Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]

Fox News | 12/20/05

[donh]

"How will your proposed lab experiment produce this effectively infinite stretch of continuous gradual change from lifeless to lifeful?"

It only needs to simulate the final stage of this infinite process.

There is no "final stage" just as there is no distinct species separation between zebras and horses, in actuality. And just as there is no distinct, technically precise notion of what life is, against which to construct your proposed experiment. Have you really no sense of how ludicrous it is to claim that our supposed incapacity to construct life from "scratch" will demonstrate ID, while at the same time claiming you don't need a rigorous definition of life to perform this experiment?

So now you are claiming abiogenesis is what science thinks?

Yes, as of the year 2000, there was a way to begin to see this. See Woese, and the recent changes at the root of the tree of life.

Verification and falsification are not necessary prerequisites to think this. It is not just assumed, the conclusion has already been reached? On what basis is this conclusion science?

On the basis of inductive logic extrapolating current data backwards in time regarding the DNA of all the primitive living creatures we could dig up. In exactly the same manner that we concluded that evolutionary theory explains the bones of creatures we've dug up that no longer seem to exist as living creatures. Maybe you should make an effort to understand what science actually consists of before cracking wise (and fracking endlessly) about it.

If life came to exist through an infinitely long, unguided process, you would have as much challenge of proving it as proving God exists via the scientific method.

Well, fortunately, we don't try to raise our confidence to the level of proof in science, so it matters not to the extent of a fart in a hurricane.

Only? So physical laws are irrelevant?

Are you trying to bait me, or are you really this clueless? Just as a general guideline--you may assume from now on that there are a great many things I believe may be so, most of which I will fail to mention in any given note I may write.

You already implied that causality is not allowed to get in the way of abiogenesis. (Of course if it is troubling for ID then it must be valid. /s) Now you are saying lab tests are irrelevant. I assume because physical laws are irrelevant.

I don't believe I said that. I believe I said lab tests aren't the only way to do science, and I believe I also said the lab test you propose is absurd, and quite likely will never occur in actuality, because nobody cares, or will ever care, sufficiently to bother.--for one reason, because its results wouldn't be very conclusive for anyone on either side of the ID argument, whichever way the experiment works out.

I mean if understanding the correlation of physical laws to the formation of life is too costly, then those laws must be unimportant.

I have no idea what you are on about here--nothing, I suspect. Physical laws are deeply involved in every scientific experiment or proposed field study.

Never mind that we spend millions testing claims of super string theory when they are not even falsifiable.

There is strong consensus that an experiment currently scheduled for 2010 will be potentially falsifiable. Several astronomy projects on a currently feasable schedule also appear to be potentially falsifiable.

[donh]

This is your reply to my comparison of synthetic muscle to real muscle?

Can you lift a car with your muscles? I can with a scissor jack, and a scissor jack is smaller, cheaper, and easier to feed and repair than you are, by a substantial margin, and will still work after being stuffed in my trunk for 20 years, unlike you.

[unlearner]

Agreed, but it is the table, not the data, which is falsifiable. I was not saying that changes to the periodic table falsified the whole thing.

Don't get sidetracked. What is at stake here is whether historical events can be falsified. I contend that they only can by using known historical events which cannot be falsified. Ultimately, we can know history, but we cannot falsify it without some external measure of comparison like written historical records.

I am hoping you have as persuasive of an argument against this as you did in exposing my arguments against natural history in general.

I think you can make "predictions" and verify them. But falsification is contingent upon other known history. The known history must be accepted as true as a premise (axiomatically) in order to falsify other historical events.

Take, for example, some historical figure. If there is little evidence of his existence, how would you go about falsifying it? Perhaps we could falsify the claim of Johnny Jones being the thirtieth president of the US, because we know there is only one president and it was not him. But can we falsify Mr. Jone's existence altogether? Can we falsify the claim Mr. Jones went shopping in Little Rock on New Year's Eve, in 1900? How?

If we cannot falsify as simple of a historical claim as this, how do you propose that BIG HISTORICAL claims (like abiogenesis) can be falsified? I don't mean falsifying theoretical predictions about what historical evidence will be found. I mean, history itself. How can it be falsifed without relying on non falsifiable historical claims?

[unlearner]

"Nanomachines don't evolve--and if they did, I sort of doubt that their investors expect them to mature into useful entities over the next few million year. Your grapeshot approach to logic never fails you, does it?"

My reply was logical. Your argument for the formation of life rests on unguided processes over vast amounts of time. My argument rests on guided, goal oriented processes. But when it comes to nano technology, you are "not so sanguine about the unlimited potential of itty-bitty minicomputers running amok in the environment, working together to produce ever more useful results." I would say unguided processes are more akin to running amok, than guided ones.

And nanomachines should evolve, even if their evolution is guided. Computer technology evolved this way.

[unlearner]

Well, if you boil your argument down to its essentials, we have that it is impossible, or nearly so, to replicate abiogenesis in the lab; but if it is possible to assemble life, it is meaningless in the context of explaining the origins of life. This position seems to imply the premise that intelligent assembly is simpler and more efficient way for life to form.

"Why in the world would it matter that natural processes are inefficient to the theory that abiogensis was natural and gradual?"

Even if you have infinite amounts of time, you still need to demonstrate that it is logical for "progress" to made toward the formation of life, and that setbacks would not tend to overwhelm this progress.

Perhaps, abiogenesis is so inefficient that it could never happen even if an unlimited amount of time is available.

[unlearner]

"so science marches on experiments or field work that can't possibly be done with the resources we possess"

Sometimes tests of theories are put forward for which science must wait for technology to become available.

"Biological systems do not get what they need for free."

Whatever. I think you ought to just concede that budget is not a demarcation criterion. This pettiness is unbecoming.

"Did the other couple of thousand researchers and investors sign a document concurring?"

Here you go again, trying to nitpick while missing the thrust of the argument. It really does not matter if only one in a hundred investors believe we will ever be able to assemble custom materials atom by atom. It doesn't matter if seventy per cent of the experts disagree with this goal. It is enough that some investors and some researchers DO have it as a goal. This contradicts your claim that no one has any interest in technology that would support my test. The fact is, my test will be achievable if certain industry leaders of nanotechnology achieve their goal.

"Yea, this is how you do science--you remake some warmed-over, unlikely, drivel out of an adolescent science fiction story and claim it's a significant scientific experiment."

No. I think I've read eight books on this subject in which this proposition was discussed and debated. Eric Drexler is the leading proponent of mimicking the assembly line at the atomic level. His detractors explain why this may not be possible. There are plenty of scientists working in this field who believe the objective is reachable. It is not science fiction.

[unlearner]

"Can you lift a car with your muscles? I can with a scissor jack, and a scissor jack is smaller, cheaper, and easier to feed and repair than you are, by a substantial margin, and will still work after being stuffed in my trunk for 20 years, unlike you."

Mr. Apple, Mr. Orange. Glad to meet you. Likewise I'm sure.

My change holder is more efficient at holding change than your jack.

[unlearner]

"And just as there is no distinct, technically precise notion of what life is, against which to construct your proposed experiment."

Defining life may be difficult (I never said it was not), but you cannot hide the failures of abiogenesis behind the lack of a definition. Even if there is no agreed upon definition, there are agreed upon instances of living things.

"Have you really no sense of how ludicrous it is to claim that our supposed incapacity to construct life from 'scratch' will demonstrate ID, while at the same time claiming you don't need a rigorous definition of life to perform this experiment?"

Do you know how ludicrous it is to argue for abiogenesis while simultaneously making the above claim? You claim that abiogenesis is science, even if it has no test, is not falsifiable, and cannot distinguish between life and non life.

"On the basis of inductive logic extrapolating current data backwards in time regarding the DNA of all the primitive living creatures we could dig up."

Your reasoning gets exponentially weaker in direct proportion to the length of this discourse. None of what you are saying has anything to do with non life becoming life. I have heard evolutionists claim over and over that evolution is not about origins of life, just origins of species. You are now arguing against a pet argument from your own camp.

Evolution claims that life we see now is the product of billions of years of gradual change. But the difference in it and abiogenesis is that we can see this gradual change NOW. Lab experiments can be modeled around these processes of gradual change. We can discover properties of life NOW based on the model. Abiogenesis doesn't have this feature, and you are contending that it is unimportant. Still, to you, abiogenesis is accepted science.

"Well, fortunately, we don't try to raise our confidence to the level of proof in science"

In that case, as much difficulty supporting it. You have a real knack for zeroing in on technicalities while avoiding the issue. Do you think science supports the existence of God?

"you may assume from now on that there are a great many things I believe may be so, most of which I will fail to mention in any given note I may write."

Let me repeat your earlier statement: "the only leverage we have for digging into that question, is the historical evidence buried in DNA, and in the stars, and in the rocks."

So, in other words, modeling physical processes which we can see here and now are irrelevant, because that is not how you like to do science. You are only interested in the historical. It is your proof text, your tea leaves, your astrological chart, your inkblot test, for whatever you want to believe.

"[The] results [of the lab test you propose] wouldn't be very conclusive for anyone on either side of the ID argument"

The results would be meaningful, and you have failed to make the case otherwise.

"I have no idea what you are on about here--nothing, I suspect. Physical laws are deeply involved in every scientific experiment or proposed field study."

I was being sarcastic about your demarcation of money. Glad to see you admit the obvious.

"There is strong consensus that an experiment currently scheduled for 2010 will be potentially falsifiable. Several astronomy projects on a currently feasable schedule also appear to be potentially falsifiable."

Yeah, perhaps, but for at least a couple of decades string theory was embraced in spite of not being falsifiable and support was elusive. Millions were spent with the goal of finding super symmetry even though the inability to see it was agreed to falsify nothing. It just might be harder to see than hoped. ST was embraced for mathematical elegance IN SPITE OF NOT BEING FALSIFIABLE AT THE TIME, AND IN SPITE OF THE HUGE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PURSUING THIS LINE OF REASONING (your money demarcation notwithstanding).

[donh]

Defining life may be difficult (I never said it was not), but you cannot hide the failures of abiogenesis behind the lack of a definition. Even if there is no agreed upon definition, there are agreed upon instances of living things.

What, pray tell, are the "failures of abiogenesis"?

[donh]

"Can you lift a car with your muscles? I can with a scissor jack, and a scissor jack is smaller, cheaper, and easier to feed and repair than you are, by a substantial margin, and will still work after being stuffed in my trunk for 20 years, unlike you."

Mr. Apple, Mr. Orange. Glad to meet you. Likewise I'm sure.

Was this, or was it not your claim?

Nuts. Biological systems are extremely more efficient taken as a whole. Efficient in every sense...Energy efficient - more energy converted to do more work.

Maybe that was someone else using the identifier "unlearner" who posts here?

My change holder is more efficient at holding change than your jack.

...and is also NOT a biological system.

[donh]

Agreed, but it is the table, not the data, which is falsifiable..........

Stop posting paragraphs where a sentence would work.

Your objections are just as much of a reach as they were to begin with. If you uncover data you didn't look at before you formed your thesis, that data is just as "scientific" as data you didn't look at before you plugged in your oscilloscope. Astronomy is a science that can claim to be doing experiments (or just as good as) just as much as chemistry. And abiogenesis, evolutionary theory, and paleo-geology are in the same bag. If you're going to throw one off the science team for being willing to consider newly uncovered evidence as potentially capable of falsifying a theory, you have to throw them all off, and then your crackpottery becomes obvious, doesn't it?

[donh]

Yeah, perhaps, but for at least a couple of decades string theory was embraced in spite of not being falsifiable and support was elusive

The same could be said of the relativistic theory of gravity, the theory of continental drift, and the germ theory of disease.

[donh]

I was being sarcastic about your demarcation of money. Glad to see you admit the obvious.

As you are given to spewing endless arguments of little merit and much distraction, and a fair amount of imperviousness to their inherent weaknesses, with apparently little regard for how much of my time you chew up doing so--let me suggest you confine your efforts to making your main argument, and leave the sarcasm to those of a more tacitern temperment.

[donh]

"[The] results [of the lab test you propose] wouldn't be very conclusive for anyone on either side of the ID argument"

The results would be meaningful, and you have failed to make the case otherwise.

There is no case otherwise. Even if you hold your breath until you turn blue.

Should your experiment be attempted, and works, it proves that there exists at least one pathway by which natural agencies could have produced life, since laboratories and their staff are natural.

If your experiment--producing "life" exactly and entirely instantaneously in a lab--fails, it could be because it requires God to make life, or it could be because it takes a long time to create life.

The only way you can make this lame pipe dream of an experiment seem like any kind of significant support for your theory, much less remotely possible, is by pouting until everyone gets bored and annoyed with you, and leaves off arguing.

[donh]

Let me repeat your earlier statement: "the only leverage we have for digging into that question, is the historical evidence buried in DNA, and in the stars, and in the rocks."

So, in other words, modeling physical processes which we can see here and now are irrelevant, because that is not how you like to do science. You are only interested in the historical. It is your proof text, your tea leaves, your astrological chart, your inkblot test, for whatever you want to believe.

Do you really think I don't understand that we evaluate, say, rocks, using our current understanding of physics and chemistry. Are you a rude git, or are you really this much of a cheese-brain?

[donh]

"Well, fortunately, we don't try to raise our confidence to the level of proof in science"

In that case, as much difficulty supporting it.

Science is all about difficulty. Things that are easy and absolutely certain are done by technicians and engineers.

You have a real knack for zeroing in on technicalities while avoiding the issue. Do you think science supports the existence of God?

It doesn't support it or deny it. It just doesn't give a hoot about it. Science and God aren't in a pitched battle for supremacy, except in the minds of some crackpots known as creation scientists.

[donh]

"On the basis of inductive logic extrapolating current data backwards in time regarding the DNA of all the primitive living creatures we could dig up."

Your reasoning gets exponentially weaker in direct proportion to the length of this discourse. None of what you are saying has anything to do with non life becoming life. I have heard evolutionists claim over and over that evolution is not about origins of life, just origins of species. You are now arguing against a pet argument from your own camp.

You are deeply confused, because you don't really understand what you are criticizing to any great depth. Evolutionary theory is, indeed, as advertised, only about what happened after life came to be. Modern science, however, includes the investigation of gradual abiogenesis, for which there is some evidence, as I pointed out, in the relationships between the fundamentally shared genomes of all living creatures--not fundamentally different from the way astronomy figures out how the universe began, or geology figures out how continents formed. You aren't competent to evalute the "weakness" of my argument. You are arguing against a position that doesn't exist, except in comic book versions of science that can be found on creationist web sites.

[donh]

"Yea, this is how you do science--you remake some warmed-over, unlikely, drivel out of an adolescent science fiction story and claim it's a significant scientific experiment."

No. I think I've read eight books on this subject in which this proposition was discussed and debated.

Tell me in which of these books exists a lengthy discussion of your proposed experiment, in which, I'll remind you, every jot, whistle, and twig of a cellular creature would be created "from scratch" in a laboratory. By actual title, if you don't mind.

[donh]

Perhaps, abiogenesis is so inefficient that it could never happen even if an unlimited amount of time is available.

Indeed. Perhaps continents are too heavy to push apart without Godly intervention. Perhaps God planted all those fossils in the earth 6000 years ago when he created it. Perhaps the universe is actually just a fevered dream of Bishop Berkeley.

Science, however, limited as it is, has to confine it's attention to theories that seem to have some sort of connection to some sort of tangible evidence they can eventually look at, and so far, while there's lots of evidence to suggest a gradual runup to DNA-centric cellular life, there is none to suggest that this evidence is bogus because of efficiency considerations.

[unlearner]

"while there's lots of evidence to suggest a gradual runup to DNA-centric cellular life, there is none to suggest that this evidence is bogus because of efficiency considerations."

Your suggesting that there is evidence for precursors of life? What do they look like, and where is this "lot's of evidence" found? What forms are included in this "gradual runup"? You claimed earlier such forms would not be observable today, so how can we know what those forms look like and what evidence for them looks like?