Baylor President John Lilley Responds

Is there any news on how the interview attempt went?

[[Here you go:

• September 21, 2007: “Film Crew Presses Baylor Officials on Intelligent Design Web Site’s Removal” — Front page story in Waco Tribune-Herald. The article presents the Baylor administration as claiming that “a deal is in the works.” Nothing the Baylor administration has done to date suggests this to be the case.
• September 21, 2007: “ID Talks Fail to Satisfy” — Baylor student paper reports on EXPELLED crew coming to campus.

–WmAD]]

This statement from Lilley is very telling:
I greatly regret
the difficulty that Dembski has created.

He clearly views the escalating matter as totally your fault Dr. Dembski, and does not see Baylor’s encroachment on the academic freedom Dr. Marks research to be of any consequence.
I suppose he does not even feel ID is worth the trouble to truly investigate to see if it really does have any merit, since it is so obvious (to him) that all life just ally put itself together into the sheer wonder of immense complexity that we are now finding on the molecular level.
The brain washing truly goes deep. To sad for Pres. Lilley that he didn’t take the time to learn about the solid scientific foundation of ID for he is about to learn about the impressive scientific merits of ID the hard way!!! Through the tarnishing of very his reputation that he tried so vainly to protect,,,to a national American audience no less!
I am definitely glad I don’t have to walk in his shoes.

What purpose does Irons stealth inquiry serve?

And another question…..
What percentage of ID researchers believe in God and read the bible on a regular basis?

Dr. Kelly,
Many of the top ID researchers were committed Darwinists for many years, such as Dr. Behe was, but only came to admit Intelligent Design after the avalanche of new evidence from molecular biology forced them to admit otherwise. I suspect you are well versed in science so I highly recommend that you read Dr. Behe’s new book “Edge of evolution”. It stays within hard “observed” science and may even make an IDist out of you!

What percentage of ID researchers believe in God and read the bible on a regular basis?

If the answer is relevant wouldn’t the answer to “What percentage of believers in Darwinism don’t believe in God and have never read the Bible” be just as relevant?

If truth is an absolute, however, — and hence not dependent on the bias of any source of information — then either question is silly as far as determining whether ID is a better model than RM+NS.

And if truth is not an absolute what is the point of practicing science?

John Kelly,
To further clarify.
ID ONLY makes an inference to an intelligent agency when overwhelming complexity is found that can not be accounted for by chance in any way, shape, or fashion.
ID makes NO inference to the exact nature of the designer and is Thus compatible with any of the other “Creator” centered religions besides Christianity. It is even, for the time being, compatible with alien beings being the creators.
The main point is John that the inference to Intelligence is totally free of any “religious” baggage and is a purely scientific inference from the evidence. What you choose to do with the inference is your own business.
Myself, I rely on other more personal things and evidence to validate my own Christian faith!

It will be interesting to see where this leads. If Lilley is like many corporate managers (most provosts and administrators are), he will have learned to proverbially never land on both feet. Enough pressure on both sides will start quite a dance. Too bad the stakes are so high. Otherwise, this would be fun to watch.

As an outside observer of this debate, I find it interesting that the panda’s thumb / NSCE has been so quiet on this.

My speculation is that they are distancing themselves from a losing bet and keeping quiet in the hope that it all dies down. Could the NCSE be working in the shadows like in the Sternberg case? They are the professional ID fighters after all.

Anyone know if the NCSE have taken a public position on this?

It might be worth reviewing exactly why the Baylor administration was ticked with the EIL. Had Professor Marks put up a personal web site in the first place, the whole thing would have been ignored. The problem was that the lab was promoted as a Baylor University initiative, which we now know it never was. Think I’m making that up? Go into UD’s search function and search the string: Baylor’s new evolutionary Informatics lab. Don’t use quotes. Then go to the third page of results and look for “Jesus Tomb Math” near the bottom. There you will see the original wording of Dr. Dembski’s July 12th post before it was cleaned up to remove the offending Baylor’s reference: “I have been collaborating on some papers on the mathematical foundations of ID at Baylor’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab”. Google is a wonderful thing! BTW Dr. Dembski, in that post as it stands today, you forgot to sanitize scordova’s quote of your original statement associating the lab with Baylor.

Now why is the PT crowd silent? Nothing new has happened. The ATBC bunch at PT are nonetheless avidly commenting on each non-development!

grishomme,
Much to your disappointment, There is no conspiracy, For your point is already well known here, In fact an agreement was reached between Dr. Marks and Baylor in which a disclaimer was added sometime in August. Yet this was not good enough for Baylor. It has been found out that Dean Kelley pulled the site due to anonymous complaints about the site!!!, Several other sites which are similar in nature but of different content have not had the same fate at Baylor. Thus, this site in particular is obviously singled out for discrimination at Baylor due to its ID friendly position! It is clearly suppression of academic freedom when other sites of different content are allowed to run on the Baylor server without such interference!!!

grishomme,

It might be worth reviewing exactly why the Baylor administration was ticked with the EIL. Had Professor Marks put up a personal web site in the first place, the whole thing would have been ignored.

Oh boo hoo. What an unbelievably petty gripe. Sheesh. I guess any lame excuse no matter how transparently stupid works for you.

What purpose does Irons stealth inquiry serve?

The reason I asked this question is that from an outside perspective, the action just seems kind of dishonest and pointless.

What percentage of ID researchers believe in God and read the bible on a regular basis?

This question popped up as the result of a muse. There is no conscious point to make really. The email from Irons to Lilley mentions the opinion piece by the “Expelled” producer, which questions the Baylor faculty and administrators belief in God. So, I just wondered what percent of ID researchers actually believed in God.

What would have been a better question to ask is:
What percentage of ID researchers believe “God” is the Intelligent Designer?

As a former student of Peter Irons, I have to say that I am surprised that he is involved in these antics. Peter Irons does not even have a high school level understanding of biology. So why is he involving himself in the issue of an evolutionary informatics lab at Baylor? Clearly, Irons is revealing himself to be a militant athiest who cares nothing about science or reason. I guess all those years of tearing down crosses under the guise of constitutional law and protecting the rights of Jews and athiests were just a subterfuge for his true motives. I used to think that Perter Irons was just a liberal, now I know the truth.

“Grishomme: You are mistaken when you say that I or the EIL represented this as a “Baylor initiative” — please find any wording to that effect. The initiative was Prof. Marks’s, as it is with his time scales group. Have a look at it here. The description of that group reads “The Baylor University Time Scales Group.” And yet Baylor has done nothing to disassociate itself from that work.” Bill Dembski

The time scale group was funded by the National Science Foundation. The publications listed are for professional mathematics journals. There appears to be a pretty standard vetting and peer review system at work here. Is that not the case?

Was the EIL vetted? Was it’s research submitted to professional science journals for peer review?

“It has been found out that Dean Kelley pulled the site due to anonymous complaints about the site, Several other sites which are similar in nature but of different content have not had the same fate at Baylor.” Bornagain 77

Please give us a list of the sites so that we may see if there was any research that was not approved or had a disclaimer. Also, provide information showing that the university knew of these sites and did not do anything about them.

The Lariat Online, September 11, 2007 has the following:

Barry said while Baylor doesn’t hire anyone to scour the server for instances of professors posting unofficial research and illegally invoking Baylor’s name, if they are out there, the university wants to know about it.”

“Anything that comes to our attention, we will look into,” Barry said. “To the best of our knowledge, other labs and centers are directly linked to approved research in that department.”

Here are some other relevant parts of the article:

“There is a whole process every professor must go through to publish academic research,” John Barry, vice president for marketing and communications, said. “He just needs to go through the proper channels.”

Barry said when publishing research on Baylor Web sites, professors can either have the backing of their department, school or dean, or decide to work independently of the university and identify it as such. Marks was working independently of the university.”

What do you think is wrong with this?

Dr. Dembski,

I think I can see how it could be thought that you had identified the EIL as a Baylor initiative.

On a couple of occasions, you have made reference to “Baylor’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab”. To the average layperson, like me, I think that would suggest that Baylor was sponsoring the lab setup.

Also, I hope that this is not too far off topic, but just how much space was occupied by the lab and its staff? What happens to all the equipment that was purchased to set up the lab? Does Baylor get it?

whisper

The time scale group was funded by the National Science Foundation. The publications listed are for professional mathematics journals. There appears to be a pretty standard vetting and peer review system at work here. Is that not the case?

The EIL lab was originally funded by a grant to Baylor as well.

I have never heard of Professor’s needing permission to do research within their field of expertise.

In the United States, academic freedom is generally taken as the notion of academic freedom defined by the “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” jointly authored by the American Association of University Professors (”AAUP”) and the Association of American Colleges (”AAC”)(now the Association of American Colleges and Universities). Here is a portion of that statement:

Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. …

Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society.

Academic Freedom

1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.
…

3. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

The idea that Baylor can stop research just because it does not want to be associated with ID is clearly not consistent with the principles of academic freedom. The idea that Marks needs to get “approval” for his research is likewise spurious.

Whisper, here is a partial list on this site:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-fogleman/

I hope this doesn’t create trouble for these other labs since the Baylor administrators could easily play politics with these other sites and pull them too.

I also reiterate part of what what Jehu stated, since it is central to the whole argument:

Academic Freedom

1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return (profit) should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

Whisper:
For the sake of our understanding each other, I would like to point out that the science behind ID is to far advanced to be stopped, thanks to Behe, Dembski, Meyers and many others, and that research WILL CONTINUE no matter what. This is simply because it truly does offer a more compelling and realistic approximation of the truth we are currently finding in molecular biology than the inadequate explanations we are handed from the RM/NS scenario.
Just because the “truths” that science is currently finding are “distasteful” to some people, does not stop the truth from being any less true.
As Baylor should well know, Excellence of knowledge demands excellence of character!!! EVEN IF it means following the truth when it is “unpopular” to do so!

Patrick,

I looked at each of the sites and they appear to have research and publications that have been vetted and peer reviewed in a conventional way. Please point out which research projects have not been conventionally vetted and which research papers have not been conventionally peer reviewed.

To be clear here, I certainly think that Marks should be allowed to pursue his research. And he should be allowed to put his research on the Baylor server. And I do not think that all his research needs to be vetted or peer reviewed. But he should make it clear on his website which research has or has not been vetted by the university. I am not convinced that he did this.

I am just not convinced that Baylor has banned him from doing EIL research.

I am also not convinced that Baylor has done anything but require that Marks make clear the distinction between his official and private research. Baylor has clearly indicated a willingness to allow the EIL research on the Baylor server, with a disclaimer. What is wrong with this?

“For the sake of our understanding each other, I would like to point out that the science behind ID is to far advanced to be stopped, thanks to Behe, Dembski, Meyers and many others, and that research WILL CONTINUE no matter what.” Bornagain77

And I want there to be ID research, though to be honest, I am not convinced that scientific ID research is actually being done. It seems to be more philosophy than science.

Elliot Sober wrote far more clearly than I could, in his review of Dembski’s The Design Inference, the following:

“Creationists frequently think they can establish the plausibility of
what they believe merely by criticizing the alternatives (Behe 1996; Plantinga 1993, 1994; Phillip Johnson, as quoted in Stafford 1997, p. 22). This would make sense if two conditions were satisfied. If those alternative theories had deductive consequences about what we observe, one could demonstrate that those theories are false by showing that the predictions they entail are false. If, in addition, the hypothesis of intelligent design were the only alternative to the theories thus refuted, one could conclude that the design hypothesis is correct. However, neither condition obtains. Darwinian theory makes probabilistic, not deductive, predictions. And there is no reason to think that the only alternative to Darwinian theory is intelligent design.

When prediction is probabilistic, a theory cannot be accepted or rejected just by seeing
what it predicts (Royall 1997, ch. 3). The best you can do is compare theories with each other. To test evolutionary theory against the hypothesis of intelligent design, you must know what both hypotheses predict about observables (Fitelson and Sober 1998, Sober 1999b). The searchlight therefore must be focused on the design hypothesis itself. What does it predict?”

I enjoy reading about ID. So please direct me to what you think is the most convincing ID research paper that meets Sober’s criticism.

whisper_in_wind,

Intelligent Design predicts sudden appearances of new species. Neo Darwinism predicts gradual transitions from one species to another. The fossil evidence and the current suite of species in the world today support Intelligent Design and falsify neo Darwinism.

The whole debate would evaporate in a second if there were a few examples of new species appearing through a series of gradual transitions even though allele frequencies are constantly changing in nearly every population. But there is no empirical evidence for one let alone a few or several new species which would really end the debate. That is why all we get is moth color changes or finch beak size changes in the biology books as examples of evolution.

This has led several researchers to abandon neo Darwinism for theories of grand changes producing new species, though these researchers also have no empirical evidence of a mechanism for these grand changes or one example.

The debate should be between ID and naturalistic mechanisms that produce grand changes and neo Darwinism should be in the scrap heap. Essentially the emperor has no clothes and ID has pointed this out.

If you want one paper then go to Meyer’s paper on the Cambrian Explosion which caused all the stir at the Smithsonian Institute and caused Sternberg to get sacked.

“Intelligent Design predicts sudden appearances of new species. Neo Darwinism predicts gradual transitions from one species to another. The fossil evidence and the current suite of species in the world today support Intelligent Design and falsify neo Darwinism.” Jerry

I have some problems with your post.

1)Theories must precede predictions. You cannot predict what you have already observed. That is cheating. ID must make NOVEL predictions about the fossil record. And those predictions must have auxillary propostions that have been independently tested.

2)MET does not predict that the fossil record will exactly mirror the the gradual development from one species to another. MET does not predict that every transitional will be observed. Theories cannot be falsified by predictions they do not make.
I do not really want back and forth posts. My own opinions are not that interesting to me. I asked for a research paper that provided me with an ID hypothesis other than that MET fails. I have yet to find a paper that 1) Provides a detailed model of ID, 2) Makes NOVEL predictions and 3) Makes auxillary propositions that are independently tested. (“Taken alone, the statement that an intelligent designer made the vertebrate eye does not have observational consequences beyond the entailment that vertebrates have eyes. However, mini-ID can be supplemented with further assumptions that allow it to have additional observational entailments. For example, suppose we assume that if an intelligent designer made the vertebrate eye, that he would want it to have the set of features F. Mini-ID, when supplemented with this auxiliary assumption, has implications about the detailed features that the eye will have.” Elliot Sober, The Quarterly Review of Biology, March 2007, Vol. 82, No. 1)

I again request a research paper that meets the above requirements.

I have read Meyer’s paper a couple of times. He attempts to debunk MET. I have tried to make clear that I am not interested in papers that attempt debunk MET. His paper does nothing to establish ID as a positive model. In fact he provides no model. There are no novel predictions. There are no auxiliary propositions that have been independently tested.

There has to be one research paper out there that establishes ID positively instead of negatively. What is it?

whisper_in_wind,

I see you have chosen your words very carefully setting up an impossible falsification criteria. Here are your words:

“MET does not predict that the fossil record will exactly mirror the the gradual development from one species to another. MET does not predict that every transitional will be observed.”

Suppose you remove two words from this statement. Remove “exactly” from the first sentence and “every” from the second. And you will get

“MET does not predict that the fossil record will mirror the the gradual development from one species to another. MET does not predict that transitionals will be observed.”

Are you saying that the slight rephrasing is an accurate statement of MET. I would think its opposite is a very obvious corollary of MET and the following rephrasing is a corollary of MET.

“MET predicts that the fossil record will mirror the the gradual development from one species to another in many instances. MET predict that a large number of transitionals will be observed in the current world.”

If you do not agree with this restatement then why not and if you do agree with the above re-statement then hasn’t the fossil record and the current suite of species on the earth falsified this corollary, thus falsifying the theory from which it flows. Thus falsifying MET.

Why hold up a falsified theory against a speculative theory that is consistent with the evidence. Hey I admit ID is still speculative though I believe logic is more on its side than any alternative proposed by anyone.

Whisper you wrote:
Elliot Sober wrote far more clearly than I could, in his review of Dembski’s The Design Inference, the following:

“Creationists frequently think they can establish the plausibility of
what they believe merely by criticizing the alternatives (Behe 1996; Plantinga 1993, 1994; Phillip Johnson, as quoted in Stafford 1997, p. 22). This would make sense if two conditions were satisfied. If those alternative theories had deductive consequences about what we observe, one could demonstrate that those theories are false by showing that the predictions they entail are false.

Now I ask you Whisper does this following paper satisfy his requirement for deductive consequences?

There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man’s perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism. Materialism is sometimes called philosophical or methodological naturalism. Materialism is the current hypothesis entrenched over science as the nt hypothesis guiding scientists. Materialism asserts that everything that exists arose from chance acting on an material basis which has always existed. Whereas, Theism asserts everything that exists arose from the purposeful will of the spirit of Almighty God who has always existed in a timeless eternity. A hypothesis in science is suppose to give proper guidance to scientists and make, somewhat, accurate predictions. In this primary endeavor, for a hypothesis, Materialism has failed miserably.

1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created.

2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space.

3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.
4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism.
5 Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life.
6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.
7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.
8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth.
9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth.
10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion.

11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms.

12. Materialism predicts animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Yet man himself is the last scientifically accepted fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. Theism would have predicted that man himself was the last fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record.

I could probably go a lot further for the evidence is extensive and crushing against the Materialistic philosophy. As stated before, an overriding hypothesis in science, such as Materialism currently is, is suppose to give correct guidance to scientists. Materialism has failed miserably in its predictive power for science. The hypothesis with the strongest predictive power in science is “suppose” to be the prevailing philosophy of science. That philosophy should be Theism. Why this shift in science has not yet occurred is a mystery that needs to be remedied to enable new, and potentially wonderful, breakthroughs in science.

Now Whisper I ask you to be honest with yourself and answer this, Should materialism be treated as anything other than a subservient philosophy to the clearly nt philosophy of Theism that has been correct time after time?

Dave and all,

I really do not know what to write at this point. You have told me why you think MET is false. I would rather you showed me why design is true by providing me with the relevant research paper. I prefer reading to writing anyway. But it is clear that falsifying MET does not establish ID. ID predicting the failure of MET is a cop out.

All I have seen so far is negative argumentation. This form of argumentation, exclusive of any positive ideas about ID, is my main problem with EIL specifically and ID in general. Though I think Marks has a right to do his private anti-MET research and publish it on the web - with the proper disclaimers as to not being vetted or peer reviewed under university supervision - I understand the frustration of the science department at Baylor must have. They must be thinking, “Show us why design is valid, not why MET is not! Provide us with a detailed model. Provide us with novel predictions. Provide us with auxiliary propositions.” But then you ID folks know how frustrating this is to us non-ID folks and get a chuckle out of it.

If all you have is Anti-MET then why call it ID?

Geez, all I want is one research paper. Is that too much to ask?

Whisper_in_wind,

Patrick and Dave made very relevant points. A lot of biological research has ID implications and if ID proponents were allowed to comment on the research before it was implemented, they would probably predict certain things.

For example, when Jason Rosenhouse asked Behe about what research could be done to support ID Behe responded that the type of research Richard Lenski at Michigan State University was doing was very supportive of ID. Lenski has been cultivating bacteria for the last 20 years and his research is discussed in the Edge of Evolution.

Essentially the Edge of Evolution is the ID manifesto in that it predicts there will not be any new complex structures in reproduction of any species or organism whether it is new proteins or protein on protein binding sites. There will definitely be mutations but these mutations are limited in what they can accomplish. That is ID’s basic theorem and so far has been upheld in any research designed on the planet even when the research itself has no stated ID objectives. The examples cited in Behe’s book on Malaria, HIV and bacteria are all examples of research that support the fundamental theorem of ID. In fact no research study ever done has falsified this basic assumption/theorem but in fairness most research does not have the large amounts of reproductive events to represent an opportunity to falsify ID.

So to answer you question, there are probably thousands of studies every year that support ID. They just do not have the specific prediction in its introduction or discussion sections. Given what happened at Baylor can you imagine anyone putting ID relevant assumptions or predictions in their research proposals and living to see it approved.

whisper_in_wind (#27): “… I am not interested in papers that attempt debunk MET.”

Apparently you don’t think it is of any value to challenge existing paradigms and theories based on evidence, even though this is necessary as a first step even to recognize the need for a new theory. Then you would not have been interested in challenging the phlogiston theory of combustion based on contrary evidence, even though it was before coming up with oxidation as a better hypothesis.

whisper,

I wanted to ask a couple of questions and I’m hoping you’ll indulge me. It seems reasonable to infer from your comments that you support MET because of hard evidence, scientific research, etcetera.

1) What type of scientific discovery or discoveries, if published tomorrow, would falsify MET?

This should be easy to answer, given MET’s status as a theory of biological origins and diversity. If we know that MET is correct we should absolutely know what would make it incorrect.

Now being aware of the arguments that support MET, you must have some idea of what evidence would establish the validity of intelligent design as an explanation for the same biological origins and diversity. So I would ask the second question this way:

2) What type of scientific discovery or discoveries, if published tomorrow, would convince you that design is the most likely explanation for the source of biological systems, their complexity, and their information content?

It’s entirely possible that the answer to these two questions could be the same. At the very least, falsification of MET wouldn’t leave anywhere to run, except into the arms of design. MET and design are two sides of a coin, so to speak. If it’s not tails, it’s heads. If there is another possibility — one that doesn’t equate to chance/necessity on one side versus purposeful agency on the other, or some combination of the two — I’d be interested to know. Either somebody “did it” or nobody did. Anything else is hedging.

If you turn those questions around, I could certainly answer them both with one set of evidence: if it could be demonstrated through experimentation that organisms were able to evolve novel, functional systems that improve their survivability and increase the information content of their genomes, demonstrating the sufficiency of RM+NS, it would not only validate MET but it would falsify ID.

Perhaps you would disagree with some of my inferences and assumptions, but the questions should still be valid. Also if you are willing, you could answer a third, two-part question: what type of extra terrestrial signal (information content) originating from deep space would establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that its origin was an intelligent agent; and why would this same criteria for determining agency at the source of an extra-terrestrial radio signal not be applicable to biological systems? These aren’t trick questions, I think they are entirely fair. (And anyone who follows ID knows this question has been asked before).

I’m of the opinion that anyone claiming science as the basis for their world view, who is being genuine in their evaluation of the evidence, will have no problem answering those first two questions. The bonus question might be a bit more challenging.

I agree with whisper. Predicting failure of MET does not add up to evidence in favor of ID. DaveScot cites ad hoc examples. These may serve to pique interest, which may lead to formulating a research question, setting up a hypothesis that can be tested (ie., falsified). However, until there is an articulated theoretical framework that sets out the principles and mechanisms of ID, it isn’t a theory, it’s a vague set of claims that remain untestable.

Magnan:
“Apparently you don’t think it is of any value to challenge existing paradigms and theories based on evidence, even though this is necessary as a first step even to recognize the need for a new theory. ”

You are correct to focus on the evidence, as it is the currency of science. However, the explanatory value of evidence depends on that evidence fitting into a theoretical framework. The theory must first make predictions; then the predictions are tested against the evidence. If the ideas proposed by ID proponents crystallize into theory, fantastic: Let the research roll. In the meantime, by all means, cite evidence that challenges MET. This is what scientists do all the time. It is how theory is refined and improved. But in the absence of any credible alternative that does a better job of fitting the evidence, don’t be disappointed or surprised if your challenges serve to not to weaken MET in the long run, but to strengthen it.

Almost all Junk DNA will be found to have purpose. That is a major ID prediction and one that has found substantial validation in the preliminary ENCODE study of 1% of the Human genome.
The Theistic prediction for ID will predict that the complexity of the remaining 99% of the genome to be decoded will exponentially add to the impressive complexity we are currently finding and will definitely challenge man’s ability to comprehend it. Indeed, the complexity that will be found can be tentatively predicted to far far surpass man’s ability to comprehend it fully, since even a simple protein folding on itself takes a entire years worth of computing time on the world’s most powerful supercomputer.

It has been noted over and over again on this site what will falsify ID,,,Put simply, show us true evolution that is not just smoke and mirrors!!
Whereas it also has been noted that evolution can never be falsified for it can always “mutate” to whatever evidence is presented.

Not to seem irreverent, but one can cite literally hundreds of peer-reviewed papers supporting Darwinism in which the evidence does not justify the conclusions proffered in the discussion section. The modern paradigm states that Darwinism must be so, and therefore the evidence—any evidence—must be interpreted accordingly.

Disinterested observers know that Darwinism cannot be falsified. The theory is just vague enough—and the desire to believe it strong enough—to make it impervious to facts from the actual, observed world.

What—the chance that DNA could have come into being by pure chance is infinitesimally small? No problem; just tack on a few billion years. What—the bones do not tell us the story of gradual transformation that evolution requires? No problem; bones are only preserved under catastrophic circumstances, and by some amazing coincidence no transitional forms happened to be present at those catastrophic intervals!

We could go on and on, but breakfast awaits. One small observation, however: there is a difference between theory and the physical world that cannot be overcome, even with a great deal of hyperbole. A whisper, it seems, is not a still small voice, and science that glorifies theory is not a god but a golden calf.

MacT,

On another thread, I listed 4 possible mechanisms to explain the origin of life. These are

1. Neo Darwinism or some variant of it that produces changes to species in a gradual fashion with the result that new species form over time.

2. Some naturalistic mechanism that causes changes to a genome to happen but does so that large rearrangements of the genome take place, thus causing new species to arise. The specific naturalistic mechanism is unspecified though such events as gene transfer, gene duplication, self organization have been offered as possible mechanisms.

3. Changes to genomes over time by an intelligence(s) that rearrange, adds or subtracts substantial parts of the genome so that new species arise. These genomes could possibly contain the information for several different species that could be formed by naturalistic means such as natural selection.

4. Creation of one or more genomes by an intelligence such that the genomes contain the information for various species at the time of creation and these genomes are modified over deep time by various environmental events to produce new species.

The first two are naturalistic explanations and the second two are intelligent design explanations. There are of course combinations of any of these four mechanisms that could possibly explain the life forms in the fossil record and the current mixture of life as it now appears on the planet.

An observation: there is little if any positive evidence for any of these mechanisms and most arguments for any of them are negative evidence against the other three.

Hence, negative arguments are the standard for each theory and to decry one’s attempt to offer negative evidence would in fact negate nearly all arguments for any of them.

If you have positive evidence for any of the four mechanisms or combinations of them then please let us know what it is because saying there is no positive evidence for ID is no different than ID proponents saying there is no evidence for either of the two naturalistic mechanisms.

Now I quickly listed the four alternative and if anyone wants to improve on the choices by all means do so. If you want to dispute these options as all inclusive also do so.

Jerry,

Thanks for the exposition. Two responses:

It’s important to be clear in your definitions. You conflate an explanation of biological change with an explanation of the origins of life. The latter field is known as abiogenesis, and it does not address the same questions as evolutionary biology.

Also, I had understood that ID is a proposal that evolutionary mechanisms do not account for all instances of observed biological changes, hence the inference of a design agency. However, if that is accurate, then it follows that ID does allow for evolutionary processes. This is interesting, but it still does not solve the basic problem currently confronting ID proponents: What are the principles of the theory, and what testable predictions do they make?

Note that we don’t need evidence to answer this question. However, we must first have a clear answer before we can agree what kind of evidence would allow a strong test of the theory.

Allanius,

You said: “Not to seem irreverent, but one can cite literally hundreds of peer-reviewed papers supporting Darwinism in which the evidence does not justify the conclusions proffered in the discussion section.”

That’s a pretty broad brush. But I’ll bite: Please cite two or three papers (not hundreds . . . ) that you consider representative of your claim, and point to the offending conclusions. It’s useful to be able to cite specific examples of bad science and/or faulty thinking when they occur.

MacT
Here is a start,,

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.ph.....l_articles

Out of all those papers, I challenge you to find one that conclusively proves evolution and does not use “just so” stories to say how the information originated….Note; Suggestive similarities will not suffice for conclusive proof of evolution!

MacT: “That’s a pretty broad brush. But I’ll bite: Please cite two or three papers (not hundreds . . . ) that you consider representative of your claim.”

I’ve got time for one “popular” paper. The September, 2007 issue of “Physics Today” has an article entitled “Echolocation in dolphins and bats”. It makes three brief statements attributing the development of echolocation to the wondrous forces of natural selection. I will present the statements (which are typical of what you find), along with my own somewhat sarcastic interpretation, and an alternate version, which actually states what we know.

Original: “Both animal taxa have experienced some similar survival pressures resulting in convergent evolution for biosonar capabilities”

Translation: “We have no idea how such different species have the same type of system, but somehow evolution must explain it, and “survival pressures” is all we can throw at it.”

Alternate: “Both animal taxa have similar biosonor capabilities.”

Original: “The evolutionary process that led to an absence of any external pinnae in dolphins also resulted in a unique reception system.”

Translation: “We have no idea what such a process would be, but, like there had to be a process, right, and it must all be related somehow, so what else can we say?”

Alternate: “Dolphins lack external pinnae. This is a unique system.”

Original: “Natural selection and the physics of sound have enabled the two animals to evolve echolocation processes that are extemely well adapted to two very different environments.”

Translation: “Hey we’re just physicists, and biologists, I’m sure, must have worked out the whole process in steps, because, isn’t evolution by means of mutation and natural selection as well established as the laws of physics?”

Alternate: “The two animals possess echolocation systems work so well, it’s almost like they were designed that way!”

Biological papers are full of such glosses. Nobody tries to actually be scientific and answer questions such as “how much information, stored in DNA, is necessary for the specification, production, operation and maintenance of an echolocation system in a mammal. How many unique/non-unique proteins are required? What are possible precursors for such proteins, assuming an evolutionary origin? If ID has one big benefit over Darwinian evolution, it will encourage quantitative study of such problems, not the mindless repetition of the standard RM+NS mantras typical of those found above.

Davescot,

You wrote:
“At least two testable predictions follow.

1. No complex machine will ever be observed forming de novo without the involvement of intelligent agency.

2. Intelligent agency is capable of designing all the complex machines we observe in the world today.”

These are indeed predictions, but they are not testable. Each one depends on the action or some characteristic of an intelligent agent. However, unless you also define that agent, and the modes of agency, neither of these predictions as articulated is falsifiable.

The deduction one must make from no. 2 is that the intelligent agent is omnipotent. Since we can never prove the absence of omnipotence — e.g., part of the design may be to conceal the evidence of design — then any machine at all would serve as evidence, and we are in a theoretical dead end.

DaveScot

You’re wrong. We can test gravity. We first define its characteristics, and make predictions based on that definition. We then devise experiments or methods of observation that would produce relevant evidence. Any instance of gravity’s properties NOT holding is counter-evidence of those characteristics, and our theory would need to be refined or replaced with a better one.

You are the one who does not understand Popperian falsification.

Popper posited a fundamental, and very simple, principle: a claim must be capable of being shown to be false by experiment or observation. Invoking an omnipotent designer, with the ability to design any machine (by your definition), means that we cannot test the predictions you suggest.

I am not taking a position on the existence of an intelligent agent, or its properties. I simply argue that reference to such an agent does not meet Popperian criteria for falsifiability.

Davescot,
Maybe I should make the prediction I listed clear and separate. The prediction of a “super-complex” genome for humans is a strictly Theistic prediction for ID since that particular Theistic prediction for ID would state that man was created separately without predecessor by Almighty God.

I would also like to point out that ENCODE found “an extensive overlapping network” for the human genome, this recently discovered fact seems to clearly indicate that scientists are completely misinterpreting the genetic data from their preconceived evolutionary perspective, since Evolution requires that the genome be a “multiple independent collection of selectable genes”.

As Sanford pointed out in his book “Genetic Entropy; 2005″ having multiple codes overlapping one another makes the genome severely poly-constrained to random mutations since it is now proven to be poly-functional. This “extensive overlapping” fact effectively, if not completely, rules out the evolutionary scenario!

Dave, You seem to have a much broader allowance for the “similar sequences” in different genomes as being proof for evolution. I don’t buy the evidence at all. I think the sequences are similar for an entirely different “engineering reason” than for any presupposed evolutionary reason.

As well, I believe Genetic Entropy is already (tentatively) proven to be limited to the effects on a genome after information was inserted at the level of parent species.

We can easily discern patterns of genetic entropy in the degrading morphologies for species after parent species origination! I only see a concrete violation for the principle of genetic entropy when the parent species suddenly appears in the fossil record.

To further clarify, an example of the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed, we can look at the genome and morphology of man himself.

Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.

“We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”

Thus the younger races of humans have demonstratively lost genetic information for diversity in the genome and have also visibly lost information for color (I argue lost information for shape as well)!! This clearly seems to be loss of information from parent species!

Europeans are actually degrading, as far as information in the genome is concerned, when compared to Africans!

Also it is commonly known that dog breeding strictly adheres to the principle of genetic entropy. IOW, the further away from the parent species a dog becomes the less diversity it will be found to have.

This principle of genetic entropy applies to our crops as well. In fact, the loss of genetic diversity in our crops is a major concern facing scientists since genetic diversity gives greater protection from a single disease wiping out the entire crop!

One could even argue that woolly mammoths had more information than its descendants today and thus obey genetic entropy!

The whole argument of ID rest on the fact that random processes can’t generate meaningful information. Correlating loss of morphological diversity as well as loss of genetic diversity to the loss of (CSI) complex specified information should fit well into the foundation that has already been established by Dr. Dembski. This correlation of knowledge should be possible in the near future if it is not in fact possible at this very moment from the genetic information we now have coming in!

Since you guys brought up Gravity:

Materialism is committed to explaining everything that exists in this universe to chance acting on a material basis that has always existed. Surprisingly, this requires explaining invisible things such as consciousness and the force of gravity (space/time curvature) to a material basis. Scientists and mathematicians have had to invent “missing dark matter” to account for an “excessive” amount of gravity in the universe to keep the equations of gravity from becoming ineffective. Theism is not committed into inventing such hypothetical matter and is free to expect the “invisible” force of gravity to arise independent of the matter from a “primary higher dimension” in order to enable life to exist in this universe.
Scientists estimate that 90 to 99 percent of the total mass of the universe is missing matter. Bruce H. Margon, chairman of the astronomy department at the University of Washington, told the New York Times, “It’s a fairly embarrassing situation to admit that we can’t find 90 percent of the universe”

The philosophy of Materialism has a huge problem, to put it mildly, if it can’t find 95% of the material of this universe it insists is suppose to exist. What’s more the problem may be intractable for materialism, because the “missing matter” had to be “invented” to keep the equations of gravity, that explain gravity (space/time curvature) to a material basis, from becoming ineffective. Yet, there very well may be a way around this problem with the general relativity equations. If scientists and mathematicians were to treat the force of gravity as a primary constituent of the universe and were to treat matter as subordinate to gravity (as Theism postulates), then the equations that explain gravity may very well be able to be reconfigured, or reinterpreted, to reflect this proposed truth found from the Theistic perspective. The Theistic postulation would state that space is curved from a higher dimension to enable matter to exist, and to have an existence that is conducive for life to exist in this universe. In fact, gravity is already found to be conducive (finely-tuned) for life at the level of star formation. That is to say, gravity is found in the anthropic principle (which is actually a Theistic postulation) to be exactly what it needs to be in order to allow the right type of stars to form, for the right duration of time, to allow life to be possible in this universe. Thus, the Theistic postulation for gravity has already found preliminary validation in empirical evidence. The question that truly needs to be asked, to solve this missing matter mystery, is not the vain materialistic question of “Where is the missing matter in this universe?” but is the Theistic question of “Why is it necessary for this precise amount of gravity to emanate from a higher dimension in order for life to exist in this universe?” It seems a preliminary answer to this question is already found in the anthropic principle once again. If gravity were not at it’s “just right” value in the big bang, a universe conducive to life would not exist. That is to say, gravity is found to act as the counterbalance of the big bang. If gravity were weaker, the big bang would have been “too e” and matter would have been too thinly spread out to allow the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. Thus, life in this universe would not have been possible. If gravity were a bit stronger at the big bang, matter would have collapsed in on itself shortly after the big bang. Again life, as we know it, would not have been possible. Thus in the anthropic principle, we already find a preliminary reason for the huge amount of “missing matter’ to exist, whereas the materialistic philosophy can postulate no reason why the matter is missing and is left vainly searching for non-existent matter in this universe to account for the “excessive” gravity that is found in this universe. I believe the amount of “missing matter” can be further refined to the anthropic principle. For instance, the missing matter may be further refined to reflect the fact that the huge amount of missing matter actually allows us the truly fortunate privilege of scanning the universe unimpeded with our telescopes ( “The Privileged Planet” by Guillermo Gonzalez Ph.D.). That is to say, if the huge amount of missing matter actually did exist, the universe would be a lot less “see through” than what it currently is. Our knowledge of the history of the universe would suffer dramatically as a result of this reduced visibility. As well, it is very likely that an answer for why the galaxies rotate at the much greater “unpredicted” value that they do will be found in the anthropic principle instead of the materialistic philosophy. As pointed out earlier, the Theistic postulations in science have already provided many correct predictions with stunning empirical validations. Predictions that materialism not only did not predict but was blatantly incorrect on. Thus, it is only natural to look to the Theistic postulations to answer the many remaining questions we have about the universe. To give further evidence of this “missing matter” problem, all matter is reducible to energy as illustrated by Einstein’s famous equation of e=mc2. Thus it may be plainly said that all material in the universe has been created out of energy. Yet energy in and of itself does not produce the force of gravity (space-time curvature). In fact, energy has exactly the opposite effect of gravity. Energy is thought, and somewhat verified, to actually make space “expand”, by “exactly the right amount” to allow life to be possible. Put simply, matter is not justified by the overall empirical evidence in science to have a totally equal status with gravity in gravity equations. Theism is free to expect gravity to arise independently of material objects from a higher dimension without ever having to “invent” matter that will, by all current indications of empirical evidence, never be found in the “physical” dimension of this universe but will only be found when taking into consideration the “primary higher dimension” of the Theistic philosophy.
The following is a released statement from science experts that gives further illustration to this “missing material” problem of the universe.

The abstract of the September 1006 Report of the Dark Energy Task Force (which, “was established by the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee [AAAC] and the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel [HEPAP] as a joint sub-committee to advise the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation on future dark energy research”) says: “Dark energy appears to be the nt component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our (materialistic) theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.”
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. As well light has been proven to be timeless by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Therefore energy most likely, from honest appraisal of empirical evidence, arose from some other “higher timeless” dimension prior to the big bang. As such, since the fundamental force of gravity does not arise from energy and also travels at the “timeless” speed of light, it falls to reason gravity must also arise from this other “primary higher timeless” dimension. Many people who do not believe in God say “Just show me God and I will believe!” Yet the foundation of this “material” universe that is found in relativity and quantum mechanics blatantly displays actions that defy our concepts of time and space. Defying time and space is generally regarded by most people to be a miraculous occurrence. It is considered to be a miraculous occurrence because it blatantly defies all materialistic presumptions that have been put forth! Indeed, the foundation of this universe has the fingerprints of God all over it.
Many times materialist object to theist by saying “God did it that way is not a scientific answer.” Well I have news for the materialists “God DID do it that way and the scientific answer is to try and figure out how God did it that way! As demonstrated repeatedly by the failed predictions of materialism, the materialistic philosophy is a blatant deception that only impedes further true scientific progress.
To remedy the Gravity problem it is necessary to define, as best as we can, this “primary higher dimension” that our universe came from and to shed the last vestiges of materialism that are blinding us to what is right in front of us! Having a proper mathematical foundation for gravity in science may very well enable even more wonderful breakthroughs in science. This problem of missing matter is a blatant gap in man’s knowledge and my assertion is simply that the mathematical remedy for the problems in gravity equations will not be solved until the proper Theistic approach is used in solving them.

Here is an Interesting op-ed on the Baylor controversy:

Gary Ramsey, guest column:

Call it censorship at Baylor

Monday, September 24, 2007

In the first “imperative” of Baylor 2012, a vision of critical thinking is stated.

“Baylor will seek to maintain a culture that fosters a conversation about great ideas and the issues that confront humanity and how a Christian world-view interprets and affects them both.”

Baylor has made great progress toward many 2012 goals. But it just took a giant leap backward on this keystone concept, which is academic freedom for students and faculty.

Baylor University literally has censored a “distinguished instructor” who has been conducting computational studies of what Darwinian evolution can and cannot accomplish.

Gary Marks’ Web site was hosted on Baylor servers (as professors are permitted to use). However, after someone objected, Baylor took Marks’ Web page down.

This was in direct violation of an agreement hammered out just days before that included Marks changing the title of the material and featuring a disclaimer that it represented his views only and not Baylor’s.

This censorship is based not on poor scholarship or bad data but on a disagreement about the research’s conclusions.

The conclusions were not deemed to be particularly favorable to the notion that Darwin was right and no intelligence was required in the creation of the world and everything in it.

A Baylor spokesman said that taking the page down has nothing to do with content and everything to do with rules relating to Baylor’s official endorsement of ideas. Right.

That Baylor would be so unbold as to cower before those who advocate a secular society must give its supporters pause.

One would think that scholarship consistent with the beliefs of the vast majority of both Americans in general and Baptists in particular would be something Baylor would cultivate, not censor.

The geology department’s Web page on evolution is instructive. It recommends several sources whose work are in direct conflict with clear teaching of most Baylor parents’ and students’ beliefs.

“Suggested reading” includes Stephen J. Gould (the most vocal atheist in America until his ), Richard Dawkins (the most vocal living atheist on the planet who openly mocks all religion and whose “weasel” computer program is a joke compared to Professor Marks’ work), and Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, a so-called think-tank devoted (and partially publicly funded) to promoting evolution and discrediting non-evolutionary beliefs.

Curiously, the pages on the geology site end with the certification that: “The information on this page was written and approved by the faculty of the Geology Department at Baylor University.”

If the beginning of the Baylor 2012 vision is to be attained, and the Christian mission preserved, it is imperative that Baylor stand up to the pressure of the Darwinists.

Mark Ramsey, a mechanical engineer residing in Spring, Texas, is the founder of Texans for Better Science Education.

DaveScot,

As it stands, your formulation of an ID hypothesis cannot be falsified. Your hypothesis has three elements:

1. A phenomenon (the complex machine)
2. A proposed cause (intelligent agency)
3. An observation.

In hypothesis testing, falsifiability is contingent on agreed definitions of each component. We can agree pretty readily what would constitute a valid observation. We can probably agree on what a complex machine is. We can probably even agree on what the intelligent agency is, but — and this is where your predictions need to be refined: it must be stated, not assumed.

The stakes are high here, and if you leave the definition vague, an intellectual vacuum is created that will invite all sorts of crackpots to rush in with their own definitions. This is partly an issue about communication, and we must get the basics right to avoid muddying that issue. ID might yet gain traction, but not if proponents fail to adhere to the basics of science practice.

So:

First we must have a definition of the nature of the intelligent agent. Without a definition, any example of a complex machine can be explained simply by asserting it is the result of the action of an (unspecified) intelligent agent.

I was tempted to end on a snide note, but that’s not a mode of discourse that facilitates serious discussion. I respect your opinions, and hope to get serious answers.

The ID hypothesis may be falsified if anyone finds a single example of a complex machine for which the actual origin is known and where there was no intelligent agency involved.

In biology we find examples of complex machines that may be modified by genetic mechanisms, either random or non random, to produce useful complex machines with marginally differing applications to the original complex machine.

These we may term examples of micro evolution. They do not falsify ID.

DaveScot

“An intelligent agent is anything which can exert influence on matter/energy for a directed end.”

That’s a direct answer, thanks. However, it is not a complete enough answer to let us proceed to hypothesis testing.

The agent exerts influence: How? What is the mechanism of change? How can we tell the difference between a change that is caused by the intelligent agent, and an accidental or other-caused change?

How can we recognize a “directed end?” What would count as evidence for direction, or for that matter, that a structure (machine or whatever) has reached the desired state?

Nobody expects definitive answers to these questions; a theory sets up tentative answers, at best, and then we do our best to knock them down. If they stand despite our best efforts to falsify them, the theory gains credibility. But without those tentative answers, expressed in enough detail to allow falsifiability, we’re stuck.

“When we actually had an opportunity to examine what happened at the nucleotide level in billions of trillions of generations where random mutation and natural selection was working, thanks to the prolific and deadly parasite p.falciparum, we found that the prediction made by ID held true - no significant novel complexity was generated.” I can’t answer your question about the lack of novel complexity over many generation of p.falciparum. But this is interesting, especially if it goes beyond the analysis Behe tried out. Who is “we” and is this work you cite published?

DaveScot

“Before we can attempt to make any reasonable inferences about the mechanism we have to observe it in action. So far the only means we know about for sure involves intelligent agents in laboratories with lots of fancy organic chemistry apparatus. Without knowing the circumstances surrounding the emergence of the complex machine in question we can’t really begin to talk about potential mechanisms.”

That’s not very encouraging, though I accept that it may be true. If the mechanisms and circumstances surrounding the “phylogenetic stem cell” (I like that) are truly unknowable, then a theory that relies on them would have to fall on its sword and die for science.

There is ample evidence of the role of evolution in speciation still happening today.

Here are a few examples:

S. Bearhop et al., “Assortative Mating as a Mechanism for Rapid Evolution of a Migratory Divide,” Science 310, 502 (2005)

P. Andolfatto, “Adaptive Evolution of Non-Coding DNA in Drosophila,” Nature 437, 1149 (2005)

V. A. Lukhtanov, “Reinforcement of Pre-Zygotic Isolation and Karyotype Evolution in Agrodiaetus Butterflies,” Nature 436, 385 (2005)

MacT you state:

There is ample evidence of the role of evolution in speciation still happening today.

Here are a few examples:

S. Bearhop et al., “Assortative Mating as a Mechanism for Rapid Evolution of a Migratory Divide,” Science 310, 502 (2005)

P. Andolfatto, “Adaptive Evolution of Non-Coding DNA in Drosophila,” Nature 437, 1149 (2005)

V. A. Lukhtanov, “Reinforcement of Pre-Zygotic Isolation and Karyotype Evolution in Agrodiaetus Butterflies,” Nature 436, 385 (2005)

I hold, with what I consider strong overall evidence, that “sub-speciation” will always be the result of the loss of genetic information in a genome and thus will always be found to stay within the overriding principle of genetic entropy. So I hold that your examples are flawed. If you could provide an example of evolution producing more information than was present in the parent species then you would have proof of this principle being violated.

Don’t necessarily show this post but please consider it.

Intelligent Design needs a mechanism. I think the below potentially explains one.

The Genetic Imperative (GI)

The Genetic Imperative is that an organism recognises its Genetic Imperative and utilizes all its resources into achieving the purposes of its Genetic Imperative.

We have yet to discover the full extent of “number crunching” that goes on within an organism to bring about what is necessary!

James Bardwell (microbiologist) has alluded to the possibilities of genetic assisted design. Consider the above in light of his sentiments.

The next thing I’m going to say is really going to sound off the wall -but here goes - I think research will find that camouflage is a result of organisims “imbibing” their environment and the subsequent transfer of DNA trans organism.

DaveScot: “Regardless, mammals are the most recent larger taxonomic category and humans the most recent member of it. As far as anyone can demonstrate we are the end of the road for macroevolution. This is pure supposition but it’s no better or worse than the supposition that macroevolution has not ended.”

Is there any research estimating rate of speciation among mammals over the recent geological periods?

magnan:

“Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) … every decade.” Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516)