Have you ever really looked at intelligent design?

You're claiming we can detect design. But in your example we're not detecting design; we're detecting that a known gene has been put somewhere we don't expect it.

That's fair. But at the same time you're not detecting "non-design," either. All you're doing is detecting an anomaly. The scientific question is how to explain the anomaly.

The problem is, this happens naturally, by virus/plasmid translocation of genes....

Sure. And it also happens by design.

As a matter of fact, virus translocation is one of the techniques used by genetic engineers to insert foreign genetic material into other genes. The question for a scientist would be, how did the same "very rare event" propagate into various different strains of bacteria and yeast?

You've proposed one hypothesis -- a sequence of repeated naturalistic events that could (very rarely) cause bacteria and yeast to produce human insulin.

And there's another hypothesis: that somebody put the genetic material into these wee beasties to cause them to produce human insulin.

And thus we're left with valid and competing hypotheses.

The question faced by the scientist would be: which of these valid hypothesis is the best explanation for what we can observe?

So yours is not a useful test for ID. Sorry.

Oh? You think the "naturalistic" and "human-caused" hypotheses are equally likely? Leaving aside the fact that it happens to be correct, "human-caused" is in this case a far more plausible explanation than "occurred naturally." An insistence on finding a "naturalistic cause" in this case would be bad science.

But if we do accept your statement, then logic dictates that it's also not a useful test for a "naturalistic causes" explanation. In essence, you're removing this example from the purview of scientific inquiry. Seems a bit extreme, no?

As a matter of fact, virus translocation is one of the techniques used by genetic engineers to insert foreign genetic material into other genes. The question for a scientist would be, how did the same "very rare event" propagate into various different strains of bacteria and ye

Sure, if that happened (and the bacteria and yeast wern't themselves direct descendants of each other) that would be very weird. But that's one entirely hypothetical and very limited way a postulated unknown being might have monkeyed with the genome. It turns out, at the moment, there are literally thousands of researchers running different algorithms on the genome databases, looking for weird stuff. When they come up with weird stuff, and they will, that will be the time to look at it and decide if its compatible with evolution. What you want to do is, without evidence that there is any anomaly to look for, propose that we go screen in some way for one particular anomaly. Not a very efficient way to do things.

And thus we're left with valid and competing hypotheses.

We could say that right now. We know hundreds of examples of horizontal gene transfer. For any instance of horizontal gene transfer -- or for that matter any other phenomenon, we also mutate organisms, why shouldn't the designer have done that? - we could propose as an alternative hypothesis 'godidit' (or 'the designer did it' ).

The question faced by the scientist would be: which of these valid hypothesis is the best explanation for what we can observe?

Agreed. And we answer that question every time we discover something new.

Oh? You think the "naturalistic" and "human-caused" hypotheses are equally likely? Leaving aside the fact that it happens to be correct, "human-caused" is in this case a far more plausible explanation than "occurred naturally." An insistence on finding a "naturalistic cause" in this case would be bad science.

No. If there's evidence the change occurred, say, 50,000 years ago, or 2 billion years, the 'human-caused' is highly implausible. If the change occured recently, and the gene implanted looks like it was useful for something, the human-caused hypothesis is plausible. But note that I'm incorporating two things I know about humans - that we haven't been doing genetic engineering for very long, and that we tend to engineer useful things.

Not at all. Creationism/ID truly is the nexus of Junk Religion with Junk Science.

Sigh. Spare me the junk ideology, Mike. Perhaps you'd like to shift gears and engage in an honest discussion of the topic.

An intelligent design hypothesis has no intrinsic religious content. But it is a valid hypothesis (still subject to scientific verification, of course) for the scientific question of "how did it get that way?"

Genetic engineering is not "junk science," though it does happen to be a concrete example of intelligent design. This introduces a class of problems for which "somebody did it" is the correct explanation.

In trying to explain the results of things that are within reach of human genetic engineering, "intelligent design" is a very attractive hypothesis (and a correct one in many instances).

Within that class of problems, there will be cases where valid naturalistic and "intelligent design" hypotheses are in competition with one another. A scientist might well be challenged to come up with a good means of separating the two -- and until he can do so, it would be improper of him to reject the design hypothesis.

All that said, it's very true that there are people for whom the intelligent design hypothesis is religious thing. But you're doing the same thing they are.

Sure, if that happened (and the bacteria and yeast wern't themselves direct descendants of each other) that would be very weird. But that's one entirely hypothetical and very limited way a postulated unknown being might have monkeyed with the genome.

It's not "hypothetical" at all: it's precisely how my son's insulin is produced. What I'm proposing is a time-honored test: can science explain a real-world example where WE ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER?

It turns out, at the moment, there are literally thousands of researchers running different algorithms on the genome databases, looking for weird stuff. When they come up with weird stuff, and they will, that will be the time to look at it and decide if its compatible with evolution.

And here is the weakness. A scientist who permits only a "compatible with evolution" explanation cannot get the right answer. He might come up with a plausible one, but in the case of bacteria and yeast producing human insulin, it's not as plausible as the alternative hypothesis, that somebody did it.

What you want to do is, without evidence that there is any anomaly to look for, propose that we go screen in some way for one particular anomaly. Not a very efficient way to do things.

What I want to do is test your "solution space" to see if it can come up with the right answer, which we already know. You seem to be saying that science is incapable of making the distinction without a priori knowledge. That presents a problem for you.

No. If there's evidence the change occurred, say, 50,000 years ago, or 2 billion years, the 'human-caused' is highly implausible.

True enough. But you've still got to deal with the fact that science is either incapable of telling the difference between design and non-design, in which case you have no business rejecting ID; or that science is capable of telling the difference, in which case you can't reject ID on the basis that it's "not scientific."

If the change occured recently, and the gene implanted looks like it was useful for something, the human-caused hypothesis is plausible. But note that I'm incorporating two things I know about humans - that we haven't been doing genetic engineering for very long, and that we tend to engineer useful things.

You see the weaknesses here, though.

First, the origin of "usefulness" in its various guises is what evolution is supposed to be explaining. The idea that usefulness is an indicator of design therefore weakens the case for evolution.

Second, it's true that humans have only just started doing genetic engineering. From a purely engineering standpoint it's reasonable to assume that as time passes we'll be far better at manipulating and creating biological structures than we are today. This suggests two things: first, better techniques make design a more plausible hypothesis for complex biological structures; and second, better techniques probably imply the ability to test for design. (And anybody who makes the design hypothesis is still required to test it.)

The whole thing still boils down to one essential point: the unwillingness of "science" to permit the design hypothesis to be considered at all, even though our discussion shows that it is at least valid in a general sense, and correct in specific instances. There's something else afoot here, and it's not "science."

What I'm proposing is a time-honored test: can science explain a real-world example where WE ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER?

Yes. It could explain it by horizontal gene transfer. It could explain it by genetic engineering. We have two valid hypotheses because we know humans deliberately do gene transfer, and we know it happens naturally. As far as we know, we are the only intelligent beings that have ever done gene transfer, so it's plausible.

There could indeed be a third hypothesis; that another intelligent being, not human, might have implanted the insulin gene in the bacterium. Note that that's so unlikely that you yourself didn't advance it when I suggested there were two ways to explain the data.

So tell me again why I should consider the hypothesis under other circumstances? :-)

You seem to be saying that science is incapable of making the distinction without a priori knowledge. That presents a problem for you.

Why? We're already familiar with plenty of problems for which we know science can't find an answer.

But you've still got to deal with the fact that science is either incapable of telling the difference between design and non-design, in which case you have no business rejecting ID; or that science is capable of telling the difference, in which case you can't reject ID on the basis that it's "not scientific."

We reject design as a scientific hypothesis precisely because we can't test for it, because any phenomenon anywhere could be explained by invoking intervention by a very powerful intelligent being.

First, the origin of "usefulness" in its various guises is what evolution is supposed to be explaining. The idea that usefulness is an indicator of design therefore weakens the case for evolution.

Indeed, if everything we find in organisms were useful that would be an argument for design. But the converse is true; there are things in living organisms that are useless, even moderately harmful. Evolution accommodates that. Does design? Suppose your bacterium had an insulin gene, and then three other extraneous broken genes, one of which messes up the expression of a working gene, making the bacterium less viable. Would you assume that was designed?

Second, it's true that humans have only just started doing genetic engineering. From a purely engineering standpoint it's reasonable to assume that as time passes we'll be far better at manipulating and creating biological structures than we are today. This suggests two things: first, better techniques make design a more plausible hypothesis for complex biological structures; and second, better techniques probably imply the ability to test for design. (And anybody who makes the design hypothesis is still required to test it.)

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure why this is relevant. If we were discussing this 20 years ago, before we started implanting foreign genes, would your argument have been invalid?

The whole thing still boils down to one essential point: the unwillingness of "science" to permit the design hypothesis to be considered at all, even though our discussion shows that it is at least valid in a general sense, and correct in specific instances. There's something else afoot here, and it's not "science."

Science considers alternatives when there are problems with existing explanations. Science came up with quantum mechanics when it was clear there were a lot of phenomena classical mechanics could not explain. There is always an infinity of possible alternative explanations, as we discovered above, when you didn't even offer the hypothesis you yourself are promoting, where it was an alternative. In particular, a infinitely powerful, superintelligent designer could explain anything you care to have explained. But in explaining everything, it explains nothing. And that's another reason to reject it.

Why was it done that way? It's what the designer wanted. Why? Who are we to question the designer's motives.

"........An intelligent design hypothesis has no intrinsic religious content........."

Really? You could gave fooled me! That is exactly the deviousness that is the hallmark of ID/Creationists as they do the Hokey-Pokey, jumping back and forth from one camp to another on this very site (and elsewhere) in all their posts and articles, time and again.

..........intelligent design hypothesis.........is a valid hypothesis (still subject to scientific verification, of course)........."

I'm sure then that you know that here are 'Hypotheses' and then there are 'Hypotheses'. Hypotheses are in the same category as a$$holes; everybody's got one. There are Hypotheses based on the preponderance of the currently available valid information and then there are the Art Bell/Whahabbi/Jim Jones/L. Ron Hubbard/Nation of Islam/Dicovery Institute/Adolf Hitler Hypotheses. I cannot deny that, as an Object, ID/Creationism can be described as a 'Hypothesis'................

hy·poth·e·sis

( P ) Pronunciation Key (h

-p

th

-s

s)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-s

z

)

A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
The antecedent of a conditional statement.

[Latin, subject for a speech, from Greek hupothesis, proposal, supposition, from hupotithenai, hupothe-, to suppose : hupo-, hypo- + tithenai, to place; see dh- in Indo-European Roots.]

..............Nonetheless, I'm not holding my breath waiting for Louis Farakhan's "Mother Wheel" to land anytime soon and his Intelligent Design 'Genetic Engineer' to reveal himself. The Nation of Islam/Intelligent Design/NAZI Eugenics/Dianetics Clearing-Meters/Creationism Hypothesis is not only false, but Evil in its dangerousness to our Western Civilization. It has consequences. It leads to mass Kool-Aid drinking and Concentration Camp Crematoria.

As I said, there are 'Hypotheses' and then there are 'Hypotheses'. There are Hypotheses based on the preponderance of the currently available valid information. That is what Darwin already did 150 years ago. In turn, his original Hypothesis made predictions ['If This, then That'] that have been found to be true and expanded upon over the last century and a half, again and again in many correlative fields of inquiry.

What you have in all the 'Publications' from the ID/Creationists is 'Hypothesis' and 'Critique'. No experimentation or data, derived from experimentation, is laid on the table. Instead, what you get is the Totalitarian impulse, much like the Totalitarianism of the Left, to Legislate their point of view amd shove it down the throats of the public.

".........it's very true that there are people for whom the intelligent design hypothesis is religious thing. But you're doing the same thing they are.........."

No such thing. However, I will reveal the 'thing' I am doing: I'm 'reconciling' the two..............

rec·on·cile

( P ) Pronunciation Key (r

k

n-s

l

)
v. rec·on·ciled, rec·on·cil·ing, rec·on·ciles
v. tr.

To reestablish a close relationship between.
To settle or resolve.
To bring (oneself) to accept: He finally reconciled himself to the change in management.
To make compatible or consistent: reconcile my way of thinking with yours. See Synonyms at adapt.

v. intr.

To reestablish a close relationship, as in marriage: The estranged couple reconciled after a year.
To become compatible or consistent: The figures would not reconcile.

[Middle English reconcilen, from Old French reconcilier, from Latin reconcilire : re-, re- + concilire, to conciliate; see conciliate.]

recon·cilement n.
recon·ciler n.
recon·cili·a·tory (-s

l

-

-tôr

, -t

r

) adj.

.........I'm capable of reconciling my Faith with the mere Hypothesis [Fact] of Evolution. My Faith is strong enough to reconcile the Fact. ID/Creationists can't, or won't, hence their having to come up with a whacky Hypothesis, based on nothing. Their Faith is not very strong and they have to engage in rhetorical gymnastics to validate it. Unfortunately, for Western Civilization however, their Hypothesis is a Dead-end with consequences, the major one being Death. I choose Life.

Here's something else I choose:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
~Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800)

I can see the Tyranny that the ID/Creationist are fomenting and the Evil place it leads to.

I pray you will too.

Hope this helps.

Really? You could gave fooled me! That is exactly the deviousness that is the hallmark of ID/Creationists as they do the Hokey-Pokey, jumping back and forth from one camp to another on this very site (and elsewhere) in all their posts and articles, time and again.

Strawman.

I'm sure then that you know that here are 'Hypotheses' and then there are 'Hypotheses'. Hypotheses are in the same category as a$$holes; everybody's got one.

Not an argument, and not a good way to demonstrate intellectual capacity.

As I said, there are 'Hypotheses' and then there are 'Hypotheses'. There are Hypotheses based on the preponderance of the currently available valid information.

Indeed. And I have given you examples where "intelligent design" is not only a valid, but also the correct hypothesis. The test for science is whether it can come up with the right answer in those cases. If you say that it can, then your argument against ID collapses. If you say that it cannot (because it's impossible), then science has a serious problem making any believable statements in this debate.

My take on it is that science probably can get the right answer in many instances -- which raises a far more interesting non-scientific question about why "scientists" are so bent on disallowing the hypothesis to exist at all.

I can see the Tyranny that the ID/Creationist are fomenting and the Evil place it leads to.

Uh huh. So you're really not concerned with "science" at all in this discussion, but rather propounding a psychological argument about some set of bogeymen who might cause the difficulties you predict but probably won't. At least be honest about your motives.

I pray you will too.

How interesting. Doesn't it strike you as odd that you'd pray as if God can "do stuff," but are nevertheless loudly defending a proposition that He didn't and doesn't?

Hope this helps.

It does help, but probably not in the way you intended. What I get from your post is that you've either not fully thought through the logical implications of your position, or that you're avoiding them.

Strawman.

Not at all. Haven't you been reading the Threads and general discussions on this subject? The ID/Creationist Hokey-Pokey of "We're proposing a Scientific Theory........." [Nod, nod, wink, wink] "........where we hypothesize an Intelligent Designer" is their key inconsistency. What is more they don't show any experimentation or data derived from experimentation but meaningless 'meta'-articles. What is more important though, is that they have shown their true Totalitarian stripes by putting forth litigation wherein they attempt to force their point of view on the public just like their Totalitarian Communist kinfolk on the Left.

To repeat:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
~Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800)

See ya on the Threads.

I've seen the threads and do not deny that there are people who do exactly as you suggest. Your strawman is to state that everybody who proposes a design hypothesis is one of them.

As for "tyranny over the mind of man," one of the most obvious forms of tyranny is bullying those with whom you disagree. I would suggest that your position in this discussion fits that description exactly -- how else would one describe somebody who shouts as loudly as you do about a valid hypothesis?

'..........bullying those with whom you disagree........your position in this discussion fits that description exactly -- how else would one describe somebody who shouts as loudly as you do about a valid hypothesis?........."

Apparently you have trouble reading. I suggest a refresher course before you get on a Thread and start ranting.......

From my Post #66:

"........I cannot deny that, as an Object, ID/Creationism can be described as a 'Hypothesis'........."

To repeat, I said ID/Creationism is a 'Hypothesis'.

Whether its 'valid' or not is the crux of the argument.

Hope this helps. Best of luck with your personal problems.

Whether its 'valid' or not is the crux of the argument.

Your little snit notwithstanding, the design hypothesis is valid (see the dictionary for the precise definition). And that, sir, is in fact the crux of the argument. And what's more, you know that it is. You're being dishonest.

"......You're being dishonest......."

*LOL*

Sorry, I can't spend anymore time with someone that can't seem to find the time or have the inclination to read properly, let alone someone that just throws insults.

Best of Luck.

Well, Mikey, you're being downright silly now. All you need to do is to look at this thread and see who's "throwing insults," and who's actually trying to discuss the topic. Major hint: you're the one throwing insults. You've dodged every attempt I've made to engage you on the topic (and there are several).

And now you're playing the "poor, maligned victim" card like somebody's maiden aunt. Sheesh.