Skip to comments.Academia's Assault on Intelligent Design
Posted on 05/28/2007 5:44:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
In fact, if you had participated in these threads a few years ago, you would have seen widespread optimism among the anti-evolution crowd that things were going their way in Georgia, Kansas and Pennsylvania. Of course, mainstream science won all these challenges, and the voters in Kansas and Pennsylvania reinforced court decisions.
Rudder thanks for replying- I know we’re discussing in general terms and there’s a lot to the puzzle, but I have to ask, how a cell is infused with more and more information from a directionless random natural process. The accumulations of the vast amount of ‘intelligent’ information highly suggests that an intelligence is at work, and if not, then surely there would be so many mistakes that didn’t work that we’d be inundated with failed trials while a mindless directionless system worked out all the kinks.
The comunications you speak of had nothing to work with ‘in the beginning’. There was no other information available to them, yet what we find in the fossil records are completed species absolutely chock full of highly complex information dependant systems, and what we have also discovered through exhaustive and extensive testing is that we can only manipulate species specific information that simply can’t create the necessary NEW information needed for advancement of a species to another species KIND. We find tolorance limits that prevent this from happening, we find information within species that prevent manipulation beyond a species specific limitaiton, keeping the psecies within it’s own KIND..
Just for hte sake of simplicity, say the first two species to evolve from the slime were completed bats and frogs (Yes, I know thast’s not what happened, but we could use any two species for htis illustration- I chose two completed higher life form species for better clarification of what I’m about to say, but it could also be two single celled species that were completely different species KINDS)
The frog will only have it’s own unique species specific information with which to alter, the bat likewise. As we know from scientific experimentation, mutations can only work on the information that is present in a species- it can only alter that information alone. As we also know, there is no ‘wing information’, no ‘echo-location’ information’ no ‘teeth information’ etc etc in the frog. No amount of genetic manipulation will provide that information either- it can’t- the information simply can not come from any rearrangement of the code in that frog. The best the frog can hope for is is adaptive selection that could produce wider toes and bigger flaps in the frogs feet if the fog needed to ‘fly’ (read- glide). The only other hope for the frog for actual flying would be a lateral gene transference of information specific to the bat, over to the frog.
As well, the only hope for echo-location the frog has comes not from manipulation of it’s own genetic code, because there is nothign in the forgs code that could be manipulated that would produce the system necessary for echo location, but rather, it would have to come from a species that does have the information already. (But one really must ask the question where a singel celled creature got the information from in the first place, down the road of it’s evolutionary travels)
What you are suggesting is that simple gene manipulation combined with environmental pressures, could result in NEW information being produced through mutations. We simply don’t see that happening in any of our scientific experiments- All we see are, freakish mistakes such as more legs which are uselss, more antenae that serve no purpose, and all these are is increased information stemming from information that is already present.
Some say, ‘Well, it could happen given enough time’ yet the fact is that it would have literally had to happen billions upon billions of times IF mutations were even capable of adding the NEW infromation necessary, which, experimentation shows, simply doesn’t happen. What we also note through scientific observation and experimentation is that yes, species do change dramatically in appearances, yet it is always within their own unique species specific gene information limitations, and they always remain in the same KIND. We can create subspecies through selective breedings, but we can’t produce NEW species KINDS through mutaitonal manipulation that simulates millions of years- it simply doesn’t occure, the KINDS always remain in their own KINDS.
[Of course, mainstream science won all these challenges, and the voters in Kansas and Pennsylvania reinforced court decisions.]
A miscarriage of justice based on the bised opinions of others is no victory- The link I provided layed out many many instances which were simply overlooked and not explained whjich should have been explained- the fact is that when it looked like the case was going to actually be looked at objectively, the bias trumped objectivity as was MORE than clear in the Dover Trial as well. It’s obviously your opinion that the tiral was ‘fair and balanced’ but the eivdnece shows otherwise. You’re welcoem to your opinion- but the evidence that shows otherwise is freely available for all to see. The critical key points were glossed over and brushed aside, and the dogma of the evolution religion won out through strong arm tactics that demanded precision from the ID crowd while brushing aside and ignoring the same precision required from the evo side. Those points listed in the link provided were no small matter points, yet incredibly, they were simply ignored- Victory? Yeah, sure, if you concider injustice a victory
The voters affirmed the decision and threw the biased school board members out.
What I can’t understand is why they (the school board) put up as their #1 expert and witness a person that believes in evolution and believes that we should teach that the ID’r is most probably dead?
I’d be against anyone telling students that God is dead — whether in science class or religion class.
As for allowing students to be taught that there is a Meaning Giver behind “all this” — something that is clearly evident — that I can support, of course. Such an understanding would add a depth and sense of wonder to something that otherwise would merely be cold and clinical.
That is what the pro-ID folks were proposing. Based on their #1 expert's sworn testimony. I ask you again, why would YEC'rs support this?
It made me realize the "NETWORK" operates the process. However, Odell never once answers his own question about "How" a cell knows. If he answered it, I never got it. When he uses the phrase, "working in a mysterious way" it's a dead give away. His conclusion about what makes the design is pure conjecture because he never concludes HOW the Robust patterns form in the first place! He goes around in circles about this and interjects his "opinions" about the process.
Odell's explanation made me realize even more how complex life and design are which strengthens the evidence towards intellegent design and why science must be honest about it's precepts and conclusions. Science must continue to work to understand this complexity of life and stop thinking certain answers are not viable based on turning a blind eye to a mountian of evidence, or just because it would involve investigating an invisible world.
I can however, appreciate his work.
Actually, it is. Particularly when it is consistent in case after case, and when the voters throw the losers out.
Actually I think you took the opposite message from the lecture than was intended.
The networks he was modeling, unlike a transistor radio, are extremely robust. While the transistor radio fails when one part is misadjusted, the networks that Odell was modeling turned out to be extremely robust. Even with randomly generated parts, it was difficult to create a model one that would not function!
That led to the title of his lecture:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
For the lurkers who have no idea what we are talking about, the link to this lecture is here. It is highly recommended.
...and was issued a $58,000 grant from the John Templeton Foundation that paid 25 percent of his salary at Iowa State for three years. Furthermore, ISU endorsed his research by administering the grant. I pulled in more than that as a graduate student. No big deal. $58K over six years is less than 10k per year.
You missed the point entirely, but beyond this, you conveniently and intentionally omitted:
Dr Gonzalez authored nearly 70 peer-reviewed papers (21 papers since 2002), co-authored a major college level astronomy textbook, his work led to the discovery of two new planets, his research was featured in Science, Nature, and the cover of Scientific American.
Now, you stated, Mr. G contributed almost zero to the department in six years. I stated I do believe Dr. Gonzales has been treated unfairly due to preconceived beliefs of others. Due you realize that you are merely confirming my statement?
You're not wrong and thank you for the input. I do not have a science background so my explanations will be quite elementry.
The order in which cells operate definately suggests a higher order of design. We can all agree on this. The question then becomes if cells move in a direction toward a higher order of design, how do they know to move in a more complex direction of design? What drives them? Science has not answered this question yet and the observable available evidence definately suggests an intellegence.
For some science to turn a blind eye to or deny any evidence by using the charade of a statement, "There is NO evidence of ID" is not only detrimental to further their research, it's quite a foolish conundrum they place themselves in.
Exactly. I understood this, that's why I made the comment about him making me realize how complex life really is. He almost contradicts himself with his "Abstract Math" because what he's proving is the exact opposite of what the lecture's title suggests.
Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.'
This is pure unadulterated subterfuge. It proves how Intellegent the networks to be because of their robust nature! He's just offering one (In my view, false) perspective of how to look at the calculation, that's all this shows.
Anybody who thinks that achieving tenure is anything other than political is very naive.
If the Doc holds ANY views that displease the powers that be at his university, he’s toast.
Im curious. If people who observe some form of id in the universe and science are immediately (knee-jerk) labeled anti-science, does that automatically invoke the label of anti-intelligence for those who do not? Honestly I dont see this label cast upon those who disagree with id anywhere close to the degree the anti-science label is cast out To paraphrase Berlinsk (a Secular Jew); if we were to replace the word evolution with allah and the label of id with infidel - I dont think these discussions would read significantly different.
First you claim that complexity equals intelligence. No reason, just an assertion that because something can be considered complex it must be intelligent.
Now you are equating reliability to intelligence. For some reason, in your mind, if something is robust it is also intelligent. What is next, if it is green it is a result of intelligent design?
In this same statement you confuse the origin and the essence of the systems. Odell was showing that complex, highly robust systems can develop through random, 'undesigned' processes. Your complaint about this is that the robust system is intelligent, not that it requires an intelligent agent to produce such a robust, complex system, but that it is in itself intelligent. If you keep expanding the definition of intelligence you will eventually remove all meaning from the word.
From what I can see you are attempting to validate ID through an appeal to incredulity and an overly broad definition.
To a hammer, everything is a nail. This describes your entire attitude toward ID.
Those that support ID at the level seen on these threads are considered anti-science because, in their recognition that ID is so far not science, and that a change in how science is performed would be necessary for it to be considered science, are proposing that Methodological Naturalism, which is the foundation of science, be scrapped. They are attacking science directly by demanding that the way science is done be changed.
Nice attempt to portray those that don't support ID as against intelligence when you know very well that we are against Intelligent Design, a very specific philosophy, not intelligence. Your tactic is called equivocation.
an inference of design means that "we wouldn't learn very much about the world", beautifully captures the default position of defenders of materialism.
Their view makes sense, of course, once you assume up front that materialism is really true. (Of course, on that view, religious people believe myths, but evolutionary psychology can explain why they do. We all have the right to our purely private delusions and indulgences.) But in reality, it is merely childish to attribute any feature of the universe to design, just as it would be childish to attribute it to fairies.
And - note this carefully, for this follows too - when we identify evidence that looks like design, we must seek an "explanation" that rules out design, even if it doesn't really work well. That's okay because some day we will have an explanation that rules out design that works a lot better. Otherwise we wouldn't learn very much about the world.
That is actually a classic recipe for a point of view that can never be disconfirmed by evidence. So it is not surprising that materialists insist that the evidence for their point of view and for their creation story (Darwinism) is overwhelming. Following their rules, there is no circumstance under which it could ever be otherwise.
Its not easy for anyone with any sense to get tenure in any college in America..
i.e. if you have tenure you are very probably a Moonbat.. or look like one..
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.