Dover Penn ID trial

[Mojo]

There are all these evolutionists out there, amassing this huge collection of evidence, including at least fifty peer-reviewed articles that he was waving in court (to which Behe's response, and I quote, was "not good enough.")

I hesitate to mention this, but this sounds awfully like Hammy's approach to any evidence supporting evolution that's put in front of him.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Seems to me the test is inherently inconclusive. Suppose a flagellum did appear. What is to stop an IDer from saying, "See god did it AGAIN!"

Especially if the IDer thought that God had front-loaded evolution.

~~ Paul

 

[RandFan]

Because that's how science works; based on empirical observation, you come up with a falsifiable hypothesis and subject it to testing. One way to test your hypothesis is to see whether what you predict should not happen does, in fact, not happen. That's not trying to prove a negative, it's trying to prove the absence of a negative. This is important, because a huge chunk of science is eliminating that which is demonstrably false.

I don't see how you can prove the absence of a negative. Could you give me some examples of scientists proving that something wont happen? I'm kind of confused, if science doesn't hold something to be true then how much resources should be expended to prove that that something isn't true? How many experiments should the ID folks conduct? At what point do you conclude that they are interested in science?

Behe cum suis claim that a bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex and cannot be developed by a process of evolution. The obvious way to make sure that this hypothesis is not incorrect is to go into the lab and try to get a strain of bacteria to grow a flagellum. If the strain fails to do so, that doesn't necessarily prove your hypothesis is correct, but at least it shows that it's not incorrect. What Rothschild managed to do is illustrate the Behe et al. and aren't actually interested in trying to find out whether their hypothesis stands up to falsification; in other words, they are not practicing science. QED.

I agree that they are not practicing science but I'm not sure this really proves anything. If it is so simple and scientists hold the opposite then does it not stand to reason that scientists would also perform the experiment and prove that the ID crowd wrong? What does it say about science that they won't conduct these experiments and falsify the ID argument?

 

[RandFan]

But this is part of the problem. He's saying "look, here's my theory, a theory that is almost entirely unsupported by experimental data, and here's a proposed experiment to test my theory, and I think it's a waste of time to run my experiment."

But that is not his position as I understand it. The position is that if evolution were true science has a simple way to demonstrate it but they haven't. (I don't buy the expriment for the reasons you state)

I'm sorry, Dr. Behe, but it's your (rule 8) theory, a theory that flies in the face of accepted science, and it's not worth your time to support your theory?

But it won't support his theory, that is the problem. No matter how many times he runs it you will say it is not enough. So the experiment is flawed from the start if we accept your premise. Rothschilds argument IMO is wrong.

Of course, as Rothschild pointed out elsewhere in his cross-examination, the difference between 10,000 generations of 10^12 bacteria and the postulated trillions of generations of 10^40 or so bacteria that nature is presumed to have at her disposal suggests that the power of Behe's proposed test is, in fact, close to zero -- the expected failure-to-find wouldn't mean much. So in that case, it would be a waste of time to run this particular experiment because it's not as well-designed as Behe would believe.

Agreed and this is the point that I think is appropriate.

We (scientists generally) don't know. It's never been important enough to determine experimentall, and large enough that a Behe-style experiment would be very difficult and expensive to run properly..

Yes, so what is the point of demanding that the ID crowd conduct the experiment an experiment that will not prove anything to anyone?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What does it say about science that they won't conduct these experiments and falsify the ID argument?

An experiment to evolve a flagellum? Under what environmental conditions? With which competing organisms in the soup? With what kind of food?

Evolution is primarily an historical science, at least now. If IDers want to use that as "evidence" against it, fine. Heck, ID is an historical pseudoscience, too.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I just want to remind everyone that Behe, Dembski et al haven't even provided a logical/probabilistic proof that the flagellum is irreducible. There is nothing that has been shown to be irreducible. Why should science run around trying to demonstrate that irreducible complexity can be overcome? They might as well worry about showing that New Jersey mud slime can be overcome.

Anyway, Schneider has demonstrated the evolution of an irreducibly complex structure. It's been done.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

.

Anyway, Schneider has demonstrated the evolution of an irreducibly complex structure. It's been done.

~~ Paul

Sure he did. BTW, would you like to buy a bridge I have for sale? It's near Brooklyn.

 

[RandFan]

An experiment to evolve a flagellum? Under what environmental conditions? With which competing organisms in the soup? With what kind of food?

Which is my point. It isn't going to work. You know that. I know that and Behe believes that but for very different reasons, ok, so what is the point? It won't work so they carry out these experiments that verify results that you, I and Behe all agree will happen, then what?

Sure it will prove that they are trying to falsify their theory but it won't satisfy them, you or I for anything.

I think the argument is a dead end. That's just my opinion.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sure he did. BTW, would you like to buy a bridge I have for sale? It's near Brooklyn.

What are the aspects of the Ev simulation model that you think prevent it from demonstrating the evolution of information and an irreducibly complex structure?

~~ Paul

 

[fishbob]

Which is my point. It isn't going to work. You know that. I know that and Behe believes that but for very different reasons, ok, so what is the point? It won't work so they carry out these experiments that verify results that you, I and Behe all agree will happen, then what?

Sure it will prove that they are trying to falsify their theory but it won't satisfy them, you or I for anything.

I think the argument is a dead end. That's just my opinion.

My take is that Behe's proposed experiment is a smoke screen. He can hold it up for the general public and proclaim that the non-ID science establishment failed to even attempt to falsify IC, that there is a conspiracy to keep ID down, that he is the victim of the status quo.

Sells a lot of books (I think I saw in the trial transcripts that he has sold more than 400,000 copies of his book already). ID been very very good for Behe.

 

[hammegk]

What are the aspects of the Ev simulation model that you think prevent it from demonstrating the evolution of information and an irreducibly complex structure?

~~ Paul

The fact that it was designed, and tuned, to do just that. If not, I want one of those self-coding Turing machines.

 

[Pastor Bentonit]

The fact that it was designed, and tuned, to do just that. If not, I want one of those self-coding Turing machines.

Interesting. Do you also claim that life at some (or many) level(s) is designed, and tuned, to evolve irreducibly complex features?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Look, it works like this. Behe maintains that his "theory" is testable and falsifiable. He says that what would test it would be if you managed to evolve a flagellum in two years by providing immobile bacteria with a selective pressure for motion.

So the question is, if he believes that this would test his "theory", why doesn't he do so?

The answer is that of course it would not test his "theory".

He ducks out of this by asking why other people don't test his "theory" by doing this experiment.

The answer is that of course it would not test his "theory", and that no-one else is going around pretending that it would.

To summarize his argument:

"My theory that pigs have wings would be falsified if someone could spend two years standing on one leg and whistling the Star-Spangled Banner. So if I'm wrong, why don't my opponents prove me wrong by devoting two years to unipedal whistling?"

 

[delphi_ote]

The fact that it was designed, and tuned, to do just that. If not, I want one of those self-coding Turing machines.

I don't recommend basing your arguments on computing theory or evolutionary computation, Hammy. It's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about.

a) Self coding Turing machines are a reality. Any type of finite state machine has configurations that produce a representation of the state machine itself (or other state machines, for that matter.)

b) Self coding Turing machines have nothing to do with this subject. The algorithm evolves solutions based on the problem (enviornment, landscape, etc.) it faces, just like life. If it was necessary to start with a solution before designing an evolutionary computation algorithm, obviously nobody would use them.

c) Evolutionary computation algorithms exist that design Turing machines. There is a whole field called "Genetic Programming" dedicated to the subject.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Fuller told the court that one of the problems of science is with the very definition of "scientific theory," which is the idea of well substantiated explanations that unify a broad range of observations... "Does a theory have to be well established to be scientific?" he said. "That means the dominant theory would always be."

YES.

I can't wait to see the transcripts of this one.

 

[Mojo]

Look, it works like this. Behe maintains that his "theory" is testable and falsifiable. He says that what would test it would be if you managed to evolve a flagellum in two years by providing immobile bacteria with a selective pressure for motion.

So the question is, if he believes that this would test his "theory", why doesn't he do so?

And here we come to one of the recommendations that are repeatedly made to potential challenge applicants: before you apply (or in this case before you announce your "theory") make sure that you have done proper tests yourself; this may prevent you looking rather silly in the long run.

As another example, no decent lawyer would dream of going into court relying on a particular case without making sure that the case hadn't been overruled.

 

[CFLarsen]

Look, it works like this. Behe maintains that his "theory" is testable and falsifiable. He says that what would test it would be if you managed to evolve a flagellum in two years by providing immobile bacteria with a selective pressure for motion.

So the question is, if he believes that this would test his "theory", why doesn't he do so?

The answer is that of course it would not test his "theory".

He ducks out of this by asking why other people don't test his "theory" by doing this experiment.

The answer is that of course it would not test his "theory", and that no-one else is going around pretending that it would.

To summarize his argument:

"My theory that pigs have wings would be falsified if someone could spend two years standing on one leg and whistling the Star-Spangled Banner. So if I'm wrong, why don't my opponents prove me wrong by devoting two years to unipedal whistling?"

Yep. Typical believer argument. They fear the results of a test that would prove them wrong, so they try to turn the tables on their opponents.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yep. Typical believer argument. They fear the results of a test that would prove them wrong...

No, the problem is that the test would prove nothing.

Imagine he spent two years wasting his time with bacteria like he suggests. He then publishes a paper of which the precis, if he is honest, will read:

Two years is not enough time for bacteria to develop, from nothing, a structure for locomotion specified in advance by me, and anyone who chose could have told me that two years ago. Let's be honest, I knew that myself. My finding therefore confirms standard evolutionary theory (which predicts the negative result actually achieved, since bacteria without flagellae have no similar structures to evole into flagellae) and has no bearing on my "Intelligent Design" nonsense, since Intelligent Design makes no predictions whatsoever about what can or cannot evolve, and indeed has no empirical content whatsoever. Why did I waste my time like this?

And this finding will fail to rock the academic world.

 

[CFLarsen]

The goal of The Discovery Institute is to replace science with religion:

Forrest also said that intelligent-design proponents have freely acknowledged that their cause is a religious one. She cited a document from the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents intelligent-design scholars, that says one of its goals is “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”
Source

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

...

GOALS

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

...

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.

* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
The full document here.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't know if this has been posted:

Forrest compared early drafts of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy, and showed how in several instances the word “creationism” had been replaced by “intelligent design”, and “creationist” simply replaced by “intelligent design proponent”.

“Forrest’s testimony showed that ID is not a scientific theory, but a Trojan horse for creationism,” said Eric Rothshild of Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

...

Matzke, who was at the trial, points out that the “switching” of the words is also suspicious because of its timing, which came just after the US Supreme Court’s decision on 19 June 1987 that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in schools.

The names of the drafts alone are incriminating, he says. The first draft, in 1983, was called Creation Biology, the next is Biology and Creation, dated 1986, and is followed by Biology and Origin in 1987. It is not until later in 1987 that Of Pandas and People emerges.
Source

Drafts of the textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” written in 1987 were revised after the Supreme Court ruled in June of that year that states could not require schools to balance evolution with creationism in the classroom, said Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University.

Forrest reviewed drafts of the textbook as a witness for eight families who are trying to have the intelligent design concept removed from the Dover Area School District’s biology curriculum.

...

Forrest outlined a chart of how many times the term “creation” was mentioned in the early drafts versus how many times the term “design” was mentioned in the published edition.

“They are virtually synonymous,” she said.
Source