Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]

Fox News | 12/20/05

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So far, how's my prediction from a few posts ago holding up?"

Give it time; it hasn't been that long yet. :)

[dread78645]

Creationist websites rot your brain placemark

[2nsdammit]

I agree.

Something else occured to me - the dachshund's descendents would perhaps evolve toward "wildness" fairly quickly, as they would most likely be interbred with other breeds, or even wolves, and would lose their "dachshundness" pretty quickly, geologically speaking.

[js1138]

Most purebred dogs let loose in the wild would simply die.

It really depends on what you mean by wild. Feral dogs live on garbage and handouts. Not exactly the wild.

Ibizan hounds might make it. They are fast, strong, and can catch rabbits. Some other large and strong breeds might survive.

[Dimensio]

Gee- I didn't spot Piltdown Man there- I guess you just forgot about him...

Why should Piltdown Man be there?

[Dimensio]

One thing I have learned from this and other websites- when I become the issue, rather than the stated topic, the opposition has lost the argument.

Interesting phrasing of the traditional cop-out that coward creationists use when they run away from a discussion that they are losing.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Agreed. Some breeds are closer to the *wild type* than others. My brother has an Alaskan malamute. It is a lot closer to its wolf ancestors than a chihuahua. The former would much more easily be reintroduced than the later. I am also assuming little if any interbreeding with other dog breeds; I am thinking of a genetically isolated population of malamute or chihuahua. The only way some of the old, lost alleles would be reintroduced would be through mutation.

[unlearner]

"Now please describe a test, and a potential outcome thereof, that can conclusively demonstrate that your hypothesis of life is wrong."

Any instance of life self organizing entirely from lifeless matter which is not the result of intelligent (i.e. intentional) assembly (assumably by humans). The formation of life in a lab via scientists creating the right precursors, or the right environment, or a primordial soup, etc. would qualify. (If any tools, e.g. nanobots, are required to assemble life, then it does not qualify as abiogenesis.)

Keep in mind the conversation which you are interjecting in concerns why my hypothesis is logically flawed, not whether my hypothesis is actually correct or has been supported as well as some other theory or law.

VadeRetro insists that the statement itself requires that I falsify abiogenesis. (My contention is that abiogenesis cannot be falsified, and I only need for my hypothesis to be falsifiable.) My comparison with the law of gravity is not an indication that I think my hypothesis is comparable to it in general, but that it is not logically flawed.

My statement is verifiable and falsifiable in the same sense that the law of gravity is. The law of gravity is easier to observe at work. It has been substantiated extensively. It has not been proved wrong (though modified of course). Likewise, my hypothesis has the POTENTIAL to be observed and tested. It will probably never be nearly as evident as gravity, but the analogy serves the purpose of showing VadeRetro's argument is logically flawed, rather than my hypothesis.

[unlearner]

"I'm giving you the chance to prove me wrong. If you're working on steps in the lab that may lead someday to life, what do you do with your equipment?"

No your not. You are trying to run away from the subject. You accused me of promoting a blatantly silly, obviously flawed, fundamentally dishonest idea. You cannot back up your statements which are mere rhetoric.

"Since you're such an abiogenesis expert, after all, there's no question the fact at which I drop hints has been mentioned to you many times in your previous discussion with the atheist heathen."

No, you are the abiogenesis expert. I think the idea doesn't work. If you think it does, you defend it. Don't argue that it is my job to explain how it might work. If I do this, I would be arguing why it will not work, and you will go back to your straw man accusations.

"My theory is falsifiable."

I did not know you even had a theory, or even a hypothesis. What is it? And how can it be falsified? Or is this just another attempt at humor?

[unlearner]

Of course why bother making an honest reply VadeRetro? You accuse of straw man arguments then come up with this?

"his hypothes is falsified when the dirt in his backyard becomes a penguin."

No one expects a penguin to "poof" out of a hole in the ground. Since you were arguing in support of abiogenesis, you ought to be able to come up with a more likely scenario that is observable.

All you need is one living cell whose existence is not owed to reproduction, replication or human assembly.

Is that a big task? Maybe. But more reasonable than a magically appearing penguin.

[unlearner]

" Just noticed this. (I skim you very lightly now. Sorry about all the typing you seem to be doing.) There is nothing to say about the science of your premise. There is no science to argue except for illustrating that the puddle in your backyard is not an abiogenesis lab and it would be a classic creationist strawman to insist otherwise. I've been leading you along Socratically to admitting what you no doubt already know in that regard. Somehow, you don't seem to want to play."

You aren't just reading lightly, you are thinking lightly too.

You do not even appear to know what science is. Perhaps you are a scientist yourself, which would make this more inexcusable. Have you learned anything of the philosophy of science even in passing?

All you can do is state something is unscientific as if your opinion makes it so. You have not used any form of logic to demonstrate your side of the argument.

At this point I have lost confidence in your ability to do so.

At least some opponents around here actually took a stab at it. You have posted more than about any of them and said pretty much nothing.

[unlearner]

"No doubt, however, the part where ID proposes that life was invented by something smart is what it's named after, and what we are arguing about in a Dover courtroom, and is the subject of this thread."

The debate is over whether ID is science AND whether it violates the legal theory of "separation of church and state " (a legal concept which was recently rejected in another case).

"Namely, that it couldn't have occurred naturally, I presume."

Actually even that is not agreed upon. Some IDers say the conditions that permit or cause evolution are proof of intelligence. Maybe, but I doubt it could be falsified in the strict sense that I am demanding.

"Insufferable complexity is a mirage."

There are randomly complex things, and there is information complexity. Information theory applies. We have nonlinear systems. We have interdependence. We have the design encoded into DNA which has the potential to be transmitted as information by other means. (In other words, it might be possible to reproduce an organism from the DNA blueprint with just the information contained in it.)

"most any not-obviously self-contradictory hypothesis whatsoever is, in some sense, verifiable or falsifiable."

Untrue. Many statements might even be true or useful but not falsifiable. In fact, mathematical statements are not falsifiable except where there is a specific correlation to some natural phenomenon. And in such a case you are falsifying the natural process rather than the math.

"That's insufficient by miles to quality as a science theory to be trumpeted on the cover of a science book."

Agreed. There must be supporting evidence in the form of observation, experimentation or at least a mathematical model which might propose how to assemble life. I think it will happen within the next ten years.

"Which, along with a buck and a half, will buy you a cup of coffee."

Whether it is useful or scientists find it attractive is another subject. I am tired of hearing lame attacks thrown about in every creation-evultion-science-religion debate saying ID is unscientific. The ones saying this are either unable to define science, or they are unable to argue against my case. (Of course that does not prevent many dishonest ones from continuing to spread this falsehood.)

"Abiogenesis is potentially falsifiable much in the same way that propositions such as 'Therapsids are the direct ancestors of dinosaurs' are. Woese is sneaking up on life's origin in exactly this manner, by treating the mutational clocks of our smallest ancestors in a manner similar to that employed by paleontologists to investigate the ancestry of dinosaurs: by treating DNA as fossil evidence, of a sort, and making predictions about what will be be discovered that isn't presently discovered, and seeing these predictions either succeed or fail."

Sorry, "abiogenesis is falsifiable because common ancestry is falsifiable" does not cut the mustard. Neither are falsifiable. This is the biggest problem with treating natural history as a science in general. (it is part science and part history. And history cannot be falsified. It cannot even be tested in a controlled environment.)

It is circular when trying to apply the demarcation standard to historical events. It is possible to superimpose a variation of any interpretation of evidence on the actual evidence. This is because nothing ever can be truly falsified. If a prediction is wrong, the theory will only be modified to accommodate the new data. (And I am not talking about modifying a fundamental, universal principle. This is more akin to a fortune teller getting some predictions right and thereby proving that fortune telling is a science.)

The bottom line is that no matter how much this fundamental flaw is hidden by piles of data, HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE NOT FALSIFIABLE, PERIOD.

That is why there is a difference between speciation and common descent. The first can be observed, even if in small increments. The latter can never be observed. We can observe continued speciation, but the reverse cannot be demonstrated conclusively. It may be reasonable, logical, and even supportable. But it is not falsifiable.

"None of which, makes abiogenesis a science to presently take terribly seriously, much as is the case with your anti-biogenesis theory."

Of course supporting evidence would take precedence over all the rounds of debate. But abiogenesis does not make falsifiable statements.

"Except that the biogenesis theory might have tangible odds of producing evidence."

I agree that IF abiogenesis has ever happened it will probably be supportable and observable.

"The theory that biogenesis could not ever occur by any means whatsoever will never produce reasonable evidence, because 'any means whatsoever' is an infinite set."

Here you fall into the same logical fallacy as so many others. You do not test for or falsify the negation of a hypothesis. You look for support. You remain open to falsification.

The proposition is that intelligence is the mechanism by which life can form. The first task is to verify that life can form this way. All hypotheses, theories and laws are tentative to some degree or another. None require testing infinite possibilities to be considered verifiable and falsifiable.

[Dimensio]

Any instance of life self organizing entirely from lifeless matter which is not the result of intelligent (i.e. intentional) assembly (assumably by humans).

And yet thus far you have not provided a single coherent reason to explain why such an observation would completely disprove intelligent design. You have utterly refused to justify your claim that "if life can come about without intelligent assembly, then it is impossible for intelligent design to have occured". If you can't justify that, then you don't have a real falsification criteria.

[unlearner]

"And yet thus far you have not provided a single coherent reason to explain why such an observation would completely disprove intelligent design. You have utterly refused to justify your claim that 'if life can come about without intelligent assembly, then it is impossible for intelligent design to have occured'. If you can't justify that, then you don't have a real falsification criteria."

Correct. I cannot falsify all of the various conflicting views of ID proponents. (Sometimes I wonder if my cause would not be better served by joining the other side and getting ID proponents not to say foolish things.)

What I claim to be verifiable and falsifiable is my ID based statement. Here is one way to say it: life originates exclusively through the mechanism of intelligent (i.e. intentional) assembly.

This claim has neither been supported nor proved wrong because there are no instances of observed life formation. It is improbable that it will be observed outside of a lab.

A single instance of self assembly would falsify my claim of exclusivity. (You are correct that it would not disprove the possibility of intelligent assembly. It would disprove the necessity of it though.) Many instances of scientists assembling life would support (though not prove) my hypothetical statement.

If you want a prediction, sometime in the next few decades nanotechnology will allow the formation of custom life forms and they will be made as commonly as computer software is today. This will become a matter of routine rather than being regarded as an amazing breakthrough. However, I expect the conjectured mechanism(s) of self assembly will remain elusive, not because they are rare but because they are nonexistent.

By way of comparison, evolution relies on natural selection as a mechanism which explains the large variety of observable species. Breeding is a means of intelligent selection. (However, breeding relies on mechanisms which is does not control directly.) Natural selection is a more attractive explanation because it is simpler. But in the case of life originating, we have no self assembling mechanism observed at this time. If that changes, so does my supposition.

[Dimensio]

What I claim to be verifiable and falsifiable is my ID based statement. Here is one way to say it: life originates exclusively through the mechanism of intelligent (i.e. intentional) assembly.

But what is the justification of this statement? And if you can't justify such exclusivity, then you don't have a statement that merits scientific inquiry; you just have meaningless conjecture.

[Condorman]

"Now please describe a test, and a potential outcome thereof, that can conclusively demonstrate that your hypothesis of life is wrong."

Any instance of life self organizing entirely from lifeless matter which is not the result of intelligent (i.e. intentional) assembly (assumably by humans). The formation of life in a lab via scientists creating the right precursors, or the right environment, or a primordial soup, etc. would qualify. (If any tools, e.g. nanobots, are required to assemble life, then it does not qualify as abiogenesis.)

Okay, fine. That sounds reasonable. Now please explain how the failure to observe the above will support your hypothesis.

If I have a hunk of lifeless matter in which life fails to materialize, how can I be sure that it is because of the failure of an intelligent agent to act? It is equally likely that I have kept the matter at the wrong temperature, or haven't waited long enough, or the acidity of the matter is too high, or too low, or I have exposed the matter to insufficient light, or too much, or at the wrong time, or I have 1g too little carbon, or 2g too little carbon, or 3g too little carbon, or 4g too little carbon, or 5g too little carbon . . . or 100g too little carbon, etc, etc, etc.

Your Law of Gravity makes a specific prediction that can be tested for any two given masses. If the force is along the center of mass, the hypothesis is supported, if not, the hypothesis is falsified.

Your Law of Life lends itself to no test that can support or falsify with each result. They are not equivallent.

[VadeRetro]

"I'm giving you the chance to prove me wrong. If you're working on steps in the lab that may lead someday to life, what do you do with your equipment?"

No your not.

Ah, the endless brazen. We're in the Smoky Back Room, I could just let it die but it amuses me to see how long and with what compulsion you dance on. Why can't a creationist say the inconvenient thing?

There is a reason warm ponds do not fill up with proto-life chemicals waiting for a second, third, or ten-thousandth abiogenesis event. It is related to my laboraty procedure question. Anyone not an idiot can see it. What is your story here?

[VadeRetro]

You do not even appear to know what science is. Perhaps you are a scientist yourself, which would make this more inexcusable.

How can you simultaneously believe I have no clue what science is and yet might be a scientist? Is it because you're a pig-ignorant luddite who thinks no one outside of a few cults knows what real science is?

[Virginia-American]

[vitamin C] WHAT makes this more profound than ANY OTHER DNA molecules shared by EVERY carbon-based lifeform on the planet?

It's not shared by every life form.

It's a **defect** shared **only** by people, chimps, gorillas, et al.

As I said in the post you're responding to:

"This makes ID quite untenable. If we were designed to need dietary ascorbic acid, why include a defective copy of the gene that synthesizes it in other mammals?"

The logic here is the same as that employed by the publishers of street maps. They typically include a few false features; if these appear on a rival publisher's maps, they have an open-and-shut case of plagiarism.

Perhaps you should post the article you are taking this from..just a suggestion- plagiarism is such an ugly thing.

So are unfounded insults.

The post was in my own words, summarizing information available on a great many web sites and also in many books on biochemistry, physiology, etc.

This is a good place to start your literature search.

[VadeRetro]

I've been plagiarizing a lot of stuff all my life, I now realize. Everything I ever learned from a book. The horror!