many different sequences can code for the same protein).
All that does is to complicate things for you. Here we have proteins with differing nucleotide sequences but perform the same/ similar function(s). So what causes the morphological changes if the molecular-level function remains the same? Are we supposed to believe that "mutations" that don't effect functionality at the molecular level are going to have profound effects at the morphological level?
How do you think scientists and laypeople currently detect design- flip a coin?
"No Free Lunch" chapter 5. Read it and in your own words tell us Dembski's flaw. Please support your claim with verifiable data that demonstrates blind watchmaker-type processes can allow a flagellum-less population of bacteria to evolve into a population of bacteria with flagella.
Thank you.
Comment by Joe G — December 26, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
tika:
You said above that the EF has yet to give a false positive when applied properly.
Joe G: I don't know of any. Do you?
You were the one that said it was successfully applied, not me. It's up to you to provide examples
tika:
That implies that you know of specific examples of where it was applied.
Joe G. I have heard of such examples.
But you can't actually produce one. Kinda like "a friend of a friend told me…" Got it.
tika:
I asked you to please provide those specific examples of where the EF was applied properly to a biological entity.
Joe G. That question does not follow directly from what I said. IOW one can have a successful trial of the EF without the input being biological.
But if you can't demonstrate that the EF works with a biological input, then it's worthless for use in detecting design in biological entities. Which is why it has been panned all along.
Above you made reference to your lab equipment "“ Oscopes, function generators, etc. "“ and ridiculed those who you say don't know how to use them. Well, you're now touting the EF as a tool to detect biological design, but you can't give us any examples of its proper use. You also can't even explain *how* to apply it to biological entities. What earthly good is it, except as a rhetorical gimmick?
Also,for you to use your lab equipment it must be properly calibrated to give meaningful results that can be trusted. How do you calibrate the EF so you know its results can be trusted? What do you use as a standard to verify its accuracy?
The EF has been out for over seven years now and not one ID proponent has published a single paper using the thing. What do you think the reason for that failure is?
Comment by tika — December 26, 2005 @ 1:30 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
tika, I said the process works- the process being the EF. How do you think scientists currently detect design? Do you think they flip a coin?
Chapter 5 section 10 applies the EF to a biological structure. No amount of whining can change that fact. Just because some people don't like the outcome doesn't mean there was a flaw.
Perhaps you can point out the criteria used to determine the "design" observed in biological organisms is "apparent" or "illusory".
IOW what is the criteria for the anti-ID position? I mean besides personal disbelief in ID?
But let me address this:
tika:
Above you made reference to your lab equipment "“ Oscopes, function generators, etc. "“ and ridiculed those who you say don't know how to use them.
I didn't ridicule anyone. That you would even say such a thing points out that you are on some warped agenda. How can anything you say be trusted?
Comment by Joe G — December 26, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
Joe G: tika, I said the process works- the process being the EF.
Yes, you said that. However, you certainly didn't demonstrate it, or verify it, or explain how it can be trusted to be reliable. But you did say it, for all that's worth.
Joe G.: How do you think scientists currently detect design? Do you think they flip a coin?
First the assumption is made that if the object in question was designed, it was created by a human. What assumptions does the EF start with?
The object is compared to known template, other objects of known human design. What template does the EF use for identifying a design match?
All existing designed objects must be physically manufactured somehow. Every attempt is made to identify the mechanism of manufacture - cut marks, stone chips, etc. What manufacturing mechanisms has the EF identified?
Every attempt is made to identify the motives for creating the object "“ is it a tool?, a religious artifact?, etc. How does the EF help in identifying the reason for an object's creation?
Every attempt is made to identify the maker of the object. How does the EF help in identifying the maker?
Joe G." Chapter 5 section 10 applies the EF to a biological structure. No amount of whining can change that fact. Just because some people don't like the outcome doesn't mean there was a flaw.
No amount of whining can change the fact that no one from the ID camp has attempted to actually apply the EF to a biological form for the last seven years. Why is that?
Joe G.: Perhaps you can point out the criteria used to determine the "design" observed in biological organisms is "apparent" or "illusory".
You use vague, undefined terms (as applied to biological entities) such as "complex specified information". You can't measure it, or even precisely define it, but you claim to detect a high amount of whatever it is to support your views.
The concept of "irreducible complexity" was floated by Behe, but it has been demonstrated that imperfect self-replicators can and do produce structures that meet every definition of IC. In fact, Behe has had to water down his definition of IC so drastically that it is now meaningless as applied to biological systems.
Joe G. IOW what is the criteria for the anti-ID position? I mean besides personal disbelief in ID?
The anti-ID position is that ID needs to provide its own positive evidence if it wants to be considered anything more than an interesting philosophical idea. If the Intelligent Designer is supernatural, then ID is by definition not science. If the intelligent designer (small i small d) is an unknown natural entity, then ID needs to come up with mechanisms and testable hypotheses that are different and better supported than the current evolutionary ones. Mechanisms and testable hypotheses that unambiguously points to an outside designer/creator.
tika:
Above you made reference to your lab equipment "“ Oscopes, function generators, etc. "“ and ridiculed those who you say don't know how to use them.
Joe G. I didn't ridicule anyone. That you would even say such a thing points out that you are on some warped agenda. How can anything you say be trusted?
OK, maybe ridicule was too strong a word, I apologize and retract. But you did make the analogy that the tools were useless unless one knew how to use them. Since no one has used the EF on a biological entity (save for one 7 year old flawed example), what does that say about the EF's actual utility?
Finally, you still haven't addressed the question of calibration. What good is the EF if you have no way to calibrate or measure its true effectiveness? What good is an inference if your inference tool is crappy and gives you a 99.99% false detection rate?
Comment by tika — December 26, 2005 @ 3:57 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Joe G.: How do you think scientists currently detect design? Do you think they flip a coin?
tika sez:
First the assumption is made that if the object in question was designed, it was created by a human.
Try to follow along. I asked "how do you think scientists currently detect design?" That is a simple question. If you can't answer that what good is a discussion about design detection?
tika:
What assumptions does the EF start with?
That future knowledge may confirm or falsify any inference determined by the EF.
tika:
What template does the EF use for identifying a design match?
Again it is a design inference. The template is laid out by Wm. Dembski in The Design Inference and expanded upon in No Free Lunch.
What is the criteria for determining the design is "illusory" or "apparent" Stop avoiding the question.
The mechanism of design is determined by studying the design- unless we have direct observation or designer input. The same goes for identifying the designer. Neither are required for detecting the design and attempting to understand it.
You say that Dembski use of the EF is flawed but provide absolutely zero data to substantiate your claim.
BTW CSI and IC have been defined. Only someone very ignorant of ID would suggest otherwise.
For your reading enjoyment:
Why ID is scientific
As for positive evidence- if the anti-ID position had some ID never would have made a comeback…
Comment by Joe G — December 26, 2005 @ 4:16 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
BTW the EF is calibrated by that which we know to be designed. That is how processes and equipment are calibrated- against a known quantity and/ or quality.
Comment by Joe G — December 26, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
tika sez:
First the assumption is made that if the object in question was designed, it was created by a human.
So when we see beaver dams & lodges (obviously designed objects) we assume they were created by humans?
Strange days indeed..
Comment by Joe G — December 26, 2005 @ 4:37 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
Joe G,
"So when we see beaver dams & lodges (obviously designed objects) we assume they were created by humans?"
You show your ignorance of human, and beaver, history, with this question. It has been well-documented that the first dams (and lodges, especially of the flaky variety) were designed and built by humans. Beaver dams came after, and are obvious rip-offs of human artifacts. Beavers are notorious liars and thieves, as is well-known amongst the more educated of us. Thus, foundationally, beaver dams (and lodges) are human designs. Probably largely derived from the Arts & Crafts movement.
Comment by Douglas — December 26, 2005 @ 5:11 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
Douglas- I luv u man…
Comment by Joe G — December 26, 2005 @ 7:36 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
Joe G,
Thank you for the quote from Dembski:
"The prospect that further knowledge will upset a design inference poses a risk for the Explanatory Filter. But it is a risk endemic to all of scientific inquiry. Indeed, it merely restates the problem of induction, namely, that we may be wrong about the regularities (be they probabilistic or necessitarian) which operated in the past and apply in the present."
That will help me understand his position much better, though it has seemingly evolved from even this statement. Coincidentally I was reading over at the Pandas Thumb site, and this question happened to be addressed by a poster called "PvM."
http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc...
He writes:
"So while Dembski originally argued that false positives would render his approach useless, he admitted over time, that false positives were indeed a real possibility. In other words, Dembski himself has come to the inevitable conclusion that his Design Inference is "˜useless'."
Whether this accurately describes Dembski's current level of knowledge, I don't know for certain, I think you should ask him over at "uncommondescent.com" if you don't think it will get you banned from the site (I'd do it myself, but I've already made the mistake of questioning one of his pronouncements).
Nevertheless, For the EF to make a design inference about a phenomenon, the "user" must have an almost complete knowledge about the natural processes relevant to the phenomenon. But that in itself makes the inference trivial: we know Mt Rushmore is "designed" because we know very well what natural mountains look like and the processes that create them, and they don't produce things that look like four guys heads.
But with all the phenomenon where the EF would be very useful, like the bacterial flagellum or the origin of the universe, the mere fact that we don't have a very good understanding of the processes that produce these phenomena makes any inference about their design highly speculative. Why? Because if you don't have a good understanding of the processes natural or designed, you can't with any reliable certainty assign probabilities to the question of contingency/necessity.
In other words, for phenomena where the processes by which they occur are well known (designed or not), you don't need the EF because the inference is obvious. But for phenomena where the processes are uncertain/unknown, the EF can only yield an inference that is wildly conjectural, so the inference itself becomes trivial.
One might say that the triviality of the inference is inversely proportional to triviality of the phenomena.
Merry Christmas,
dogscratcher
Comment by dogscratcher — December 26, 2005 @ 7:46 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
dogscratcher:
Nevertheless, For the EF to make a design inference about a phenomenon, the "user" must have an almost complete knowledge about the natural processes relevant to the phenomenon.
Not in order to make an inference. To firmly conclude design or to dogmatically say it was designed would require complete knowledge.
dogscratcher:
But that in itself makes the inference trivial: we know Mt Rushmore is "designed" because we know very well what natural mountains look like and the processes that create them, and they don't produce things that look like four guys heads.
Why not? I mean what prevents unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes from creating four presidents' heads on the side of a mountain?
However you do have it correct- we do think we have a firm grasp on what those processes can and cannot do.
dogscratcher:
But with all the phenomenon where the EF would be very useful, like the bacterial flagellum or the origin of the universe, the mere fact that we don't have a very good understanding of the processes that produce these phenomena makes any inference about their design highly speculative.
Then by what criteria do you infer that the bacterial flagellum or the origin of the universe were due to some blind watchmaker-type process? IOW what do you base your rejection of the design inference on?
dogscratcher:
Because if you don't have a good understanding of the processes natural or designed, you can't with any reliable certainty assign probabilities to the question of contingency/necessity.
That is why ALL scientific inferences are tentative. However those inferences are based on what was/ is currently known. Therefore it is not "highly conjectural".
I wonder what would happen to science if scientists refused inferences because of what the future may or may not bring.
I could easily say that Darwin would not have come up with his theory of evolution had he known what a cell looked like and how it operated.
If and when the EF produces a false positive that bridge will be crossed at that time. But to fault a process because of something that may happen is stupid and shows a real lack of understanding of things are done in the real world. That it comes from PvM is no surprise at all.
Comment by Joe G — December 26, 2005 @ 9:27 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 10:10 pm
Joe G. BTW the EF is calibrated by that which we know to be designed. That is how processes and equipment are calibrated- against a known quantity and/ or quality.
Then please describe the known designed biological entity that the EF was calibrated again for use with biological inputs.
That the EF may be used on trivial non-biological cases has no relevance whatsoever to the claim that it works on biological entities.
Please describe the process of calibration for the EF to be used on biological entities.
The accuracy of calibration is critically important to any process or piece of equipment. The reason calibration is done at all is to get a high as possible confidence level in the validity of the instruments' results. For a detection system, the False Detection Rate (also called False Alarm Rate, or FAR) is the most critical piece of data needed.
What is the false detection rate of the EF when used on biological samples? 1%? 50%? 99%? How was this calculated?
Joe G. BTW CSI and IC have been defined. Only someone very ignorant of ID would suggest otherwise.
CSI has never been defined as it applies to a biological entity, AFAIK. If you think otherwise, then it should be no trouble for you to repeat that definition here, or provide a cite for it.
Please provide a definition of CSI as applicable to a biological entity.
So far you've repeated lots of empty claims but provided zero verification for any of the ID buzzwords you've been dropping. Just what are your qualifications for your EF "expertise" anyway?
And you still haven't offered an explanation as to why no one in the ID camp has actually used the EF on a biological entity since it came out. Well?
Comment by tika — December 26, 2005 @ 10:10 pm
December 27th, 2005 at 2:52 am
dogscratcher:
Nevertheless, For the EF to make a design inference about a phenomenon, the "user" must have an almost complete knowledge about the natural processes relevant to the phenomenon.
Joe G:
Not in order to make an inference. To firmly conclude design or to dogmatically say it was designed would require complete knowledge.
The problem is not that inferences are bad, it's the quality of data (or more correctly, the lack thereof) to make a reasonable inference that's the issue. Infering the EF detects design in biological entities is just Garbage In Garbage Out.
Let's say I believe in leprechauns, and I set off to build a leprechaun detector (LD). I take a simple infrared motion sensor and hook it up to a car alarm. DONE! Now I better calibrate my detector. I take a toy doll leprechaun and toss it in front of the eye. BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! Oh boy, my detector works!! Now I set it in the back yard and wait. At four A.M. I am awakened by BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!
According to Joe G. logic, I can now infer that I have detected a leprechaun.
Consider:
My LD has been tested every bit as thoroughly as the EF on biological entities has.
My LD has been calibrated every bit as accurately as the EF on biological entities has.
LD critics ignore the fact that I demo'ed the LD with an actual leprechaun (kinda) once more than the EF, which has never been successfully applied to a biological entity.
LD critics point out that I don't know near enough about the backyard to rule out other causes for the alarm trip "“ the wind blowing a leaf, or my neighbor's cat, for example. I tell them it's up to them to disprove my theory. If they can't provide a detailed explanation (not just plausible, but detailed actual steps) of what set off the detector, then it must have been a leprechaun.
There are only two alternatives "“ leprechauns exist or they don't. Negative evidence for no leprechauns is therefore positive evidence for leprechauns!
See how stupid that sounds? Your EF sounds every bit as stupid to the scientific community, which is why it has been unused for seven years, and has been all but abandoned by even Dembski.
It's GIGO "“ If you have a non working, non-calibrated, crappy inference tool (the EF as applied to biological entities), you make crappy, incorrect inferences. It's that simple Joe
Comment by tika — December 27, 2005 @ 2:52 am
December 27th, 2005 at 8:01 am
tika,
You're leprechaun theory is fascinating, in much the same way the Dover ruling is.
Comment by Douglas — December 27, 2005 @ 8:01 am
December 27th, 2005 at 8:12 am
"Your". (How embarassing.)
Comment by Douglas — December 27, 2005 @ 8:12 am
December 27th, 2005 at 9:09 am
tika:
What is the criteria for determining the design is "illusory" or "apparent"?
Stop avoiding the question.
Also I am still awaiting the analysis of Wm. Dembski's use of the EF in chapter 5 section 10 of "No Free Lunch".
Then we have this gem from tika:
tika sez:
First the assumption is made that if the object in question was designed, it was created by a human.
LoL!!! So when we see beaver dams & lodges (obviously designed objects) we assume they were created by humans?
So when tika sez:
CSI has never been defined as it applies to a biological entity, AFAIK.
Why should anyone listen? If tika had read "No Free Lunch" the answer is there. It is also in my essay that I linked to in an earlier post.
On to tika's EF nonsense:
tika:
That the EF may be used on trivial non-biological cases has no relevance whatsoever to the claim that it works on biological entities.
Just because you say so that doesn't mean anything to the rest of the world. I deal with calibration and from my experience you are wrong.
tika:
Then please describe the known designed biological entity that the EF was calibrated again for use with biological inputs.
Genetically modified plants and other organisms.
tika can claim GIGO for the EF but notice how tika avoids the question:
What is the criteria for determining the design is "illusory" or "apparent"?
We exist tika. The universe we observe also exists. There are only 3 options to that existence:
1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes (non-goal oriented)
2) Intelligent, directed processes (goal oriented)
3) a combo of 1 & 2
Anytime you want to provide the data that supports option 1 as well as the criteria used that would be a boost for your simple-minded anti-ID spewage.
Now if tika still refuses to answer the questions we will all know how empty his spewage is.
Comment by Joe G — December 27, 2005 @ 9:09 am
December 27th, 2005 at 11:36 am
The other question tika avoiding:
How do you think scientists currently detect design?
( Do you think they flip a coin? )
and one for dogscratcher:
What prevents unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes from creating four presidents' heads on the side of a mountain?
Consider:
The botom line is the EF is the best process humans have for making a design inference that is not biased towards that end.
Therefore to mock the EF is to mock humans' ability to correctly sort through data.
And if that is the case then why "trust" the anti-IDists when they say the design is "illusory" especially when they don't even have any criteria for making such a determination?
Comment by Joe G — December 27, 2005 @ 11:36 am
December 27th, 2005 at 11:52 am
Well, this has degenerated into Joe G. avoiding all the tough questions about the EF and answering instead with insults. Unfortunately that is a common occurrence when self-proclaimed experts like Joe G. are pressed for details
tika:
That the EF may be used on trivial non-biological cases has no relevance whatsoever to the claim that it works on biological entities.
Joe G.:
Just because you say so that doesn't mean anything to the rest of the world. I deal with calibration and from my experience you are wrong.
And you're right just because you say so? Then why can't you answer the simplest questions on how the "calibration" of the EF was actually performed? Why can't you provide any details of the work you claim was done? Where may the results of the calibration be viewed?
Please describe the process of calibration for the EF to be used on biological entities.
(silence from Joe G the self-proclaimed calibration expert)
What is the false detection rate of the EF when used on biological samples? 1%? 50%? 99%? How was this calculated?
(silence from Joe G the self-proclaimed calibration expert)
Please provide a definition of CSI as applicable to a biological entity.
(silence from Joe G the self-proclaimed ID expert)
And because Joe G's main answer avoidance technique is to try and change the question
What is the criteria for determining the design is "illusory" or "apparent"?
If there is no positive evidence for manufacture by an outside agency
If there exists a plausible mechanism for the occurrence by natural means
Understanding that "it looks designed to me" is a subjective, non-scientific answer and therefore worthless.
So Joe, are you ever going to answer the questions on the EF that were asked? Actually you don't have to answer, because your squirming avoidance demonstrates empirically exactly just what you really do know on the topic.
Comment by tika — December 27, 2005 @ 11:52 am
December 27th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
tika:
Well, this has degenerated into Joe G. avoiding all the tough questions about the EF
The "tough" questions have been answered. You just refuse to read the proper literature. Don't blame me.
I am a calibration expert, and along side of you I would be considered an ID expert. Neither of these are "self-proclaimed" however. Both can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. However you will have to visit me at work so I can demonstrate my calibration capabilities.
tika:
Please provide a definition of CSI as applicable to a biological entity.
The answer is in my essay. I provided a link to it above. So far from being silent on this I have stated what you ask for- before you asked for it!
What is the criteria for determining the design is "illusory" or "apparent"?
tika:
If there is no positive evidence for manufacture by an outside agency
That is too vague to be of any use.
tika:
If there exists a plausible mechanism for the occurrence by natural means
Both intelligence and design are natural. Also it is a fact that the origin of nature could not have come about via natural means because natural means only exist in nature.
tika:
Understanding that "it looks designed to me" is a subjective, non-scientific answer and therefore worthless.
Then it is a good thing that is not what IDists do or ID does. IDists say that if it looks designed we should at least be able to check out the possibility it was intentionally designed. You and your ilk just say "it looks designed but it wasn't because we can't observe the designer."
Equipment is calibrated, processes, such as the EF, are checked and verified. IOW to check & verify the EF we run something known through it. This I have already stated. That tika refuses to understand sound logic and reasoning further points to an anti-ID agenda.
Perhaps tika could provide a better process to make a design inference.
How do you think scientists currently detect design?
And as I have already stated I do not know of any false positives that have been produced by the EF.
CSI and IC are both defined in the following or you can get a copy of "The Design Inference" and "No Free Lunch" and have at it. But saying something doesn't exist when it clearly does is bad form.
Why ID is scientific
Comment by Joe G — December 27, 2005 @ 12:13 pm
December 27th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Joe G:
I am a calibration expert, and along side of you I would be considered an ID expert. Neither of these are "self-proclaimed" however.
Interesting comment, since in the preceding sentence you just proclaimed yourself an expert. That makes it self-proclaimed. Is that a stupid oversight or a deliberate canard on your part?
Joe G: Both can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Then prove it right here and now. Describe the calibration procedure for the EF, and give the results of the calibration, including the false detection rate.
tika:
Please provide a definition of CSI as applicable to a biological entity.
Joe G.:
The answer is in my essay. I provided a link to it above. So far from being silent on this I have stated what you ask for- before you asked for it!
I read your essay and can't fine that specific definition at all. Please C&P it here so I can be sure to read the passage you're referring to. If you can't, everyone will know you are just blowing smoke again.
I've also read NFL and Design Inference and neither have a definition of CSI as applicable to biological entities. Since you claim otherwise, please provide the definition here. If you can't, everyone will know you are just blowing smoke again.
Joe G:
Equipment is calibrated, processes, such as the EF, are checked and verified. IOW to check & verify the EF we run something known through it. This I have already stated. That tika refuses to understand sound logic and reasoning further points to an anti-ID agenda.
Then show me the where the calibration for the EF was actually done. Who actually did the calibration? You? Dembski? You claim above that the calibration was done using genetically modified plants and other organisms. Then show me the work, and show me the results. What was the false detection rate?
Here's the deal Joe. I know you're full of BS when it comes to your EF "calibration", and you know you're full of BS, and by now most of the readers know too. But the more you fib and squirm, the more you claim EF calibration to be valid, the more stupid you look. You keep bluffing, and I'll keep calling your bluff.
Comment by tika — December 27, 2005 @ 1:12 pm
December 27th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Can tika demonstrate this "magical barrier" that prevents tried and true design detection techniques used in mnay aspects of life from being used on life itself?
The EF is checked and verified (not calibrated) by inputting objects of known quantity and/ or quality. What is it about that simple statement that you don't understand?
Real life demonstrates that scientists and non-scientists do indeed differentiate between intentional and apparent design almost on a daily basis. Do you really think their process is different thatn the EF?
tika:
I read your essay and can't fine that specific definition at all.
So that means once I do cut & paste it you will apologize and go away- right?
Here it is:
Why do you keep avoiding this:
How do you think scientists currently detect design?
Is it because if you answer it you will be demonstrating the EF at work?
And what about your insistance that beaver dams and lodges are the result of human design? That one is a keeper. And YOU have the gall to say I'm blowing smoke- Lol!
Comment by Joe G — December 27, 2005 @ 3:32 pm
December 27th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
First Joe G wrote:
BTW the EF is calibrated by that which we know to be designed. That is how processes and equipment are calibrated- against a known quantity and/ or quality.,
Now Joe G writes:
The EF is checked and verified (not calibrated) by inputting objects of known quantity and/ or quality.
So which is it, calibrated or not? You just made a major change in your claims about the EF. For an "expert", you sure seem plenty confused!
tika:
I read your essay and can't fine that specific definition at all.
Joe G:
So that means once I do cut & paste it you will apologize and go away- right?
Sorry Joe, you didn't give a rigorous definition for CSI as applied to biological features at all. You've just strung together more vague, undefined terms that mean absolutely nothing in the real world.
Let's start with the "physical information" part.
Joe G: In biology the physical information would be the components that make up an organism (arms, legs, body, head, internal organs and systems) as well as the organism itself.
Just how detailed does the physical description have to be? It's obvious that I can have much more detail in the description (blood vessels, tendons, etc. all the way down to the genetic level) or less (a mammal). The amount of "physical information" is totally subjective, and totally dependent on the person doing the describing. How do you decide what level of "physical information" measurement is sufficient? The answer has a great effect on the "amount" of CSI you claim to measure.
And what about the "conceptual information"?
Joe G: The conceptual information is what allows that organism to use its components and to be alive. After all a dead organism still has the same components. However it can no longer control them.
So you are claiming that the conceptual information of a creature somehow changes the exact second the creature dies?? How did you determine this? How do measure the "conceptual information"? Please provide an example of the conceptual information measurement of a living animal vs. the same animal when it has died.
Finally, you claim CSI is a convergence of physical information and conceptual information. How do you "converge" the two quantities? Do you add them? Multiply them? What are the units of measurement for each one that allows them to be "converged"?
Nope, I'm not going away . I'm going to sit here and point out the emptiness and inanity of your worthless ID definitions, just like the judge did in Dover. Of course you'll huff and puff and declare me ignorant of ID, but you'll be able to provide no answers to the questions I pose because there are no answers. And you'll look like a fool doing it.
Face it Joe, you're a pretender. You read a few of Dembski's books so consider yourself an ID "expert", but the fact of the matter is you can't defend in your own words even one tiny bit the vacuous horse crap you are peddling.
Joe G: And what about your insistance that beaver dams and lodges are the result of human design? That one is a keeper. And YOU have the gall to say I'm blowing smoke- Lol!
There is a thread here about IDists lying, and you provide a perfect example. You are the only one who ever has mentioned beaver dams, so your statement that I insist that beaver dams and lodges are the result of human design is an obvious lie, pure and simple.
For someone like Joe G. who claims to have "good posture and high principles", getting caught in a such a blatant lie says much about what those principles must be.
Comment by tika — December 27, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:44 am
tika:
You are the only one who ever has mentioned beaver dams, so your statement that I insist that beaver dams and lodges are the result of human design is an obvious lie, pure and simple.
LoL! Thisd is what YOU said:
tika sez:
First the assumption is made that if the object in question was designed, it was created by a human.
Therefore it follows that since beaver dams and lodges are obvu=iously designed they were created by humans.
No lies. Just a pure extension of your idiocracy.
First you ask for a "specific" definition of CSI as it applies to biology. I provided that. Then you say it isn't good enough because it isn't a "rigorous" definition. However I knew you wouldn't understand what I posted- IOW discussing this with you is a waste of time.
The way you move the goalposts and refuse to answer basic questions demonstrates you don't want a discussion.
Take care and anythime you can support your anti-ID position I will gladly read about it.
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 6:44 am
December 28th, 2005 at 6:53 am
Can tika demonstrate this "magical barrier" that prevents tried and true design detection techniques used in mnay aspects of life from being used on life itself?
From tika's avoidance it appears she cannot do so. IOW tika's rejection of applying the EF and design detection techniques to biology is due solely to tika's personal hatred of ID.
tika also avoids this question:
How do you think scientists currently detect design?
Is it because if you answer it you will be demonstrating the EF at work?
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 6:53 am