[donh]

"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).

But not in this case, because the perjury to hide the material involvement of a specific local religious sect was uncovered in court.

"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.

Eh? So...you want to include the anthropomorphic theory under the umbrella of ID? Behe, who testified at trial, doesn't require acknowledgment of the anthromorphic theory to make his case.

"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.

and then there are clouds if inky balderdash about information theory one can throw up indefinitely, hoping our deponents will tire and withdraw. There is no demonstrated case of Beheian insurmountable complexity, and there likely never will be, because--as is the case with your base theory--the set of possible ways to naturally build anything demonstrably built is infinite.

We have the design encoded into DNA which has the potential to be transmitted as information by other means.

Applying information theory to a biological process is a doubtful enterprise at best. Information theory applies to discrete, set-theoretically well formed, independent entities where the information transmitted doesn't meaningfully interact with it's environment, and the transmitter can communicate something relevant, and surprising, to the receiving end's knowledge of itself. Biological systems are mathematically continuous, and the processes that utilize DNA are tightly coupled in chemical feedback loops. You can't make Shannon information theory apply usefully to biological processes--no one can, and the half-baked attempts we've seen at it have been ludicrously lacking in even the simplest of application tests one might expect of a biological theory.

(In other words, it might be possible to reproduce an organism from the DNA blueprint with just the information contained in it.)

No, not in any reasonable sense--you are getting your science from "Jurassic Park". There is way more to a creature than its DNA mapping into proteins. There is way more, in fact, to DNA, meiosis, and mitosis, than it's duplication and mapping into proteins.

"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.

Did I not say "most"?

In fact, mathematical statements are not falsifiable except where there is a specific correlation to some natural phenomenon.

That is not true--it is quite easy to make false statements in any abstract formal mathematics, to which you have not attached a set-theoretic domain of discourse, much less mapped that domain to the real world

I am tired of hearing lame attacks thrown about in every creation-evultion-science-religion debate saying ID is unscientific.

What? You just long-windedly agreed with me that it did not qualify for inclusion in high school textbooks. I guess I agree with you that, in the sense that everything under the sun is a science, ID is also a science.

"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.

That is not what I said. I said the way we do science in both cases is similar. You summary is unwarranted and unduly confusing, but par for the course.

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.)

Nonsense. Many natural sciences engage in meaningful falsification by predicting things that can be discovered, before they are discovered. If we took your thesis seriously, we'd have to discard most of geology, and 20th century astronomy.

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.

There is nothing special about historical data in this regard. Phrenology and the ether withstood many attacks in this manner before the evidence available finally toppled them.

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

This is nonsense. If we really took it seriously, we wouldn't be able to perform meaningful experiments at all, as soon as you stop running the oscilloscope, all it's accumulated data becomes historical.

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.

Than there is no way to demonstrate the formation of stars from dust. No one has ever observed the formation of a star from dust, nor has anyone actually observed a star undergoing more than one step of its Hertzsprung-Russel fate. There are only isolated static snapshots throughout the universe of dust in various degrees of concentration, and stars in various locations on the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram. Obviously, the notion of stars being born and dying is an unfalsifiable fantasy. You can only demonstrate micro-stellar evolution.

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.

So...once again the burnt hand goes wobbling back to the fire: to do science, since science is about stuff, you need some stuff to look at. There's such a thing as being so "open to falsification", that your brains bleed right out.

To the extent that abiogensis is about specific, tangible things--like DNA treated as fossil evidence, which can be poked at, and make predictions about evidence yet to be uncovered, it's may be possible to do science about it.

To the extent that abiogenesis is about "all the possible ways" a thing can happen, there are no observed limitations on behavior to be explained. This is not science, this is theology, and can only remain theology, until something occurs in the way of specific, positive, tangible forensic evidence you can draw inferences with sufficient specificity about to allow you to make verifiable predictions as to what you will find next.

You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.

Things that you do not know that you know, are not part of the set of things one ought to teach under the rubric of "science" in high school, or fund specific research projects for at your local university.

[unlearner]

You debate science much better than theology, if I am correctly remembering religious discussions with you in the past. However, what we are debating is more philosophical than scientific.

"But not in this case, because the perjury to hide the material involvement of a specific local religious sect was uncovered in court."

This judge follows the modern interpretation which is not original intent. That someone perjured himself does not change what the law is. In this country we do not use guilt by association in the application of law.

"Eh? So...you want to include the anthropomorphic theory under the umbrella of ID? Behe, who testified at trial, doesn't require acknowledgment of the anthromorphic theory to make his case."

I am unsure how intelligence can exist apart from life, but I do not assume that is impossible. I refuse to concede history and science should be commingled whether it be for the assertion of common descent or the assertion of ID proponents.

"as is the case with your base theory--the set of possible ways to naturally build anything demonstrably built is infinite."

I don't call mine a theory. And this is not my argument, it is the argument of those who claim I must test infinite possibilities to falsify my premise.

"Biological systems are mathematically continuous, and the processes that utilize DNA are tightly coupled in chemical feedback loops. You can't make Shannon information theory apply usefully to biological processes"

I am not applying the information analogy to reproduction or replication. I am applying it to the speculative assumption of life originating. You may be able to use this argument to counter arguments against speciation, but it does not apply to this. You cannot even know how it might apply to a hypothetical event which has never been observed even once.

"No, not in any reasonable sense"

In a "reasonable sense" DNA contains information. If we described life just using a list of ingredients, it would be pointless. DNA contains specific instructions that direct biological pathways. Any reasonable person recognizes that it is information. Information does not necessarily imply intelligence. Computers and machines are often directed by information which is intrinsically meaningless.

"most any not-obviously self-contradictory hypothesis whatsoever is, in some sense, verifiable or falsifiable... Did I not say 'most'?"

Then cite three examples since they are so readily available.

"That is not true--it is quite easy to make false statements in any abstract formal mathematics, to which you have not attached a set-theoretic domain of discourse, much less mapped that domain to the real world"

False statements are not the same as falsifiable statements. Something can be false and not falsifiable. It can be true and falsifiable. It can be true and not falsifiable. It is possible to prove math statements by working backwards to the underlying axioms, but you cannot falsify them. What I meant by my earlier statement was that math cannot be falsified in general. I was not saying that there is no such thing as a mathematical error. You essentially reduce statements to tautologies which are "true" within the assumed theorem. A theorem cannot be falsified in the same way as a theory.

"You just long-windedly agreed with me that it did not qualify for inclusion in high school textbooks. I guess I agree with you that, in the sense that everything under the sun is a science, ID is also a science."

I do not have strong feelings about its inclusion in such texts, other than I am a firm believer in parental rights. I think local communities should decide this for themselves and parents should be able to opt out their kids from whatever the communities decide.

I feel it is more important for teenagers to get a basic foundation in the philosophy of science in order to contextualize the function of science and how it fits within a broader epistemology.

The main reason many feel threatened by my assertion around here is because they make too much of "science". Maybe you are not one of them. The fact that my assertion does meet the qualifications of a scientific hypothesis is only threatening to those who regard scientific theory as fact and empiricism as truth.

"Many natural sciences engage in meaningful falsification by predicting things that can be discovered, before they are discovered."

That's verifiability not falsifiability.

"If we really took it seriously, we wouldn't be able to perform meaningful experiments at all, as soon as you stop running the oscilloscope, all it's accumulated data becomes historical."

Well at least you are thinking the point through rather than just giving a preconceived opinion. The difference is that there is a sort of chain of custody when we turn off the oscilloscope, and historical events are not part of a controlled environment.

But your point does underscore an essential truth. Science is predicated upon faith. (Of course I must clarify that the definition of faith often proposed around here is unworkable.) Whatever we do not experience firsthand for ourselves we can only accept on the basis of faith. So empirical evidence for one must be accepted by another on the basis of "take my word for it". This is even true of repeatable experiments because it is not possible to retest every piece of accumulated information, nor is it necessary, nor is it reasonable.

"Than there is no way to demonstrate the formation of stars from dust. No one has ever observed the formation of a star from dust, nor has anyone actually observed a star undergoing more than one step of its Hertzsprung-Russel fate. There are only isolated static snapshots throughout the universe of dust in various degrees of concentration, and stars in various locations on the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram. Obviously, the notion of stars being born and dying is an unfalsifiable fantasy. You can only demonstrate micro-stellar evolution."

These may be verifiable without being falsifiable. I personally do not limit science to what is falsifiable, but it is a popular standard of demarcation.

"So...once again the burnt hand goes wobbling back to the fire: to do science, since science is about stuff, you need some stuff to look at. There's such a thing as being so 'open to falsification', that your brains bleed right out."

Well it is either falsifiable or it isn't. How meaningful or useful a statement is is a separate debate.

"To the extent that abiogensis is about specific, tangible things... it's may be possible to do science about it."

Which is why I am not opposed to pursuing it. But the debate continues about what is scientific, and ID opponents keep wanting to move the line when it is no longer convenient. When the debate is over a Creator, suddenly falsifiability is the gold standard. When something is proposed that is falsifiable and verifiable, the standard is no longer important. What is important? Where do you draw the line?

"This [abiogenesis]is not science, this is theology, and can only remain theology, until something occurs in the way of specific, positive, tangible forensic evidence you can draw inferences with sufficient specificity about to allow you to make verifiable predictions as to what you will find next."

Excellent (if I am not misconstruing your words). But does this mean you do not wish for abiogenesis to be pursued via scientific investigation?

"Things that you do not know that you know, are not part of the set of things one ought to teach under the rubric of 'science' in high school, or fund specific research projects for at your local university."

You misunderstood my tag line. If we think we know the answer we will be unwilling to explore other possibilities. For example, I would prefer to be treated by a doctor who knows what he does not know, rather than one who thinks he knows the answer for every medical condition. Thus, I am an "unlearner" in the sense that I must unlearn any false preconceptions I have and, if I am to help anyone else do the same, I must identify and prove their errors.