They don't own the theory and they didn't define it for me. Thus, if you care to debate *me*, then stick with debating my words rather than convenient straw words patched together by others.
Posted on 08/18/2005 7:39:37 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
On August 1, 2005, a group of reporters from Texas met with President Bush in the Roosevelt room for a roundtable interview. The President’s remarks suggest that he believes that both intelligent design and evolution should be taught so that “people are exposed to different schools of thought.” There have been so many articles since his remarks that it’s useful to read the relevant portion of published interview:
“Q: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?The reporter got it right: there is an ongoing debate over intelligent design vs. evolution, at least in the media and in politics. There is not a debate in the greater scientific community about the validity of evolution. Further, the vast majority of scientists do not consider intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution.THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
Q: Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about.
Q: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”
(Transcript released by the White House and published on August 2, 2005 at WashingtonPost.com)
Dr. John Marburger III, Presidential Science Advisor, tried to dispel the impact of the President’s comments. On Aug. 2, The New York Times quoted a telephone interview with Marburger in which he said, “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.” Certainly, no one doubts where Marburger stands. One might question whether the President takes Marbuger’s scientific advice seriously, or is simply more concerned about pleasing a portion of the electorate.
Marburger also spoke with Dr. Marvin Cohen, President of the American Physical Society, and recipient of the National Medal of Science from President Bush in 2002. In an Aug. 4 release, Cohen explains that the APS is “…happy that the President’s recent comments on the theory of intelligent design have been clarified. As Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger has explained, President Bush does not regard intelligent design as science. If such things are to be taught in the public schools, they belong in a course on comparative religion, which is a particularly appropriate subject for our children given the present state of the world.” It would be better to hear this directly from the President. Likely, the intelligent design advocates will ignore Marburger’s explanation. Like the fabled little Dutch boy, Marburger, stuck his finger in the dike in hopes of saving the day.
Unlike the brave boy, Marburger did not prevent the flood of print and electronic coverage that ensued. From August 2 to the present, Google-News tracked more than 1,800 articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor on intelligent design. That’s about 120 per day since the President’s remarks.
In the days following the interview, major educational and scientific organizations issued statements that criticized the President for considering intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution, for confusing religion with science, and for advocating that intelligent design be taught in schools.
“President Bush, in advocating that the concept of ‘intelligent design’ be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America’s schoolchildren at risk,” says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. “Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21 st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses.” (AGU, Aug. 2, 2005) AGU is a scientific society comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists.
Likewise, the American Institute of Biological Sciences criticized the President: “Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and must not be taught in science classes,” said AIBS president Dr. Marvalee Wake. “If we want our students to be able to compete in the global economy, if we want to attract the next generation into the sciences, we must make sure that we are teaching them science. We simply cannot begin to introduce non-scientific concepts into the science curriculum.” (AIBS, Aug. 5, 2005) The American Institute of Biological Sciences was established as a national umbrella organization for the biological sciences in 1947 by 11 scientific societies as part of the National Academy of Sciences. An independent non-profit organization since 1954, it has grown to represent more than 80 professional societies and organizations with a combined membership exceeding 240,000 scientists and educators. (AIBS website)
Science educators are equally dismayed. “The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world’s largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design – effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation’s K-12 science classrooms. We stand with the nation’s leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president’s top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom, said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director.” (NSTA, Aug. 3, 2005) NSTA has 55,000 members who teach science in elementary, middle and high schools as well as college and universities.
The American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.3 million pre-K through 12 th grade teachers, was even harsher. “President Bush’s misinformed comments on ‘intelligent design’ signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States. The president’s endorsement of such a discredited, nonscientific view is akin to suggesting that students be taught the ‘alternative theory’ that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not science.” (AFT, Aug. 4, 2005)
There is a problem here. Obviously, scientists and educators understand that intelligent design has no place in the classroom. Intelligent design is, simply, one of several varieties of creationism that offer religious explanations for the origin and current condition of the natural world. As such, it does not merit being taught alongside evolution as a “school of thought.” There’s significant legal precedent from US Supreme Court that creationism - in any clothing - does not belong in the American classrooms. Teaching creationism is in violation of the separation of church and state, and has been ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court in several cases. It’s unfortunate that the President apparently does not understand that science is not equivalent to a belief system but is description of how the natural world works. Creationism, including intelligent design, is a religious point of view, not science.
At a time when industrial, academic, and business leaders are calling for more American students to train in engineering, mathematics, science and technology, we need to teach science in science classrooms. Let’s teach the scientific ideas that are supported by overwhelming evidence such as gravitation, relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution. Creationist ideas/beliefs, such as intelligent design, don’t belong in science classrooms. In our haste to leave no child behind, let’s not leave science behind either.
Only one kind of meaningful 'irreducible complexity' exists in the abstract, and that is Kolmogorov complexity aka Minimum Description Length (MDL). To prove that you have irreducible complexity, you would have to prove that the object you are looking at represents the MDL for that object. You can apply this to DNA, biomolecular systems, machines, or anything else you like -- it is fully general. There is a general mechanical process for reducing any system to its 'irreducibly complex' form. If a system is truly irreducibly complex, it should be equivalent to its mechanically derived MDL.
Of course, the problem with MDL, which is the only irreducibly complex form of anything, is that proving it for any non-trivial system is utterly intractable. I'd like to know how one can assert 'irreducible complexity' in the absence of ability to prove that something is irreducibly complex. Note that very few systems in nature even approach the appearance of maybe being irreducibly complex in isolation, so even hypothesizing it seems pretty darn weak.
No, but they defined the theory. If you're going to argue about their theory, then you need to use their definition. If you want to propose or discuss a theory different from theirs, then call it something else.
Communication becomes impossible if you don't use terms according to their standard definition.
They don't own the theory and they didn't define it for me. Thus, if you care to debate *me*, then stick with debating my words rather than convenient straw words patched together by others.
This is moronic. It bears no relation to anything I recognize as biochemistry.
Stop using terms you don't understand. It just makes you look stupider. And believe me, you don't need the extra boost.
My paraphrase was accurate enough.
Incorrect.
One way to determine intelligent design is to find irreducible complexity. Another way is to properly read DNA code for evidence in the genome of non-natural insertions (e.g. non-natural species skipping genes or recombinant DNA that was perfectly programmed from scratch).
Reading DNA code, like reading computer programming code, could likewise turn up REM comment statements or chemical markers in the genome left by an intelligent insertion, or different DNA in the animal's offspring, etc.
Neither. You named two 'methods' which you assert demonstrate that a lifeform is intelligently designed. You have yet to explain how these 'methods' achieve this promised result.
Please feel free to do so at any time.
You just go ahead and assert it, and hope that no one asks you to back it up.
There are several billion base pairs on line. Knock yourself out. Heck, the broccoli genome might well have a coded message saying 'I don't care if it's good for you, who would eat this stuff?'.
You were refuted a hundred posts ago, laddie. Time to go home.
No, that's actually a different use/definition of the phrase "irreducible complexity."
But I like where you are going with it. I like that you are using Kolmogorov's human computer programming information theory in the Intelligent Design biological debate.
Unfortunately, as applied to biology, Kolmogorov's theory of IC would merely be the minimum DNA code necessary for life. In computer information theory, it's the minimum code to output a given string. Kolmogorov-Chaitin is good too, but again takes us away from the heart of the biological debate at hand here.
In biology, unlike in computer information theory, irreducible complexity is a stage that is unsustainable without other simultaneous modifications.
The poster Chameleon on this thread gave the example of the 3 chambered heart with reverse flow blood...a stage that requires numerous simultaneous modifications for life to function (from the previous 2 chambered heart). Of course, such an irreducibly complex biological stage is quite different from the irreducible level of programming code required to output a given string. Same IC words; different meaning and useage.
Nice try, though. Darwinists seldom get as far as to apply computer information theory to biology, so even though Kolmogorov theory doesn't fit in this particular case, I applaud your effort as surpassing most of your peers. Usually by this point in a thread Darwinists are reduced to mere name calling and juvenile side comments (my favorites are the "placeholder" comments that invariably contain an insult in them). That you went the other direction, into cerebral computer information theory, speaks well of you.
Making big claims does not make for little facts. Try again.
You hold that biological irreducible complexity does not indicate intelligent design? You require an explanation?!
You hold that reading an REM programming comment wouldn't indicate intelligent design (in software, in DNA, anywhere)?
You hold that identifying chemical markers of a laboratory, non-natural DNA insertion would indicate something other than intelligent design?
What part of the above do you keep needing explained to you?
Intelligent Design is the theory that factually explains via mathematical probability: biological irreducible complexity, new gene-spliced lab animal life forms, Artificial Intelligence, computer viri, and self-replicating machines.
As a theory, it may be applicable to other areas, as well, and this potential should be taught in science classes along with the above facts.
As evidenced by what it explains, ID postulates that some external (non-random for lack of a more precise phrase) bias is required to explain the origin of some complex entities.
Intelligent Design is the theory that factually explains via mathematical probability: biological irreducible complexity, new gene-spliced lab animal life forms, Artificial Intelligence, computer viri, and self-replicating machines.
Just so we are completely clear here: ID, as applied to evolution, specifically admits common descent, right? So you are willing to accept that humans are descended from other primates?
If not, then all your nonsense about probability (which it's abundantly clear you don't understand) is beside the point anyway, as you are just a garden-variety creationist trying to pretend you have something scientific.
Good point. Dr. Wells of the Discovery Institute wrote a paper last year that discussed ways ID theory can guide scientific research:
I do not accept irreducible complexity as a given. Should you wish to use it as evidence for intelligent design, you'll have to detail how something can be proven to be irreducibly complex.
You require an explanation?!
Of course! The mere assertion of a 'method' is useless without an explanation of what the method entails.
You hold that reading an REM programming comment wouldn't indicate intelligent design (in software, in DNA, anywhere)? You hold that identifying chemical markers of a laboratory, non-natural DNA insertion would indicate something other than intelligent design?
Suppose you find something which you think is indicative of "REM programming content" or a "chemical marker". How can you be reliably certain that it is, in fact, evidence of intelligent design, and did not originate from some other, naturalistic cause?
I have yet to see a proponent of ID produce an algorithm for reliably determining whether or not a particular object is the product of design.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.