I do.
The problem with ID is not that it is wrong, it is that it is not science. We cannot prove definitely that ID is wrong. However, little observational or calculational evidence has been provided to show that it is right.
On a thread a day or so ago this was discussed. The article quoted total numbers of publications in biology for the past 7 years or so, ever since Behe's book on ID. Total number of citations for Intelligent Design: 1. Total number of citations for "horse feces" : 97. The quote was perfect: "When the number of scientific citations for ID rises to the sum for horse feces (97), then maybe ID will achieve the level of intellectual respect it deserves."
Priceless.
It's a purely mathematical argument that could be easily modeled and tested.
We have heard that argument before. I would dearly love to see that mathematical treatment. If you have seen it, please post. I have asked every ID proponent who has ever mentioned that point to please post the math. I'm still waiting, however, with an open mind.
"On a thread a day or so ago this was discussed. The article quoted total numbers of publications in biology for the past 7 years or so, ever since Behe's book on ID. Total number of citations for Intelligent Design: 1. Total number of citations for "horse feces" : 97. The quote was perfect: "When the number of scientific citations for ID rises to the sum for horse feces (97), then maybe ID will achieve the level of intellectual respect it deserves."
Priceless. "
Yeah but citations mean nothing, particularly in a politically charged subject like this. I could totally imagine people not accepting totally publishable papers just because they were on ID. (And malciously accepting horse feces instead.)
For a real example, I remember my advisor told me about the special issue the National Academy of Sciences put out on energy a few years ago. (or some similar prestigious organization, I am terrible with names). This special issue discussed every single energy source *except* nuclear. It was a glaring omission, but done because politics was against it at the time.
"The problem with ID is not that it is wrong, it is that it is not science. "
---
There is an interpretation of ID which says God did everything, which I agree with you is not a scientific theory -- if there are no hard facts by which to gauge it, then the question is moot.
We have heard that argument before. I would dearly love to see that mathematical treatment. If you have seen it, please post. I have asked every ID proponent who has ever mentioned that point to please post the math. I'm still waiting, however, with an open mind.
---
Actually I'm not an ID proponent per say, just what I've read over the past few weeks on the web seems possible.
But here's a sketch of the model that I would use. Since I have a computer science background, I'll use that as my metaphor.
Let's think of animals as computer programs. For simplicity we can assume that there is a universal machine that can run all the programs (dog, cat, human, virus). In fact using this analogy we could identify different species (And their subcomponents, like eyes and livers) with their DNA sequences (heck the way it works with ribosomes, it practically is the same.) At the very least the length of the DNA sequence is some upper bound on complexity. We've also got to mesure the inherent complexity of the DNA sequence itself. The sequence AAA..AAA for example isn't so complex. I think there are measures one can use from Information Theory, but I don't know enough about them.
Plus I bet a molecular biologist could add additional insights, based on the fact that codons come in triples of base pairs, etc.
So now the problem boils down to, assuming some starting basic DNA material, what sorts of rules, and how often must they be applied to get DNA sequences of the length and complexity of today. Also to get the diversity of the pool we have today. That's really important because we have to measure both the "height" of the gene pool (that is, the difference between the most and least complex organisms), but the "width" -- that is, the distribution of the pool.
Some rules I'd use is some rule to length DNA sequences, as well as a rule obviously to mutate them. You could probably use the frequency of occurences of cosmic rays for how often mutations occur.
You'd probably also need to throw in a "reset" factor to count for catastrophes like the meteor showers, etc.
Now, the computational framework I'd use is a Markov model. Each state would represent a certain level of DNA complexity, and you could compute the transitions between them based on the above factors I've outlined. (If you had a state m for a DNA length of size m it might be pretty easy to work with.) Anyway, then I'd run it N timesteps to see how long you needed to get the both the maximum complexity you'd require and also see what the distribution
is. Then I'd see if N divided by the mutation rate was close to 5 billion years.
Something like that. Of course the devil's in the details and you might be able to make it spit out whatever you like based on the estimates you begin with. But it might produce something interesting, who knows.
Are yall telling me the ID people haven't made even a simple model like this?