ID is Dead (Again)

Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”

If that’s not enough to convince the reader that Elizabeth is no prophet, there’s aways other things we can point to.

UD is still chugging along, as is the Discovery Institute. Michael Denton has a new book coming out soon, as does Douglas Axe. BIO-Complexity continues to publish. More of the incredible design of the living world is being revealed daily.

ID Is Dead. But perhaps like the proverbial cat it has more than one life.

451 thoughts on “ID is Dead (Again)

  1. Robin: *Sigh*

    If it’s an inherent to the concept of ID, then ID doesn’t add it to any understanding of our world Joe. It’s just part of the ID definition.

    LoL! ID adds it because it doesn’t exist in the absence of ID. That means it is something additional to what is presently proposed.

  2. Robin,

    Antibiotic creation and use, research into maintaining and improving bee community resistance to ecological change, improvement in crop growth, sustainability, and nutrition value, to say nothing of more effective digestive absorption and crops that rely on less water.

    Unfortunately none of that has anything to do with evolutionism, ie your alleged theory of evolution. Antibiotic resistance doesn’t have anything to do with natural selection, drift or neutral changes.

    Nice flail job, though

  3. Frankie: LoL! ID adds it because it doesn’t exist in the absence of ID.

    LOL! That’s hysterical Joe!

    But do feel free to demonstrate that. Got any links to “research” supporting such a silly assertion? LOL!

    That means it is something additional to what is presently proposed.

    You’re a riot Joe! But I guess if all you have is a hammer…

    Oh…an no, your assertion that purpose is an addition doesn’t cut it. Do feel free to demonstrate that ID somehow adds it to our understanding of events in the world. In other words, demonstrate the ID concept of purpose adds to our understanding of…say…Piedmont species population dynamics. Got anything on that by chance? Or how ’bout Snowy Owl migratory eruptions during mild boreal winters. Anything? Bee instruction on distance and direction? No?

    Do let me know if any ID “scientists” are planning on doing any such research and actually…you know…”adding” anything to our knowledge of the world any time soon.

  4. Robin,

    OK so logic and reasoning are beyond you. If it doesn’t exist in the absence of ID and exists in the presence of ID it is an addition. Because of ID IDists have figured out that the universe is designed for scientific discovery- see “The Privileged Planet”.

    Do feel free to demonstrate that ID somehow adds it to our understanding of events in the world

    Feel free to keep moving those goalposts!

  5. Frankie: AGAIN- Dawkins coined blind watchmaker evolution and it is the same as your alleged theory of evolution.

    And again Joe, I don’t care. It’s not the term used in science so it is irrelevant to me.

    There isn’t any actual evolutionary theory.

    False again Joe:

    Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

    That is a theory, whether you like it or not.

  6. Frankie:
    Robin,

    Unfortunately none of that has anything to do with evolutionism, ie your alleged theory of evolution. Antibiotic resistance doesn’t have anything to do with natural selection, drift or neutral changes.

    False Joe, as improvements based on Evolutionary Theory demonstrates.

    Nice flail job, though

    Nice assertion without evidence…

  7. Robin: And again Joe, I don’t care. It’s not the term used in science so it is irrelevant to me.

    False again Joe:

    That is a theory, whether you like it or not.

    That isn’t a theory, Dick. And your appeal to emotion is meaningless. Baraminology is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

    By your “logic” it is science and should be taught in biology classes.

    BTW Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist

  8. Robin: False Joe, as improvements based on Evolutionary Theory demonstrates.

    Nice assertion without evidence…

    LoL! All you have are assertions without evidence.

  9. FrankieThere isn’t any actual evolutionary theory.

    Just yesterday FrankenJoe told us he’s not attacking evolution and that ID isn’t anti-evolution

    Forgetful little Creationist isn’t he?

  10. Frankie:
    Robin,

    OK so logic and reasoning are beyond you.

    ROTFL! Project much Joe?

    If it doesn’t exist in the absence of ID and exists in the presence of ID it is an addition.

    You’re funny Joe…here’s the kicker as I noted before: your assertion doesn’t make this true. You have to demonstrate it. Got anything? Anything at all that shows that without ID, there’s no such thing as purpose? No? Then fail!

    Because of ID IDists have figured out that the universe is designed for scientific discovery- see “The Privileged Planet”.

    See? This is another example of assertion without evidence. “The Privileged Planet” isn’t evidence; it’s just a bunch of assertions Joe. Where’s some actual evidence? You know…real research? Got none? Oh well…

    Feel free to keep moving those goalposts!

    I’m not moving any goalposts Joe. You’re just making wacky claims without substantiation. A classic sign of a crank with a toy microphone…

  11. Robin: False Joe. I provided evidence. Nice try though!

    You provided evidence but not for natural selection, drift and neutral changes. That means your evidence didn’t support your claims

  12. Frankie:
    Because of ID IDists have figured out that the universe is designed for scientific discovery- see “The Privileged Planet

    You told us just yesterday ID had no pre-planned goals and humans weren’t specially created. No one expects your IDiot nonsense to be consistent

  13. Robin: ROTFL! Project much Joe?

    You’re funny Joe…here’s the kicker as I noted before: your assertion doesn’t make this true. You have to demonstrate it. Got anything? Anything at all that shows that without ID, there’s no such thing as purpose? No? Then fail!

    See? This is another example of assertion without evidence. “The Privileged Planet” isn’t evidence; it’s just a bunch of assertions Joe. Where’s some actual evidence? You know…real research? Got none? Oh well…

    I’m not moving any goalposts Joe. You’re just making wacky claims without substantiation. A classic sign of a crank with a toy microphone…

    Wrong- The Privileged Planet is based on scientific evidence and is fully referenced. Just attacking it with your spewage is meaningless.

    The demonstration that ID adds purpose and intention is in the definition of the concept. Don’t blame me because you are unable to follow along

  14. Robin,

    There isn’t any theory there. TRY to make your case as opposed to bald links. Bald links are a sure sign that you don’t understand what they say

  15. Frankie:The demonstration that ID adds purpose and intention is in the definition of the concept. Don’t blame me because you are unable to follow along

    What a delightful example of religious thinking. You want intent and purpose to be where it’s not? Simple, just DEFINE it there! See, wasn’t that easy? Here we have the quintessential notion of “religious evidence”.

  16. Frankie:
    Quantification- science requires it and evolutionism doesn’t have it

    Please quantify ID with an actual example

  17. Frankie:
    BTW no one is adding intent and purpose where it is not. Saying that there isn’t any intent and purpose is a religious concept.

    You yourself said that intent in purpose are there because these things are in the definition. The definition is what PUT them there. The scientific approach is to FIND them there, through research and experiment. The ID approach is to DEFINE them there, as you did. You think your definition is “evidence”. It’s noise.

  18. newton: Please quantify ID with an actual example

    Both IC and CSI are quantifiable. IC you can actually count the parts of the IC core. CSI is a measurement of information, which Shannon told us how to do

  19. Frankie: That isn’t a theory, Dick.

    Please explain how it does not meet the definition of a scientific theory Joe.

    And your appeal to emotion is meaningless.

    LOL! I made no appeal to emotion Joe.

    Baraminology is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

    Citation please.

    By your “logic” it is science and should be taught in biology classes.

    Not unless there’s actual scientific research supporting it. You know…research demonstrating the validity of the hypotheses that underlie the theory.

    BTW Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist

    Yeah, and when he’s working as an evolutionary biologist, he doesn’t refer to anything called “blind watchmaker evolution”.

  20. Flint: reply

    Lol! The question pertained to what does ID add. By adding intent and purpose we now know to look for signs of such and act on them

  21. Frankie: You provided evidence but not for natural selection, drift and neutral changes.

    False Joe.

    That means your evidence didn’t support your claims

    False Joe.

  22. Frankie: Wrong- The Privileged Planet is based on scientific evidence and is fully referenced. Just attacking it with your spewage is meaningless.

    False Joe. It’s not a scientific work, did not go through any scientific peer review process, and was not published in any scientific journal. It’s just a piece of opinionated assertion and has contributed nothing to our understanding of the world around us.

    The demonstration that ID adds purpose and intention is in the definition of the concept. Don’t blame me because you are unable to follow along

    Assertion without substantiation. Fail again Joe.

  23. Frankie:
    Robin,

    There isn’t any theory there.

    It’s there Joe.

    TRY to make your case as opposed to bald links.

    I’ve made my case: Evolutionary Theory is an actual scientific Theory. ID…not so much.

  24. Robin: False Joe. It’s not a scientific work, did not go through any scientific peer review process, and was not published in any scientific journal. It’s just a piece of opinionated assertion and has contributed nothing to our understanding of the world around us.

    Assertion without substantiation. Fail again Joe.

    Holy shit! There are at least two papers by one of the authors that did go through peer-review. And then there is all of the supporting science tat was also peer-reviewed.

  25. Robin: It’s there Joe.

    I’ve made my case: Evolutionary Theory is an actual scientific Theory. ID…not so much.

    It isn’t there as it is missing a way to quantify the claims

  26. Frankie: Both IC and CSI are quantifiable.

    Then show the quantification that’s been done with them.

    IC you can actually count the parts of the IC core. CSI is a measurement of information, which Shannon told us how to do

    Nice assertion. Got anything showing it’s been done?

  27. Frankie: No Dick, you have to show how it is a scientific theory, Start with the quantification part.

    This is still wrong Joe.
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/id-is-dead-again/comment-page-6/#comment-106166

    Citation for baraminology? Are you serious?

    Yes.

    Look it up.

    You made the claim Joe. You support it.

    And it seems there is more to support it than there is for evolutionism.

    LOL!

    And of course Dawkins refers to it as blind watchmaker evolution

    Not in any scientific work he doesn’t

  28. Frankie: OK we are done here.

    Oh PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make this true!

    You cannot make a case and you equivocate

    LOL! I’ve made my case and I’ve not used any equivocation.

  29. Frankie: Holy shit! There are at least two papers by one of the authors that did go through peer-review.

    Citation please.

    And then there is all of the supporting science tat was also peer-reviewed.

    Citation please.

  30. Frankie: It isn’t there as it is missing a way to quantify the claims

    You mean ID is missing a way to quantify its claims? Yeah…I thought there was something missing there…

  31. Frankie: LoL! Just because you are ignorant of the concepts doesn’t mean I am asserting.

    You’re lack of evidence is what demonstrates you’re making an assertion Joe.

    And I have already done what you ask.

    Link please.

    I am not going to do it for every evo that shows up.

    Then you haven’t done what I asked Joe.

    Do your own homework

    It’s not my homework Joe. My area of research is under no obligation to even consider ID unless and until ID can demonstrate some practical quality and how it adds to our understanding of the world. In fact, there isn’t a single area of science or education that is obligated to include any element of ID, because currently ID offers nothing.

  32. Frankie

    Rule-breaking comment moved to guano. If you want to be insulting to fellow members, you’ll have to post it in noyau. And having to keep moving your comments is annoying.

  33. Frankie: Both IC and CSI are quantifiable. IC you can actually count the parts of the IC core. CSI is a measurement of information, which Shannon told us how to do

    What units are IC measured in?

  34. Robin: Citation please.

    Citation please.

    It is all in the book- “Wonderful Eclipses” is one and the other pertains to the galactic habitable zone

  35. Robin: You mean ID is missing a way to quantify its claims? Yeah…I thought there was something missing there…

    CSI and IC are both quantifiable. CSI is measured in bits and IC is measured by the number of components that make up the IC core

  36. Frankie: CSI and IC are both quantifiable

    They must first be calculable. Care to show us the math?

    Frankie: The number of components in the IC core can be counted

    Frankie doesn’t understand ID. The number is irrelevant, it is the claim that they could not come about by stepwise natural processes.

  37. newton: What units are IC measured in?

    From “No Free Lunch”:

    IC– A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.

    Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop.

    Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism ; if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit.

    And AGAIN, from Behe:

    How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design. (bold added)

    It is all about the number of parts.

  38. CSI:

    Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.

    Shannon’s theory tells us there are 2 bits of information carrying capacity in each nucleotide and Crick tells us what information means wrt biology. Then you just have to do the math.

    And then we also have:

    Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007):

    First, as observed in Table ​Table1,1, although we might expect larger proteins to have a higher FSC, that is not always the case. For example, 342-residue SecY has a FSC of 688 Fits, but the smaller 240-residue RecA actually has a larger FSC of 832 Fits. The Fit density (Fits/amino acid) is, therefore, lower in SecY than in RecA. This indicates that RecA is likely more functionally complex than SecY. (results and discussion section)

    and

    Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 104:8574–8581 (May 15, 2007).

    See also:

    Jack W. Szostak, “Molecular messages,” Nature, Vol. 423:689 (June 12, 2003)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.