Witness: intelligent design has identified God as designer

York Daily Record ^ | 9/28/05

[Crackingham]

Supporters of intelligent design argue the concept is not religious because the designer is never identified. But this morning, in the third day of testimony in a federal court case challenging the Dover school district’s inclusion of intelligent design in biology class, an expert for the plaintiffs pointed to examples where its supporters have identified the designer, and the designer is God.

Robert Pennock, a Michigan State University professor of the philosophy of science, pointed to a reproduction shown in court of writing by Phillip Johnson, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley and author of books including “Darwin on Trial” and “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.”

Johnson, known as the father of the intelligent design movement, wrote of “theistic realism.”

“This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that this reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology,” the writing stated.

Pennock was being questioned by plaintiffs’ attorneys. He will be cross-examined after a morning break.

[ml1954]

I know. The IDer could be God or a space alien...or maybe many space aliens, or maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. ID theory sure sounds scientific to me.

[VadeRetro]

Your weasel comment is out of line. It is interesting that your side can't seem to make an argument without throwing out taunts and jeers.

You're slithering and darting all over the place. I answered you on IC. No, I didn't explain how anything "arose from nothing but random chemicals." Obviously, I didn't set out to do that. If abiogenesis were supposedly your sticking point, you should have been saying that up front. You weren't. What you were saying was apparently unsupportable. You don't seem to have the integrity to admit that.

I'm not going to chase you all over the place without noticing that you can't seem to pick one place to stand and defend your nonsense.

What you are noticing, instead, is that I don't accept what evolutionists have done to change the criteria the define irreducible complexity.

No, that's not what you said, but I'll let you wriggle off that hook.

Evolutionists have not redefined IC. All they have done is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Behe's and others's attempted formulation of IC. For instance, from that same web page:

A large problem with Irreducible Complexity is that it's ill-defined. Words like "function" and "system" may seem clear, but in practice there are problems. A given chemical may have several uses. Which one is its function?

Behe deals with this on page 196, and gets it wrong. If a computer is used as a paper weight, then yes, that is its function. That may not be its intended function, but intentions don't count.

It gets worse. In biochemistry, it is pretty normal for both chemicals and systems to have multiple functions, in different places, or at different times. For example, the protein crystallin is transparent and is used in your eyes. Crystallin is also an enzyme which acts on the stress proteins used in coping with heat shock or osmotic shock. (It is thought that the enzyme function came first, and the first eye just co-opted this useful stuff that was lying around.)

So how are we to draw boundaries around systems? Behe is not very helpful about how to do that. And if you can't find the system, how can you decide if you have an Irreducibly Complex system? Suppose one possible boundary gives you an I.C. system, and another boundary doesn't? How are we to know his examples don't suffer from this? How are we to identify "crucial" components, when biochemical systems with important pieces removed sometimes continue to work well? [4]

Behe also doesn't define "indirect" when he says on page 40 that evolution could indirectly produce Irreducible Complexity. Just what is an indirect route, and why is it unlikely?

On page 223, Behe argues that Intelligent Design does not mean good design. Throughout his book he emphasizes the Rube Goldberg nature of life. That is, most of his examples of Irreducible Complexity seem to be poor designs. He excuses this by saying that perhaps we don't know the intentions of the designer. But an evolutionist could equally say that perhaps these things evolved in a way we haven't thought of. Why does Behe think that the first is a good excuse, and the second is a bad excuse?

At the risk of dumping that entire web page onto this thread, let me also bring forward the concluding paragraph of the "Agument from Astonishment" section:

Basically, Behe is saying that if he personally doesn't know a naturalistic explanation, today, it must be because the explanation is non-naturalistic. But since his only evidence is his lack of knowledge, he's not actually drawing a logical conclusion. He's merely stating his willingness to give up.

My "babbling about abiogenesis" is not babbling about abiogenesis. Again, for Evolution to make its case, at some point some evolutionist is going to have to demonstrate one life form becoming another without appealing to "it evolved."

Excuse me, but evolution is indeed the theory that things evolve. You don't know the mechanism? Your ignorance is your problem, not that of science of science education. Let me be the one to help you out.

The specific mechanism is divergence from common descent via variation and natural selection. However much one may quibble about details of mechanism at the base-pair level or of the specific history of the development of flight in mammals, there's a crushing preponderance of evidence for common descent and macroevolutionary divergence. And, no, "common design" does not make just as much sense against the same evidence. Never mind all the stuff where the designer must have been drunk. How about endogenous retroviruses? Viral infection scars in DNA, transmitted from one generation to the next. Hard to get anything but absolutely positively common descent out of that.

Your claiming that "my side" hasn't put up a mechanism is the biggest joke of all. What Intelligent Designer? When? Designing what, exactly? How many times in history? Give specific examples.

[ml1954]

Trying to redefine science to make ID theory scientific isn't going to work. The same 99+% of scientists who think ID theory is not science will not agree to redefine science. Dembski tries hard but he's having a lot of trouble persuading other scientists.

[inquest]

Unscientific would be to speculate on the nature of the designer with no evidence about that to go on. The only evidence ID claims to have is that naturalistic explanations (that is, unintelligent processes lacking foresight) are insufficient to account for what's observed, just as such explanations are insufficient to account for the existence of your computer. There's nothing inherently unscientific about that line of reasoning.

[blowfish]

They argument boils down to an explanation of how science is currently locked in place to only use methodological materialism.

Yeah, darn that methodological materialism!! What's it ever done for us? (Other than modern chemistry, physics, electronics, biochemistry, mathematics, geology, spaceflight, aeronautics...)

We really need to expand science to include bibles, horoscopes and Ouija boards!

[DC Bound]

Trying to redefine science to make ID theory scientific isn't going to work. The same 99+% of scientists who think ID theory is not science will not agree to redefine science. Dembski tries hard but he's having a lot of trouble persuading other scientists.

That's a pretty argument-nuetral statement. Of course most scientists will reject the argument. All that shows is that evolution is entrenched--and there are plenty of evolutionists who admit that the pervasive acceptance of evolution has hurt it. If you read the section I pointed to, what do you make of the second chessboard diagram? By the laws of chess and chance, that configuration is impossible. Only by expanding the parameters of discovery do you come by a possible solution. Similarly, ID posits that when you find something that by the laws of nature and probability doesn't conform to the standard definition of science, then science must expand if it is going to account for the phenomenon. Again, I haven't seen an argument yet the defeats Dembski's breakdown of irreducible complexity, the Cambrian explosion, fine tuning, etc.

[ml1954]

Unscientific would be to speculate on the nature of the designer with no evidence about that to go on. The only evidence ID claims to have is that naturalistic explanations (that is, unintelligent processes lacking foresight) are insufficient to account for what's observed, just as such explanations are insufficient to account for the existence of your computer. There's nothing inherently unscientific about that line of reasoning.

Redefining words to support your assertions, theories, lines of reasoning, and positions doesn't work. Science, natural, and supernatural are words with solid definitions.

Sorry, but I can't have a discussion with someone who wants to change those definitions. And if you want to quibble with those definitions, we are just getting into a semantic debate which I consider a waste of time.

[inquest]

I haven't redefined any words. Nearly anyone you talk to will understand the dichotomy between natural and artificial. If you can't see that distinction, that makes you the one playing semantic games, not me. As for supernatural, it's not a scientific term at all, so anyone who injects it into a debate needs to justify it somehow. You haven't attempted to do so.

[ml1954]

Sorry, DC, but I'm not going to agree to a new definition of science. If you and Dembski want to pursue this endeavor, you've got a few hundred years of a very successful definition of science to overcome and hundreds of thousands of contemporary scientists to persuade.

[DC Bound]

If abiogenesis were supposedly your sticking point, you should have been saying that up front. You weren't. What you were saying was apparently unsupportable. You don't seem to have the integrity to admit that.

If you look at the sentence you base this argument on, you will see that I said evolution needs to show not just origins but also changing life forms afterward. Abiogenesis is indeed a sticking point, but it is not the one we were talking about, and my statement was not an attempt to shift the argument. It was instead a parenthetical addition that, you are right, was unnecessary. Personally, I would prefer a single line of debate, but answering so many evolutionists on different points as broad as a general defense of ID to the specifics of irreducible complexity takes more time than I have. Bringing integrity into it adds nothing to the debate. I'm more than happy to trade points and learn from the debate--but you consistently want to make it personal. I imagine that if you and I were having this discussion over a beer, we'd end up parting friends and each stronger for the exercise. As it is, though, I'd be totally satisfied if you refrain from the personal attacks and let your information do your debating. There are better ways to point out when you perceive a shifting argument.

[VadeRetro]

Again, I haven't seen an argument yet the defeats Dembski's breakdown of irreducible complexity, the Cambrian explosion, fine tuning, etc.

Apparently, you're going to keep arguing from the vastness of your personal ignorance forever, but let's do another one.

First the "For Dummies" overview of what's wrong with creationist Cambrian Explosion arguments. You should pay close attention to it.

"Deep roots and tiny prototypes: Old Fossils Contradict "Explosion of Species" Theory."

A more detailed article on the same find.
Tiny fossils reveal key step in animal evolution.

Finally,
Phylum-level evolution.

Of course, tomorrow and next week you still won't know any of that and will still be telling people that you don't.

[VadeRetro]

If you look at the sentence you base this argument on, you will see that I said evolution needs to show not just origins but also changing life forms afterward.

It does. Not only it does, but I did. To you. On this thread.

Abiogenesis is indeed a sticking point, but it is not the one we were talking about, and my statement was not an attempt to shift the argument. It was instead a parenthetical addition that, you are right, was unnecessary.

OK, it wasn't what it looked like. Now, whenever you're ready--please don't rush--you have been provided with various materials on the inadequacy of creation/ID claims regarding IC. Other claims of yours have been addressed as well. You seem to be skipping that stuff.

Bringing integrity into it adds nothing to the debate.

I recommend you experiment with it anyway, even if you have less to fire back with as a result.

I imagine that if you and I were having this discussion over a beer, we'd end up parting friends and each stronger for the exercise. As it is, though, I'd be totally satisfied if you refrain from the personal attacks and let your information do your debating. There are better ways to point out when you perceive a shifting argument.

OK, you didn't run away. Now, we still have the problem that nothing you're saying is true.

[DC Bound]

you've got a few hundred years of a very successful definition of science to overcome and hundreds of thousands of contemporary scientists to persuade.

Of course the current definition is successful. The point is that it is not necessarily all inclusive. At some point, it won't be just Dembski--it will be the preponderance of scientists, because they will eventually persuade themselves based on their own inability to resolve their own questions.

You didn't mention whether the problem demonstrated by the 2nd chess board illustration piqued even a bit of curiosity?

[VadeRetro]

If you look at the sentence you base this argument on, you will see that I said evolution needs to show not just origins but also changing life forms afterward.

Let me reinforce a point on this. I'm going to do it with links because everyone but you has seen all this and you're beating everyone up with what you personally don't know. Thus, you have to click on the links or it doesn't work.

Things changing.

Things changing, 2.

[DC Bound]

Apparently, you're going to keep arguing from the vastness of your personal ignorance forever,

First the "For Dummies" overview of what's wrong with creationist Cambrian Explosion arguments. You should pay close attention to it.

You and I are done. Good day.

[VadeRetro]

One last: Ichneumon's fish-to-elephant in "microevolutionary" baby steps demonstration. Every fossil listed is real and Google-able.

[VadeRetro]

You and I are done. Good day.

The ultimate dodge. How it works is you don't fire me. Keep spouting patent falsehoods on these threads and I expose them.

[DC Bound]

I reviewed our conversation so far. It started with you responding to a post I made to another Freeper regarding IC. You posted a link that supposedly debunks IC. I responded that it doesn't, and presented an article that does a good job of explaining why. At that point, you begin posting links that have nothing to do with IC, but instead show progressions of fossils. Who changed the argument? And then, without responding to the article I referred you to that shows why IC is still a key argument, you start making personal comments about ignorance, character, etc. And then, when I bow out because speaking to a person with no manners becomes tedious and useless, you call it the ultimate dodge. I'm all into learning, and more than willing to admit when a line of thinking reaches a dead end. The fact is, though, that you seem incapable arguing without invective, and still, in all your links, have yet to defeat IC.

Keep spouting patent falsehoods on these threads and I expose them.

Irreducible complexity has yet to be answered. Have at it.

[talleyman]

All of the world's religions are going to examine this guy and find him lacking?

LOL! Yes, and all his girlfriends, too.

[js1138]

Start here:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html