Posted on 08/28/2005 2:14:36 PM PDT by AZLiberty
...
Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"If ID is scientific, it must work within the scientific method. My proposition ID is not scientific because there is no possible test exists to provide evidence of ID."
You strike me as the kind of guy who gets his talking points and sticks with them, come hell or high water. Trying to reason with you is a complete waste of time. You are incapable of objective thought. You are ignorant -- but you make up for it by being arrogant.
You strike me as the kind of guy who likes to dodge and weave. You avoid drilling down on any details. You are like the infintry squad that lays down a lot of fire but never advances on the target. You strike me as the kind of guy who would say he voted for something before he voted against it.
My question is not a talking point. It is one simple question that asks for one simple answer.
Provide the details of ONE experiment that can be used to verify the ID hypothesis.
How would I know? I'm just reading at their site.
I'll ask them tomorrow, I'll say Jeff Gordon wants to know, that ought to get some anwers....
"And what would "our" agenda be?"
Already answered this question at #255.
I'm surprised that folks of the caliber such as you have reading comprehension problems.
And, no, I'm not going to assume yours was a rethorical question.
I'm not going to elaborate on it any further unless it be face-to-face.
Invitation to become an advisor.
The Gene Emergence Project welcomes qualified biochemists, molecular biologists, biophysicists, information theorists, artificial life and intelligence experts, philosophers of science, molecular evolutionists, astro/exobiologists, mathematicians, and many other researchers in origin-of-life related fields. Simply click on the "Advise Us" button at the top of this website or E-mail any comments to us at "life@us.net"
If you don't want to go for the prize at least give them some advice about "nonacademic" in house peer review OK?
"Provide the details of ONE experiment that can be used to verify the ID hypothesis."
Oh, let me see. You used a large font, so I'll be you think you wrote something important. Oh, gosh .... I think you stumped me ... Oh, wait, no ...
Here's the answer to your amazingly ignorant question:
You look at the complexity of the simplest living cell, and you run a mathematical simulation to see if it could have possibly come together by random chance, with absolutely no intelligent design whatsoever.
In fact, this test *has* been done, and the results were very favorable to ID. No, ID was not "proven," but then no scientific theory can *ever* be proven.
That's just one test. A million more could be devised by anyone who has a clue about the problem.
Now, I'll bet a dollar to a donut you'll either ignore this post or continue to pretend that I refused to answer your question.
Your question shows nothing but your amazing ignorance on the subject of probability and statistics.
LOL
Funny you would call it a fraud when this is what they said in 2001;
GENE EMERGENCE PROJECT $1.35M ORIGIN-OF-LIFE PRIZE
Submissions now being accepted for the $1,350,000 Origin-of-Life Prize, details at http://www.us.net/life
The Gene Emergence Project is interested in the chemical evolution of initial genetic instructions in primordial life. For most ISCB members, life-origin interests are just a hobby or avocation. But the topic is nonetheless fascinating and fun for many. Our interest is in promoting quality research that would silence religious intrusions into science.
For more information, please contact:
Dr. David L. Abel, Program Director
The Gene Emergence Project(R)
E-mail: life@us.net
As I have already stated, anti-evolution experiments are not pro-ID experiments.
Let's try again.
Provide the details of ONE experiment that can be used to verify the ID hypothesis.
I should allow for a third possibility: I am mistaken about your assessement of the "agenda" of those who accept evolution. If I am, I apologize. If I am not, then the other two options are the only possible situations.
It seems to me that any scientist truly qualified to take on this challenge would be far more interested in getting his work reviewed, published and acknowledged in peer review journals. Such a scientist would rather win the Nobel prize for such work rather than win a contest by a group which has to beg for academic advisers.
"As I have already stated, anti-evolution experiments are not pro-ID experiments."
Look, genius, if it couldn't have happened *without* ID, then it must have happened *with* ID.
Take a look at the Linux kernel. Could it have possibly have come together without ID? Even if I know absolutely nothing about its actual origin and authors, I'd say no. And that's equivalent to saying that it must have required at least some ID.
This is not rocket science.
While by Contradiction and Reductio ad Absurdum are valid logical machinations, your attempt at it is absurd. To use this method you would have to prove that evolution could not occur without ID. To do that you would have to prove ID.
Provide the details of ONE experiment that can be used to verify the ID hypothesis.
Jeff Gordon.
Did you miss post 268????
I don't think they are "a group which has to beg for academic advisers." Where in the world do get that idea?
What are you trying to say, Jeff Gordon??
The current ID folk concentrate more on microbiology, like Behe's _Darwin's Black Box_. Dennett is fighting the last war. Also, Crick himself had some batty ideas about the origins of DNA, attributing it to alien (and thus intelligent) design.
I saw Dennett give an entirely second-rate defense of "his views a few years back. I'm not sure if I'm less impressed by Darwin's critics or his defenders nowadays.
Jeff Gordon.
Are you implying that Dr. David L. Abel, Program Director of The Gene Emergence Project(R) the man who said "Our interest is in promoting quality research that would silence religious intrusions into science." is associated with sponsoring a prize that is in actuality a fraud??
Would someone wanting to "silence religious intrusions into science" really do something like that?
Say it ain't so Jeff!!
"While by Contradiction and Reductio ad Absurdum are valid logical machinations, your attempt at it is absurd. To use this method you would have to prove that evolution could not occur without ID. To do that you would have to prove ID."
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. And I want you to think hard -- and try to refrain from thinking, "oh, that's the old such and such argument, and that has been debunked already."
Suppose I hand you a deck of cards, and it is in perfect numerical order by suit, as a new deck of cards might be.
A hypothesis about this deck of cards is that it has been put in order by some intelligent being or by a machine programmed by an intelligent being, and it hasn't been schuffled since that ordering.
For this particular example, I can't "prove" the hypothesis, but I *can* show by elementary mathematical analysis that the hypothesis is almost certain to be true. In that sense, I have virtually "proven" the hypothesis for all practical purposes.
This is the same kind of argument that can be used to show that ID is virtually proven. But folks like you aren't even interested in the details because you've been hoodwinked into thinking that such hypotheses are not "scientific."
In other words, you have been mislead to the point that you are blind to the obvious. Snap out of it, dude! If you oppose Barbara Boxer there is hope for you.
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.