IAP Political Forum

At the Huffington Post, Dan Agin has announced that  Dawkins’s selfish gene is tossed out, terminated, laid to rest:

Goodbye Selfish-Gene: A New Upheaval in the Science of Human Behavior (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-agin/goodbye-selfishgene-a-n_b_71019.html)


With the acknowledgment of the inconsistencies with the selfish gene concept and admission of the incongruence to observed behavior in the world around us, the materialist worldview is dealt a significant blow, because genetics no longer so nicely accounts for behavior the way Dawkin's wanted us to believe.

My dear, RF, must you always insert your supernaturalism in every gap?  Just because one aspect of some hypothesis is challenged doesn't default to some completely untested and irrational proposition.

This doesn't challenge materialism, it challenges a small aspect of behavior, which, if you read the article (and not the commentary on article) then you'd realize that there are explanations.

Your, "Magic Man Done It" is NOT an explanation.

I would have thought you'd understand that this is exactly whyscience is the best method for discovery. And here you thought there was a conspiracy against anything anti-Darwinian - it certainly destroys your hypothesis!  tossed out, terminated, laid to rest.

Oh, wait, no, since there will always be Gaps, there will always be RF ready to insert Supernaturalism.

The explanations don't answer for the inconsistencies.  They don't suddenly bring materialism in alignment with the way people actually behave


I don't see anything about a creator in this topic.  However a creator is an explanation, it is a hypothesis and even Dawkins admits that when he said, "The presence of a creative deity clearly is a scientific hypothesis".


Science is one of many pathways to truth.  It is not by any means the best.  There are many truths that science can and will never discover because they are outside the domain of the scientific method.


You are a despicable liar to continue to repeat the same unfounded accusations when I repeatedly ask you to support your accusations or stop.

yes, sorry, i meant an anti-darwinian conspiracy of the scientific community that you accuse them of, or an anti-materialist conspiracy.  either way, the point stands.

I have not and do not accuse anyone of conspiracy.  I do see individuals and groups acting independently in accordance with a common bias.

You ought to go to your local Church sometime. You'll see whole crowds of people acting dependently in accordance with a common bias.
On the other hand, science acts in an opposite way, testing biases with data at every point.

In The Ancestor's Tale Dawkins talks about a phenomenon called 'clade selection'. He says he's uneasy with it because it sounds a bit like evolution having foresight but says he doesn't want to dismiss it outright.

Taken out of context, of course (because that's what creationists do). Dawkins says this to make the point that the God Hypothesis should be subjected to the same standards as all other scientific hypotheses. I don't see how this helps your case - unless you believe that all hypotheses are true.

Did I miss the part where non-material processes are suggested as a mechanism for group selection? I don't know how to break this to you but evolutionary theory is full of competing ideas regarding the processes that have lead to descent with modification. This is the mark of a robust theory and why the work continues to be done.

It helps a great deal because critics (even illogical one) like barney don't go after the substance of my argument since they can't, instead they claim that it is not a scientific premise since it is a claim for a creator.  Well, here Dawkins acknowledges that even a creator is a scientific hypothesis.  Kind of takes the wind out of the sails of even a fallacious critique.

You aren't telling me anything I don't know.  However you should get the news to the many critics of ID who continuously claim that the Darwinian Evolutionary theory has no scientific critics and there are no alternatives.  Furthermore this is quite significant in that it exposes yet another significant inconsistency between the narrative and actual observation.  Modern evolutionary theory is increasingly being challenged for its failure to produce deductive evidence by way of experiment and repetition that supports the idea that evolutionary processes and natural selection is capable of producing the diversity we observe.

RF, when you say these things (almost word or word off the DI site), you really are asking to be labelled a loon.

It is incredibly obvious that you have no interest in keeping up to date with the science, but only care about the ID propaganda.

OK, barney, let's see who is keeping up to date with science.  I claim this statement I made is correct and up to date. 


In responding to that post the way you just did you are suggesting my statement is not up to date.  So, please provide deductive evidence that demonstrates evolutionary processes can produce observed diversity within the timeframe that the geologic record indicates it occurred.

http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/evj/evjava/index.html

What?  A rendition of Schneider's evolutionary algorithm should be counted as deductive evidence for mutation and selection by way of experiment and repetition?  If you are suggesting that evolutionary processes along with natural selection works the same and can traverse the same evolutionary pathways that are achieved in the program you are going to have a very difficult time substantiating that.

The program is and will remain an invention of imagination until it can be demonstrated that evolutionary pathways are available the way the programmer assumes they are.  The thing is if these pathways existed then we would observe evolution traversing these pathways in the laboratory.  Trouble is we don't,  the fact that you offer a hypothetical scenario rather than empirical evidence is telling in itself.

Are you suggesting that imagination is a good and valid substitution for scientific evidence?

You are aware that the program itself was designed by a designer and that the program backloads information into the algorithm.   This algorithm was designed and that is the primary reason why it works.

It addresses all the aspects that you feeel are important in determining the validity of ID: mutations per generation, binding sites, population size, chance, statistics, etc.

It extracts all those things and then shows repeatedly that large amounts of diversity can occur.  It shows that the ID bastardization of evolutionary theory is wrong.

It was designed to mimic exactly what ID'ists claim evolutionary theory claims, but then ID'ists claim it can't work.  But it does.

If you don't like it, it is because you don't like your Creatonism challenged by its own standards.


Other than that, rf, evolution has been shown to exist and has shown to be a robust Theory. It is a fact that you struggle with.  To what do you account for your inability to grasp truth?

It is an invention of imagination.  It is not in any way shape or form empirical.


It assumes that each of what the programmer predetermined was a survivable configurations is in fact survivable.  It presumes the very thing that I claim experimental biology is demonstrating is missing and asked you to provide an empirical example for.  Instead you provided a program that supports your position by presuming it, so it then back-loads the presumption into the program to guarantee the result presumed.


It was designed to mimic the narrative of evolution, it was not designed to mimic empirical results.  ID proponents acknowledge that evolutionary algorithms that are back-loaded with presumptions of success will succeed because they inserted design into the algorithm as is the case with this program.  It does exactly what it was designed to do.


I like the program.  Trouble is I asked you for deductive empirical evidence for materialism and instead you give me an imaginative design attempting to masquerade as evolution.

You did not provide what I asked for because you can't and you can't because my statement is correct and I am up to date on biological sciences.

You have failed.


Your inability to see materialism for the failure it is the real tragedy.

I have no trouble crediting evolution and natural selection for what it does which is damage function in order to stave off selection pressure and winnow out biological organisms that cannot compete.  Interesting that you can't rise to your claim and show that my statement is incorrect.  I repeat it here:

Modern evolutionary theory is increasingly being challenged for its failure to produce deductive evidence by way of experiment and repetition that supports the idea that evolutionary processes and natural selection is capable of producing the diversity we observe.

And yet is is based on what ID claims about evolution.  Are you saying that ID is an invention of the imagination?

Odd, I thought you were a follower of ID?

It is based on the Darwinian Evolutionary Theory narrative as stated by Evolutionary Biologists.  Your joke is pathetic.

Meanwhile still nothing to substantiate your clam that my statement is out of date.  You have failed.  Evolutionary theory is a failure in its attempt to account for diversity of life, because it cannot produce the biological information required to account for observed diversity.  Natural selection can winnow out failures and evolutionary processes can make minor temporary adaptations but it cannot produce even one example of an evolutionary pathway greater than three steps long. 

It is consistent with probability theory and information theory that random processes of genetic mutation with selection cannot do this because there are insufficient resources to navigate the myriad of unworkable permutations and very few successful ones.  Furthermore there is no evidence that even if resources were available, the required pathways exist.  This is why we don't observe evolution accomplishing these things in the lab or in the world around us.  In the evo program the designer assumes the pathways exist and programs in sufficient pathways to ensure success given the number of opportunities a casual observer is likely to observe when running the program.  The designer stacked the deck to ensure the desired outcome.

Face it barney, this one is over.  You have failed.

 

Yes, it should be treated as a scientific hypothesis. It should be subjected to the same standards as a scientific hypothesis and under those standards it fails. It fails to meet the criterion of falsifiability for one thing as well as failing to meet the criterion of being based on repeatable testable observation.

Funny, last I looked Evolution is still a scientific fact.  It seems the only failure on my part is in making you realize your presuppoitionalism is tragically flawed.

Unfortunately for you, we are not debating the existence of evolution.  We are debating the capability of evolutionary processes (which have been confirmed) to accomplish what evolutionary theorists claim, namely that it accounts for observed diversity.  Just as you have failed to derail this conversation with yet another straw man argument, it is on this point also that you failed.  It appears your failures are quickly piling up.

As far as I know, only Dawkins has proposed it as a hypothesis and then didn't follow up with any experiments or tests.  If it fails it must be Dawkins who has failed.  I don't know of anyone else who has proposed this hypothesis.  So since Dawkins affirms it is a valid scientific hypothesis it stands to reason that the ID premise also should be accepted by these followers of Dawkins who improperly claim it is equivalent to a creator hypothesis.  ID does offer a falsifiable premise and ID does offer observable evidence, tests, and predictions.

RF, you are really a peach. You think because there are gaps in knowledge that you can insert your Creationism. You can - you are welcome to, but it is absurd and unscientific. Take your ID, go to Sunday school and teach it there, but it has no place in real science.

As a self-proclaimed scientist you should know the process better than I, but you don't.  Perhaps you are a bad scientist?  You reject and refuse to read any claims aganist your Creationism, so why should we continue with you?  You haven't changed your tune in 2-3 years and you still make the same fallacies. You still build it on the same fallacies, you have just learned new ways to lie.

If lying is a victory to you, then congrats, you've won the Grand Prize.

The true situation is not that there is a gap in knowledge. Empirical data exists and it tells us what evolution can and can't accomplish.  The empirical data is supported by theorems from probability, thermodynamics and information theory that provides the basis to confirm why the empirical data is the way it is.

You want to see it as a gap in knowledge because you have a prior commitment to materialism and cannot and will not accept any alternative.  It is you who are making an appeal to ignorance.  Meanwhile, materialism is crumbling around you.  It is a house of cards and it is near collapse.

 

I have degrees in the hard science of Chemical Engineering.  I indeed know the process much better than you.  You, on the other hand rely on your presupposition that materialism answers everything and turn a blind eye to its failures.

 

Nonsense. I read it all.  But I am not wedded to the Genesis narrative in the first place.  Science is the attempt to explain our world through empirical study.  Creationism is not empirical rather it is revelation with a dose of metaphors written to a people far less informed than we are.


You have yet to demonstrate even one fallacy, not one.  I make minor errors from time to time, but you have yet to show were my primary premises are wrong.  You have not done it and you cannot do it.


To a materialist such as yourself, morality is simply a mechanism to gain advantage, there is no right and no wrong in your view, you have admitted it directly.  If you can gain advantage with lies, so be it.  If you can gain advantage by false accusations, so much the better.  You are transparent.  You are a phony.

My principles include the reality that lies are evil.  I may make mistakes, but I do not lie. 

So again I ask you to demonstrate with empirical evidence that evolutionary processes are capable of generating the biological information required to account for observed diversity.  Provide some evidence that materialistic mechanisms can produce the markers present in biological systems that design can and does produce.  Once again I expect silence.

Of course you expect silence. It's all you hear no matter what is said.

You are simply asking for the next gap to be filled in by a novice. Is this your pathetic attempt at supporting your worldview?

Go to Panda's Thumb or some other scientific website and see how your ideas play out. I dare you. ;-)

A few years ago you harped on about mouse traps, blood clotting and the bacteria flagellum - they are now personas non grata in the ID realm except for the few hangers on. You, for example.

Now you move on to other gaps, and when those are filled by science, you will move to another gap - and with the same smugness you exhibit now. You know this but don't admit it.

You never provide substance you simply cling to your faith in materialism.


All of these examples are still in play.  None have been accounted for by a causally complete pathway and the ID community has not abandoned them.  The fact is that evolutionary theory has not demonstrated even one evolutionary pathway greater than three steps.  The blood clotting pathway would require thousands, flagellum several hundred and both require additional processes that have never been observed and are therefore simply imagined.  When one relies on imagination to support a position we call that blind faith.


Evolutionary biologists have been unable to account for the markers of design.  Evolution cannot account for irreducible complexity which was first introduced 12 years ago.  Evolution cannot account for Specified Complexity which is a concept now ten years old.  Biologists have studied evolutionary processes for fifty years now and we have exactly zero examples of an evolutionary pathway greater than three steps.  We have zero examples of new biological function, no examples of a new protein interaction, zero examples of co-optation, coevolution of molecular components.  All we have are several thousand examples of evolution damaging function in order to overcome selection pressure.  That's it.

Evolution cannot account for the source and am mount of information contained in biological organisms because material processes do not generate information.  Materialism cannot account for the improbability of generating self generating polymers.  Materialism cannot account for the reality that chemical reaction kinetics precludes formation of self generating polymers in the first place.  Evolution does not generate new protein binding sites, it does not produce coherent structures with sophisticated control mechanisms, associated transport devices, artificial languages, signal processing, feedback control, error correction and the host of associated management systems that go along with most protein based functional systems.  The list of what you call gaps is growing not shrinking.

I admit what I know is true.  Why don't you admit that you hold a prior commitment to materialism on faith?

Your "markers for design" are fallacies.


But let me get this straight: you are saying that the biological mechanisms are design-like in a way machines are. That we are robots?

This is priceless. You are now saying that because Dawkins was unable to test your untestable, unfalsifiable conjecture then it must be true.

I hope everyone sees how disingenuous RF is. When he says ID is observable and repeateble he slips into the human understanding of design, but then, when he wants to talk about "Creation" he equivicates and calls it the same principle, or idea.

He will say it is "intelligence" as if intelligence can be placed into any vessel (or, in the case of his Deusigner, a non-vessel).

We ONLY know of intelligence as applied to a material brain and known process.


Not to mention, he again and again ONLY appeals to the gaps.

No, read my words again.  Because Dawkins has not offered any test so it is indetermined.  There is a difference between a hypothesis that is valid from a scientific standpoint and one that has been shown to be likely true.

How so?  They are commonly present in things known to be designed and have never been shown to be derived by any materialistic mechanism.


Our bodies in a sense are biological robots, a vessel. Do you disagree?


Is there more than one understanding of design?


Design and Creation are synonyms. 


I don't need any other.  Design is showing itself capable of increasing biological information.  Design is capable of generating new form and function in organisms that lacked that form or function.  Design is capable of generating self replicating biopolymers from raw materials.

Meanwhile you have zero materialistic processes capable of deriving these markers.


I point to known markers for design and known design processes.  You are making an appeal for more time .  You are claiming ignorance.  You are claiming there are gaps.

Um, how about plants and animals?

The origination of plants and animals has not been determined to be derived by materialistic mechanisms.

Everything has had its origin from natural processes until you can provide proof that some other process exists.  Its the only thing that makes sense, not your Cartoon Universe.

Good luck showing magic, or supernaturalism as you call it, exists!

That is because no test is possible. There is no litmus test for the presence of God. There is no thing that could exist that we can say definitely wasn't made by God. We don't know how a universe created by God would differ from one that was not. God is an untestable unfalsifiable conjecture.

Unless you have a test we can perform. I think I have a microscope in my house somewhere if that helps :)

When you begin with a prior commitment to the absurdly unsupportable notion of materialism, statements like yours are expected.  There are natural causes and there is design.  Design explains the observable world much better because when we look at the natural world we find elements of design throughout it.  We also observe design, in action, building the same kinds of elements over and over again.

I'm not certain this is true.  No test has been offered but should we reject it on those grounds?  If so then we should reject materialism also since no test for the idea that the universe created itself has been offered.



A designed universe should appear to be designed and should contain signs of design throughout it.  Our universe appears to be designed and contains clear markers of design that only design can explain.  An undesigned universe should appear random and incoherent and should not contain markers that material processes don't generate.


By the same token, Materialism is an untestable and falsified conjecture.   It fails on the basis that material processes don't generate the observed markers for design we find in the natural world.  Materialism holds on because of the prior commitment materialist have (see barney above) despite the utter failure to deliver on their grand promises to explain this world.  As we learn more about it it is becoming more clear that material processes can't explain the world, not the other way around.

RF, name ONE thing your Deusigner has positively created - that you can prove to a scientific level.

As support for Materialism, we will tell you the billions of things that material mechanisms are responsible for - proven to be responsible for, such as mountain building, lightning, planets orbits, electricity, magnetism, gravity, waves, light, heat, sound, texture, evolution, tides, many psychoses, cancer, many rashes and bruises, heart attacks, anurisms, atheletes foot, dust mites, allergies, weak and strong nuclear forces, nuclear bombs, nuclear energy, automatic door closers, fire extinguishers, cars AND buses, planes, trains and Vespa scooters, windsurfers, submarines, sofas, books, intelligence, caps, speakers, extension cords, bamboo flooring, videos and cds, dvds, internet, rivers, volcanoes, streams, trees, bunnies, whales, paper, brains, arteries, hearts and knees, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, siltation, cirques, morains, swales, valleys, knolls, crystals, uranium, lead, copper, and iron, rubber, chocolate, pollen, pears and bears, chalk, marble, quartz, etc....

Need I go on?  All of these things, you will agree, are dependent upon material and material mechanisms.

Now, name ONE thing that you can show that your Deusigner did - actually show - and not simply assert.

Just as you can provide an endless list of things that have a known material cause, I too can provide an endless list of things that have a known design cause.  Like cars, and trains, and electrical generators, etc.  If you claim that your list confirms that materialism accounts for this universe, life in this universe and diversity of life in this universe.  Then you also have to say that my list confirms that design accounts for the same. 

The reality is that you are making a category error and a special pleading.  The existence of material causes and things in this universe that have material causes does nothing to build your case for materialism because none of the modes of explanation can account for the universe or life in it or diversity of life. 

On the other hand design does account for the universe and life in it and diversity of life because we know from experience that with sufficient knowledge design can generate the plans and conditions needed to cause these events.  Design has increased the diversity of biological organisms.  Design has generated self-replicating biopolymers.  Design can fine tune systems to create complex interrelationships for specific purposes.

RF, cars were designed by humans - material entities - and cars are based on a myriad of material properties.

You appeal now to the BB? The unknown?

Has it sunk through yet? Have you realized that you only have an Argument from Ignorance?

I am not asking you to name something that we don't know what caused it - I am challenging you and your God to name ONE thing that you can show "He" designed.

So far you have given me NOTHING.

You are begging the question, making a category error and a special pleading.  You know that historical singularities cannot be proven empiriacally.  We can only demonstrate the here and now.  You cannot demonstrate that materialism accounts for this universe, life in it or observed diversity of life.  Meanwhile, I don't know how to deductively prove to your there is a designer of life since the event is in the past.  So what?  This is meaningless, because it is historical and the evidence is lost, and out of reach to science.

I can demonstrate that design processes can increase biological information at rates far in excess of what is required to account for observed diversity.  I can demonstrate that design can geneerate self-replicating polymers.  Design is reverse engineering biological processes at record pace.

Meanwhile materialism is falling all over itself but has utterly failed to deliver on its grand narrative that it accounts for the diversity we observe.  Design accounts for it, materialism does not.   

Still nothing, RF.  You are just asserting again without evidence.

Barney your question is a fallacy.  Fallacies don't require and often don't have valid responses.

You have made hundreds of clims all based on your presuppositionalism. I am offering you a chance to show that there is something other than convoluted theistic reasoning behind it - like actual evidence.

For example, here is one thing that would convince me if your religion was true.

Let me pick a mountain - any old mountain - and you move it.  See how evidence works?  I predict the mountain won't move, but your religion claims it will.  (Of course you will appeal to it being metaphorical. Every time something can actually be tested you must appeal to some other "reason".)

Still waiting.

The burden is on you to offer a test. Until you do, it remains untestable conjecture not testable science.


You have stated many times that design can mimic chance. A universe that appears random could still have been designed that way. No matter what the universe looks like you cannot say "that was not designed."

Also, I would say that the way we design things is likely to be very much based on our observation of the world around us. To then say that because the universe looks like what we design it must have been designed is circular reasoning. Kind of like saying: "Isn't it lucky that there's all the oxygen here or else we oxygen breathers would die?" when we quite clearly evolved to suit a world filled with oxygen.

By the same token, Materialism is an untestable and falsified conjecture.   It fails on the basis that material processes don't generate the observed markers for design we find in the natural world.  Materialism holds on because of the prior commitment materialist have (see barney above) despite the utter failure to deliver on their grand promises to explain this world.  As we learn more about it it is becoming more clear that material processes can't explain the world, not the other way around.
[/quote]

I'm not sure why you mention materialism. We're supposed to be talking about design. Surely you can make a case for design without bringing up materialism every five minutes.

I accept that materialism doesn't yet explain everything. What I don't accept is that wherever there is something that materialism does not yet explain we immediately jump to "God dunnit!"

There are somethings that materialism cannot explain but design does explain.  When materialism explains something, even if design also explains it we accept materialism as the explanation.   It is a special pleading not to accept design when design explains it but materialism can't.

Only people with a prior commitement to materialism won't accept design when design is the better explanation.  Accepting design is not "jumping to God dunnit".  Accepting design is not the same as declaring the character of the designer.  You wish to make the leap to God in an attempt to make design as absurd sounding as those who cling to the materialism despite the evidence to the contrary.

RF, material mechainsms exist.

You have not shown ONE element designed by your Deusigner.

Do you see why Materialism holds such a favored position despite the millenia that religion has tried to warp the minds of humanity?

God is NOT the default position, material mechanisms are - because they ahve stood up to every test thrown at them.



After 2000 years your position has offered nothing new, has not responded to the criticisms, and can only make its case through intellectual terrorism.

This is not in debate.  The idea that materialism accounts for life and diversity of life is the debate.


Design can and has increased biological information at a rate far faster than required to account for observed diversity.  Design has produced self-replicating biopolymers.


I see why your prejudice forces you to see materialism in the position.  I see that materialism is a grand failure in its attempt to meet the claims made of it.  I also note again that fewer than 27% of scientific community according to Gallup accept this position.  With 26% I hardly call that favored.


Materialism has met its match and despite your attempts to prop it up, it is nearly DOA. 

I am not making a claim for God, I am making a claim for design.  Design is a valid mode of explanation, just as materialism is a mode of explanation.  The difference is that design accounts for observed diversity and design accounts for the chemic assemblies required for life but materialism does not and the hard sciences tell us why materialism cannot and will not account for these clear markers for design.  It is appropriate to remind you again what a more honest materialist admits about your weak position.

http://www.itsallpolitics.com/forum/index.php?topic=1015.msg25340#msg25340

You say design has created polymers?
Did your designer design them, or did humans?  Did humans design the universe and life? No.

Can you show that something outside of the universe exists, or can design? No.

Can you show that a being with intelligence existed before life existed and/or could create life? No.

Can you show that alien creatures evolved and then created terrestrial life? No.

Can you show where design occured in the evolutionary process? No.

Can you show what parts were designed, and which ones weren't? No.

Can you show using proper science and math that evolution can't account for the diversity and complexity of life? No.

Can you use anything other than the Argument from Personal Incredulity, or the God of the Gaps argument to support your claim? No.

Can you show us all the steps of evolution, and therefore, where evoliution is found to be impossible to occur? No.

Can you show us that probability theories have a one-to-one relationship with reality - that rare events don't happen all the time? No.

CAn you show us a peer-reviewed article that supports ID? One, and it has been rebutted.

Can you show us one thing that ID has been able to develop in practice? No.

Can you show us why your Presuppositionalism is valid? No.


All valid questions and you can only answer "No" to them. This is your ID/Creationist hypothesis in a nutshell.

Barney, your propensity to make special pleadings to attempt to prop up materialism is astounding.  When you point out issues that materialism can't answer either, it makes you appear dim.


Has material mechanisms made self-replicating polymers?  No.  Did/can the material processes we are aware of make the universe and life? No.


Can you show that material exists outside of the universe?  No.  Can you show the material in this universe makes itself? No.


Can you show that materialist mechanisms can create life? No.


Can you show that evolution even results in new forms or function?  No.  I can demonstrate that design is capable of generating the rate of change required to account for diversity of life.


Yes, Many components and systems contain clear characteristics of design while a few do not.


Yes.  You have not been able to demonstrate any flaws in the probability analysis and Information analysis.


I point to what we have already determined design is capable of accomplishing.  You claim they are gaps in your understanding because you refuse to accept the valid explanation offered, namely design.  You are making the appeal to ignorance not I.  I offer deductive evidence that design accounts for the observations made, while you claim ignorance.


Yes, We have a catalog of observed evolutionary processes.  These cataloged processes are insufficient to account for observed diversity.  If other processes existed, they also must be occurring now at sufficient rates to account for observed diversity but the rate we find them operating is exactly zero. 


I can show that probability theory consistently works, is reliable and models reality without error.  I can show that you don't wish to understand probability theory when you make such foolish statements.


I can show you that no scientific article is without its critic and rebuttals.  The peer reviewed ID articles have their critics too.  You are one such critic who claims to have rebutted every one of them.  However, I can walk through any one of a number of articles and demonstrate that you cannot falsify any of them.


I can point to hundreds of reverse engineering successes in medicine.  All presuppose purpose and design, but your prior commitment to materialism prevents you from accepting that as evidence for design.  I can point to the huge successes in genetic engineering as clear examples of what design has done in changing biological systems.


Your prior commitment to materialism in your mind is perfectly valid, how strange.



Most of the questions are leading questions.  In logical fallacies they are "Begging the Question".  But you are so poor at framing questions, I was able to answer several of them.  You are a fraud.

Since you ignored most of my post am I to take it you now agree that design is an untestable unfalsifiable conjecture?


Here's the thing: design explains everything. You have invented a supernatural designer with theoretically limitless power. "Mr. Designer" could be responsible for any phenomenon in the universe because he is a construct of the human mind - and one with no boundaries on what he can achieve.

By contrast, materialistic explanations are bound by what exists - what we know to exist or can discover. There are limits on what matter and energy can do. They are bound by the laws of physics. That's why materialism doesn't explain everything: because it has to explain things using what we know, not what we imagine. That's why I cannot a priori declare that material mechanisms account for X phenomenon. I or someone else actually has to prove it.

You may see that as an advantage of design over materialism. I see it as stupid.

So, no answers STILL. You just ask questions to questions and throw in an ad hom.

Very mature! ::)


(But better to appear dim to an idiot, than actually be dim.)

Wrong, all use design as a metaphor with which to aid our understanding. This works because we are used to designing things and observing the designs of others. Our brains work well when we look upon things as designs.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Yeah, its funny. Ever since I started calling out RF's logical fallacies by name, he has tried to return the favor - but always butchering it.

I always have a little laugh when I see it. He's so cute in trying to be like me. ;) ;D

I think both of you are quite funny when you have a fallacy contest:

"That's a red herring, begging the question."

"Oh yeah, well your's is just an argument from ignorance, argument from authority and an ad hom! Checkmate!"

Heheheh... touche'!
I like to just cut to the chase instead of explining why its wrong, since it is so obviously wrong. Naming the fallacy quickens the pace to the point that he always ignores or doesn't comprehend.

You claimed God was untestable and unfalsifiable.  I have not tried to test or falsify God so I don't know for certain your claim is true.  Meanwhile design is both testable and falsifiable as I have demonstrated in the past.

Now since materialism (the idea that materialistic mechanisms account for this universe and everything in it) is truly untestable and unfalsifiable, are you prepared to agree that materialism is nonscientific?



No, design does not yet account for the specifics of a transition from non-life to DNA/RNA based life.  Design does not tell us specifically how this universe began.  We have much yet to learn and the very fact that these specifics are still out of reach due to lack of knowledge is why we can even debate this topic at all.  If the specifics were known, there would be no debate. 


All modes of explanation have this boundary.  Science is an empirical study.  Both materialistic and design centric explanations in the context of science have this limitation.  This is why ID does not make an appeal to an all powerful designer.  This is also why barney (who does not admit his prior commitment) and Lewontin who does admit his bias and now you try so hard to turn the design premise into something it is not.


Exactly my point.


Yes but when we return to Lewontin's quote we see that materialists who insist on methodological materialism are making a prior commitment and it is why these same people declare that any explanation that falls outside materialism is not science.  They simply will not accept anything that does not have a materialistic explanation and therefore will never accept that design explains life much better.


What you describe is a failure to follow the scientific method for empirical studies.  I too would think it is stupid to dismiss the scientific method.

Has Lewotin become RF's new savior? Does he sudden'y know everything about Materialism, or does he have one voice that RF seems to like.

I suppose RF will have no problem with me claiming "Fred Phelps said...." and thus speaks for Xianity.

No, you have demonstrated that one specific kind of creationism based on arbitrarily defined 'markers' is falsifiable because we could find out the markers don't exist. There will always remain the 'God put those fossils there to test our faith' defense so no one can prove God doesn't exist.


Can you find an instance where I claimed that they do?


But there is no way I can say that any of those things are out of reach of design simply because we know nothing about the designer (including, by the way, whether or not it exists) and therefore we know nothing about what it can or can't do.


The designer doesn't have to be 'all powerful' - we do not know anything about the designer. We do not know the designers capabilities. Since we are limited by the scientific method to what we know or can discover ID will remain conjecture until we discover an entity capable of designing life. Have you found one?


I knew you would chop what I said up like this. Whatever we want material to account for must fit with what we already know about it. Unlike imaginary designers, about whom we can assert whatever we want, material explanations must be shown to be capable of what we claim them to be capable of. That's why we cannot make blanket assertions about them.


You can repeat that accusation as much as you want, I have explained why design is not a scientific explanation. I did not just declare it to be so.

Encoded deterministic information and artificial languages clearly exist and have only been found in things that are designed.  I do not make an appeal to God, I claim this is a telltale sign of intelligent design.


Very well then I will assume you claim materialism is not a scientific premise.  It follows that methodological materialism is an invalid presupposition and should be removed from scientific studies.



Yes we can.  We know what design is because we design things and we observe design directly.  We should not presume design can accomplish anything, because we do not observe that.  We should only assign to design what we reasonably suspect it can do.



Not yet, but we can be reasonably sure that given enough information, human designers can make life from non-life.  Do you doubt this?

Science does not require us to identify the designer, all that is required is to show that design can accomplish what is claimed.


Nonsense.  As I said above. We can only attribute to design what we observe of design or can reasonably suggest design can do.


You have explained why you don't care for the design inference and nothing more.  Your justification was flawed because you extended ID to a mythical designer capable of anything.  ID does not make this claim.

RF, you are so damned disingenuous I hope there is a special place in your imaginary Hell for you.

Yes, we have heard this one before. I would say that this is equivalent to saying: "Wow! That sunset looks exactly like this painting I saw. It must have been painted." Our designs mimic what we find in nature. We should not therefore be surprised when we find nature to look like our designs and we certainly should not infer that nature was designed on this basis.


No one presupposes materialism except the strawman scientists you have invented. Its just that arguments from design have shown themselves to be inherently unscientific.


And on what basis can we reasonably suspect anything, since we do not know the nature of the designer and what limitations there are on its capabilities?


No I do not doubt this at all.


Then we have the problem of a nice eloquent design explanation and no designer to accomplish it. This is like me claiming evolution without anyone having discovered mutations.


Then since we have not observed design designing life I can dismiss design?


Nor did I, if you read what I said.

This is an important point. A designer could have evolved and mimicked evolution perfectly.  In fact, what we see is humans doing this in labs - they mimic the Natural Processes.

However, the biggest problem is that it is still an Argument from Ignorance. It is simply A God of the Gaps hypothesis and nothing more.

This is why ID has dropped of the map publically, privately and in the sciences. It isn't science, produces nothing helpful or applicable, is not fallsifiable or even sound reasoning. It is Creationism with scientistic lingo.

The term is methodological naturalism and removing it from scientific studies would be difficult since it is precisely how science operates. You seem to be the one that wants to inflate this discipline beyond its capabilities. Science does what it does. If you have a better method of testing potential mechanisms for observed phenomenon let's hear it.

Methodological naturalism seems like a perfectly adequate and reasonable approach to explaining the diversity of life on this planet and I find the compilation of evidence pretty compelling. Again, I'd like to hear an alternative that doesn't involve material processes.

If you find yourself in need of a Grand Theory of Everything that can explain everything without really explaining anything, stick to ID. You can't really go wrong.