Posted on 09/05/2007 8:06:33 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
Since this research topic is “evolutionary informatics” - a branch of computer science - and not directly related to biological information you might want to back off. I’m not sure why the very idea of intelligent design is scary but as a computer scientist I know that evolutionary informatics is an exciting field. Approaching it from several viewpoints - including one that resembles the concept of intelligent design - seems wise.
It’s too bad the buzz words are the same. Of course, by the very nature of the science, evolutionary informatics experiments ARE intelligent design as they are initiated, controlled, and observed by a presumably intelligent human researcher. But that’s semantics.
You have to admit it's going to be pretty hard to have a research budget if schools are going to reject grants and return the money whenever they try to do research. And they aren't going to have any laboratories if schools are going to ban people from working because of "embarrassment" (how long did it take CU to get rid of the REAL embarrassment which was that fraud who stole people's paintings and passed them off as his own, Ward Churchill?).
And it's going to be hard to write a "peer-reviewed" article if schools aren't going to allow the research, aren't going to allow trained qualified people to work on or write anything, and the papers are blackballed so that nobody competent is ALLOWED to review them under penalty of expulsion from their field of study.
I guess they have purged enough of the social sciences, now they are coming for the Engineers. That d*mn math stuff just is too much, I guess.
Heresy must not stand.
>>Yet, at every freaking turn, they shut down anything that provides even an inkling of possibility to address their demands…<<
There are all kinds of theories that did not get immediate acceptance. For every Brownian motion that quickly makes sense there is a Debroglie wave length which does not.
This is overcome by presenting indisputable evidence.
The problem with ID, from a scientific point of view is that it basically boils down to a philosophical argument - that the universe is so complex and beautiful that God must have had a hand.
Now, I believe that. But its not science.
And so far, the leading ID people have focused either on claiming conspiracy, or making ludicrous arguments (like irreducible complexity), or just been outright dishonest - like the Discovery Insitute’s attempt to discredit science or the Evolutionaryinformatics attempt to use out of context quotes like the one by David Wolpert when they know that Wolpert thinks Dembski is wrong and dishonest.
That’s not the approach to take if one really believes that they can show the hand of God.
This is very odd to me as a Christian since the bible is clear that faith will always be required and that God almost never provides repeatable proof, except in our hearts.
Methinks thou doth protest too much. You are here...bashing a victim of scientific supression...
And why?
Because Evolutionary Informatics (an information-theory branch of computer science) frightens your weak personal beliefs.
Which is to say: Darwinism is *that* fragile that it must be propped up with lies...and when the lies fail...it's challengers must be personally and professionally attacked.
Darwin's evolutionary theory is biological...so it is telling that you react so strongly to even moderate developments in computer science (information theory).
But react you must, as you are wedded to Darwinism and its offshoots even at the expense of the search for truth.
That a science such as information theory can threaten a *biological* theory like Evolution would be humorous were not the academic climate so clouded by hails to Darwinism.
That's completely backwards. ID explains the origin of data, of design, of life. When a man in a lab inserts a gene into an animal, we have Intelligent Design...we have a new life form such as a pig that produces human growth hormones.
That's science. Moreover, ID is a falsifiable theory. Where there is no bias in a system, there is no ID and can not be any ID.
But the same can't be said for Evolution. There is no published, peer-reviewed criteria for falsifying the Theory of Evolution.
So it's Evolution that isn't scientific because it can't be falsified.
...and because Evolution isn't scientific, it must be propped up by non-scientific means such as shutting down anyone who challenges it.
Hence, the article for this thread. QED.
One interesting aspect here is that Robert Marks’ data, research/methodology, and results aren’t being challenged...
I think you recall the plagiarism incident. It had to do with web statistics. You were called on it almost immediately, and several times thereafter. You posted that as SirLinksaLot. Either you plagiarized, or you have permission from Dembski to publish his work under your name. (Or perhaps you wrote the article that appeared on UncommonDescent.)
There is also an interesting episode regarding Johannes Lerle. It seems an article appeared and went almost unnoticed for two days, then within an hour of its posting on FR, it appeared on Dembski's website. You and I were both pinged to that thread.
I have asked you a number of times a very simple question: Are you Bill Dembski, or do you contribute in any way to his website? You have never given a straight yes or no answer.
I would think first of the person who first published the Blind Watchmaker metaphor.
If I said "Charles," in the context of evolution, would you first think of someone who has contributed little or nothing to the field?
There is a huge difference between observing the intelligent design of current gene manipulation, where we not only observe the process but are quite familiar with the abilities and habits of the science community performing the procedures and assuming the origin and development of all living organisms is based on the same processes.
"That's science. Moreover, ID is a falsifiable theory. Where there is no bias in a system, there is no ID and can not be any ID.
Is your statement "Where there is no bias in a system, there is no ID and can not be any ID." falsifiable? Is bias falsifiable? Is the procedure used to determine bias falsifiable?
Without significant verification that bias cannot occur without intelligence then the lack of bias in a given sample does not falsify intelligent design. Without substantial evidence that whatever procedure used to determine bias cannot produce false negatives, it cannot be used to falsify intelligent design.
You are aware I hope that even if your assumption can be verified it does nothing to support the concept that bias equals ID.
"But the same can't be said for Evolution. There is no published, peer-reviewed criteria for falsifying the Theory of Evolution.
Since the ToE is made up of a number of sub theories and tenets, each of which does have falsifiable criteria it doesn't surprise me that the overall ToE does not have a single falsifiable criterion.
To address your claim I would have to know which tenet or sub theory you feel is not falsifiable. So, what exactly do you feel is not falsifiable?
"So it's Evolution that isn't scientific because it can't be falsified.
You certainly place a lot of significance on the criterion of falsifiability. A theory may need to be falsifiable in principle initially but surely there is a time where after many, many attempts to falsify a theory that falsifiability becomes less important. Is the Theory of Gravitation still falsifiable?
What you have is micro-design. That's not the same thing as macro-design.
Or something like that.
Incorrect. One can have bias without having Intelligent Design, in fact. Gravity will bias a system, for example (i.e. things fall down).
It's the converse that differs. One can't have Intelligent Design without bias.
That's why the lack of bias in a system falsifies ID for said system.
No tenant or even sub-tenant of the Theory of Evolution has a published, peer-reviewed falsification criteria. The entire superset of ToE is unscientific, and has always been unscientific...based upon this glaring and unforgivable, inexcusable omission.
That's fine. Micro-Design proves my point that we have evidence of design all the same.
Ok, I really don't. I go here...
...and then I check out the Journal of Molecular Evolution and see what the many articles have to say.
If the guy wants to be a crank on a subject that he is not educated in or paid to perform or paid to teach- let him do it on his own time and not with the imprimatur of the college that did not hire him based upon his expertise or views upon the subject.
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.