you're right. It doesn't change the legal finding of the court

Something we agree upon.

We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science.

Of course, this finding goes hand-in-hand with the Court taking no position on the proposition that ID arguments may be true.

Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.

Of course, the Court takes no position on whether the ID argument concerning Irreducible Complexity is actually true or not.

"…we find that while ID [intelligent design] arguments may be true, a proposition upon which the Court takes no position"¦"

The Court takes no position on what?

Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.

What point was conceded by Minnich?

1. Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution.
2. Irreducible complexity is not proof of design.

Or was the Judge caught up in the thinking that an argument against evolution is an argument for design, and that an argument for design is an argument against evolution?

you're right. It doesn't change the legal finding of the court:

"¦ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science.

Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.

If you want to use IC arguments for ID you need to demonstrate why the all the scientists - and the Judge - are wrong about IC.

I need do no such thing. Do you know what a legal finding is?

If you want to play 'quote the Judge…

Play quote the judge all you like. It doesn't change the legal finding of the Court.

…we find that while ID [intelligent design] arguments may be true, a proposition upon which the Court takes no position"¦

Yes, I understand that there is a powerful PR machine than would work to label and demonize me. But like I said, "one of the things I learned a long time ago is that I cannot truly control how people see and what other think and say. All I can do is flesh out my perspective, toy around with developing methods, apply those methods, and make a case. Also, if others say things about me or my approach that are not true, I can correct this by telling my side. But that's all I can really do. From there, the chips fall where they fall."

I spent a lot of time arguing on ARN with critics who tried to paint me as a politically motivated, dishonest, closet creationist. If the anti-ID PR machine wants to label me in a way that serves their own agenda, I will of course defend myself from such attacks.

I, for example, didn't need to discover the designer to find intelligent design useful. The only question that matters to me is whether intelligent design can be used as a guide to develop insights about biotic reality.

So what have you found it useful for? What insights has it generated for you? I'm genuinely interested.

On the Ad Hominem thing - you would be quite correct if I was actually questioning Behe's and Dembski's conclusions in that sentence. If you look at what I said what I was not questioning was their conclusions (I don't need Ad Hominems for that) but rather their motivations for doing the work in the first place. If you want to use the work of the DI then you must be prepared to be associated with the motivations of the DI, especially given the PR war that's going on. If you don't share those then fine, but lots of people will assume that you do unless you make it extremely clear that you don't (that's the PR stuff I was suggesting that you do).

In other words, your advice to Mike is to develop a new label for the arguments he's been using for years, while spending the time he could have spent investigating intelligent design doing PR work.

Two points - if you don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the DI then yes, I think you need to do some PR. Secondly, most of the stuff I've seen on here don't involve 'investigating' anything, rather it's just rehashes of long since discredited DI arguments. Oh, and a bit of 'front loading' which is really just common descent. So I don't see much difference with what you're doing and what the DI is doing.

If this kind of thing pisses you off:

Considering that even arguments relying on common descent get labelled as "creationist", let me just say that I lack the sufficient amount of faith.

then do something about it. Come up with some novel arguments. Fix all the gaping holes in IC or come up with something that actually works.

"That link is attempting to prove evolution impossible."

What makes you think so? The many places where Mike says that IC doesn't prove evolution impossible?

No, the many places where it discusses possible evolutionary pathways and concludes (falsely) that they are too improbable.

"That link is attempting to prove evolution impossible."

What makes you think so? The many places where Mike says that IC doesn't prove evolution impossible?

"A lot of the arguments and conclusions in there are also wrong. I'd be happy to talk about it, maybe on another thread if you like?"

Sure, I'll start an open thread later.

"Your example of the big bang conflates two topics that are very different. There is lots of other evidence out there that suggests a big bang occured, and plenty more evidence to be investigated in the universe at large, which is why it more fruitful for scientists in that area to concentrate on the evidence they have."

That is irrelevant to the point under discussion. All that matters is that intelligent design doesn't have to answer the "obvious questions" of outsiders to be useful, but can confine itself to "developing explanations for observations" of biotic reality.

"The only 'evidence' of design of something like a bacterial flagellum on the other hand is a vague analogy to something designed by humans. The analogy is very weak."

Here at Telic Thoughts we've always acknowledged that reality is ambiguous and that the case for design is quite weak. On the other hand, the case for the ateleological origin of life is also quite weak, and many claims of homology (such as between bacteria and eukaryotes) also boil down to "they look related".

"If you don't have any other evidence (and I've certainly never seen any) then you do actually need to find a designer in order to infer design."

Maybe to convince you. But don't extrapolate your own demands unto everyone else. I, for example, didn't need to discover the designer to find intelligent design useful. The only question that matters to me is whether intelligent design can be used as a guide to develop insights about biotic reality. If it can, then I will continue to use it, whether or not you approve.

"By sticking with the ID moniker, you're making it clear that you are sticking with something that has already been attempted to be taught to school children as science. And lost, in court."

Indeed. So conspiracy theories about Mike's ideas being forced into schools can be brushed off the table as unrealistic. Instead of worrying about how all of this advances the Coming Theocracy, we can get down to discussing the substance of those ideas.

"Unfortunately all the arguments you are using for ID are the same arguments that have come from the 'wedge inspired' DI fellows Behe and Dembski, who are not interested in doing science. They are interested only in overthrowing what they falsely see as a materialist conspiracy, which they falsely blame for being responsible for most of the worlds ills."

So? As Jeffrey Koperski pointed out:

One's motivations for presenting an argument have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of that argument. Evaluating a conclusion by questioning one's motivation is an ad hominem attack. Arguments must be judged on their merits regardless of the source.

"If you are using only the DI's ID arguments then what is there to distinguish you from the DI? Only your insistence that you don't subscribe to the wedge document? Based on the DI's track record, and the fact that you're using the DI's arguments, there won't be many people that believe you (I do, FWIW, but I think you need to do some PR!)."

In other words, your advice to Mike is to develop a new label for the arguments he's been using for years, while spending the time he could have spent investigating intelligent design doing PR work. Isn't that the strategy that got the DI into trouble?

I said:

The DI brand of ID had its day in court and lost rather badly.

To which you replied:

Could anything be more musguided than this?

Judge Jones:

"we find that while ID [intelligent design] arguments may be true, a proposition upon which the Court takes no position"¦"

It depends what you think the Dover case was all about. It was all about establishing that ID is not, if fact, science and therefore shouldn't be taught in science class. Which is where ID lost, rather badly. If you want to play 'quote the Judge' then have a look at this:

ID as religion:

Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.

It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition.

Moreover and as previously stated, there is hardly better evidence of ID's relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism.

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

The ID 'disclaimer':

In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere.

ID is not science:

…ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

It is notable that defense experts' own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world,

Irreducible complexity (multiple quotes):

"As referenced, the concept of irreducible complexity is ID's alleged scientific centerpiece. Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."…"Irreducible complexity additionally fails to make a positive scientific case for ID,"…"Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."…"As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution."

And finally:

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Now, I call that 'losing rather badly'. In fact, not only did ID lose rather badly in it's attempts to be seen as science, the Judge also rather comprehensively dismanted IC as well, in line with what most of the scientists already knew pre-Dover.

If you want to use IC arguments for ID you need to demonstrate why the all the scientists - and the Judge - are wrong about IC.

By sticking with the ID moniker, I'm making it clear that I am not trying to come up with something that someone else can use to teach school children.

By sticking with the ID moniker, you're making it clear that you are sticking with something that has already been attempted to be taught to school children as science. And lost, in court.

On a wider point, looking at the link of yours that Krauze posted earlier, I think you have another problem. The problem is that you say that your version of ID is 'not the same' as the DI version, and that you don't subscribe to the wedge document. Unfortunately all the arguments you are using for ID are the same arguments that have come from the 'wedge inspired' DI fellows Behe and Dembski, who are not interested in doing science. They are interested only in overthrowing what they falsely see as a materialist conspiracy, which they falsely blame for being responsible for most of the worlds ills.

The DI people have not been fighting a scientific battle, because they have produced no science. They are fighting a PR battle, and were doing quite well until Dover. A very strong PR weapon on the side of science is the Dover ruling that (DI style) ID is nothing more than creationism rebranded.

If you are using only the DI's ID arguments then what is there to distinguish you from the DI? Only your insistence that you don't subscribe to the wedge document? Based on the DI's track record, and the fact that you're using the DI's arguments, there won't be many people that believe you (I do, FWIW, but I think you need to do some PR!).

I've never seen a convincing argument about why the focus must be on the designer.

With the lack of any evidence of design other than the 'appearance of design' (based on a weak analogy to human design) I can't see anywhere else to focus.

IC does not need to prove evolution impossible to be useful. See here.

That link is attempting to prove evolution impossible. A lot of the arguments and conclusions in there are also wrong. I'd be happy to talk about it, maybe on another thread if you like?

You're projecting your own outlook onto everyone else. Besides, just because a question is obvious doesn't mean that answering it is tractable, or even fruitful. For example, I think an obvious question to ask about the Big Bang is what caused it. But that doesn't mean that astro-physicists should drop everything and get to work on answering my question.

I'm not projecting. It is the obvious and logicial question.

Your example of the big bang conflates two topics that are very different. There is lots of other evidence out there that suggests a big bang occured, and plenty more evidence to be investigated in the universe at large, which is why it more fruitful for scientists in that area to concentrate on the evidence they have.

The only 'evidence' of design of something like a bacterial flagellum on the other hand is a vague analogy to something designed by humans. The analogy is very weak. If you don't have any other evidence (and I've certainly never seen any) then you do actually need to find a designer in order to infer design.

Agreed. But you were calling them "nonsense", meaning they aren't useful at all.

Actually I called Dembski's stuff nonsense. And no, I don't think the EF or CSI are useful at all.

You had experiences with the designers?

Absolutely. Find the designers of the bacterial flagellum. See how the designers go about implementing their designs. Then come back and talk to me about design inferences.

In the meantime, experience has been teaching that a design-centric approach holds promise.

Sounds terribly pragmatic. There must be reasons why science cannot be so pragmatic. Methodological reasons, perhaps?

One of the things I learned a long time ago is that I cannot truly control how people see and what other think and say. All I can do is flesh out my perspective, toy around with developing methods, apply those methods, and make a case. Also, if others say things about me or my approach that are not true, I can correct this by telling my side. But that's all I can really do. From there, the chips fall where they fall.

Great stuff MG.

The DI brand of ID had its day in court and lost rather badly.

Could anything be more musguided than this?

Judge Jones:

"we find that while ID [intelligent design] arguments may be true, a proposition upon which the Court takes no position…"

Krauze,

I wish I had access to my copies of Gould's Structure and Oyama's Ontogeny, but at the moment I do not :(.

Perhaps I can convince you to take a look at this latest offering from the "critics" at the same time. It would be great to have a forum in which to examine and reflect upon each essay in turn. If not you, perhaps someone else here will take it up.

Dawkins writes:

So long as the total odds against a planet's evolving a life-form capable of anthropic reflection does not exceed the number of planets in the universe, we have an adequate and satisfying explanation for our existence.

Dawkins fails to specify what that "adequate and satisfactory explanation" is. Is Dawkins saying a 50/50 proposition suffices as an "adequate and satisfactory explanation?"