What Intelligent Design Is

(PH: the thread's not dead yet, it just smells that way)

If it is unknown or poorly understood then you can't prove against regularity or chance. Those proofs rely on having solid models. If you don't have a solid model, then you can't prove the null hypothesis wrong.

If that were to be true, the filter would have that as a final test. But Dembski's filter pigeonholes everything into only three classifications: Regularity, Chance, or Design.

If a observed phenomena can be explained by a law or law-like cause it is 'Regularity' and there is no need to proceed further.

Next comes 'Chance' -- Can the event be explained by a accepted model (theory)? If so then we stop there.
Note that the observer has to "accept" a theory of how the universe works to judge what is in the realm of possible.

Dembski's filter then drops everything past this point into 'Design' without further analysis.

If the null hypothesis were to be used correctly, then after classification the events would be compared to random cause.
When H_t - H₀ > some significant value (say 15%) then we can say the hypothesis under test (H_t) is substantially better than the null hypothesis (H₀).

The filter (rather dishonestly IMO) doesn't perform this final test. If it did, most (if not all) 'Design' classified events would then become no different than random noise -- a category that I called 'unknown' further up the thread.

Do models change?
Of course they do,

Certainly.

Helios drove the Sun chariot across the sky each day while other gods like Mars, Selene, and Saturn looked on. Then we realized there where no chariots or teams of horses in the sky, and the planets and stars were actually attached to transparent crystal spheres whirling around the earth. Later on angels would find good paying work moving around things like Venus and comets that didn't seem to be too firmly attached to their respective spheres. Then Copernicus and Kepler came along and changed the model again! It took a while, but the moving angels finally joined Helios, Mars, and Saturn in the unemployment line.
And then volcanoes were the forge chimney of Vulcan and earthquakes were caused by Neptune (or was that Poseidon?) whenever he got pissed off about something.
Then the model changed to 'core, mantle, crust' and then to the current plate tectonics. Vulcan and Neptune are now collecting retirement.
Ditto for the thunderbolts of Zeus. Electrostatic discharge '-ism' killed off the pagan gods (or it would have if the Church hadn't gotten to them first).

... but expecting that a given result of ID should be fixed and immovable is just as silly as requiring any other scientific tenet to be fixed and immovable. All are improved with more data.

Interesting. The proponents of the scientific method have never said that any theory was "fixed and immovable". Indeed, it's the religious who claim that their beliefs are the "Emeth, alpha, and omega" (That's "Truth, beginning and end" for those of you not familiar with the Hebrew scripture).

If naturalistic evolution is "unknown" or "poorly understood", why is it being taught dogmatically?

Nice subject shift. I was speaking of faults in Dembski's filter, namely: lacking a 'unknown' / 'poorly understood' category.
The 'quote-mining' department at ICR might have an opening for someone of your skills.

And I find it ironic whenever the religious folks use words like 'zealot' and 'dogma' ... don't you?

Hope you enjoyed your vacation.

"If that were to be true, the filter would have that as a final test."

No, it's a prerequisite.

"But Dembski's filter pigeonholes everything into only three classifications: Regularity, Chance, or Design."

This is true. But Dembski's filter DOES NOT say that the cause that was relied upon is provable. However, having exactly three classifications means that if you can prove that an event IS NOT the result of two of them, then it must fall into the third. There are cases where the cause is indeterminate. However, if you can prove that it is not regular, and you can prove that it is not chance, then the only one left is design. This is a valid form of proof, if the categories are correct. If you disagree with the categories, I would love to hear why you think one should be added or removed and why.

"Note that the observer has to "accept" a theory of how the universe works to judge what is in the realm of possible."

This is true of every inquiry, whether scientific or not. I don't see why ID is unique in this manner.

"If the null hypothesis were to be used correctly, then after classification the events would be compared to random cause."

Yes, chance. We have already passed the part of the filter where we showed that it was not the result of chance.

"If it did, most (if not all) 'Design' classified events would then become no different than random noise -- a category that I called 'unknown' further up the thread."

Actually, to qualify to pass the filter, a design-classified event HAS to differ from chance in a statistically significant manner.

"The proponents of the scientific method have never said that any theory was "fixed and immovable"."

That was my point exactly. However, they contradict themselves when they say that we can't use ID because we don't have perfect models.

"Nice subject shift. I was speaking of faults in Dembski's filter, namely: lacking a 'unknown' / 'poorly understood' category."

My point was that Dembski's filter would only be unusable for biological systems if evolution was a poorly understood phenomena. If scientists believe it is poorly understood, then I find it odd that it is being taught dogmatically. If it is well-understood, then Dembski's filter can be applied.

"The 'quote-mining' department at ICR might have an opening for someone of your skills."

Talk.Origins can be just as bad.

"And I find it ironic whenever the religious folks use words like 'zealot' and 'dogma' ... don't you?"

Why? You think that only religious people have zealotry and dogmas? The fact is that everyone has this, but religious people are honest enough to admit it.

I am indeed pleased to read these intelligent discussions on science, with which I am certain the Scriptural account of the Book of Genesis agrees absolutely.

You will note the literal nature with which I utilize all words, including the word science. In this post-modern academic world where nothing really has any meaning, as a result of moral relativity which is espoused as an essential dogma of many universities to the proving of the ineffability of the 'enlightened mind' whereby man makes himself God, science has come to be interpreted as much other than its technical meaning.

For the most part, science as a term should by right be today replaced with the term, Darwinistic Naturalism, a religious system.

I rejoice to see Intelligent Design promulgated throughout academia, because it is not a development of any religious system or progamme, but rather of science. I also encourage all persons of good will to set about the important mission of restoring the ethical foundation of true science, at the grass root level, by eliminating religious teachings from science courses in so called public schools funded by the taxpayers.

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.