Since this blog calls itself “informal”, I’ll be informal: the gear is stowed, the food is on ice in the cooler, the canoe is on the roofrack, and the Goonies are rarin’ to go, so we’re headed for the Adirondacks for the weekend. However, this blog (and attendant moderation duties) are in Hannah’s very capable hands, so have a great weekend and I’ll be back to posting on Monday. Next week we’ll be diving into Phillip Johnson’s The Wedge of Truth (and I will, of course, bring up the “wedge document”), so it should be an exciting and interesting week.
BTW, we have received a number of comments asking/begging/demanding that we moderators do something to censor certain commentators because they believe that they are not responding to counter-arguments and/or failing to provide references or other support (including logical arguments) for what they believe to be assertions. Well, folks, we can’t force people to identify their unsupported assertions as opinions, we can only ask them to do so. If you think that this is what is happening, then you need to provide counter-arguments (notice I didn’t say counter-assertions) that are supported by relevent citations. That way we can all identify who is really making supported arguments and who is simply arguing via assertion (or trying to change the subject). And we can do so politely, but firmly, right? Right. Good, now play nice until I get back…
Unfortunately, it is far, far easier for such people to make baseless assertions, than for counter-argumentors to find the ideal citation for every claim being made. All the former has to do is continue with said assertions until the latter, out of exhaustion and other time-consuming responsibilities, wear them out.
Of course I feel that I’m in the latter category, and have long since stopped following along in these long threads full of the same old crowd.
… speaking of, is there some way that those of us not in the course can encourage greater participation in the comments sections by those students actually enrolled in the course? Just curious…
Comment by Dan — July 21, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
I’m with you, Dan, in that I’d like to see more room left for student participation.
However, with some ‘counter-argumentors’ posting dozens of comments each on many of these threads they don’t seem to be wearing out due to either exhaustion or other responsibilities.
Out-posting their ID opponents 2 and 3 to 1 they appear to have plenty of time on their hands.
Comment by Sanctum — July 21, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
Out-posting their ID opponents 2 and 3 to 1
That’s just in quantity of posts. If you threw in a factor for quality, the ratio would be much larger.
Comment by ivy privy — July 21, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
Sanctum,
Hmm… I didn’t check the “ratio,” so I don’t know. I’m only going on my impression, and exasperation from reading some of the truly outlandish comments that some of the more bold IDers are coming up with. A good number of them consistently make my jaw drop, because of how strongly such comments reflect a complete lack of comprehension with regards to biology. To those comments, which there seem to be an endless supply (IMO), I have trouble coming up with responses other than “are you nuts?!”
Comment by Dan — July 21, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Maybe we need another rule: Clean up your own messes. If you open a line of reasoning that you later realize was misguided, then acknowledge it and bring some closure. Don’t litter the forum with silently abandoned claims or arguments, leaving the other side to continue trying to explain the error of your ways.
Comment by secondclass — July 21, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
In Analogy, Induction, and Specious Arguments
Here are the number of posts by each poster (perhaps minus a few counting errors):
Whoa look at that: Dan and PvM tag-team for 52 posts, almost as much as all the IDers combined.
You were saying, Dan. :=)
What’s the matter guys? Seems you’re winning the shouting match. So why all the complaints? You ought to be happy. You must be, you out-do IDers by 2-to-1 in participation.
Salvador
PS in this thread
Anti-IDist 5
IDers 1 :=)
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — July 21, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
As usual, arguing a strawman.
The complaint’s not about “who is winning the shouting match”.
The complaint is that actual students in the class have a hard time getting a post in edgewise.
Personally I’d encourage Allen to close the blog to all but those in the class.
And, no, I don’t mean “all those in the class plus Salvador”, Hannah.
Comment by Don Baccus — July 21, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
Three problems, Sal:
1) The numbers you gave are more in line with the thread “Another take…” ( I have 113:54 )
2)The “Analogy…” thread is >3.5 : 1, where I have 72 anti-IDist : 20 IDer. PVM has a whopping 23 of the 92 total, out-numbering all IDers himself.
3) This thread is an anomaly, as it is now 4:3 anti-ID : IDer (or moderate).
Comment by Sanctum — July 21, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
Sanctum! My sincere apologies to you.
And I stand corrected. You are right: “Another take..s” was the correct name of the thread that I linked to(I mislabeled the link as “Specious..” and your numbers are more correct than mine since mine add up to only 164 and yours add up to the right number of 167.
Thank you sir for correcting me.
Now its 4:4 :=)
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — July 21, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
It would be very quiet then :). Since we’re all on campus together, most of our discussion is done at class–or, lately, after class as well (our last three hour discussion ended up being more like four hours, just because we were all enjoying the debate too much to leave).
So our less-than-strong presence here is not primarily your fault, or the fault of your favorite opponent. It’s just that though we do appreciate all the time you spend critiquing us or explaining various things, and we do read your arguments and discussions (at least, most of the time, when they don’t get too long-winded or absurd), none of us can quite reciprocate. We will try to post, and to take part in the discussions, but there are books to read and papers to write, and deadlines coming up quickly…
Just maybe try not to make it a little less obvious that you all hate each other– we’re not all entirely used to the vehemance that people bring to the debate; and probably that more than anything else you do makes us disinclined to post. We’re students, and for us it’s an interesting, fun topic to think about and discuss– not something to shout at each other over.
Comment by Hannah — July 21, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
Out of curiosity, do the blogs bring up new topics of discussion or ideas for class or is the stuff we’re covering here either already covered or considered not relevant?
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — July 21, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
Hannah,
Here is a suggestion. Make the thread for students only where they can discuss their thoughts and pose questions to each other or to outsiders. Make a separate thread for outsiders where they can try to answer students questions but the outsider can not respond to anything said by another outsider.
In other words an outsider can respond to a student question just once, unless the student asks additional questions of a particular outsider.
Also limit the outsider answer to less than 250 words or pick some other number to limit excessive answers. This might raise the tone and enable the students to acutally benefit and not feel intimidated.
Maybe others have some thoughts on how to get the students more involved.
Comment by J. Cosgrove — July 21, 2006 @ 11:07 pm
Hi Hannah (and Allen, and other class members),
Yet another question for you. (Actually, a few.) What (approximately) is the make-up of the class? Mostly science majors? Engineering students? Non-science majors? Upperclass or first-year? Are more students in the class for the science or the philosophy?
Comment by Art G — July 22, 2006 @ 12:10 am
It may be correct that it is easy to make claims and much harder to support them but I see this as an opportunity to show how science is trying to resolve or has resolved many of the issues raised by IDers.
It allows me to show how science compares to ID and why I find ID to be scientifically irrelevant, as it is presently formulated.
When I or others present their position, it seems that invariably one of the following happens:
1. We are accused of misrepresentation
2. Opposing claims are made and when asked to support them, seldomly attempts are made to provide us with a logical or reasoned explanation.
3. Attempts are made to redirect the discussion by raising only indirectly relevant topics.
And yet, I have discussed the Cambrian, the evolution of the eye, evolvability, neutrality and scale free networks and have shown that in the first two cases ID seems to be unfamiliar with most of the recent work in this area. When it comes to the latter three, these issues of information technology have found little or no mention in the ID literature? So how come that originally creationist arguments are repeated as if science has not progressed in the last decade or so while research which should be of some interest to ID (which claims to be an information theoretic approach) is almost fully ignored?
Whether it be Behe, Dembski or several of the ID proponents on this group, when confronted with tough questions, the response invariably involves accusations of misreprentation followed by an almost total silence on the issues raised?
Why can ID not address the circularity in the definition of CSI without having to resort to unsupported accusations, attempts to redirect the discussion. Why not respond with scientific arguments?
As a scientist and certainly as a Christian I am truly concerned. As a scientist, my interests focus on presenting to the best of my abilities, my best understanding of issues of science as well as claims made by ID. When asked, I am prepared to fully support my claims, or admit that I cannot do so. As a scientists, I enjoy the opportunity IDers on this group present me to explore their claims and show how science deals with these issues. Invariably I discover new knowledge and am amazed by the progress made by science.
As a Christian, I see it as my goal to worship my God by explaining to the best of my knowledge how science has shown how He created. As such, I find the attempts to hide His presence in the shadows of our ignorance, unnecessary and quite a threat in fact to theology and Christian faith.
This group provides for an excellent forum to discuss these issues on their scientific merrits, or lack thereof, without many distractions and as such I find it thrilling to be able to contribute by sharing as a Christian and as a scientist what I have learned. As a scientist and Christian, the best witnessing I can do is to share with all my findings. I may sound sometimes a bit harsh towards some of the claims by ID but that is mostly because I care.
Just as Augustine observed when he wrote the following over 1600 years ago in “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”
Personally I can understand why Sal or Cosgrave are looking to limit the contributions of outsiders as it must be discouraging to hear how a few outsiders seem to be so well informed about intelligent design as well as evolutionary theory. Rather than silencing, contributions of these people should be embraced as it serves to strengthen one’s science education as well as one’s philosophical/religious position.
I personally learn more from those with whom I disagree than from those with whom I agree.
It may cause some initial discomfort but it helps one to sharpen one’s skills, critical thinking and one may even found out that the ‘other side’ has some interesting things to contribute.
Comment by PvM — July 22, 2006 @ 1:38 am
I am not the only one concerned about the damage of ID to religious faith
“Francis Collins, who led the effort to map the human genome. Collins is a research scientist, a medical doctor, and an evangelical Christian”
Dr. COLLINS: Intelligent design, while a thoughtful, well-argued perspective, I do not think is taking us to the Promised Land. I think this will be an argument which ultimately will not do damage to science; it will do damage to faith. The problem is the examples that intelligent design puts forward we are learning a lot about. And the notion that those are examples of irreducible complexity is showing serious cracks.
Comment by PvM — July 22, 2006 @ 3:27 am
Personally I can understand why Sal or Cosgrave are looking to limit the contributions of outsiders
Sal has been misrepresented or misinterpreted, as he didn’t say anything about limiting the contributions of outsiders here.
Comment by Sanctum — July 22, 2006 @ 10:54 am
No, it was me, not Sal, who suggested that.
Hannah’s response is perfectly reasonable: they (students) have their discussions mostly face-to-face, so it doesn’t really matter that outsiders dominate this blog in terms of what the students are getting out of the class.
Comment by Don Baccus — July 22, 2006 @ 11:53 am
I think part of the frustration of the discussion here is that both sides are talking past each other. There has to be a certain amount of shared common ground in terms of higher-level assumptions in order to profitably debate something, but this common ground seems to be lacking.
So what might be logical according to certian assumptions by one side is dismissed as illogical by the other and side according to their own principles.
This won’t be resolved until those higher-level assumptions are addressed.
Comment by Brian K — July 22, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
Sal has been misrepresented or misinterpreted, as he didn’t say anything about limiting the contributions of outsiders here.
You are right, Sal just miscounted but said nothing about silencing or limiting the threads.
Comment by PvM — July 22, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
When I was teaching, I found out that the students gave much better answers if they were limited in space to what they could say.
On the very first test that I gave, the students were given blue books to answer the questions and what I got was what I called a “mind dump.” The student would write everything they could remember whether it was relevant or not.
I learned my lesson. It took days to grade these first tests and sort through the material to see if they indeed answered the questions. From then on the students were limited to a fixed number of pages in a blue book for each question. The answers got much better when the student had to think about what was relevant and what wasn’t to the question. A student could ask for more space but if any of the material was irrelevant, it would then count against them.
So I don’t think limiting in someway the comments anyone can make will seriously lessen the cogency of their arguments but may actually force more responsive and clearer replies by eliminating superfluous comments. Certainly personal comments about others will be eliminated. Hopefully, this will encourage the students to participate and maybe the students can then grade the responders on their answers.
I welcome that challenge.
Comment by J. Cosgrove — July 22, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
Cosgrave indeed raises a good point. Some on this board have raised a lot of irrelevant arguments when they were asked to support their original claims and that itself shows a weakness in logic and reasoning.
I certainly hope and expect that the students as well as other readers can look beyond the volume and look at how well they address the issues raised. I have attempted to show the problems in the arguments of Sal and Cosgrave and I respect their responses which may help clarify rather than obscure their positions.
To Cosgrave I extend the invitation to provide us with the exact quote of the Valentine quote as I have been unable to locate it. To Sal I extend the invitation to address the inherent circularity in CSI as I have described in quite some detail.
To others, especially the students, I would like to extend the invitation to provide us with the necessary feedback allowing us to strengthen our arguments and provide further supporting evidence for our claims
After all that’s how science works or at least should work
Comment by PvM — July 22, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
There’s truth here, but can anything be done about it?
Salvador’s a Young Earth Creationist. As such, it isn’t just the empirical evidence in support of evolution he rejects. He rejects anything within geology, physics, astronomy that argues for an earth that’s older than 6,000 years old.
In other words, virtually all of modern science.
So I’m perplexed as to what “shared common ground in terms of higher-level assumptions” might be possible.
I don’t share the higher-level assumption that the Bible is inerrant and that therefore the earth and universe are only a few thousand years old.
Salvador doesn’t share the higher-level assumption that physical evidence can, even in principle, disprove the literal Biblical account of creation.
We do probably both share a lack of belief in astrology, but that’s probably not of much help in the current debate. :)
Comment by Don Baccus — July 22, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
But hopefully we share a passion for science and Christianity? Should that not be sufficient common ground to work from?
Comment by PvM — July 22, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
That isn’t true, Don. I am not dogmatic on the age of the Earth, and that has been my public position for years. I’m perfectly willing to accept working hypotheses for the sake of exploration.
Some comments regarding my personal beliefs have been entered in these discussions which I did not volunteer and which weren’t even true. I let it slide in order to avoid the derailing of threads.
I was an Old-Earth Darwinist. I am not dogmatic on the age of the Earth, nor have I ever been. Thus Don, misrepresents my position.
Do you think I agree with Ken Ham, Don? Hardly. But since people are so nosy in knowing my personal views you can see my statement of them at:
My Personal Philosophy and Theology.
Not that personal issues should even have a bearing on these disucssions, but to have personal issues imputed to me in these discussion that don’t even exist is flat out wrong.
I don’t mind answering questions about my personal views in a thread like this, but I prefer you keep it here, and not discuss it in other threads so discussion can proceed in an orderly fashion.
You want to know my position on something, ask! Don’t assume, and don’t use your assumptions to argue against positions I don’t even subscribe to.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — July 22, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
So Sal, are you or are you not a Young Earth Creationist?
Comment by PvM — July 22, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
Those who are interested in James Valentine’s comments about the phyla should go to
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=james+valentine+phyla
You can watch a low quality video for about 8 minutes. The total video is over 1 hour and can be purchased there if you want. It represents 3 separate interviews over a 4 year period.
I suggest the students in the course look at the whole video and then discuss it in one of the classes.
It will be interesting to see how the Darwinists spin it.
Comment by J. Cosgrove — July 22, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
It makes no difference whatsoever if Sal (or anyone) is YEC.
Among the other misrepresentations thus far on this thread is the one that Don made, that a YEC “rejects anything within geology, physics, astronomy that argues for an earth thats older than 6,000 years old.
In other words, virtually all of modern science.”
Rejecting the conclusions of the majority of scientists is not the same as rejecting empirical evidence, nor is it the same as rejecting all of modern science.
Without getting into the philosophies or theologies behind such positions I will just mention that I have before me the book In Six Days with fifty essays by scientists - biologists, biochemists, biophysicists, physicists, chemists, astronomers, geologists, geophysicists, and geneticists among them - who accept a young earth.
Before anyone runs for their reference to the ‘Steves’ please note that this is not an appeal to authority ( these scientists I’ve mentioned are in a tiny, tiny minority) but a direct refutation of a direct accusation - a red herring at that.
This is just the kind of bias that can lead to the ad hominem, genetic fallacies and a priori dismissal that impede discussion.
Comment by Sanctum — July 22, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
I am officially 75%-YEC 25%-OEC and 99.999..% IDer. That means, I am uncomitted officially regarding the age of the Earth. 2 years ago I was 50/50. I’m reluctant, in otherwords to say 6,000 years is absolutely true (both officially and personally), but I will argue, I find it more plausible every day because of the possibility of variable light speed (which would also solve the problem of radio-metric dating) and problems with the Big Bang.
See www.cosmologystatement.org and you’ll see listed 3 professors from my school who reject the Big Bang. See www.setterfield.org and www.creationscience.com to see my scientific views of the matters. The unofficial IDEA GMU website has some of my personal views as well: www.smartaxes.com. There are some inaccuracies I haven’t yet got around to correcting on that site, so don’t hold me to everything that’s said on that unofficial site.
You may refer to me, given that I’m 75% YEC, as a YEC, but you should recognize that is an approximation. Thus, in discussion regard details of my position, that should be a consideration.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — July 22, 2006 @ 6:47 pm
Cosgrave invites us to watch a video of Valentine…
Let’s look at the details
# Interview 1: 1993
# Interview 2: 1994
# Interview 3: 1997
9 to 13 year old interviews about a topic in extreme flux. Is that the best you have to offer? I call that quote mining… Especially given Valentine’s latest positions based on much more data. In other words, appeal to ignorance at its best.
Comment by PvM — July 22, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
Let’s return to some positive arguments. Since this is the week of Dembski, I think it is time to show how Dembski’s appeal to the No Free Lunch Theorems is misplaced. I will show that contrary to what Dembski seems to conclude, random search under the No Free Lunch Theorems is trivial.
Tom English pointed this out initially in his paper, published in 1999
English:
Source: English T. (1999) “Some Information Theoretic Results On Evolutionary Optimization”, Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation: CEC99, pp. 788-795
I have described the argument in more detail in a posting on PT title Intelligent Design explained: Part 2 random search
Next, I will show how English’s results combined with the work of Gavrilets will show how the fitness landscape of a highly dimensional search will become well connected.
This means that contrary to what one may think, higher dimensional optimization becomes simpler. And while this may seem contradictory, it is actually quite self evident. In a higher dimensional search, it is easier to find one or more connected dimensions. Imagine a multidimensional connection crossing over a dip in fitness in other dimensions.
These findings indicate that contrary to claims by ID, random search seems to be trivially simple and that a search on a highly dimensional fitness function becomes much simpler as well due to its connectedness.
Even a needle in the haystack search, as envisioned by Dembski in his latest work on searching large spaces, seems to become much simpler when incorporating neutrality.
So the real question becomes: How come that the fitness landscape is so well connected (as has been shown for instance for the simpler RNA). Science has some straightforward answers, to be discussed in a next posting.
Comment by PvM — July 22, 2006 @ 11:34 pm
Recognizing presuppositions are key to communication. Key origin presuppositions are:
1. No intelligent cause was involved in abiotic/biotic origins:
1.1 No intelligent cause exists:Atheistic evolution/
1.2 Any external intelligence cannot influence nature: Naturalistic evolution
2. An intelligent cause may have the source of abiotic/biotic origins
2.1 Intelligent cause cannot be detected: Theistic evolution
2.2 Intelligent cause may be distinguishable from law or chance: ID
3. The Supreme Being was the cause for abiotic/biotic systems. Creation Science.
In discussing Dembski, I submit that it is critical to address 2.2, whether you personally accept that or not. Assuming nor advocating any other presupposition will detract from the discussion.
PvM; I infer you hold 2.1. To discuss Dembski, I ask you to address 2.2.
Comment by David L. Hagen — July 23, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
nope, I hold 2.1 revised, Intelligent Cause and intelligent cause cannot be detected using an eliminative approach.
I have already attempted to address the presumption 2.2 that intelligent cause may be distinguishabe frol law and chance. First of all it’s clear that ID is talking about the supernatural here. Secondly, ID presents no evidence for its claims that all intelligent cause is distinguishable or non-reducible to processes of law and chance.
As I have shown, science has uncovered how genetics, culture, background and chance all can be used to explain people’s actions and behavior. In fact advertising and Amazon do it all the time, and quite succesfully.
I submit that the presumption that intelligent design is that what cannot be reduced to chance and law is either the empty set, or the set of supernatural entities.
Comment by PvM — July 23, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
Let me also point out that I hold the revised position 2.1 a-posteriori while ID holds 2.2 a-priori. In other words, I reject ID’s claims based on 1) the inherent flaws and shortcomings identified in the explanatory filter 2) the absence of scientific relevance in ID.
Just like science, I reject the claims of design a posteriori based on the evidence and facts presented.
Perhaps ID can return the favor and explain why we should accept position 2.2, that intelligent design is the residue of elimation of chance and regularity? I submit that this is the empty set.
Comment by PvM — July 23, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
There is no empirical evidence for a young earth.
Period.
I’m going to go spend the rest of my day pounding my head against the nearest brick wall. It is hardly as stubbornly dense as those of you who reject science.
Comment by Don Baccus — July 23, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
In other words, if the evidence is against you, change fundamental laws of physics in ways proposed by cranks like Barry Setterfield! Then pretend that this is a credible response! Then further pretend that if your made-up physics were true, it would solve other evidential problems you have (which it wouldn’t), just by some obfuscatory version of “it all works out somehow!”
Sal, being 75% for a young-earth position is like being 75% for a flat earth. It indicates that your literalist reading of the Bible has short-circuited your capacity to deal with physical evidence. Heck, even other ID advocates YECs, like John Mark Reynolds and Paul Nelson, who are YECs, admit that the evidence is against them and they hold their view in spite of the evidence. This is where the most sophisticated YECs always end up (Kurt Wise is another one).
The simplest dataset I’ve seen indicating that the earth must be much older than mere thousands of years is “The Case of the Missing Nuclides.”
Comment by nmatzke — July 23, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
Anyone mind keeping this thread on-topic?
That is to say, anything half-way related to Allen’s original post is fine, but discussions about YEC, the ominous threat of intelligent design to theology, or the unreasonableness of your opponent all constitute hijacking the thread.
Comment by Hannah — July 23, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
34. PvM After your education in the school of hard knocks, we pray for insight, inspiration and revelation.
You assert no evidence for a young earth, and castigate those holding different views as “rejecting” science. Unfortunately, you base your assertion on evidence on authority - yourself. I find Sir Isaac Newton and Sir Fred Hoyle much more reputable and credible authorities holding an Intelligent Cause to the Universe and giving mathematical evidence for intelligence in biotic origins.
33. PVM asks “explain why we should accept position 2.2, that intelligent design is the residue of elimation of chance and regularity?” Your dismissal of ID based on statement of the presupposition evidences hasty superficial response, conflating theory with hypothesis.
The heart of Phillip Johnson’s The Wedge of Truth is addressing and reestablishing foundations. I submit that 2.2 is a necessary presupposition to examine ID, Johnson’s and Dembski’s arguments. ID proponent Dembski develops probability methods to identify intelligent causes in current and historical situations and applies them to origins. Evaluating hypothesis of intelligent causes against empirical evidence constitutes open science, in contrast to closed science that a priori excludes intelligent causes. For further assumptions see:
Comment by David L. Hagen — July 23, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
Try again on the reference. See:
Comment by David L. Hagen — July 23, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
I see I need an html refresher.
See ISCID.org Brainstorms Reverse Engineering Assumptions for an Open Science Intelligent Design Theory 9 December 2005:
Reverse Engineering Assumptions for an Open Science Intelligent Design Theory 9 December 2005>
Comment by David L. Hagen — July 23, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
Reverse Engineering Assumptions for an Open Science Intelligent Design Theory 9 December 2005
Comment by David L. Hagen — July 23, 2006 @ 10:03 pm
Correction to my hastiness. I meant to say: “conflating hypothesis or theory with assumption.”
Comment by David L. Hagen — July 23, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
Hannah
That is to say, anything half-way related to Allen’s original post is fine, but discussions about YEC, the ominous threat of intelligent design to theology, or the unreasonableness of your opponent all constitute hijacking the thread.
Hannah, if you exercised your power a bit more fairly (i.e., against the ID promoters here) it would be greatly appreciated.
Comment by Michael Hubl — July 23, 2006 @ 10:15 pm
Michael–
Oh? It seemed pretty even-handed to me. Salvador began the discussion of young earth creationism, PvM began the discussion of the ominous threat of intelligent design to theology, and I’m not going to go into who started the discussion of the unreasonable opponents. So that would make the request about as evenly divided as three can be.
The important thing here is not who is being asked to stay on topic, but simply that we do all stay on topic and don’t go into all manner of degenerative tangents. So whoever “hijacks” the thread will be asked to stop, regardless of their affiliation and also regardless of quotas.
I am changing this now, though, from a suggestion to a decree :). So, everyone please stay on topic, and if you don’t your posts will be moderated.
Update: Well, I stand corrected; apparently Salvador didn’t begin the YEC discussion, so my censoring was a bit one-sided. Still, we don’t work by a quota system, so if you go off-topic you will be asked to stop regardless of your affiliation. And really I’m not at all more inclined to censor EB’ers than ID’ers– in practice it’s more the other way around, as if anyone is going to make fools of themselves I’d rather it’s not “my side” :)
Comment by Hannah — July 23, 2006 @ 10:28 pm
I like Allen’s suggestion. I like the way this weblog has been run.
My only complaint is I don’t like seeing students like Hannah being interrogated. The students are giving the participants a hearing in this discussion. That is to say, we participants are their guests.
Yet I see Hannah being interrogated. I don’t think that’s appropriate. We are here to argue our case before them, not to interrogate them.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — July 23, 2006 @ 11:07 pm
Hagen: 34. PvM After your education in the school of hard knocks, we pray for insight, inspiration and revelation.
I thank you my friend. Your prayers are always welcome
Hagen: You assert no evidence for a young earth, and castigate those holding different views as “rejecting” science. Unfortunately, you base your assertion on evidence on authority - yourself.
On the contrary, I am merely a single voice. I base my conclusion on the inability of YEC to coherently explain the data and the collective of science which does present such a coherent picture.
HagenL I find Sir Isaac Newton and Sir Fred Hoyle much more reputable and credible authorities holding an Intelligent Cause to the Universe and giving mathematical evidence for intelligence in biotic origins.
Yes, we all know Newton’s feelings on gravity and the need for an Intelligent Designer to make this action at a distance happen… But to argue that they have given mathematical evidence of intelligence just is pure nonsense. Pardon my French.
Hagge: 33. PVM asks “explain why we should accept position 2.2, that intelligent design is the residue of elimation of chance and regularity?” Your dismissal of ID based on statement of the presupposition evidences hasty superficial response, conflating theory with hypothesis.
On the contrary, it shows a major disagreement with a main premise. If ID cannot show that this set is not empty then all they have done is potentially defined Design to be an empty set. In other words, any event that would trigger the design inference would be likely to be a false positive.
I am not sure why Sal considers Hannah to be interrogated? The board allows per rules, and very reasonable rules, to ask the party to support their claims. The party in question may avoid an answer or refuse to answer but that is the unfortunate side effect of minimizing harassment of people on this board.
In most cases it is sufficient to ask once for supporting evidence and the readers will surely remember how such requests remain unanswered.
Comment by PvM — July 23, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
In comment #13 Art G asked:
Here is the info people provided at the first class:
Name/Affiliation/Status/Major/Interests
Allen/Cornell/Senior Lecturer in Biology/Professor/evolutionary psychology
Bruce/Cornell/employee/registered student/evolution, philosophy of science
Bruno/Cornell/Senior/registered student/Science & Technology Studies
Elena/Cornell/Junior/registered student/Anthropology, Biology & Society
Greg/Cornell/Senior/registered student/biology, music
Hannah/Cornell/Junior/invited guest, CU IDEA Club/chemistry & physics
John/Cornell/Senior/registered student/history
Josh/Cornell/Senior/registered student/asian studies
Kirby/Cornell/Senior/registered student/history, philosophy of science
Rabia/Cornell/Junior/invited guest, CU IDEA Club/Biochemistry
Teddy/Cornell/Senior/registered student/English literature, ethics
Todd/Cornell/Senior/registered student/natural resources
Warren/Paleontological Research Institute/Director/invited guest/cenozoic gastropods
Will/Cornell/Professor/evolutionary biology, history of science
I decline to state (or even estimate) which “side” of the issue people support (or oppose, the two being different things, IMHO)
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 24, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
In comment 31, David L. Hagen wrote:
As an evolutionary biologist, I beg to differ. Here is how I would interpret his list:
1. No intelligent cause was involved in abiotic/biotic origins
• No unambiguous empirical evidence either way; probably impossible to determine (using empirical methods) for abiotic origins, and very difficult to determine for biotic origins, given current knowledge
1.2. No intelligent cause exists
• This assertion is clearly false when applied to the products of human activity (and the activity of many other animals, including some invertebrates). However, when applied to nature and natural processes themselves, this is an entirely metaphysical assertion, and therefore entirely outside the purview of science (i.e. NOT part of evolutionary biology, which BTW says absolutely nothing about the actual existence or non-existence of deities of any kind)
1.3. Any external intelligence cannot influence nature
• A totally meaningless statement; what does “external” mean? External to what? If “external to nature,” then it is excluded by definition, not on the basis of evidence. Like #2, this is certainly NOT part of evolutionary biology
2. An intelligent cause may have the source of abiotic/biotic origins
• Neither validated nor falsified by the available evidence (see #1, above)
2.1 Intelligent cause cannot be detected
• Again, intelligent cause is easily detected in some cases; using simple observation, it is possible to determine that this comment has an “intelligent cause,” and the same is essentially the case for all products of human activity (and the activity of a number of non-human animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate). However, it is problematic to determine if the programs by which such animals (including humans) operate are themselves “intelligently caused.” As we have no direct nor indirect empirical evidence to either verify or falsify such an assumption at present, this must be considered to be an open question (and may not be answerable using empirical methods). To be specific:
- As discussed in class, Behe’s assertions about “irreducible complexity” currently lack unambiguous empirical verification
- Demski’s “explanatory filter” may eventually have some utility for answering this question, but without considerably more empirically-derived information, this question is currently unanswerable
2.2 Intelligent cause may be distinguishable from law or chance
• The key question vis-à-vis this assertion is “how?”
- Mayr (1974) proposes that the existence of a “program” in the genetic material, developmental biology, and learned behavior/motivation of living organisms is evidence for a “purposeful cause” for such “functions.”
- However, this does not answer the question as to whether or not such “programs” can arise via non-teleological processes (such as natural selection and/or genetic drift). Once again (as pointed out in #1, above) making such a determination is highly problematic without considerably more empirical research. Dembski’s “explanatory filter” based on “complex specified information” may eventually provide a way to do so, but clearly does not do so at the present time.
3 The Supreme Being was the cause for abiotic/biotic systems
• Unless and until the existence of a “Supreme Being” can be unambiguously detected via empirical means (an assertion I believe is logically impossible), this question is clearly NOT a part of science at all.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 24, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
Allen
Dembski’s “explanatory filter” based on “complex specified information” may eventually provide a way to do so, but clearly does not do so at the present time.
How close is Dembski to achieving this goal, do you think? I want to manage my stock portfolio accordingly.
Comment by Michal Hubl — July 24, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
My comment about Dembski’s “explanatory filter” and CSI was based on the analysis of it that our seminar class performed last week. Overall, I think it was clear to most of us at that time that the equation that Dembski provides on page 21 of his paper “Specification: The pattern that signifies intelligence” (2005) might be useful to detect design, if one had available the relevant information required to calculate the value of chi (”x-bar”). However, it was also clear to us that such information is not currently available, and may be impossible to obtain for many relevant biological systems.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 24, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
Allen, I certainly agree that we don’t have enough information to calculate the specified complexity of biological systems. Even worse, there’s no way of determining whether we have enough information or not. The null hypothesis is supposed to take into account “Darwinian and other material mechanisms,” but there’s no way to determine whether our list of material mechanisms is complete.
Comment by secondclass — July 24, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
My only complaint is I don’t like seeing students like Hannah being interrogated. The students are giving the participants a hearing in this discussion. That is to say, we participants are their guests.
Yet I see Hannah being interrogated. I don’t think that’s appropriate. We are here to argue our case before them, not to interrogate them.
With respect to this course, Hannah is not a student, but as Allen MacNeill states:
Hannah/Cornell/Junior/invited guest, CU IDEA Club/chemistry & physics
I suggest if someone wishes not to be interrogated, they refrain from making assertions they may be asked to defend.
Comment by ivy privy — July 25, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
Salvador began the discussion of young earth creationism,
I will take credit for introducing that, but so subtly you probably didn’t notice.
Comment by ivy privy — July 25, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
As to Hannah being “interrogated”, I don’t perceive this as having happened, certainly not in our seminar. On the contrary, her comments and questions have been an integral part of our discussions, and have often helped the members of the class come to clarity on many issues, especially mathematical models.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 26, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
From the IDEA Center FAQ:
I have a few questions for Hannah and any other IDEA club member:If you believe the age of the earth is not related to the validity of evolutionary theory, could you please explain why?
If you believe the age of the earth is related to the validity of evolutionary theory, could you please explain why the IDEA Center claims it isn’t?
Could you please explain why an organization not willing to make a statement about the age of the earth would not fundamentally be an anti-scientific organization?
Comment by alienward — July 27, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
Alienward–
I’d be happy to answer your questions, but this is not an IDEA Club weblog and the thread you’re on is not related to the age of the earth, so you’ll have to ask them elsewhere.
Comment by Hannah — July 27, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
Ok, I started a thread titled “Hiding from the Age of the Earth” in the Intelligent Design Forum on the Access Research Network (www.arn.org) site. Looking forward to your answers.
Comment by alienward — July 27, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
PVM 45:
I am trying to state the presuppositions, to lay the foundation on which to base and test hypotheses. ie.
Presupposition:
This is saying ID PRESUPPOSES that it MAY BE POSSIBLE to distinguish an intelligent cause from law or chance, based upon empirical evidence.
This explicitly DOES NOT SAY that a hypothesis has/has not been made, NOR whether that hypothesis has been tested.
This PRESUPPOSITION is made to explicitly counter atheists and others who try to a priori impose methodological naturalism i.e., that we can ONLY study non-intelligent natural causes.
So do you accept that ID makes this presupposition, and that its subsequent hypotheses are made based on this PRESUPPOSITION?
(NOT that you or others hold this.)
Comment by David L. Hagen — July 27, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
45 PVM
Not so - they would only have shown that their efforts have not been successful. Logically, the set still may or may not be empty.
To be successful, an experiment o test has to
be sufficiently sensitive to test for the hypothesis, and satisfy the model parameters, including looking in the right place and lookin at the right time. False negatives do not disprove ID. ID tries to model methods to show positive correlation of empirical evidence with the model (Complex Specified Complexity) to a sufficent degree that is reasonbly beyond any possibility of law or chance in the known universe over all time at the fastest possible rates or equivalent number of operations. e.g., parts per 10^120.
Comment by David L. Hagen — July 27, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
So far the problem is that ID has failed to show empirical evidence (CSI is not empirical evidence) nor that 1) CSI is beyond law and/or regularity 2) that CSI is not beyond intelligent design.
In fact, I argue that CSI can mean at least two things
1. An intelligent design hypothesis may exist.
2. A natural design hypothesis may exist.
Lacking any way to describe the relative probability of 1 versus 2, ID can at most infer “we don’t know”.
False positives are a major concern for the explanatory filter as they would render the filter useless and unreliable. It’s the inevitable nature of false positives combined with the eliminative approach which makes ID powerless to compete with ‘we don’t know’
Comment by PvM — July 29, 2006 @ 5:53 pm