What makes ID more than speculation?

With regards to OoL? Are you kidding? We can actually, as intelligent agents, attempt to create life in the laboratory. We can explore hypothetical models, everything from clay theory to panspermia to elsewise. The prospects for intelligent agents orchestrating life from non-life in the lab are considerably higher than discerning how chance magics it all up.

Get with the winning program!

So unless data convincingly argues for something you venture no opnion about it?

I don't know. What is the data? A discussion about hypothetical data would seem forlorn.

JackT: I suspect my point did not come across fully. I do not have a belief here. I am not pouring belief into the existing holes in knowledge. I am leaving the holes empty.

I see. So unless data convincingly argues for something you venture no opnion about it? The term speculative is not uncommon. You see it in papers where researchers distinguish between solidly supported conclusions and reasonable inferences. Since I did not initially introduce the term wildly speculative I was looking for an explanation that would distinguish speculative from wildly speculative. I still have yet to get one. It looks like a subjective term meant to convey whatever the writer wishes at a particular moment in time.

Neither do I have a firm grasp of what you believe demarcates solid evidence from the speculative or worse yet wildly speculative.

I suspect my point did not come across fully. I do not have a belief here. I am not pouring belief into the existing holes in knowledge. I am leaving the holes empty.

What constitutes plausible tests for life's origin? Demonstrations that amino acids form in spark discharge experiments? Or that in a different set of conditions they even form peptides with randomly ordered AAs?

The way OOL research is conducted is to start with a hypothesis and then to find some aspect or implication of the hypothesis which is testable, however small. There is no expectation of finding an outright test for life's origin which would solve the matter.

After one hundred years of hard work we may obtain a few gems which are highly suggestive, like pieces of a puzzle. But we may not. Expectations are low.

Why not approach it from the other end and test whether minimally functional genomes arise or are sustained in the absence of a full or even partial complement of DNA repair functions? I'm doubtful that present results are adaquate to sustain underlying theories.

Without knowing the full details of what you are suggesting, I would reserve comment. In the previous paragraph it appeared that you were describing something like Seelke's experiments. Can you point me to a thorough description of the hypothesis being proposed?

It is difficult to sustain a thread without someone, at some point, poisoning the well with concerns about the ID Movement.

Or about the anti-ID movement.

I thought JackT asked a very interesting question. It was a shame you ignored it. Here it is again:

What makes ID more than speculation?

You may be missing the middle ground of pragmatic agnostics among ID oppositionists. For us the important issue is what is testable, tangible, useful, and produces results. Metaphysical positions may be useful insofar as inspiring a particular hypothesis or experiment, but it is not necessary to wed oneself to a single position. In so doing, one may miss useful inspiration found elsewhere.

A very reasonable position. Not surprisingly concepts discussed here encompass such things as abiogenesis, evolution, irreducible complexity, front loaded evolution and more. I try to keep up with the latest findings impacting the origin of life and subsequent changes during eons of time. I once recall a series of exchanges with a fairly high profile ID critic in this forum. He was critiquing Behe's IC. I asked if we could test the concept in principle by removing genes coding for some proteins identified as part of the structure in question. The impaired, but functioning organism, would be subjected to selective pressure for an extended length of time (although obviously not extended by geologic standards of time) to test whether a fully functional structure would evolve. His reaction was an emphatic no and the time scale the basis for the objection. So what then is testable with regard to IC? Identification of a sub-structure in another organism which is presumed to have been coopted (but not front loaded:wink:)?

What constitutes plausible tests for life's origin? Demonstrations that amino acids form in spark discharge experiments? Or that in a different set of conditions they even form peptides with randomly ordered AAs? Why not approach it from the other end and test whether minimally functional genomes arise or are sustained in the absence of a full or even partial complement of DNA repair functions? I'm doubtful that present results are adaquate to sustain underlying theories. Neither do I have a firm grasp of what you believe demarcates solid evidence from the speculative or worse yet wildly speculative.

From what I have seen thus far, you are merely painting a caricature of those who oppose ID. The inevitable result is that it prevents useful debate; with the caricature in mind, it is difficult to engage with what is being discussed.

After years of witnessing others attempt to paint IDists with the broad brush first applied to the DI, I see things differently. It is difficult to sustain a thread without someone, at some point, poisoning the well with concerns about the ID Movement.

You may be missing the middle ground of pragmatic agnostics among ID oppositionists. For us the important issue is what is testable, tangible, useful, and produces results. Metaphysical positions may be useful insofar as inspiring a particular hypothesis or experiment, but it is not necessary to wed oneself to a single position. In so doing, one may miss useful inspiration found elsewhere.

Sometimes the best answer is, "Chop wood, carry water." Engage with what is in front of us, embrace reality as best we can, forgoing the temptation to build a metaphysics around it.

From what I have seen thus far, you are merely painting a caricature of those who oppose ID. The inevitable result is that it prevents useful debate; with the caricature in mind, it is difficult to engage with what is being discussed.

You previously stated that ID is not speculation. I asked what makes ID not speculation. Your response was to ask me what makes my position not speculation. I hope I've clarified that it's possible to not even have a position beyond the seeking of what is useful and testable.

Even so, the question remains unanswered. What makes ID more than speculation?

You won't believe this but I was just going to use this quote as an example of quote mining from your side. To say that Dembskis ID is religious because he mentioned a term found in the bible is comical.

It's not as if atheists don't link their extra-scientific views to origin of life issues. The double standard speaks for itself.

I think ID was devised by people thwarted in their attempts to get creationism in schools, that it was invented as a disguise for creationism. I think the DI are dishonest when they say otherwise (especially as it was them doing it).

I can't believe how conspiratorial your thinking is. I suppose the next thing you'll be telling us that ID and DI and Bill Dembski has something to do with whatever it was that crashed outside of Roswell NM in 1947. I'm sorry that's sarcastic. Do a little experiment for me, Pixie, go out streets someday (when you're not afraid to go outside) and start asking people (ordinary, everyday people) about the Discovery Institute, Bill Demski, Intelligent Design. How many people do you think will even have a clue what your talking about? So how is it the DI is ever going to take over? It has no real influence among the general population, but what about the media? What about academia? What about government officials? What type of influence do they really have? Little that I can see. So how are they going to take over or impose there agenda? How? Give me, a credible explanation of how they are going to do whatever your mind has dreamed up that they are supposedly going to do.

Oh by the way, did you hear that Microsoft founder Bill Gates made a large contribution to the Discovery Institute not to long ago? Is Gates part of the conspiracy? I thought he was an atheist.

Okay, no problem. How about the examples of quote-mining? Do you want to try to defend them, or pretend they do not exist?

Also, you said earlier:

I also oppose teaching ID.

Leading me to ask whether you think evolutionary theory may well be true, or whether you are happy to have children taught what you believe is nonsense. Again, you seem to want to duck the question.

You also said:

Your baseless accusations of dishonesty indicate a lack of integrity.

If you are going to accuse me of a lack of integrity, you might have the decency to support your claim. Is my claim of dishonesty really "baseless" If you will confirm that you think evolutionary theory may well be true, then I will admit I was wrong, but I honestly believe that there is no doubt in your mind that evolutionary theory is wrong. If you will confirm that you are happy to have children taught what you believe is nonsense, then I will admit I was wrong (but will wonder what sort of person you are that can be happy with that).

I suspect you really do oppose teaching ID, but only because you can do a sort of Orwellian doublethink, allowing you to think ID should not be taught in schools and that it should at the same time, by avoiding considering the logical consequences of your position. But perhaps you can explain it another way.