Sunday, February 04, 2007

The Explanatory Filter, a useful process?

Secondclass' thread reminded me of a question I asked at the ARN board over a year ago. What can be achieved with the explanatory filter when applying the process to a real biological system? Despite the thread running for nine months and to eighteen pages, nobody came up with any true example.

Indeed, Salvador Cordova disingenuously introduced the "red herring" of Genetic-ID, which he also trotted out again here.
The comments are amusing for several reasons, DaveScot not being impressed with Salvador's argument, and a couple of posts by one Xavier (me), with Secondclass getting a DaveScot addition to his final comment.

If Joe Gallien has time, maybe he could enlighten me as to whether the EF has yet been applied to a real biological example.

This thread might be the place for anyone else apart from Joe and Secondclass who might wish to comment on the previous thread.

69 comments:

Joe G said...

Yes, The EF has been applied to a biological example. In NFL Dembski applied to the bac flag.


And I have been told that Doug Axe has also used it in the papers pointed out here

Stephen C Meyer has also used it for the OoL and proteins in general.

However this thread brings up aother point-

How was it determined the apparent design observed in living organisms is only illusory?

IOW how do anti-IDists support their position?

It is necessary to have a reference so to avoid double-standards. (however I am sure I will not get such a reference)

Doppelganger said...

Those examples all seem to be terribly non-rigorouos, open to interpretation, and very subjective.
Good for selling books to the masses, bad for establishing the veracity of one's claims.

Joe G said...

Seeing that doppleganger has never established the veracity of any evolutionary claim, I understand he knows quite a bit about the topic.

I also noticed he didn't provide anything in support of:

How was it determined the apparent design observed in living organisms is only illusory?

IOW how do anti-IDists support their position?


If one wants to read something terribly non-rigorous, open to interpretation and very subjective, just read any & all responses to those questions.

Alan Fox said...

JoeG said:

Yes, The EF has been applied to a biological example. In NFL Dembski applied to the bac flag.

Well. that is amazing news, Joe. When did Bill do this? And what result did he get? And to which bacterial flagellum did he apply the process, for, as I am sure you are aware, there are differences in the structure of the flagellum between species, such as for example, Helicobacter pylori and E. coli Also, in the abstract, or when talking in analogies, I note that the EF analyses events. It may be a semantic misunderstanding, but how is the flagellum examined as some kind of event?

I am also amazed that, if Bill had successfully used the explanatory filter process to, say, demonstrate the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, that he wasn't the star witness at Harrisburg.

I have lots more questions but will post more when I have more time.

Doppelganger said...

Hi Joe,

Long time no argue. Rest assured, I do not intend to re-engage you on any topic as I know how fruitless it would be. I did just want to clarify a few things:

Seeing that doppleganger has never established the veracity of any evolutionary claim,

For one, I do not think I have ever attempted to do so. But I do think it is elementary - I can, for example, establish the veracity of employing phylogenetic methods to reconstruct evolutionary history with reasonable confidence due to the fact that the methods employed have been tested both on known geneologies and on experimentally derived ones.


I also noticed he didn't provide anything in support of:

How was it determined the apparent design observed in living organisms is only illusory?


Why would I have? I was only responding to what you had written re: the use of Dembski's make believe 'EF'.

IOW how do anti-IDists support their position?

Unlike IDers - with actual relevant evidence, as opposed to analogies and strawman arguments.
Who, for example, cares about applying the EF to a rigged eletion as 'proof' that the EF works when applying it to the bacterial flagellum (which one, by the way? there is no "the" bacteruial flagellum)?


If one wants to read something terribly non-rigorous, open to interpretation and very subjective, just read any & all responses to those questions.

How unique - reply to a legitimate criticism with a dodge and a handwave.

Bye Joe.

Chris Hyland said...

If I recall correctly part of Dembski's calculation of the CSI of the bacterial flagellum involved the probability that all of the proteins formed from random combinations of amino acids.

Doppelganger said...

Which, of course, means that Dembski is 'filtering' a strawman.

Occam's Aftershave said...

YECs/IDers know that their gullible followers are impressed with Really Big Numbers™, so they merely multiply numbers together until they get a number big enough for their purpose. It doesn't matter that the original numbers are based on faulty assumptions, or that combining these numbers is such a linear fashion has no basis in physical reality. All that matters is that the arguments sound plausible to the lay public, which is the target audience.

The classic example is Bill "Isaac Newton" Dembski's laughably bad calculation of the odds of forming a flagellum, given in No Free Lunch. Dembski assigns values for the odds he thinks the formation of each flagellum protein should have, multiplies a bunch of them together, and voila – he gets odds of 1 in a Really Big Number™, which he claims must indicate design.

Problem is, his basic assumptions are all wrong from the get-go. First, he assumes there is one and only one way to form the required proteins. It is well known that there are many ways to genetically encode for the same proteins – the exact number of ways is unknown. Second, it is also well known that there are many different proteins that can perform a similar function – again, the exact number is unknown. Dembski basically made up values to suit his needs. Finally, Dembski’s calculations also make the erroneous assumption that all the proteins had to assemble simultaneously from scratch – the technical term is a discrete combinational object. It is well know (except to Dembski, apparently) that evolution works as a positive feedback loop, an iterative process using existing structures and materials and adding/modifying them in each subsequent generation. As such, any calculations that assume an “all at once” formation are hopelessly flawed. A simple example is poker – the odds of getting 3 of a kind is much greater playing draw poker (with the positive feedback provided by the hold/discard) than in a straight 5 card deal.

It all comes down to GIGO. Unfounded assumptions used to generate Really Big Numbers™ to impress the sheep. The scientific community, however, is not impressed with such mathematical shenanigans.

Joe G said...

doppleganger:
How unique - reply to a legitimate criticism with a dodge and a handwave.

You have NEVER provided legitimate criticism to anything that I am aware of.

And you have NEVER provided any data that demonstrates that ANY mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

IOW there isn't ANY actual evidence that demonstrates that premise, that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor, is indicative of reality

To Alan:

Read "No Free Lunch". And Harrisburg was a meaningless joke.


Chris Hyland:
If I recall correctly part of Dembski's calculation of the CSI of the bacterial flagellum involved the probability that all of the proteins formed from random combinations of amino acids.

I would need a reference for that.

We do know that even given the coreect proteins much more is required. The proteins have to properly assembled and in the correct amounts. This requires precise and accurate timing along with some feedback.

Then the organism needs to command and control the novel appendage. For without C&C the thing is useless.

And all one has to do to silence ID is to actually substantiate your own claims!

Imagine that! Demonstrate that any bac flag can arise via accumulated genetic accidents.

OA you are misrepresenting DCO. I understand that misrep is the best you can do but you should focus on supporting the anti-ID position. That is the only way to defeat ID.

However it is becoming glaringly obvious that no one can...

Doppelganger said...

And you have NEVER provided any data that demonstrates that ANY mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

I have not desired to do so, as best I can remember. Of course, one only need look at the avilable sequence data to see what the genetic differences are, and understand that there are, in fact, many known, understood, and documented mechanisms which can account for genetic change. And since genetic change is ultimately the basis for phenotypic change, I think the conclusion that normal, understood mechanisms of genetic change is responsible for the changes between humans and chimps - or any other organisms, for that nmatter, is pretty valid.

But like I said - I really have no desire to engage in any protracted discussion with you on anything. I know where it leads.

Bye Joe.

Occam's Aftershave said...

JoeG: "OA you are misrepresenting DCO."

Joe, did Dembski's EF calculations assume all the proteins had to assemble simultaneously and from scratch? :Yes or No.

Did Dembski at any time in his calculations take into account the iterative, positive feedback nature of evolving systems? :Yes or No.

Joe G said...

In the DVD Case For A Creator, in the Q&A section, Michael Behe was asked, How would you respond to the claim that intelligent design theory is not falsifiable? (HT Gil Dodgen)

Behe responded:


"The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.

I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right."

Joe G said...

doppleganger:
Of course, one only need look at the avilable sequence data to see what the genetic differences are, and understand that there are, in fact, many known, understood, and documented mechanisms which can account for genetic change.

Genetic change is not the issue.

doppleganger:
And since genetic change is ultimately the basis for phenotypic change, I think the conclusion that normal, understood mechanisms of genetic change is responsible for the changes between humans and chimps - or any other organisms, for that nmatter, is pretty valid.

Ever hear of epigenetics? Also there isn't any valid reason for the extrapolation. Only one who first assumes would reach such a speculation.

doppleganger:
But like I said - I really have no desire to engage in any protracted discussion with you on anything. I know where it leads.

Yes- it leads to you never supporting anything you say.

Joe G said...

OA:
Joe, did Dembski's EF calculations assume all the proteins had to assemble simultaneously and from scratch? :Yes or No.

Not that I am aware of. Do you have a reference?

Did Dembski at any time in his calculations take into account the iterative, positive feedback nature of evolving systems? :Yes or No.

He says he treats chance as a combo of chance and necessity. So that would be a Yes.

We also know that NS does NOT plan and that random effects can lay waste to even the best laid plans.

Occam's Aftershave said...

Not that I am aware of. Do you have a reference?

Reference your copy of No Free Lunch and look at the EF calculation you brought up Joe. Show me where the calculations assume anything but a one time simultaneous event for the formation of all the proteins.

He says he treats chance as a combo of chance and necessity. So that would be a Yes.

Bullshit Joe. Show me in the actual calculations where Dembski takes into account any sort of feedback when coming up with his values.

Dembski has all but abandoned pushing the EF in recent times - guess he's had enough embarrassment over this turd. He rarely if even mentions it anymore, and certainly no longer defends it. BTW, the topic came up over at UncommonDescent last year, and I posted the exact same objections there as I did above. Dembski's response was not to answer the critiques, but to delete my comment and ban me from UD.

Rich Hughes said...

Decent critque here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

Rich Hughes said...

When Joe says he's read NFL, he means "looked at it". Nice cover, looks *very* sciency.

secondclass said...

Rich: When Joe says he's read NFL, he means "looked at it". Nice cover, looks *very* sciency.

No kidding. When I told Joe that he had the concept of detachability backwards, his excuse was that it had been 7 years since he read TDI. Joe is apparently unaware that detachability is discussed throughout NFL.

Joe G said...

secondclass, get a life. In my haste to look up an irrelevant reference I mis-read Dembski. That was because I didn't go back far enough in my review.

Both you and Hughs should go back under the rock from which you climbed out from.

Rich Hughes said...

Aww... Hughs to you too, Joe.

Does that mean you've changed your position and now think that:

1) Dembski's math is flawed
2) The EF is bunk

Fonds regards,

Rich HughEs.

Joe G said...

OA:
Reference your copy of No Free Lunch and look at the EF calculation you brought up Joe. Show me where the calculations assume anything but a one time simultaneous event for the formation of all the proteins.

He does start his claculations already assuming the existence of teh proteins- reference page 292 NFL. And as I said earlier one still needs to get the right proteins to the right location, in the right amounts, in the right order and at the correct time.

Only later, when discussing pertubation identity factor, does he get into the formation of the individual proteins. But it doesn't matter to him. Starting with the proteins isn't enough without a plan to put them together properly.

He says he treats chance as a combo of chance and necessity. So that would be a Yes.

OA:
Bullshit Joe.

Eat me Afterbirth.

Show me in the actual calculations where Dembski takes into account any sort of feedback when coming up with his values.

Umm he does it with a "1" in the place of probability. When someone multiplies something by "1" it stays the same and most times the "1" is not included in the final equation.

And why would Dembski answer the demands of an anonymous internet troll? Clueless people like are just a waste of time. But I still find your flailing very entertaining.

Can someone tell me of a better process to determine design that is not prejudiced to that end?

And it would be great if someone also told us how it was determined the observed "apparent" design is illusory. Or even addressed the Behe tidbit on falsification.

That way anyone that reads this thread can see there really aren't any double standards.

Rich Hughes said...

"Can someone tell me of a better process to determine design that is not prejudiced to that end?"

Erm, watching the designer?
Reverse engineering the mechanism?

secondclass said...

Joe: Can someone tell me of a better process to determine design that is not prejudiced to that end?

How about a comparative approach, which can be justified mathematically, as opposed to Dembski's eliminative approach, which cannot?

Occam's Aftershave said...

He does start his claculations already assuming the existence of teh proteins- reference page 292 NFL. And as I said earlier one still needs to get the right proteins to the right location, in the right amounts, in the right order and at the correct time.

Only later, when discussing pertubation identity factor, does he get into the formation of the individual proteins. But it doesn't matter to him. Starting with the proteins isn't enough without a plan to put them together properly.


But he still assumes the right proteins in the right location, in the right amounts, in the right order and at the correct time all happened to appear spontaneously and simultaneously, did he not? And you keep forgetting to show where the actual EF calculations take into accout feedback and/or non-simultaneous conditional events. Why is that Joe? You wouldn't want the lurkers to get the idea you're a spineless idiot who can't back up a thing he says, now would you?

Umm he does it with a "1" in the place of probability. When someone multiplies something by "1" it stays the same and most times the "1" is not included in the final equation.

LOL! So according to you, in order to model a complicated long-term feedback system you simply multiply a static value by 1. Good one Joe! That's gotta go into the IDiots' Hall of Fame.

Stupidity like yours is a rare and valuable comedic commodity Joe. It needs to be widely dispersed to a laugh-starved public.

secondclass said...

Occam: Show me in the actual calculations where Dembski takes into account any sort of feedback when coming up with his values.

Joe: Umm he does it with a "1" in the place of probability.

Are you talking about p_orig? If so, what does that have to do with feedback?

secondclass said...

Specifically, how does that address the feedback mechanisms that would increase p_local and p_config?

secondclass said...

In answer to the original query about the EF being applied to a real biological example:

The EF requires that all natural hypotheses be eliminated. Dembski eliminated, at most, a hypothesis of pure random combination. In order to defend the assertion that Dembski applied his full method, Joe needs to show that random combination is the only relevant natural hypothesis.

If Joe tries to pass the buck and say that "Darwinists" are responsible for positing additional hypotheses, I refer him to his own words when he said that design inferences require due diligence and research. How much due diligence and research has Dembski put into coming up with other hypotheses?

Zachriel said...

joe g: "Genetic change is not the issue."

How can that not be an issue when that the posited mechanism?

joe g: "And why would Dembski answer the demands of an anonymous internet troll?"

So, how is Dembski doing with convincing scientists and mathematicians of the validity of his claims? How often are his published scientific journal articles being cited?

Chris Hyland said...

Me: If I recall correctly part of Dembski's calculation of the CSI of the bacterial flagellum involved the probability that all of the proteins formed from random combinations of amino acids.

Joe: I would need a reference for that.

It's in No Free Lunch I cant tell you the page Im afraid I don't own a copy. In any case the point is that it is completely impossible to calculate a number for the probability that the bacterial flagellum evolved, so you can't use the EF with any kind of accuracy.

Regarding Behe on falsification, if you can falsify ID by proving a system evolved naturally then surely you can falsify 'Darwinism' by proving a system was designed.

"Can someone tell me of a better process to determine design that is not prejudiced to that end?"

Perform a large scale analysis of the literature/biological databases. Propose a hypotheisis of what the designer did. Use it to make predictions of future obserrvations. Collect observations. Refine theory. Repeat until you have more support than the current theory.

If ID is indeed detectable scientifically that should be the easiest way to do it, a lot easier than trying to disprovde evolution.

Alan Fox said...

Joe

You seem to have been inundated with responses. This blog is open to anyone who wishes to make a contribution, so if you want to invite others who share your views (for example at ISCID and Uncommon Descent, where I am banned so can't send an invite) feel free.

Alan Fox said...

Joe wrote:

To Alan:

Read "No Free Lunch". And Harrisburg was a meaningless joke.


I have read quite a few of Dembski's papers. The problem is that he is a mathematician and religious apologist, whilst my background is biochemist manqué. I think attempting to read "No Free Lunch" would not be productive.

As others have pointed out more eloquently, mathematical modelling is a useful tool in making predictions, if the initial assumptions bear some relation to the system being modelled. I, and many others apparently, are not convinced that Dembski's mathematical manipulations have any relevance to actual biological systems. That really is the essence of Dembski's problem.

And while I found much to chuckle about at various times over the events at Harrisburg, I suggest the verdict was far from meaningless. On the contrary, ID is now effectively and permanently side-lined as a vehicle for right-wing religious fundamentalism because of Judge Jones' ruling.

Doppelganger said...

I know I will regret this, but what the hell...

doppleganger:
Of course, one only need look at the available sequence data to see what the genetic differences are, and understand that there are, in fact, many known, understood, and documented mechanisms which can account for genetic change.

Genetic change is not the issue.


It is if it is the underlying 'cause' for the phenotypic change. Seems pretty obvious.


doppleganger:
And since genetic change is ultimately the basis for phenotypic change, I think the conclusion that normal, understood mechanisms of genetic change is responsible for the changes between humans and chimps - or any other organisms, for that nmatter, is pretty valid.

Ever hear of epigenetics?


Yes, I have. What about it? How does epigenetics nullify the impact on phenotype of genotype?
Do you really think that epigenetics supplants all standard genetics?

Also there isn't any valid reason for the extrapolation. Only one who first assumes would reach such a speculation.

There is no valid reason not to assume that the patterns observed and amenable to analysis in smzall-scale knowns and experimentally derived lineages for some strange, unknonw reason suddenly is no longer valid when applied to larger-scale issues.

If that were, the use of human analogies to the Intelligent Design in Nature would have been dropped a long time ago by the ID crewationism movement, and we know that, of course, such analogies are the bread and butter of many an IDcreationist arguemnt.

It is especially unfounded to declare that molecular phylogenetics are inapplicable on large scales when the results of such analyses are generally congruent with hypotheses and analyses premised on non-molecular data.

Doppelganger said...

So, how is Dembski doing with convincing scientists and mathematicians of the validity of his claims? How often are his published scientific journal articles being cited?

It is funny you bring that up - I checked on this s few months ago and found that one of my piddly publications has been cited more than all of Dembski's peer-reviewed pubs combined (as of 1998, it looked as though he had only one non-theological/religious publication and one non-religious short communication anyway).

I guess we all know who is the 'nobody'...

secondclass said...

Back on Joe's site, I asked him:

2ndclass: So if we don't know of any natural mechanism to account for the origin of a biological organism, should we infer design, or should we just say we don't know?

His answer was:

Joe: We should say "We don't know", but we don't.
(Emphasis his)

Of course, this completely contradicts the explanatory filter, which has no "We don't know" conclusion. According to the EF, if you can't think of natural mechanism to account for it, you have to infer design.

When I asked Joe why Dembski didn't say "I don't know" in regards to bacterial flagella, he first said that the question was childish. When pressed further, he said:

Joe: To which I would have responded- the bac flag exists. There are only so many options to its existence. Not only does the proper proteins have to be made, they have to be properly configured. That means getting all the right amounts at the right place at the right time. That's not all, it needs to be under command and control.

So the question should be "Who in their right freakin' mind would think that culled genetic accidents can do such a thing?"


So Dembski's approach, by Joe's admission, boils down to the well-worn argument from incredulity.

Occam's Aftershave said...

No surprise, but looks like JoeG has cut and run. Guess he embarrassed himself enough for one thread. After that 'to model a feedback loop, just multiply by 1' bit of pure stupidity he had nowhere to go but down.

Whatta maroon!

Zachriel said...

Joe is here.

Alan Fox said...

Oops commented on previous thread.

Jordan said...

I want answers!!!!!

Alan Fox said...

Don't we all, Jordan. Though it is probably best to ask questions so people have an idea what it is you want answering.

Alan Fox said...

Jordan said...

Sorry for curseing but I have been unwillinly part of some psedo-experiements and this stuff is clearly a main factor. I want answers to what I have been going through. I am very angry and will not be a sheep. I will not be a victim rather you give me answers or not, because someone is going to be held accountable
2/08/2007 11:19:00 PM

(pasted from previous thread)

Alan Fox said...

Pseudo-experiment?

Tell me more.

I appreciate your apology for intemperate language, I am sure you can make your points without resorting to further examples.

JanieBelle said...

Ok, Jordan is now messaging my MySpace account, grilling me on my "personal fascination" with Alan.

I told him he should take his meds.

:)

jordan said...

janiebelle is a fake blogger that someone felt nessassarry to create a back back story and fake website for...Your busted

Alan Fox said...

Jordan

I can see there is no use trying to fool you. Did you notice what it says on the home page of Janie's blogsite?

I am entirely fictional, and without sexual preference.

Very smart of you to spot that bit of deception.

blipey said...

Hey Jordan,

You do realise that Janie's blog says in big letters in the upper right-hand corner: THAT SHE IS FAKE.

Thanks for learning to read. You're busted (with an apostrophe).

As to Joe running, I'm shocked. And disappointed. He's usually boring, but he came up with a true gem here. Nicely done, all.

Anonymous said...

The why did you take the time to have a conversation with me pretending to a be 17 year old girl, and then post a fake conversation between the two of your on the site?

jordan said...

Your def my guy...all this BS is far too familar.

Jordan said...

How is A.I. used to support either side of your claims?


Do you do studies on the the people on net space? Such as manipulating the envirorment to see how people will react?

Jordan said...

Why is their so much hatred and deception between the two disputing sides? Is the terminology in in conversations about this topic purposly vauge to block out the mainstream public for having a understanding of it??


I know you guys are 1000 times smarter then me, because you must be getting seriously outclassed to actually have to work so hard to convince people of the exsistance of evolution.

blipey said...

Jordan, you're managing to push Joe G. into the realms of bright commenter. Nicely done.

Oh, let me translate:

Jorda, your making Joeg. look liek an elitist sciencetist, who is also a aethiest, and makes good comments with research adn also nows smart people at colleges and things. WTG.

JanieBelle said...

OMG, I'm in frickin' tears!

idjit.

Jordan said...

Without reading this stuff in depth most people would not get a good understanding of it. I am a college graduate so you can save your insanly arrogant rants. Do you think you could, without smugging my screen up with your self-love, give a short overvierw of what all this debate and research is about?

Jordan said...

Before you answer decide whether you want to moderate this site like a nazi. Because if you give me a smart ass comment this site is going to be flooded with so much Dembski propoganda that you will start to believe him.

blipey said...

Short overview of debate:

Intelligent Design Creationists (IDiots) believe that the Theory of Evolution (in about 931 of their own varyingly bad definitions of it) is wrong because Jesus didn't mention it.

Scientists point out that this is not really a terribly rational rationale for disputing the actual evidence of the Theory of Evolution.

IDiots then say, "Oh yeah, you've got poopy in your pants."

If you think that I am lying or oversimplifying things, have a look yourself.

Bill Dembski's Uncommon Descent, a blog about banning people who have rational thoughts

Intelligent Reasoning: Joe Gallien's wonder musings on the stupidity of everyone in the world, himself excepted

Stop Lying to Us: the touching quest for meaning and the means to topple evil, western culture by a Dembski research assistant (now defunct, I'm afraid)

Overwhelming Evidence: the touching quest of a bunch of 40-somethings to find their own inner coolness by convincing no fewer (and, interestingly, no more than) 2 actual teenagers that ID is the wave of the future

Happy reading; laughter is good for the soul.

Alan Fox said...

Jordan, that would have to be one whole big slice of propaganda...

but... what the heck... bring it on.

blipey said...

Dembski's propoganda will never flood this site for a simple reason that would dawn on you if you took the time to either:

1. Read the rest of the site

2. Interact with IDiots and really pay attention to what drives them.

IDiots don't stick around long when actually presented with facts that they don't like. When in an environment that they can't censor, manipulate, and otherwise control, they run away.

I think that the indelible evidence of this is the crown jewel of Alan's little experiment with this blog.

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

Oh this is too good. Jordan. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

xronartestx said...

right back at ya

xronartestx said...

Alan Fox you should spread racial and religion hate in popular web forums....

xronartestx said...

shouldnt I mean

xronartestx said...

The people are not taking to kindly to you....

JanieBelle said...

Care to point out an example, or are you just going to make wild, unsupported assertions and baseless accusations?

Oh wait, I forgot. You're an IDjit.

Forget I asked.

xronartestx said...

whatever alan, please use one name only

JanieBelle said...

You really are as dumb as you type, aren't you?

IAMB said...

Jordan said:
I am a college graduate so you can save your insanly arrogant rants.

Gotta be BJU for sure... or maybe Patriot.

You snagged a good one Alan.

blipey said...

Hey, NBA dude, did you read any of the links I provided? How would you characterize those blogs?

Kristine said...

Dembski has all but abandoned pushing the EF in recent times - guess he's had enough embarrassment over this turd.

*Snicker* Occam, you just gave me an idea...

Joe G said...

secondclass opines:
The EF requires that all natural hypotheses be eliminated.

That is false. Science does not do proof and that would amount to a proof.

All the EF requires is a reasonable inference based on the best available data.

That is how science works. Then future research can either confirm or falsify that inference.

And if ID can falsify the ToE then it is scientific. Or are you (Chris Hyland) saying that pseudo-science can refute science?

Ya see I know that in order to refute something considered scientific it requires a valid scientific research program.

secondclass said...

secondclass opines:
The EF requires that all natural hypotheses be eliminated.


Actually, it's Dembski who opines that, and it makes sense. Logically inferring something by elimination entails explicitly or implicitly eliminating all other options.

That is false. Science does not do proof and that would amount to a proof.

Only if you think that eliminating a hypothesis requires that it be strictly proven false. If that's what you think, then how do you explain Dembski's frequent talk of eliminating hypotheses?

All the EF requires is a reasonable inference based on the best available data.

That is how science works. Then future research can either confirm or falsify that inference.


I never said anything about strict proof. Dembski, however, claims that "whenever the Explanatory Filter attributes design, it does so correctly." You might want to take that up with him.