Thursday, July 20, 2006

Intelligent Design: The Scientific Evidence.

Lord Timothy on another thread says "Now that the media spot light has been dimmed, more research is able to be done without huge public controversies and court hearings over every sneeze that IDists make."

There are many who would like to hear about "more research" or, in fact, any research.
Anyone with information about any possible, planned or ongoing research (preferably scientific) that is relevant to the "hypothesis" of Intelligent Design, please post it.

33 comments:

Chris Hyland said...

For some information on what doesn't count see here.

JohnADavison said...

For evidence, both direct and indirect and labeled as such, I refer you to my paper A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read it."
John A. Davison

What a moronioc blog.

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

I refer you to my paper A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

You may have misread the OP, John. I was asking about scientific research relevant to Intelligent Design.

Alan Fox said...

I recommend everyone follow Chris's link. Nice work!

JohnADavison said...

Intelligent Design is not an hypothesis. It is a self-evident feature of every aspect of both the animate and inanimate worlds.

The only question is the nature, number and present existence of the Intelligent Designers, none of which in any way detract from the absolute necessity of their past existence. The failure to demonstrate a God or Gods is quite beside the point.

"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein

I regard the word "determined" as a synonym for "prescribed."

What say others or would they rather not say?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Chris Hyland said...

"The only question is the nature, number and present existence of the Intelligent Designers"

Do you think this would be a avenue for further research? The only way ID will become science is if they do the research, so the question is what can they do.

Nicholas Trevor said...

IMHO, ID can never escape starting to hypothesize the nature of the "designer/s". Assuming for a moment that ID is the way to go, the next logical step is "who designed us, why and how". Even if the so-called scientists say that it is irrelevant, the philosophical implications are evident here (in all fairness the notion that we are all products of nature carries implications for a number of people too).

That said, the "research" from the mecca of ID - the DI - seems to be pointing towards 'detecting' evidence of design (seen in Behe's work). I beleive that one of Dembski's arguments about why ID is relevant goes as follows- "If in the future, someone releases a genetically engineered virus, are we to assume that it evolved, and if not, how do we find out it was designed? This is where ID (*drumroll*) comes in". All they seem to have so far is a bunch of awfully weak analogies (remember Behe's 'molecular machines'?). Their arguments seem to be no stronger than Bishop Paley's from the 1700's.

Nicholas Trevor said...

After my last post, I just noticed that the 'Evolution & Design' blog has a thread called "Analogy, Induction, and Specious Arguments" ...its a nice complement.

JohnADavison said...

William Paley was right on! How do you like them apples?

Alan Fox said...

Born in 1743, and from 1776 to his death, employed in the Church of England, first as rector, finally as sub-dean of Lincoln Cathedral, "Paley is best remembered for his contributions to Christian apologetics. In 1802 he published Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature, his last, and, in some respects, his most remarkable book. In this he described the Watchmaker analogy, for which he is probably best known. He died on the 25th of May 1805." (Wikipedia)He was also a prominent abolitionist.

I can agree with John that Rev. Paley seems to have been an all round good guy. He was not, however, a scientist but a minister of religion and his beliefs were of his day and coloured his perceptions.

Whilst his writings seem to be influential in the area of philosophy, they are not (nor i suspect, intended to be) any kind of scientific work, and certainly not based on any kind of scientific observation.

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox just doesn't get it. There can be no design without a designer which is basically Paley's position.

Sorry Ox but as usual you are dead wrong.

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

Falan Ox just doesn't get it. There can be no design without a designer which is basically Paley's position.

I am sure that was Paley's position; being an eighteenth-century clergyman, that not being his position (that God created the world) would be surprising.

You claim to also believe in his philosophy. (although you seem to lack his sense of humour)which is perfectly fine by me.

However, what was believed or espoused by eighteenth-century clergymen is hardly scientific evidence for a supernatural intelligence or two to have designed living organisms.

Do you see, John, that I am trying to distinguish belief from observation, philosophy from science?

One reason that people lose interest in engaging with you is that you do not appear able to comprehend the points people are making in their posts, let alone respond to them in any meaningful way.

Jeannot said...

JAD, you once claimed that the Designer was dead. Since this hypothesis is very important for the ID movement, could you please provide a method to test it?
Give me a direct, scientifc answer without the usual insults. Can you do that John?

Thanks in advance.

Nicholas Trevor said...

Bishop Paley's claim in the 18th century: If a person who has never seen a watch discovers one when walking in the woods, he would still infer that it has been designed by another human because of its obvious design features. Ergo, life has had an intelligent designer...

Dembski's claim in the 21st century: If humans were extinct, and an alien race arrived on earth and examined mount rushmore (in its original condition)- through circumstantial evidence, they would infer that it is a product of a designer, not the result of a 'non-purposeful' process..

Some things never change.

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox

You still don't get it do you. You don't exist, you are a nothing, a less than nothing. You are negative. Your blog is a joke.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

biomimetic said...

I've got some ID research right here.

Maybe you can embed it in your blog.

Here's another research project.

JohnADavison said...

Hey Falan Ox and all his goofy friends. I just let it all hang out over at Larry's Blog. Read it and weep. God am I good or am I good?

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

God am I good or am I good?

No, John, just harmlessly deluded.

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox

If I am deluded why has Denyse O'Leary invited me to rejoin Uncommon Descent? I just posted my first comment there but it hasn't appeared yet as everything is moderated. If you are lucky it won't show up but I wouldn't bet on it because it is frightfully antiDarwinian. By the way, are you banned there still or is it yet? I forget. You are so forgetable you know.

I love it so!

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox and company

Well, my little message appeared. How do you like them apples?

I hope they give you gas and a rip-roaring case of the runs!

I love it so!

Biogeer said...

Wait, so now you're bragging about being a member of the Dembski peanut gallery? For such an arrogant fool, you haven't an ounce of genuine pride.

JohnADavison said...

biogeer

I belong to no organization and if you had an ounce of common sense or any knowledge of my internet history you would know that.

I have been banned from more forums than Pott L. Scage, the man with a thousand aliases. I have been banned twice from Uncommon Descent alone. I am proud to say I have been banned for life and denied even viewing at ARN. been banned from EvC, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc, etc, ad nauseum. How many have you been banned from you cowardly little anonymous twerp?

This blog is really hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

anonymizer said...

Davison is like a little kid who keeps throwing tantrums all the time, to get attention from someone (actually anyone)....even if he doesnt like that person. After all the months of swearing and cussing about Dembski, he is honored to be called back..hah! Actually, I am looking forward to this. Things were getting kinda dull on the entertainment side.

Biogeer said...

How many have you been banned from you cowardly little anonymous twerp?

None, although I don't doubt that my first comment would earn me that privilege at Dembski's cesspit.

I have neither the overabundance of free time, the defective intellect, the pathological need for attention, nor the utter lack of dignity required to match your "impressive" record of bannings.

JohnADavison said...

I am not honored to be back at UD at all. I fully expected it once that creep Spravid Dinger was history. I am amazed it took Dembski so long to realize what a liability he was. I always had supporters at UD and always will have no matter what happens. It was one of them that requested my return once the blowhard was gone. Dembski should be honored that I am posting on his forum. I was publishing evidence for Intelligent Design when he was still presenting it as an "inference."

I love it so!

JohnADavison said...

anonymizer sounds an awful lot like Spravid Dinger aka the Texas hog - Sus springeriana.

I love it so!

Nicholas Trevor said...

Hi Alan,
Can you start a thread to discuss about the fundamental nature of ID vs that of the evolutionary hypothesis- i.e. the presence of a designer/s vs entirely relegating the evolutionary process from the onset to natural mechanisms (whatever they may be). On a side note, I think you should moderate to make sure that the inevitable mud slinging match involving JAD does not occur...it is just ultimately pointless.

Alan Fox said...

Hi Nicholas

I am happy to post such a topic. Would you like to flesh it out a little and I will start a thread. Post here, on the suggestions thread or email me (via blogger) and I'll paste it as a thread topic.

Re JAD, now he has his new platform at UD, I'm sure we'll get lees from him here. I just noticed my own Freudian typo. I wonder whether it will be more lees or less.

If you look back to the original thread on this blog, I wanted to see if inveterate trolls like JAD could be given freedom to post as they saw fit, and whether such freedom would generate some responsibility. Whilst his posts can be annoying, I have only had to delete two posts for obscene content (both from JAD) so far.

Nicholas Trevor said...

Alan:

I would like to email you the details...however I noticed that your blogger profile does not have an email listed- am I missing something here?

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox

Every word you write is obscene.

i love it so!

Jeannot said...

Oh the irony! :D

Alan Fox said...

Sorry, Nicholas,

Profile amended, try now.

JohnADavison said...

I own ths blog