Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)

Richard Forrest wrote:

Wall Of Sleep wrote:

Richard Forrest wrote:

Wall Of Sleep wrote:


Richard Forrest wrote:



Wall Of Sleep wrote:

<snipped>

"Purpose" is an assumption which cannot be tested by scientific
hypothesis.

In science one investigates by testing hypotheses.


So where is the testable falsifiable hypothesis for how evolution
produced protein synthesis?



Read the literature.




Given the fact that we are able to design and build systems similar to
the systems involved in protein synthesis, and given the fact that we
are able to manipulate DNA, it is no stretch to say that an advanced
intelligent agent could put together something along the lines of
protein synthesis from scratch. The closer we get, the more it proves my
point.


Another "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario:

If we synthesise proteins in the lab, it's supports the assertion that
an intelligent designer did it.
If we can't synthesise proteins in the lab it supports the assertion
that an intelligent designer cleverer than us did it.

What test do you propose for which the explanation that an intelligent
designer, of unspecified but possibly supernatural powers using
unspecified but possibly supernatural methods is *NOT* possible.

The example you gave earlier - from memory a cat giving birth to dog -
is perfectly explicable in terms of an intelligent designer of this
type. So is the sudden appearance of pink and blue unicorns in
Trafalgar Square dancing a quadrille, or a dog giving birth to a new
and fashionable shade of purple.




Yet where is the falsifiable testable progression from the precursor to
protein synthesis to the final process via evolution?



Read the literature. "An intelligent designer did it" is not an
scientifically valid explanation. Something which can "explain"
anything is in scientific terms utterly useless.

So believe in an "intelligent designer" if you want - but don't kid
yourself that your convictions constitute a scientific theory.

RF


I take your "Read the literature" answers as "I don't know".


I don't know. It's not my field, as I have stated elsewhere.
However, I know that the scientists investigating the subject are doing
so within the discipline of the scientific method, that they are
proposing and testing hypotheses, and rejecting hypotheses which are
not supported by the evidence. That is what scientists do.



It's par for the course here. Evolutionists spout all this high and
mighty rhetoric about how they have the market cornered on real science,
yet when asked to provide one simple example for the success of their
"unchallengeable" theory, they resort to vagueness, artful dodges and
innuendo.


In science "I don't know" does not mean "God I mean an intelligent
designer must have done it". If you want intelligent design to be
treated as science, you need to propose a testable hypothesis to
support your assertion that it is science.

"God I mean an intelligent designer must have done it" is not the
default position for questions to which we don't know the answer in any
scientific discipline.



I have observable evidence of the power of real intelligent design in
action.


What evidence is that? All you have presented is arguments from
incredulity and untestable assertions.



You have observable evidence of the power of real mutations in
action. The rest is conjecture based on these real observations.


What about the fossil record? The similarities of the genomes of
different species? Observed instance of speciation? The correlation of
genetic with palaogeographical data? The nested hierarchy of all living
organisms?

If you have a better explanation for these real observations, please
formulate it as a testable hypothesis. I'm afraid that invoking an
intelligent designer of unknown but possibly supernatural powers using
unspecified but possibly supernatural methods is not a testable
hypothesis - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that there are
potentially phenomena which cannot be explained by such an entity.



Yet,
somehow, your theory is the ultimate and mine is substandard. I guess
"real" science will remain unchallenged.


Science is hypothesis testing.
You have offered no testable hypothesis.
ID is not science. Michael Behe has conceeded that it's not science. No
scientific paper using ID as a paradigm has been published in a
scientific journal. No testable hypothesis of ID has been presented.

Believe in ID as an explanation if you will. But don't kid yourself
that it's science.

RF


It's obvious to me that you are willfully ignorant of the ID movement.
You make claims against it that are untrue. I've posted links to the
sites that document the research being done and the papers published -
including their peer-reviewed journal. It's plain to me that you
haven't even looked at any of this. I take the time to explore any
evidence presented in support of your arguments, yet you've ignored
anything I've presented. As far as I'm concerned, your head is in the
sand and you don't want to be bothered with anything that challenges
your pet theory. Have it your way.



Here's the list of Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific
Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
published on the DI web site:

link here: http://tinyurl.com/b2j9h

Featured Articles

Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and
explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State
University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.

Note: Darwinism, Design, & Public Education is a book out out by the
DI. It is not a peer-reviewed journal.
http://msupress.msu.edu/bookTemplate.php?bookID=725


Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular
machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State
University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302

Note: Darwinism, Design, & Public Education is a book out out by the
DI. It is not a peer-reviewed journal.

Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, in Darwinism, Design,
& Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp.
403-418.

Note: Darwinism, Design, & Public Education is a book out out by the
DI. It is not a peer-reviewed journal.

Stephen Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher
Taxonomic Categories" Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington 117(2004):213-239.

This is a review article - i.e. one which does not publish any new
research, and was slipped into a reputable journal by side-stepping the
normal peer-review process. To quote from the talk.origins web site:

"Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole
purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable
journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even
notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry
2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely
taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW
n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b). "
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

The Biological Society of Washington made this statement about the
article:
"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of
biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117,
no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly
purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known
throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior
knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors,
and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and
determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate
for the pages of the Proceedings."
See:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/608_bsw_repudiates_meyer_9_7_2004.asp


Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of
irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.
PDF(2.95MB)HTML

Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological
world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic
processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half
billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have
been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants,
however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of
conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as
one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper
Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Senior Scientist in the Department of
Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding
Research employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible
complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as
developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting
for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis. Lönnig
also describes a series of scientific questions that the theory of
intelligent design could help elucidate, thus showing the fruitfulness
of intelligent design as a guide to further scientific research.


So, reading the abstract, this is another paper offerong no original
research, and making assertions about problems which ID "could help
elucidate". Not very impressive, is it?

Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?
Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

" Rivista di Biologia, a journal which caters to papers which are
speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch
2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to
the Discovery Institute."

So they get a paper published in obscure journal whose editor is
sympathetic to the DI. Not exactly shaking the foundations of the
scientific establishment, is it?


Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate
Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits," Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece,
edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

To quote from the abstract: "This article underwent conference peer
review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings."
"Conference peer review" is not the equivalent of publication in an
academic journal.

So, according to the DI's web site, they have published a total of
three papers in academic journals. One of those has been repudiated by
the journal in question as it circumvented normal peer-review
processes, and in any case did not publish any original research. The
same applies to one of the others, and the third was published in an
obsure journal whose editor is sympathetic to the DI, and still offers
no original research. For the rest they claim article published in a
book edited by two DI Fellows, and the abstract of a presentation for
which they claim "conference peer review".

Then there are the so-called "peer-reviewed" books.

Scientists do not publish their scientific findings in books. They
write books on the scientific findings they have published in academic
journals.

Then we get "Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in
Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals"

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are
interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 2006, Vol 28(4),
1000-1004.

No original research there.

S.C. Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher
Taxonomic Categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

This looks familiar. It's the one they listed above! I don't think that
counting the same article twice adds to the veracity of the source. Do
you?

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, "Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication
of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,"
Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

No original research there.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, "Chromosome Rearrangements and
Transposable Elements," Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002):
389-410.

No original research there

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, "Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent
Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis," International Journal
of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

To quote "Chiu and Lui mention complex specified information in
passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis."
(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html)
So not much support for ID there. Clutching at straws, do you think?


M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) "The Protein Folds as
Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of
Evolution by Natural Law," Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002):
325-342.

"This research is thoroughly non-Darwinian and teleological. It looks
to laws of form embedded in nature to bring about biological
structures. The intelligent design research program is broad, and
design like this that's programmed into nature falls within its
ambit."

"This research" seems to consist of making assertions about the
presence of design.

Then we get "Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in
Peer-Reviewed Scientific Anthologies"

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of
irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. In Dynamical
Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds.,(Research
Signpost, 2004)

No research there.

and then we get "Five science articles from Darwinism, Design, & Public
Education, edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (Michigan
State University Press, 2003) (hereinafter DDPE)"

Which is, as pointed out above, a book edited by two DI fellows.

Then we get

"Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Edited
Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings"

Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING
DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge
University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

So another book edited by DI fellows.
None of the abstracts show that there has been any original research to
support ID.

Then we get another "conference peer review".

Then another book edited by a DI fellow.


So

Where is the original research?
What testable hypothesis has been formulated to support the assertion
that an "intelligent designer" of unspecified but possibly supernatural
powers has interfered with normal evolutionary processes in an
unspecified by possibly supernatural way for unknown reasons?

The basis of the arguments used by the ID movement boils down to "If
evolution by small incremental changes can't explain a biological
system, the only possible alternative is that an "Intelligent Designer"
is responsible. This is not a testable hypothesis.

To quote from the ruling of the Dover trial:
"It is notable that defense experts' own mission, which mirrors that
of the
IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow
supernatural causation
of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court
in
McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept.
Edwards, 482
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 67 of 139
68
U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267. First, defense expert
Professor
Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of
science and lead
defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of
science,
which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller);
21:37-42
(Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that
for ID to
be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened
to allow
consideration of supernatural forces."

So please explain to me why the ground rules of science should be
changed to allow ID to be considered to be science?

The Discovery Institute has been very well-funded for 10 years. It has
several fellows with a perfectly reputable career of publication in
main-stream academic journals who understand the processes of
peer-review and the workings of science, yet they have a dismal
track-record of publication, and have carried out no research at all
into ID. Nearly all the so-called "peer-reviewed" publications they
list on their site were in their own publications, and those published
elsewhere have either been sneaked in by the back door, or are in
journals so obscure that they have had no impact at all on the
scientific world. It's worth noting that publication is not the be-all
and end-all of scientific research: it's the first small step on the
ladder to broader acceptance of the ideas presented, and is in essence
the offering of research to the wider review by one's peers in the
scientific community.

I'm not boasting about my own scientific credentials - there are very
unimpressive compared to those of most workers in my field - but I have
published more papers than all the worthies of the DI over the past ten
years than they have, and what's more they all include original
research, and were all published without circumventing normal
proceedures.

So why should anyone take seriously the claims of the ID movement that
what they are doing is science?


The fact that mainstream "science" has treated ID as a form of leprosy
is undisputed. So much so, that the DI has now established it's own
peer-reviewed online journal: "Progress in Complexity, Information, and
Design" found here:
http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php

This journal publishes original research. Your other points, especially
the sour grapes expressed by the scientific community over Stephen
Meyer's article, are to be expected. Anyone who seeks to seriously
challenge the ToE is an immediate outcast. It's sad, since the
"scientific community" has decided this to be the holy grail - never to
be disputed again.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Uncommon Conceit
    ... Intelligent Design is not a theory, at this point, it's ... taught in a science class. ... Dembski attempts to do this. ... Scientists are now in a position to demonstrate ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Uncommon Conceit
    ... Intelligent Design is not a theory, at this point, it's ... taught in a science class. ... Dembski attempts to do this. ... Scientists are now in a position to demonstrate ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: My views on evolution
    ... > have good science but tend to overstate their case. ... Do not confuse information theory with intelligent design. ... > humans evolve from a common ancestor with monkeys/apes; ... How many scientists know anything about Michael Polanyi ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... In science one investigates by testing hypotheses. ... I know that the scientists investigating the subject are doing ... Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) ... three papers in academic journals. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Real scientist (Einstein) versus fake scientists (neo-Darwinists)
    ... >against Steinberg was clearly a response to the Intelligent Design article, ... >criticism from intelligent design people because they are not of science." ... >is that the journals would publish papers written by intelligent design ... >submitted by intelligent design scientists are automatically rejected. ...
    (talk.origins)