Cherry Picking
Next: Extrapolation Prev: Recognizing a Tanguero TOC
Casey:
Who
Thus, Bill Gates wrote: “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more
advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” (Bill Gates, “The Road
Ahead,” pg. 228 (Viking, Penguin Group, 1996, Revised Edition)
Scott
Sat 12/14/2013
10:53 AM:
I hope you don’t take this wrong. However, I have seen a
tendency to cherry pick in your arguments.
Casey
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Then give me an example and show you’re not
doing the same.
Scott
3/10/14: Read on.
It appears you will take something that someone says out of
context. And you will use it in a way they would not approve. I don’t think
Bill Gates is a theist or that he believes in ID.
Casey
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: I never said he was a theist or believes in
ID (though I did see Bill Gates at a church service here in Seattle once…no
joke…so who knows if he believes in God). My point wasn’t that Bill Gates
believes in ID. Just that DNA is incredibly complex, and has computerlike
properties. So you are misrepresenting my purpose for using the quote in
order to make the false accusation that I took him out of context.
So to me, that does not strike me as arguing in good faith.
That seems more like a method I would expect to see in a courtroom.
Casey
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Except I didn’t do what you claimed I did. I
didn’t claim Gates was pro-ID, and him being pro-ID (or anti-ID) isn’t even a
necessary part of my argument. Gates is an expert on computers, and I just
quoted him for the purpose of showing that DNA has computer like properties. I
would expect a lawyer in a courtroom to misrepresent my arguments; is that what
you’re doing here?
If I take what you said on face value, I still have problems
with this statement. Bill is not a biologist and his code isn’t that good.
Would you trust Bill’s code to control the ailerons on the next jet you ride?
The FAA won’t. So Casey… please… I beg of you…
Casey:
Indeed, a paper in Nature
a couple years ago compared life to a Mandelbrot set, where the deeper you look
the more complex it becomes: “The more biologists look, the more complexity
there seems to be. … [A]s sequencing and other new technologies spew forth
data, the complexity of biology has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude.
Delving into it has been like zooming into a Mandelbrot set — a space that is
determined by a simple equation, but that reveals ever more intricate.” (Erica
Check Hayden, “Life is complicated,” Nature, Vol. 464: 664 (April 1, 2010).)
Scott
Sat 12/14/2013
10:53 AM:
Ok,
but you are not quoting ID literature. Going to Nature magazine to explain what
ID predicts, just doesn’t seem right.
Casey
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Now you’re playing a game. In fact, the fact
that Nature isn’t pro-ID makes my argument STRONGER because it shows that even NON-ID
sources recognize the complexity of life.
Casey: Even
Dawkins said: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1
(W.W. Norton 1996, new edition).)
Scott
Sat 12/14/2013
10:53 AM:
Take
what I said about your quotation from Bill Gates and apply it here. You and I
both know that Dawkins has a great deal to say about ID.
Scott
2/4/14: Your quotation misconstrues and manipulates Dawkin’s meaning, Casey.
His emphasis is on the word “appearance”.
But
here are a couple quotes from Dawkins on Intelligent Design. Enough context is
retained so his meaning is clear.
Ben Stein: What do think
is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to
some issues in genetics, or in evolution?
Richard Dawkins: Well, it could come about in the following way: it
could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization
evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of
technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this
planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose
it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details
of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of
designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere
in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to come
about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have
just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
Expelled:
No Intelligence Allowed (2008-04-18)
The absolute morality that the religious person
might profess would include what, stoning people for adultery, death for
apostasy, punishment for breaking the Sabbath; these are all things which are
religiously based absolute moralities. I don’t think I want an absolute
morality. I think I want a morality that is thought-out, reasoned, argued,
discussed—based upon, almost say—intelligent design. Can we not design our
society which has the sort of morality, the sort of society we want to live in?
Dawkins on Q&A
(8-3-2010), replying to a Muslim man who asked about 'absolute morality'.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM:
EXACTLY! You’re just grasping for ways to dismiss my arguments here and you’re
not playing fair. OF COURSE I never claimed Dawkins was pro-ID. But the fact
that he is anti-ID makes my argument STRONGER, because it shows that even
ANTI-ID folks admit the complexity of life.
Casey: So we’re always finding
out that life is more complicated than we previously thought.
Scott 2/4/14: See discussion on Complex Structures.
Scott
Sat 12/14/2013
10:53 AM:
Who’s
“we”? I’m not seeing discoveries made by ID proponents.
Casey
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: And now you’re nitpicking over my use of the
word “we.” We means “humans in general.” And for the record, ID proponents have
made these discoveries too. Please see the following papers by pro-ID
scientists which made discoveries showing how life is highly complex.
- Richard v. Sternberg, “On the Roles of Repetitive
DNA Elements in the Context of a Unified Genomic–Epigenetic System,” Annals
of the NY Academy of Science, Vol. 981:154–188 (2002).
Scott
2/5/14: We’ve already discussed Complex Structures.
Regarding
Sternberg, you write,
Then in
2005, Sternberg and leading geneticist James A. Shapiro conclude that "one
day, we will think of what used to be called 'junk DNA' as a critical component
of truly 'expert' cellular control regimes." It seems that day may have
come.
However, as
late as 2011, Dawkins writes of DNA synonyms. Why would he do that if Sternberg
was correct?
Sorry, I
don’t have time to look at all of these bibliographic entries. But one would
think you’d at least hit the ball out of the park with your first one. I think
you need to do a little checking before you cut and paste voluminous spam into
your emails.
At least
with your first entry, ID theorists do not appear to be part of the “we” who
are “always finding out” things. At this point I don’t want to give ID
theorists credit for contributing to our body of knowledge. I still see them as
disregarding actual contributions and hard headedly sticking with repudiated theories.
Their failure to accept Junk DNA is a perfect example. We’ve already discussed Junk DNA, so I
won’t repeat that discussion here.
However,
it’s clear ID theorists cannot accept junk DNA. Since ID posits that different
species are unrelated, junk DNA refutes ID. Since this is cataclysmic to your
theory, I understand why you cannot accept it.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM:
- David J D’Onofrio & Gary An, "A comparative approach for the
investigation of biological information processing: An examination of the
structure and function of computer hard drives and DNA," Theoretical
Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 7:3 (2010).
Scott
2/9/15: One creation apologetics web site warns against “Elephant hurling” in
rule 15 on the forum
official rules:
Elephant hurling, such as providing a barrage of
citations to give the illusion of weighty evidence.
- Josiah D. Seaman and John C. Sanford, "Skittle:
A 2-Dimensional Genome Visualization Tool," BMC Informatics, Vol.
10:451 (2009).
- Michael J. Denton, “The Types: A Persistent
Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism,” BIO-Complexity, Vol.
2013 (3) (2013).
- Berkley E. Gryder, Chase W. Nelson, and Samuel S.
Shepard, “Biosemiotic Entropy of the Genome: Mutations and Epigenetic
Imbalances Resulting in Cancer,” Entropy, 15: 234-261 (2013).
- Matti Leisola, Ossi Pastinen, and Douglas D. Axe,
“Lignin--Designed Randomness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2012 (3) (2012)
- Fernando Castro-Chavez, “A Tetrahedral
Representation of the Genetic Code Emphasizing Aspects of Symmetry,”
BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2012 (2) (2012).
- Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor
University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
- David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?,” Life, Vol.
2:106-134 (2012).
- Douglas D. Axe, Philip Lu, and Stephanie Flatau, “A
Stylus-Generated Artificial Genome with Analogy to Minimal Bacterial Genomes,”
BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(3) (2011).
- Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, “Can the Origin
of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating?,” BIO-Complexity,
Vol. 2011(2) (2011).
- Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary
Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,”
BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).
- Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and
Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple
Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).
- Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution,
Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The
Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
- Douglas D. Axe, “The Limits of Complex Adaptation:
An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations,”
BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(4):1 (2010).
- Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis
pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law
of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21
(2010).
- Douglas D. Axe, “The Case Against a Darwinian Origin
of Protein Folds,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (1) (2010).
- David L. Abel, “Constraints vs Controls,” The Open
Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, Vol. 4:14-27 (January 20, 2010).
- David L. Abel, “The GS (genetic selection)
Principle,” Frontiers in Bioscience, Vol. 14:2959-2969 (January 1, 2010).
- D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman, and T. Todd, “The
Coherence of an Engineered World,” International Journal of Design & Nature
and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(1):47–65 (2009).
- Ossi Turunen, Ralph Seelke, and Jed Macosko, “In
silico evidence for functional specialization after genome duplication in
yeast,” Federation of European Microbiological Societies (FEMS) Yeast Research,
Vol. 9: 16-31 (2009).
- Richard A. Carnhart and Adam Cenian, “Implication of
Proven Limits on Scientific Knowledge: Gödel’s Proof, Quantum Uncertainty,
Chaos Theory and Specified Compelxity of Information Theory,” Bulletin de la
Société Des Sciences Et Des Lettres de Łódź, Vol. LIX (Série:
Recherches Sur Les Déformations LVIII): 7-18 (2009).
- David L. Abel, “The Universal Plausibility Metric
(UPM) & Principle (UPP),” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol.
6(27) (2009).
- David L. Abel, “The Capabilities of Chaos and
Complexity,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Vol. 10:247-291
(2009).
- David L. Abel, “The biosemiosis of prescriptive
information,” Semiotica, Vol. 174(1/4):1-19 (2009). A. C. McIntosh,
“Information and Entropy – Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living
Systems,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol.
4(4):351-385 (2009).
- A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers
and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and
Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).
- David L. Abel, “The ‘Cybernetic Cut’: Progressing
from Description to Prescription in Systems Theory,” The Open Cybernetics and
Systemics Journal, Vol. 2:252-262 (2008).
- Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information:
Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol.
56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).
- Michael Sherman, “Universal Genome in the Origin of
Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution,” Cell Cycle, Vol. 6(15):1873-1877 (August 1,
2007).
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring
the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and
Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).
- Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz-Albert Becker,
"Carnivorous Plants," in Handbook of Plant Science, Vol 2:1493-1498
(edited by Keith Roberts, John Wiley & Sons, 2007).
- David L. Abel, “Complexity, self-organization, and
emergence at the edge of chaos in life-origin models,” Journal of the
Washington Academy of Sciences, Vol. 93:1-20 (2007).
- Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Kurt Stüber, Heinz Saedler,
Jeong Hee Kim, “Biodiversity and Dollo’s Law: To What Extent can the Phenotypic
Differences between Misopates orontium and Antirrhinum majus be Bridged by
Mutagenesis,” Bioremediation, Biodiversity and Bioavailability, Vol. 1(1):1-30
(2007).
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutations: The Law of Recurrent Variation,”
Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotechnology, Vol. 1:601-607 (2006).
- David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors,
“Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of
Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).
- David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “More than
Metaphor: Genomes Are Objective Sign Systems,” Journal of BioSemiotics, Vol.
1(2):253-267 (2006).
- Øyvind Albert Voie, “Biological function and the
genetic code are interdependent,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol.
28:1000–1004 (2006).
- Kirk Durston and David K. Y. Chiu, “A Functional
Entropy Model for Biological Sequences,” Dynamics of Continuous, Discrete &
Impulsive Systems: Series B Supplement (2005).
- John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary
Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, Vol. 98: 155-166 (2005).
Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting
Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315
(2004)
- Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating
evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino
acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).
- Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Dynamic genomes,
morphological stasis, and the origin of irreducible complexity,” in Valerio
Parisi, Valeria De Fonzo, and Filippo Aluffi-Pentini eds., Dynamical Genetics
(2004).
- Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological
information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004)
- David L. Abel, “Is Life reducible to complexity?,”
Fundamentals of Life, Chapter 1.2 (2002).
- David K.Y. Chiu and Thomas W.H. Lui, “Integrated Use
of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,”
International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 4(3):766-775 (September 2002).
- Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael
Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian
Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol.
219: 325-342 (2002).
- Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome
Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410
(2002).
- Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to
Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular
Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).
- Solomon Victor and Vijaya M. Nayak, “Evolutionary
anticipation of the human heart,” Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of
England, Vol. 82:297-302 (2000).
- Solomon Victor, Vljaya M. Nayek, and Raveen
Rajasingh, “Evolution of the Ventricles,” Texas Heart Institute Journal, Vol.
26:168-175 (1999).
- R. Kunze, H. Saedler, and W.-E. Lönnig, “Plant
Transposable Elements,” in Advances in Botanical Research, Vol. 27:331-470
(Academic Press, 1997).
- Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996).
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s
Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984;
Dallas, Texas: Lewis & Stanley Publishing, 4th ed., 1992).
- Andy C. McIntosh, “Information and Thermodynamics in
Living Systems,” pp. 179-201, in Robert J. Marks II, Michael J. Behe, William
A. Dembski, Bruce L. Gordon, and John C. Sanford eds., Biological Information:
New Perspectives (Singapore: World Scientific, 2013).
- Jonathan Wells, “Not Junk After All:
Non-Protein-Coding DNA Carries Extensive Biological Information,” pp. 210-231,
in Robert J. Marks II, Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Bruce L. Gordon,
and John C. Sanford eds., Biological Information: New Perspectives (Singapore:
World Scientific, 2013).
- Donald Johnson, “Biocybernetics and Biosemiosis,”
pp. 402-413, in Robert J. Marks II, Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Bruce
L. Gordon, and John C. Sanford eds., Biological Information: New Perspectives
(Singapore: World Scientific, 2013).
- Jed C. Macosko and Amanda M. Smelser, “An Ode to the
Code: Evidence for Fine-Tuning in the Standard Codon Table,” pp. 418-434, in
Robert J. Marks II, Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Bruce L. Gordon, and
John C. Sanford eds., Biological Information: New Perspectives (Singapore:
World Scientific, 2013).
- Michael J. Behe, “Getting There First: An Evolutionary
Rate Advantage for Adaptive Loss-of-Function Mutations,” pp. 450-473, in Robert
J. Marks II, Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Bruce L. Gordon, and John C.
Sanford eds., Biological Information: New Perspectives (Singapore: World
Scientific, 2013).
- Jonathan Wells, “The Membrane Code: A Carrier of
Essential Biological Information That Is Not Specified by DNA and Is Inherited
Apart from It,” pp. 474-488, in Robert J. Marks II, Michael J. Behe, William A.
Dembski, Bruce L. Gordon, and John C. Sanford eds., Biological Information: New
Perspectives (Singapore: World Scientific, 2013).
- Douglas D. Axe and Ann K. Gauger, “Explaining
Metabolic Innovation: Neo-Darwinism versus Design,” pp. 489-507, in Robert J.
Marks II, Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Bruce L. Gordon, and John C
Sanford eds., Biological Information: New Perspectives (Singapore: World
Scientific, 2013).
- A. C. McIntosh, “Functional Information and Entropy
in Living Systems,” Design and Nature III: Comparing Design in Nature with
Science and Engineering, Vol. 87 (Ashurt, Southampton, United Kindom: WIT
Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, WIT Press, 2006).
- Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar
Ejection Force?” Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, Vol. 98:71-96 (2005).
- Heinz-Albert Becker and Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig,
“Transposons: Eukaryotic,” Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (John Wiley &
Sons, 2005).
- Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic
analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic
bacteria,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design &
Nature, Rhodes, Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (Ashurst,
Southampton, United Kingdom: WIT Press, 2004).
Scott
Sat 12/14/2013 10:53 AM: Please don’t
read this tone incorrectly. I say this softly and with all due respect. I am
not seeing ID as contributing to our knowledge in any way.
Casey
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Well, it’s not necessarily your fault if you
are misinformed, there’s a lot of misinformation out there about ID. And if you
learned about ID by reading Wikipedia, then you’re the victim of LOTS of
misinformation.
Scott
2/5/14: Through the course of our
discussion, I think I’ve given the Discovery Institute ample
opportunity to convince me of the theory of ID.
Casey
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: In fact, ID has already led to new avenues
of research, new scientific knowledge, and scientific discoveries in a variety
of fields. In the context of historical sciences such as neo-Darwinian
evolution or intelligent design, new knowledge can take the form of practical
insights into the workings of biology in the present day (potentially leading
to insights into fighting disease), as well as new knowledge about biological
history and the origin of natural structures. Below are ten examples of areas
in which ID is helping science to generate new knowledge. Each example includes
citations to technical scientific articles and publications by ID proponents
that elaborate on ID’s contributions to these fields:
Scott
2/5/14: ID appears to be as false as luminiferous aether and phlogistin.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM:
• Biochemistry: ID encourages scientists to recognize and understand the origin
of complex and specified information in biology in the form of finely tuned
DNA, RNA, protein sequences, and biochemical pathways. This has practical
implications not just for explaining biological origins but also for
engineering enzymes and anticipating or fighting the future evolution of
diseases.[39]
• Genetics and Physiology: ID’s predictions have
guided scientists to do research seeking function for non-coding “junk DNA” or
allegedly “vestigial” structures, allowing us to understand development,
cellular biology, and the function of many biological systems. [40]
• Systematics: ID encourages scientists to understand
whether similarities between living species, including examples of extreme
genetic “convergent evolution,” are best explained by ID or by Darwinian
evolution. ID has also encouraged scientists to see life as being front-loaded
with information such that it is designed to evolve within limits.
Scott
1/14/14: What would characterize those limits? What causal mechanisms in the
cell would realize and adhere to those limits? Even if your deity creates life
out of thin air with genes that copy themselves imperfectly, evolution should
take hold and modify from the original gene set without bound.
Casey
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM:
This would explain previously unanticipated “out of place” genes in various
taxa. [41]
Scott
1/14/14: Please define an out of place gene? What out of place genes have been
found? Rather than spamming me with tidbits, innuendo and fallacious arguments,
just once I’d like to see you give me some meat. Give me something… just one
thing that’s true! I see no reason to go down all these rabbit holes.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM:
• Cell biology: ID directs scientists to view the cell as having been built
from “designed structures rather than accidental by-products of neo-Darwinian
evolution.” This has led researchers to reverse-engineer irreducibly complex
molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum, to understand their function
as machines. In turn, scientists are casting light on how the machine-like
properties of life allow biological systems to function, thus allowing
researchers to better understand molecular machines and propose testable
hypotheses about the causes of cancer and other diseases. [42]
Scott
3/12/2014: Why do you keep trotting out the flagellum argument? That was
refuted at the Dover
Trial.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM:
• Microbiology: ID has produced research into the limited power of Darwinian
mechanisms to evolve complex traits that require multiple mutations to
function. This research has practical implications for responding to public
health challenges such as antibiotic resistance. [43]
Scott
3/12/2014: “Darwinian mechanisms”… Maybe you mean… hmm… Evolution by Natural
Selection… ‘pretty hard to understand germ theory using ID… where your deity
creates the next influenza isn’t it?
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM:
• Systems biology: ID leads biologists to look at biological systems as
integrated components of larger systems that are designed to work together in a
top-down, coordinated fashion. [44]
• Bioinformatics: ID has led scientists to investigate
the computer-like properties of DNA and the genome in the hopes of better
understanding genetics and the origin of biological systems. This includes
seeking new layers of information and functional language embedded in the
genetic codes, as well as other codes and sources of information within living
organisms. [45]
• Information theory: ID has helped researchers to
understand intelligence as a mechanism which generates certain types of
information and complexity. This mechanism can be studied scientifically,
leading to theoretical research into the information-generative powers of
intelligent causes as compared to Darwinian searches, leading in turn to the
finding that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited. This has
practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve
problems. ID has also motivated scientists to study proper measures of
biological information, leading to concepts like complex and specified
information or functional sequence complexity. This allows us to better
quantify complexity and understand what features are, or are not, within the
reach of Darwinian evolution. [46]
Scott
2/5/14: Mormonism seems like a pretty good religion. People dress up. They
speak nicely. They build gorgeous temples. They can put forward a decent
looking presidential candidate. But when you get into the details, you learn
about Jesus appearing to the American Indians, Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics,
populating far off planets, polygamy, the evil dark races, creepy underwear. It
goes on and on and on.
Similarly,
ID, a theory that posits that some deity created unrelated species out of thin
air, hardly appears to be capable of all these great things.
I don’t
think responding to every falsity you provide makes any sense at all. I’m not
working in a think tank for pay. I am a private citizen.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM:
• Paleontology: ID helps scientists to understand how the irreducibly complex
nature of biological systems can predict patterns of gain and loss of
biodiversity, due to “explosions” of diversity, mass extinction, or stasis
throughout the history of life. [47]
Scott
3/12/14: Explosions of diversity… This shouldn’t happen per ID.
• Physics and Cosmology: ID directs scientists to
investigate instances of cosmic fine-tuning which are required for the
existence of advanced forms of life (discovering, e.g., the Galactic Habitable
Zone). This has significant implications for proper cosmological models of the
universe, hints at proper avenues for successful “theories of everything” which
must accommodate fine-tuning, and has other implications for theoretical
physics. [48]
Scott
Sat 12/14/2013 10:53 AM: As I have
described elsewhere, I see it as a tremendous distraction. Countless man hours
are spent discussing ID. No ID people appear to be digging or looking for
people on Mars or searching for other inhabitable planets or building
colliders. They appear to be fighting the science community at every turn.
Casey
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Hmm. I wasn’t aware ID proponents were
against building colliders. But ID proponents are doing research—as seen
by the numerous papers cited above. So you’re simply believing false
stereotypes.
Scott
2/5/14: This is a good point, and I’m going to make a partial concession here.
Just because religious zealot/political right wingers are killing collider
projects does not mean that ID theorists are part of this. So, there’s my
partial concession.
However,
when you establish a distrust of scientists as ID theorists do, and provide
cover for religious activists, you create a climate that discourages true
science. Having been a part of the church world for 25 years of my adult life,
I have sat in the pews and I have been in the bible studies, and I’ve heard the
arguments..
I
am reminded of a conversation I had circa ’85 with a fellow church member, Leo
Schwindt. He said, “And we know evolution isn’t true. Right Scott?” I respond,
“Well…” Leo goes, “Scott, you better watch out.” Anotherwords, my belief in
evolution could put my salvation in jeopardy.
And
there’s Bryan, who thinks you provide the answer and uses your misguided
information to preach to others in churches. You give him a false credibility.
Guys like him preach to non-scientists like my son and quench their thirst so
that they no longer seek the truth.
This
anecdote is emblematic of decades involvement in the church culture which right
now is feeding off the anti-science coming out of the so called ID theorists.
It’s really just group denial on a massive scale.
Scott
Sat 12/14/2013 10:53 AM: “We” need to
encourage investigation into science and not discourage it and not attempt to
co-opt it to support our religious agenda.
Casey
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: I agree! But it’s not ID proponents
who are stifling research. Rather, it’s anti-ID scientists wouldn’t try to
stifle pro-ID research from being published. There are NUMEROUS examples of
this.
Scott
Sat 12/14/2013 10:53 AM: Remember, the worst thing we can do is prove that I
didn’t raise my children to believe a lie. It’s important for you to understand
my motivations here.
Next: Extrapolation Prev: Recognizing a Tanguero TOC