Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 3

scientific peer review
The sentence " Intelligent design has been unable to penetrate a single peer-reviewed scientific journal." was removed. I'd like the names of a peer-reviewed scientific journal in which an intelligent design article was published, as well as the name of that article. - snoyes 17:22, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Chiu, D.K.Y. and Lui, T.H. Integrated use of multiple interdependent patterns for biomolecular sequence analysis. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. Vol.4, No.3, Sept. 2002, pp.766-775.

The article begins: &ldquo;Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns [10]. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis [8]. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.&rdquo; Reference number [10] here is to The Design Inference (see below).

The Design Inference is the basis for the entire article - and is cited favorably throughout.


 * No, the citation is entirely gratuitous. The article does not cite [10] again, invokes neither the methods nor conclusions of intelligent design, and in fact never mentions CSI or any other ID concept again after that first sentence. Those facts, plus the fact that one of the authors is an IDologist when not publishing real scientific research, are generally taken to mean that the citation was a stealth attempt to address the common criticism that ID does not participate in the peer-reviewed literature. &mdash; B.Bryant 09:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Some other recent peer reviewed literature include:


 * W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1998). This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in this book, Paul Davies remarks: &ldquo;Dembski&rsquo;s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I&rsquo;m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves. Strictly speaking, you see, science should be judged purely on the science and not on the scientist.&rdquo; Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149.


 * W.-E. Loennig & H. Saedler, &ldquo;Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,&rdquo; Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389–410. This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of an partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors&rsquo; approach in non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably on the work of Michael Behe and William Dembski.


 * They cite Behe and Dembski twice each, always in long citation lists used to indicate that a variety of opinion exists. They refer to neither author by name, and the word "design" does not appear in the article. &mdash; B.Bryant 12:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * D.D. Axe, &ldquo;Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,&rdquo; Journal of Molecular Biology, 301 (2000): 585–595. This work shows that certain enzymes are extremely sensitive to perturbation. Perturbation in this case does not simply diminish existing function or alter function, but removes all possibility of function. This implies that neo-Darwinian theory has no purchase on these systems. Moreover, the probabilities implicit in such extreme-functional-sensitivity analyses are precisely those needed for a design inference.


 * The article does not say anything about intelligent design, and I don't recognize any of the usual suspects' names in the bibliography. In what sense do you claim this article to be a penetration of ID into the peer-reviewed literature? You're grasping at straws &mdash; par for the course among ID advocates. &mdash; B.Bryant 12:43, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's an interesting result and I don't see how it has anything to do with design. In many instances genes will decay to the limit of selective pressure on them - that is, they will degenerate to the point where any further mutations will become critical (and thus selected against). Also, enzyme exteriors ought to be sensitive to perturbation. The effect of introducing hydrophobic groups on soluble enzyme surfaces could be drastic in some instances. I don't see what this has to do with design at all - just says that some mutations can't be tolerated. That's well-known and uncontroversial. Graft 01:36, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, &ldquo;The Laws of Form Revisited,&rdquo; Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417; M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) &ldquo;The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,&rdquo; Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325–342. This research is thoroughly non-Darwinian and 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&rsquo;s programmed into nature falls within its ambit.


 * No, you are merely trying to define ID as "anything non-Darwinian". Notice that the second article's subtitle explicitly appeals to evolution by natural law, the very antithesis of intelligent design. &mdash; B.Bryant 09:14, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Preemptively, here's some info about an "article" in the Harvard Law Review: "It Just Takes One: How an advertisement for Intelligent Design theory made its way into the Harvard Law Review", by Chris Mooney. &mdash; B.Bryant 02:36, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Criticism that the Intelligent design page does not give citations to support ID opponents' generalizations
The article states that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community oppose Intelligent Design, but unfortunately is unable to back the claim up with dependable statistics. I seriously doubt the validity of the statement. Many scientists of the past were religious, and I have many Christian friends who are scientists, though of course my circle of friends does not count for much in this argument. The founder of the Scientific Method, Roger Bacon, was Christian. Science as it is today is heavily based on the Scientific Method. Bacon believed in God and his orderly creation of the universe as told in the book of Genesis of the Bible. Bacon therefore concluded that if God's creation has order to it, same experiments with the same parameters would yield the same results (Theoretically), and this gave birth to the Scientific Method. You do not have to oppose Intelligent Design to be a Scientist. Belief in God, leads to a belief in an order to the universe, which is the basis of Science.

P.S. Sorry if this was posted in the wrong area. I am new to wikipedia and have no idea how to start a new section. Still learning :) Cheers - Angsana


 * New topics probably ought to go at the bottom of the page. Answering your question though, yes many scientists are religious.  As mentioned in the article, Kenneth R. Miller is a Christian who has spoken out against intelligent design.  Many scientists are also atheists and do not require belief in God to have order.  What you have in that argument is part of the underlying philosophy rather than ID per se.  On the numbers, Project Steve gives a rough idea of how the scientific community thinks, but the condemnations by various bodies such as American Association for the Advancement of Science should be evidence enough. The point is that within the scientific community's discourse there is no debate; (and hence really no need for polls) the theory of evolution by natural selection is accepted and intelligent design is rejected. Dunc|&#9786; 20:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thinking further about your points, I think you have intelligent design confused with basic deism. ID is on some level a form of deism but so is evolutionary creationism.  Advocates of ID argue that (1) there is evidence for design in nature and (2) that Darwinian processes cannot account for life that we observe.  Evolutionary creationism accepts Darwinian processes do account for life and rejects the idea of design as being unscientific, but argues God is somewhere else, at a quantum level of order perhaps.  That's why there is a large see also sectionDunc|&#9786; 11:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Small change
I'm removing the following line from the Broader view of "intelligent design" section: "The belief that the laws of the universe were constructed to allow for the existence of intelligent life is known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle." As best as I can tell, the statement is not supported by the article it links to. Perhaps someone more familiar with the topic can either change this sentence, or add to Anthropic Principle so as to make it more consistent.

Does ID really qualify as a Theory?
The article's first paragraph identifies ID as a "theory." But if indeed a hypothesis or conjecture requires the following to qualify as a theory: is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,  is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct, has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false, makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data,

then ID clearly does not qualify as a theory. Barring any credible proof that it is indeed a theory, I'm reverting the sentence to its original form: " Specifically, the claim focuses on the 'what'" FeloniousMonk


 * Similar arguments could be made about evolution itself. In fact, the chief bone of contention between Darwinists and ID adherents is whose idea is the the "scientific" one. Adherents of ID say their 'idea' is just as scientific as the hypothesis that an ancient civilization erected the statues on Easter Island.


 * If I get more involved with the evolution, intelligent design & creationism articles, I'll promote the view that the controversy is really a proxy for the battle between faith and atheism: if there's no Creator, we must have evolved from the primordial slime; if there's a Creator, He probably made us as a special miracle. --Uncle Ed 19:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Can't say I agree with your point about evolution. Clearly evolution has met each of the bullet points provided that define what constitutes theory. You'd have to demonstrate which bullet points evolution misses the mark on and how to make that claim stick. Read the definition and requirements provided for theory again, ID meets none of them. A similar breakdown and analysis with a mapping of ID's "product" to the requirements for something to be considered "science" puts the lie to ID proponents claiming that it is science. This is an uncontroversial stance in the scientific community at large. Call me old-fashioned, but I still let the scientists define their metier.


 * Regarding your statement that "I'll (you will) promote the view that the controversy is really a proxy for the battle between faith and atheism"... It could just as easily be said that the controversy is a proxy for the struggle of irrationalism and anti-intellectualism against science. Or for spiritualism vs. materialism. I think that the faith vs. atheism proxy conjecture is only half the analysis.--FM 20:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Re "I'll promote the view that the controversy is really a proxy for the battle between faith and atheism: if there's no Creator, we must have evolved from the primordial slime; if there's a Creator, He probably made us as a special miracle." &mdash; That's a staple of creationist polemic, but it is not in accord with the facts. Lots of Christian scientists accept both faith and evolution. The battle is between creationists of the biblical-literalist stripe and scientists, and ID is a proxy for creationism. Evolution doesn't say any more about faith and atheism than chemistry or physics does. &mdash; B.Bryant 08:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Lot's of Catholics accept evolution as well.--FM 08:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Intelligent design cannot be considered a scientific theory, because it is unprovable even in principle, whilst all scientific theories are in principle dis-provable. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. End of story.

There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. It is untestable, even in principle. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment. It is inherently infallible, and therefore does not constitute science.

Evolution shares a certain amount of this unscientific infallibility, it is often held with a degree of religious fervour which is improper for a scientific theory. It's predictive capabilities have been demonstrated in general terms by stock breeders, and more precisely with populations of fruit flies. However, in view of the difficulties in performing experiments with living organisms, outcomes of experiments are still open to interpretation. Compared to the likes of Einstein's General Relativity, it is shaky science, based largely on what Karl Popper called the 'Baconian myth', but at least it is testable in principle.

No real scientist 'believes in' any theory, it is the scientist's duty to attempt to disprove all theories by objective experimentation. The scientific endeavour requires the scientist to believe nothing but the outcome of experiments, all else is not science. It may be valid scholarship, or even true, but it isn't science.

References

Popper K R  Conjectures and Refutations - the Growth of Scientific Knowledge,.Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1963,ISBN 0 7100 6508 6

Gordon Vigurs 09:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What ID's Opponents Say; is it really relevant?
Quote:

"Opponents of ID, who include for the most part the scientific community, consider this argument to be knowingly deceptive..."

Hold on. This is an article about intelligent design. So why are we talking about what ID's opponents say?

Let's try turning that paragraph around:

"In reality, this argument is knowingly deceptive and has no standing as a scientific hypothesis, i.e. it is considered pseudoscience. ID does not present falsifiable hypotheses, and violates the principle of naturalism within scientific philosophy. There are many examples of poor design within biology."

And we can't forget this:

"Opponents of ID, who include for the most part the scientific community..." (in other words, ID is unscientific and only non-scientists believe in it.)

Come on. You can't deny that that paragraph is based on an evolutionist bias. There's really no reason why it should exist in an NPOV article about intelligent design. I suggest that we remove it completely.


 * I think that para belongs in the body of the article, somewhere. It is relevant, but the whole article is a bit of a shambles, so there is no one place where all the critical viewpoints are gathered together.  [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 07:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It would be irresponsible for an encyclopedia to carry an article on a pseudoscience without pointing out that it is a pseudoscience. &mdash; B.Bryant 08:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I support both Noisy and B.Bryant's points. --FM 08:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * And is it indeed a pseudoscience? That statement is not a proven fact, nor is it universally agreed on. C. Duben 12:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It indeed is, as it consists of nothing but logical fallacies and strawman arguments. And you would know that by reading the article, if creationists would quit removing the inconvenient facts about ID. As for "universally agreed on", not everyone agrees that astrology is a pseudoscience either, but yet it is. &mdash; B.Bryant 13:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * And yet you fail to point out any of these "logical fallacies and strawman arguments". Not only is your statement not universally agreed on, but it is a major controversy between creation scientists and evolutionists. C. Duben 15:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If one accepts the standard definitions of science, theory and pseudoscience, then ID does not qualify as a valid theory, and hence not science, but as a pseudoscience. ID 1) lacks a testable predictive model, 2) its assertion, that the universe was designed, can not be falsified, 3) neither its assertions nor its conclusion can even be tested. Unsupported assertions that lead to hasty conclusions are not science. Nor is starting with a conclusion and selecting only supporting evidence that is favorable to your conclusion; ID proponents are famous for making these very errors of reasoning. ID rests on inference and deductive reasoning, both of which are of dubious value in relation to the imputed unknowable nature of what its conclusions assert.--FM 08:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Claiming it is pseudoscience is not NPOV, and I for one certainly disagree. Philip J. Rayment 16:45, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It is indeed NPOV: it's the simple truth. See my "highly overdue" explanation of the logical fallacies and strawman arguments below. &mdash; B.Bryant 08:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You (and many others) say it is the truth. I (and many others; and I'm not saying as many) have a different POV.  So expressing your POV as fact is not neutral. Philip J. Rayment 17:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Our position is supported by the National Academy of Science. What credible scientific body supports yours? It's not POV if it is fact, and I've just established that it is indeed, fact.--FM 23:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You haven't established it as fact. You claimed it as fact, and you pointed out that others (NAS) claim it as fact, but a majority opinion, even a large one, does not make it fact.  It is till POV, even if it is majority POV.  Philip J. Rayment 15:44, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * What "fact" are you talking about? That the National Academy of Science supports the theory of evolution and a naturalistic origin of the universe and considers ID to be pseudoscience is a fact. The National Academy of Science has stated its position many times supporting both evolution and a naturalistic cosmology while deprecating the claims of ID as as being a matter of belief, not science. If the leading national scientific body representing the majority view of the scientific community has stated that ID is not genuine science, mentioning that here it is not being POV. Perhaps the ID article here needs to cite the NAS explicitly and provide links.
 * Again, what credible scientific body supports your contention that ID is not pseudoscience?--FeloniousMonk 16:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The "fact" that ID is pseudoscience. I'm not disputing the fact that the NAS considers it pseudoscience.  What body would you consider credible?  In my experience, any body that supported creation in any form would automatically be considered non-credible.  Philip J. Rayment 13:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If the fact is that ID is indeed considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large, then pointing this out is consistent with the wikipedia NPOV policy, particularly considering that ID proponents insist on making the point that ID is science, and that it be taught in science classes.--FM 08:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * To use an absurdly clear example, we wouldn't have an article on Holocaust denial without explaining that many people disagree with the beliefs of Holocaust deniers, and explain their reasons for disagreement. Though I WILL agree that the "Opponents of" style is horrible writing. Graft 12:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a difference which invalidates your comparison. The holocaust was observed and apart from eyewitnesses, we have plenty of documented evidence.  Goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution has not been observed, and remember that observation is one of the requirements of science. Philip J. Rayment 16:45, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Observation is a sticky term, and one shouldn't take it too literally. I once had an argument with an Islamist who was explaining to me that I shouldn't believe in evolution because I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. I asked him if his mother had been born from the womb. Yes, he said, of course she had. But he hadn't seen it with his own eyes - how could he know? I countered.
 * Similarly with your contention regarding 'observation'. Without going too deeply into a debate on idealism and whether it's really possible to "observe" anything, evolution as science IS based on observation - we need not literally see the past to know that it happened. When I come home and see the baseball lying in front of the broken window in a pool of shattered glass, I know what happened, though I may not have seen it with my eyes.
 * At any rate, returning to your statement: my example was only meant to demonstrate that issues of point-counterpoint, especially when they are hotly contested, MUST be presented in that light. To do otherwise would be to ignore an enormous facet of the issue. That is, intelligent design is a controversial and widely panned theory. To neglect mention of this would be a disservice to the readers of this encyclopedia, whatever the actual facts. Graft 17:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * <>
 * I wasn't taking it "too literally". That's why I included "documented evidence".  That is, we have written records of those that did observe it.  Your Islamic friend may not have seen himself born from the womb, but he knew someone (his mother) that was there to observe it!  Nobody has seen goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution!
 * <>
 * You might think that you know (and you might well be right), but your knowledge would hardly be scientific, would it?
 * <>
 * "Mentioning" that it is disputed it is one thing. But declaring it to be pseudoscience is another thing entirely.
 * Philip J. Rayment 16:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * We know that it is possible for babies to be born from the womb. After all, we have seen it with our own eyes. But is evolution possible? That's a completely different matter, because it can be neither observed nor recreated.


 * Where did the universe come from? How did space first appear? Why do we live in a world of 3 dimensions and not 4 or 5? Did all this happen by chance?


 * How do you suppose life first appeared? Did dead chemicals magically acquire the right enzyme configuration and then just come to life?


 * Where are the real missing links that prove man's evolution? (besides the frauds like Piltdown and Nebraska man)


 * C. Duben 18:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the validity of these old warhorses, let's consider their relevance. What has any of that got to do with the legitimacy of the logical fallacies that IDologists offer to support their 'theory'? If you want to deny that ID is a pseudoscience, shouldn't you be making a case for it rather than expressing your doubts about real science? ID is a pseudoscience because of its own bogosity, not because of anything regular science does or doesn't say. &mdash; B.Bryant 18:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. I agree that those questions are not relevant to the "pseudoscience" issue. But now you need to give me a highly overdue explanation of where these "fallacies" are. How is ID any more of a pseudoscience than evolution? C. Duben 19:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read some books, you are clearly not qualified to be editing these pages. By suggesting that common descent has not been observed, or that evolution and ID are equally scientific you have shown that you have done no research, do not understand the concepts and should not be here.  If you want to write on these topics it's up to you to do the research, not BB.  --Steinsky 19:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. ID proponents here, as in the world at large, are coming up woefully short of understanding of the state of science in molecular biology regarding evolution. I wouldn't waste too much time trying to educate the willfully unschooled here.--FM 08:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have done plenty of research on the subject. I know many arguments that evolutionists have used to try to make that point, and I know the counterarguments. But as I'm not trying to put words in BB's mouth, I'd rather let him speak for himself. C. Duben 19:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I have to question the rigor and validity of this research you say you've done on the topic. It seems to have been highly selective based on the views you've voiced here.--FM 08:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Argument by put-down. Philip J. Rayment 16:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * More like dispassionate observation, IMO.--FM 08:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, here's the "highly overdue" explanation of the claim I made three whole days ago. (Can't you guys find anything to say that isn't pure rhetoric?)
 * Behe's IC argument: Behe argues that the descovery of irreducibly complex (IC) systems in biology is evidence of intelligent design. Unfortunately for him, the argument fails at two levels -
 * In his top-level argument he concludes that his purported discovery of non-evolvable systems indicates intelligent intervention. This is a non sequitur based on an unspoken false dichotomy: namely, that if evolution didn't do it some intelligent designer must have done so. In fact all you could legitimately conclude from "evolution didn't do it" would be "something else did". He doesn't actually make any case that that something else was an intelligent designer.
 * Worse, his argument that evolution could not have produced IC systems is also bogus. His argument requires an unspoken assumption that evolution only works by adding components to a system, and that it cannot pass through a "broken" state while building the system. He is wrong on both accounts -
 * Evolution doesn't have any problem producing "broken" systems (e.g., ostrich wings).
 * Evolution doesn't work simply by adding components to systems; it adds components, subtracts components, and modifies existing components for entirely new uses (e.g., penguin wings &rarr; fins, or the evolutionary history of the bones in your middle ear).
 * Dembski's NFLT argument: Dembski appeals to Wolpert & McReady's No Free Lunch Theorem to claim that evolution would not work without some intelligent fine tuning behind it.
 * At the top level he invokes the same non sequitur that Behe does, described above, namely that a perceived flaw in the effectiveness of evolution implies intelligent intervention in biological history.
 * AS for the NFLT itself, it shows that for very specific definitions of "problem", "algorithm", and "performance", the expected value of the set of performances over algorithm x problem is the same as the expected value of the performance of random guesses. However, notice that expected value is a technical term that partially describes a distribution; it is not the value that you "expect" to obtain. (For example, the expected value of the roll of a fair d6 is 3.5, but you never "expect" to roll a 3.5.) As the authors of the NFLT explicitly point out in their paper, the theorem says nothing about the performance of any specific algorithm on any specific problem. Even if Dembski could show that evolution has done better than random guessing on the biology problem (whatever that is), the NFLT would not make that any more suprising than rolling a 4 on a d6 is.


 * Dembski's CSI argument: Dembski claims that if a system "has" complex specified information (CSI) then it must be the result of intelligent design.
 * I put "has" in scare quotes because, as Elsberry and Shallit point out, Dembski waffles between treating CSI as a boolean quality and a scalar quantity.
 * The top-level argument, namely if a system is highly improbable and also "matches a specification" then it must be the result of intelligent design, is again dubious. It becomes completely untenable when you see how he goes about it:
 * It is impossible to calculate the probability of the occurence of something if you don't know what the mechanism for producing it is. Dembski low-balls the calculations by assuming there is no mechanism and substituting a conjunction of independent random events instead. (I.e., he assumes that evolution doesn't work in order to get his probability figures.)
 * His logic for matching a specification is a handwavy "I know it when I see it". (Yes, he gives a mathematical method that purportedly detects it objectively, but he never actually uses it. E.g., in his treatment of the E.coli flagellum he simply appeals to the existence of motorboats as the "specification" for the flagellum.)
 * Even if the CSI argument were correct, it is not evidence for intelligent design because no one has ever given a complete, rigorous CSI analysis for any natural system.
 * Ergo, intelligent design has not made a single valid argument for the intervention of an intelligent designer in nature. Two of the three major arguments for ID are merely flawed arguments against evolution, with no attempted support for ID at all. It's a pseudoscience. Outside creationist circles, it's an answer in search of a question. There's more tons of stuff about the problems with the ID movement readily available on the Web, if you don't let your religious scruples keep you away from it. &mdash; B.Bryant 08:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - let's not stray too far from the subject, here, as well. Questions about life, the universe, and everything have no bearing on intelligent design or on evolution; neither does the question about the origin of life. No ID proponent (including and especially Behe) has yet advanced a coherent explanation for how Design operated, and how a theory of Designed life accurately reflects the nature of the world. Consider, for example, the Bombardier Beetle. If it were impossible for it to have evolved, it must, hence, have been created as such - has it been around since the beginning of creation? Since Earth appeared? At what point did the Designer step in and say, "Let there be Bombardier Beetles"? Can YOU find Bombardier Beetles way back in the fossil record to establish that they were, in fact designed? These and other questions remain unanswered, because ID proponents simply can't answer them without exposing themselves to ridicule. Their failure to outline a coherent THEORY is what makes ID a pseudoscience. Graft 19:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This is almost funny. ID is opposed by the scientific community.  A few of the external links should show you that.  To remain NPOV, the POV advanced by IDers is should be explained first, followed by criticisms of it.  As far as I can tell, this has been followed.  Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 20:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Evolution can't explain how life started, where brand-new genetic information comes from, can't produce any indisputable transitional fossils between major groups of creatures, etc. etc., yet you criticise Intelligent Design because it doesn't have all the answers! Philip J. Rayment 16:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yawn. http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Evolution_is_baseless_without_a_theory_of_abiogenesis


 * Evolution doesn't even attempt to explain how life started; that's an entirely different problem, and not one that really receives a whole lot of scientific attention because it's mostly impenetrable. I can give you an explanation for "brand-new genetic information" right now: nearly all new genes arise as a result of gene duplication and subsequent functional differentiation. There are a number of reasons transitional fossils might not have been found between major groups of creatures, most significantly the incredible rarity of fossilization in general. If large changes in body structure are predicated on small effective populations (that is, your small population size enables you to explore your "fitness landscape" more easily), it doesn't seem unreasonable at all that these fossils wouldn't exist. The fact that they can't be found is thus hardly damning evidence against evolution (thus my snide remark about Bombardier Beetle fossils). The point is that people treat these questions seriously and attempt to actually answer them. That is, "How do new genes arise?" is a well-studied problem subject to intense debate. I can point you to probably hundreds of papers discussing it.
 * ID, on the other hand, does NOT attempt to answer these questions. Let's pose the same question to you: how do new genes arise? Can ID present even a rude picture of how life developed that is at least somewhat robust to examination? It has failed to do so. It doesn't even demonstrate an interest in doing so. It remains the domain of sophists. It is NOT science.
 * Incidentally, regarding your comment above about my broken-glass example. My supposition about how the window was broken is precisely scientific knowledge. 99% of scientists will tell you it is impossible to know anything beyond the shadow of a doubt; science is not the search for Truth. It is an attempt to explain the nature of the world. If you don't understand the nature of scientific inquiry, I feel I won't be able to explain to you why ID is pseudoscience. Graft 16:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * <>
 * <>
 * Don't you see the inconsistency here?


 * <>
 * Gene duplication is not generation of brand-new genetic information. Please give an example of brand-new genetic information as a result of "functional differentiation", because "functional differentiation" does not necessarily mean brand-new genetic information.  By the way, when I said that evolution can't explain where the information came from, I didn't mean that it doesn't have a story, but that it doesn't have a story that is backed up by evidence.


 * http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Evolution_of_new_information
 * http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/dawkinschallenge.htm


 * See my comments on these links below. Philip J. Rayment 15:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * <>
 * Science involves observation, reproducability, and falsifiability. You didn't actually explain what you believe happened with the broken window.  Presumably, you were thinking that someone hit a baseball through your window.  But what if I suggested that your wife had been doing some home repairs, slipped with the hammer, and broke the window, then to avoid owning up, put the baseball there to make it look like it was the local youths that had broken it?  How would you prove me wrong?
 * Philip J. Rayment 16:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * There's no inconsistency in my saying that Evolution does not attempt to answer the question of how life originated and demanding that ID answer questions about how organisms develop. The question of how life originated is not relevant to how organisms develop. These are separate questions: where did it come from?, and where did it go from there? On the other hand, ID purports to be an ALTERNATIVE to evolution. Therefore it must provide a coherent theory that can provide answers for the same questions that evolution tries to answer. To return to my tired baseball analogy, it would be like my saying, "Okay, I think a baseball was hit through this window," whereupon you rejoin, "No it wasn't," but fail to tell me what you think DID happen.
 * As to brand-new genetic information, if you don't understand this, i'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. New genetic information crops up all the time. Each generation of humans acquires on average 100 novel mutations in their gene sequence, 2 or 3 of which probably have a significant functional effect. That is, they contain genetic sequences never before seen in the history of the world. That's "new genetic information". This is backed up by hundreds of studies on genetic disease, confirming the presence, frequency, and functional effect of new mutations. Graft 18:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * <>
 * It may be a separate question, but it is most certainly relevant. If they don't get started, how can they develop?
 * http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Evolution_is_baseless_without_a_theory_of_abiogenesis


 * <<ID purports to be an ALTERNATIVE to evolution>>
 * Does it? That is, does it really claim to be a complete alternative?  My point is that evolution as a theory is incomplete, yet you demand completeness from Intelligent Design.  No theory has all the questions answered, so they can't be rejected just because they don't (yet) answer everything.
 * Not if you understand what Evolution is, which it has become clear you don't.
 * <<To return to my tired baseball analogy, it would be like my saying, "Okay, I think a baseball was hit through this window," whereupon you rejoin, "No it wasn't," but fail to tell me what you think DID happen.>>
 * Which would be a perfectly valid thing to argue if, for example, the baseball was found outside the broken window of a cupboard which was not big enough for someone to have been inside to hit the baseball through. In other words, there is nothing wrong with pointing out problems with a theory whilst not proposing an alternative.  And that was an ironic example considering that I did propose an alternative!  How's the proof that my explanation is wrong, going?


 * <<As to brand-new genetic information, if you don't understand this, i'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.>>
 * More argument by put-down.
 * No, it's not, there are loads of resources out there answering the "genetic information" claim, if you have to ask the question, it is a fact that you are uninformed about the argument.
 * <<New genetic information crops up all the time.>>
 * Then you shouldn't have any problems quoting a few examples, should you? But your remaining explanation doesn't hold much hope, because it appears to explain the origin of corruption of existing genetic information, not creation of brand-new genetic information.  All genetic diseases so far studied are the result of corruption of existing genetic information.  They do not introduce new functions, abilities, or organs, which is what evolution requires.
 * Philip J. Rayment 12:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Try these for starters, they include links to other sites and recomend books and papers:
 * I asked you for examples. Direct links to examples are fine, but links to links and links to books and papers are ducking the question. Philip J. Rayment 15:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I provided links because this is wikipedia, not a discussion board. You have misunderstood and misrepresented the science and I, and others, are trying to show you why you are wrong.  The examples you ask for are out there, and already written, there is no point in me wasting wikipedia space retyping them. --Steinsky 16:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I said that direct links were fine; I didn't ask you to retype them. Philip J. Rayment 17:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Evolution_of_new_information
 * Point 1 makes claims of new genetic information with off-line references, but no examples. Point 2 is to do with duplication, not new information.  Points 3 to 5 give no examples either.  A waste of my time. Philip J. Rayment 15:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Duplication + mutation leads to new genes. The concept is very simple, either you are willfully not getting the point, or you are willfully misrepresenting the science, either way it shows you are incapable of writing neutral wikipedia articles on the subject.
 * Duplication + mutation leads to deformed genes, unless those mutations actually do something new and useful. That's what I was asking for evidence of. Philip J. Rayment 17:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You need evidence that mutations can lead to something new? Try getting a basic understanding of molecular biology.  And STOP IGNORING NATURAL SELECTION.  Your statement is a ridiculous, inconsistant and uninformed straw man of the science. --Steinsky 19:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring natural selection. Before natural selection can do its job, it needs something to select.  That's where mutations (supposedly) come in.  You have to have something new and useful to select.  I'm asking for evidence of that. Philip J. Rayment 15:44, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Most_mutations_are_harmful
 * I never said that there are no beneficial mutatations. A loss of information can occassionally be beneficial.  Thus no examples here either, and another waste of time. Philip J. Rayment 15:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You talked about genetic degradation earlier, ignoring the action of natural selection, a misrepresentation of what evolution is. That page was a counter to your misrepresentation.
 * I never said that natural selection couldn't select for genetic degradation, so I didn't misrepresent it at all. Philip J. Rayment 17:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You have completely misunderstood my comment in a way which is some shocking that I can only conclude is either deliberate or down to being completely unaware of what this discussion is about. You appear to show a lack of understanding of the simple concept that although mutations are random, natural selection is not, and however rare "good mutations" are, natural selection will ensure that they survive.  Your arguments are also becoming inconsistant ("show me evidence of genes that do something useful"/"I never said there are no beneficial mutations").  --Steinsky 19:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that natural selection should help the survival of "good mutations". I also agree that some degradation of genetic information can be beneficial (e.g. a mutation that prevents the grow of wings of beetles on windswept islands will be beneficial as it will prevent the beetles being blown out to sea.  But this is a loss of genetic information, not a gain).  I don't believe that I wrote "show me evidence of genes that do something useful".  I asked for evidence of new genetic information, and by "information", I mean not just a random rearrangement of genetic information, but something that actually does something new and useful, such as produce wings where there were none before. Philip J. Rayment 15:44, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Mutations_don't_produce_new_features
 * Finally we get to one that actually has some examples, although virtually no information is given about them. The first is the Nylon bug, but this one is disputed . Philip J. Rayment 15:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I haven't finnished reading your link yet, but it appears to rest on claims that the transposons are not compatable with the evolutionary explanations, and the claims are simply wrong. There is absolutely no reason to invoke the argument from design to explain the observation that transposons are activated when the cell is under stress, which could have one or more of a whole number of selection advantages, both for the cell and the "selfish transposon".  The second claim is that there is no evidence that the transposons are a late addition.  There is evidence, the evidence is that the transposons are almost identical.  There article providence no evidence that the transposons weren't a late addition.  Point 9 is irrelevant, there is no evidence that the evolutionary pathways in the wild and lab organisms was the same (and surely point 5, that an organism evolved nylon degradation ability in the lab counts against you?).  Point 4 is irrelevant, because evolution is not chance, the author ignores natural selection.
 * 1/ Mutations are random events; a consistent result to stress is not random. 4/ The mutations that natural selection has to work with are chance. 5/ He suggests that it wasn't a chance event, and the alternative is design. Philip J. Rayment 17:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes they are, but the mutation occurs once, not repeatedly whenever there is stress (I have no idea where you got the idea that the same mutation arises consistantly, and such an idea makes no sense). That one mutation creates a gene which responds to stress to create transposase.  It is the gene that consistantly responds to stress, as per all of the current models of molecular biology.
 * 4. So?
 * 5. And provides no edidence. The hypothesis is inconsistant with existing evidence and theories, the conventional explanation stands firm against the claims, there is no need to invoke the argument from design.
 * 1/ Okay, I garbled that. I may contact the author and ask him to elaborate.  4/ As explained above, natural selection requires a random mutation to work on, so the randomness is relevant.  5/ I was responding to your point that its "ability to evolve" works against me.  It doesn't if it indicates design, which was his point.  Philip J. Rayment 15:44, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/dawkinschallenge.htm
 * Again, no examples. Dawkins was asked for examples, and failed to supply any.  I wonder why he didn't cite some of the ones you have given?  Is that he doesn't know as much as you, or is it that he knows that they don't qualify? Philip J. Rayment 15:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Whether Dawkins gives examples or not is irrelevant, he demonstrates how evolution "increases information", all the time. I'm sure I read that you yourself accept that "microevolution" occurs, in which case you must also accept that evolution increases information in this way.  If you do not accept that microevolution happens you must be willfully ignoring the evidence.
 * The best way to demonstrate it is to give examples. He was asked for examples, and could not give them.  I don't accept "microevolution" if that involves an increase in genetic information.  I accept changes to living things due to rearrangement of genetic information and loss of genetic information.  Philip J. Rayment 17:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This is an irrelevant and extremely weak diversionary tactic. Dawkins explains the mathematical concept, specific examples are not needed, and would not make sense in this particular essay. --Steinsky 19:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * A 'diversionary tactic'? If anything Dawkins is using a diversionary tactic.  He was asked for examples, and twice failed to provide them, instead (in the second case) by 'diverting' to trying to justify them without providing evidence.  Creationists have pointed to his lack of evidence as support for their point of view.  To continue to refuse to provide evidence only strengthens the Creationists' case.  Philip J. Rayment 15:44, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/evc/argresp/information.html
 * No examples here either, except for an example of duplication. Philip J. Rayment 15:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3f625d025bffffff;act=ST;f=9;t=6
 * I didn't have time to read this one in detail, but from what I did see with examples of presumed mutation (rather than observed), etc., I didn't find it convincing. Philip J. Rayment 15:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Now, I know the point of ID is all about trying to make people believe there are holes in the theory of evolution, rather than formulating any kind of theory or doing research, but even so, I think we should move any further discussion of such holes off wikipedia (I have started with links to specific EvoWiki pages for claims). I would be happy to carry on somewhere like IIDB.org. --Steinsky 13:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * And I know that the point of many here is to make people believe that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, rather than writing a fair article about a movement that threatens their belief system. Philip J. Rayment 15:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * We have explained why ID is pseudoscience and you've ignored all of the facts and diverted this talk page into a debate about long-debunked anti-evolution claims. Perhaps if you could you privide the theory of ID and some evidence to support it, which does not include anti-evolution claims, you would have some support for your "ID is not pseudoscience" claim, but so far neither you nor anybody else has been able to do so. --Steinsky 16:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * As I said above, if the fact is that ID is indeed considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large, then pointing this out is consistent with the wikipedia NPOV policy, particularly considering that ID proponents insist on making the point that ID is science, and that it be taught in science classes.--FM 08:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You might like to think that anti-evolution claims have been "long debunked", but I disagree. And considering that evolution and creation are the only two serious contenders for explaining origins, anti-evolution arguments do support the case for creation, even if they don't scientifically prove it.
 * I'm not saying that it definitely shouldn't be included; I was just questioning whether making it so prominent was NPOV.
 * Philip J. Rayment 17:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The point remains that in presenting the allegedly 'scientific' assertions of ID proponents as a necessary part of the article without pointing out that in fact they comprise a distinctly small minority in the relevant scientific communities would be both explicitly and implicitly POV. Your disagreeing with the status of ID in the field of science is irrelevant to the article, which by mandate must reflect the reality of ID's status.--FM 18:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)