“What I disagree with, however, is that plugging the Creator into our biological knowledge gaps constitutes responsible science. And if we open the classroom door to intelligent design, what’s to stop alien intervention from walking through it?”
Gordon,
Firstly, you yourself answered your own question very satisfactorily: “So the analogy is not perfect.”
Secondly, invoking the “God of the Gaps” pejorative just doesn’t work. We can just as easily invoke “Naturalism of the Gaps!” Actually, we have no evidence that there are any natural forces or laws at all! These laws may instead find their origin in the mind of God. On the other hand, there are many compelling reasons to posit an intelligent designer over naturalism.
More importantly, when you dismiss the intelligent design argument, you are also dismissing Scripture’s affirmative statements regarding this form of proof:
“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because GOD HAS MADE IT PLAIN TO THEM. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been CLEARLY SEEN, BEING UNDERSTOOD FROM WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, SO THAT MEN ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE.” (Romans 1:18-20)
Paul is clearly invoking the argument from design (the teleological argument) to prove that all of us have clear knowledge of God based upon what He had made. Therefore, we are all accountable. If this wasn’t the case, then humankind would have a free ride and the Bible would be wrong. No big deal, I guess? Let’s try another:
“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalm 19:1)
How can they declare HIS glory unless it is manifestly clear that they represent His workmanship! I’m afraid that faithfulness to evolution spells unfaithfulness to Scripture.

Daniel,
How did I know that you would be the first to comment? It’s good to hear from you again.
If we are talking theology (or more specifically, teleology), I can agree with the point you are making here. However, you are overlooking one very important distinction. That between the purposes and methods of SCIENCE vs. the purposes and methods of THEOLOGY.
Of course all Christians should acknowledge that all things have their being in God, who governs the created order in a uniform and predictable way. This unifomity of nature is known in theological circles as “ordinary” providence. And we also believe, by faith, that God at times works over and against these descernable patterns of ordinary providence. This is known as “special” providence or “miracle”.
It is the business of the scientist — whether a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist — to discover and describe the patterns of God’s ordinary providence ONLY. This requires methodological naturalism (as opposed to philosophical naturalism).
The mistake of the Intelligent Design Movement (as opposed to a general theology of design to which all theists should accept) is that they intentionally blur these lines to skirt the establishment clause of the Constitution. This fails because you simply can’t build a systematic program of scientific research around the idea of providence or design. This doesn’t mean providence and design are not true, it just means that they are not science!
That’s the point of my post. It’s a nuance that, while subtle, is very important. And it is one that Christians often overlook in their zeal to defend “God” against “naturalism”. Your comment is a perfect example of this. So I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to point that out.
Gordon

Daniel said: We can just as easily invoke “Naturalism of the Gaps!
Not correct; in this analogy naturalism isn’t even present. Perhaps you could accuse them of anthropocentrism of the gaps, but even that wouldn’t be quite correct; anthropology also studies the effects of (for a random, fictional example) domesticated animals, to perhaps conclude that the deep circle outside of each temple in a given area in India is caused by an elephant tethered there.
The limitation we have is that we only attempt to explain what we already understand. Short of that, we can only generate hypotheses, not theories. Maybe God did directly arrange atoms to form the first unicellular life — that’s a fine historical “null hypothesis”. Every proposed hypothesis would have to be tested against that to see if it fits the evidence better. So far none have.
-Wm

Gordon and Wm,
Please help me to understand the “subtle” distinction you are making. Michael Behe is an IDer. What part of his research isn’t science? When he identifies the protein structures that comprise the flagellum, is that not science? When we begins to assess how these proteins and their structures came to be assembled as they are, is that not science? When he begins to compare the hypotheses of Darwinism (naturalism) against design (super-naturalism) regarding the origin of these structures, is that not science? When he concludes that the evidence best supports the design theory and is then called an “idiot” and a “moron” as a result, can we them conclude that he’s crossed the line into non-science?
Or perhaps the fact that he entered the laboratory with certain religious ideas frolicking in his head should disqualify him from doing science? Perhaps he is guilty of an intent to “intentionally blur these lines to skirt the establishment clause of the Constitution”— a capitol offense! It seems that you have eliminated ID by definition and not by any concern for science.

Daniel: “Michael Behe is an IDer. What part of his research isn’t science?”
The part where he leaps from observation to explanation without any evidence. The observation is that if you remove a part of the flagellum, it won’t function as a flagellum.[1] The first unsupported leap is that it would have had to be assembled all at once.[2] But even granting this leap, another leap of faith is required toposit the action of an intelligence not subject to natural law as the source of the assembly.
The first leap is bad science, because alternatives are known. The second leap is non-science, because science by definition cannot study non-repeatable, non-predictable supernatural forces.
===============
[1] This is not quite true, but for the sake of argument…
[2] Thus ignoring the confirmed evolutionary processes.of preadaptation and exaptation.

I think what it boils down to is the origin of life, where evolutionist claims that it happened by mere chance and then the IDs refute that such event could happen. And it is true what the IDs say, that the chance of natural law bringing about the information that is imbedded in the DNA that makes all the life that there is in this known world unconvincing.
And the other thing is that the evolutionist are backed up by the government(public school) and the IDs, the small but infamous DI. If ID should not be taught so should the evolution of origin of life because IDs is more philosphically sound than evoltuionists. The fact is we don’t know but yet so many evolutionist make that big claim(to me, this is the evolutionists leap)that evolution did it all.

To Glover,
Your essay is interesting in that you go into detail about how people use UFO’s to explain areas not understood by man and this can be misleading, yet you do not make the exact same connection with God. Both UFO’s and God have no scientific evidence supporting them, thus belief in them must be based on faith alone. One great quote of yours is “treat these knowledge gaps in our understanding of the past as simply that, and NOT as proof that primitive man had some outside help.” You are using this for UFO’s but the same quote directly applies to God. Our gaps in science are filled in by religion, when instead, they should just be what they are, gaps in our scientific knowledge.

Good post, Gordon. I’m enjoying your blog too. And great video!
This comment is a bit off topic, since it doesn’t directly relate to what Gordon wrote, but I want to make this comment briefly.
Daniel said:
““The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalm 19:1)
How can they declare HIS glory unless it is manifestly clear that they represent His workmanship!”
You here put your finger on something that truly saddens me about creationism. While worship is essentially a subjective exercise, at least in part, and people may worship God for a number of reasons, some of which may be dubious (like an old lady I heard about once, who walked through a huge door with full shopping bags, thanking God that he opened them for her – she had never heard of automatic doors before), I think somehow that creationism hinders their adherents from worshipping God in truth (John 4:23).
Creationism places a certain interpretation of the Bible before any- and everything. Whatever else is said, by people and by nature, should fall in line exactly as that interpretation says it should. So we have people denying the clear evidence for evolution, for example, and all manner of other scientific phenomena, all because they think the Bible requires them to do so.
So too in regards to astronomy. The cosmic evolution that has taken place over the last 13 or so billion years in all its glory is denied. The background radiation that points to the big bang is also denied. And so on. All in favour of that certain interpretation of the Bible. The result is this: The heavens do not any longer declare anything for the creationist. Their clear witness, discernible through science, is not heard by the creationist, who sticks his fingers in his ears and loudly shouts (maybe quoting the Chicago Statement?) to overpower the perceived threat to his precious interpretation. As a result of denying what the heavens actually declare, scientifically, the substance of the glory of God is not understood – thus hindering true worship.
The creationist may say that the heavens declare the glory of God. He may sincerely believe that his creationist beliefs are supported by the evidence gathered from the heavens. He may even be inspired to worship by the heavens. But his worship is not based on truth, because his creationism, his interpretation of the Bible simply makes it impossible for him to hear what the heavens actually declare. Whatever he knows of the glory of God, it does not come from the heavens.
Creationism thus hinders true worship.

Daniel said: We can just as easily invoke “Naturalism of the Gaps!
Not correct; in this analogy naturalism isn’t even present. Perhaps you could accuse them of anthropocentrism of the gaps, but even that wouldn’t be quite correct; anthropology also studies the effects of (for a random, fictional example) domesticated animals, to perhaps conclude that the deep circle outside of each temple in a given area in India is caused by an elephant tethered there.
The limitation we have is that we only attempt to explain what we already understand. Short of that, we can only generate hypotheses, not theories. Maybe God did directly arrange atoms to form the first unicellular life — that’s a fine historical “null hypothesis”. Every proposed hypothesis would have to be tested against that to see if it fits the evidence better. So far none have.
-Wm

It is a sad day when people waste their time and money expressing their own inadequacy by making silly claims about their enemies.
Well may you be afraid, because the public can see through you, even though you have misted your own mirror and can’t see your own fear.
Have confidence that Truth will stand alone against error. It doesn’t need your help.

There is NO seperation clause IN the Constitution.
In fact the First Amendment makes it clear that it is just the opposite. And the history of the Churches being our schools bears this out.
I don’t mind evolutionists, but when I smell a humanism rat dressed up like a Christian, it usually doesn’t take long to find it.

Gaps is gaps.
Aliens of the Gaps, Humans of the Gaps, Darwin of the Gaps, God of the Gaps are all equal in that they are possibilities, not conclusions, until proven otherwise.
Evolutionists and creationists alike are frustrated because neither can prove the other is wrong. Methodological naturalism can’t disprove God and theology can’t disprove philosophical naturalism.
Then politics takes over and that’s pretty scary for the philosophical naturalists (who are primarily atheist) because in the world outside academia the philosopical naturalists are outnumbered 10:1. Most people’s innate sensibility denies any possibility of looking at the construction and organization of the natural world and coming to the conclusion that it’s all just a big unintentional accident that it is the way it is. It takes a rather blind (and stupid if you ask me) faith to believe everything we see is the result of blind chance.

To Mark,
If you are referring to the video: Satire is a form of criticism that mockingly approves of that which the satirist wishes to criticize. Or as Rush Limbaugh used to say, “to demonstrate absurdity by being absurd.” The tools employed by satire are humor, exaggeration, and overstatement (that are based in truth) — which is why I created two youtube videos that “fact check” my own ID vs. AI vid, and released them simoultaneously.
To Mere_Christian,
I personally wouldn’t mind if telelogical design were taught in the public schools. I pay no small chunk of change to send my children to a Classical Christian School were all subjects are taught from within a Christian Worldview. But in a pluralistic society such as ours with a tax-supported public education system, it would difficult to do this — not because of the “separation clause” (which as you pointed out doesn’t exist) — but because of the establishment clause. And if we let one group skirt the experts and inject their worldview into the classroom under the guise of science, then it would be difficult to prevent other groups from doing the same — and there is a lot of crazy pseudoscience out there.
To Dave,
“Evolutionists and creationists alike are frustrated because neither can prove the other is wrong.” — True regarding design, but many specific creationist claims can be falsified (ie: young earth, speed of light decay, recent global flood, etc…).
I agree that science should be a-political. If someone thinks they have a good idea, then hit the lab and start collecting data! Two reason to keep lawyers and politicians out of the scientific process: (1) lawyers, (2) politicians.
GJG

If you are going to look at the possibility of alien intervention, don’t leave out the fact that many believe the so-called alien activity is the work of fallen angels and demons. There is a lot of evidence that makes this connection.
The idea that the earth is young, or there was a recent global flood has never been falsified. Unless you prefer to accept the conclusions of scientists who have a scientific naturalism worldview. Science has limits. There is a line of demarcation where real science ends and scientific naturalism begins. It might be worth your while to learn to tell the difference.

Excellent work, Gordon!

“There is a line of demarcation where real science ends and scientific naturalism begins.”
What do you mean? You’re talking about two completely different things here, as if they were one: Science is an activity and the knowledge gained from the activity, while scientific naturalism is a philosophy that some see science (and its naturalistic methodology) as supporting.

“The idea that the earth is young, or there was a recent global flood has never been falsified.”
If by “young”, you mean 4.7 billion years, and by “recent” you mean 2.5 billion years ago…why, then, yes, you’re absolutely correct.
“Unless you prefer to accept the conclusions of scientists who have a scientific naturalism worldview.”
What, scientists who come to their conclusions based on great masses of physical evidence and decades of working in a field of research along with thousands of others working in that field?
Yes, I prefer to accept their conclusions.

“Gaps is gaps. Aliens of the Gaps, Humans of the Gaps, Darwin of the Gaps, God of the Gaps are all equal in that they are possibilities, not conclusions, until proven otherwise.”

Then why have the gaps in our scientific knowledge been narrowing due to scientific research as opposed to, say, catching an alien at work?

“Most people’s innate sensibility denies any possibility of looking at the construction and organization of the natural world and coming to the conclusion that it’s all just a big unintentional accident that it is the way it is. It takes a rather blind (and stupid if you ask me) faith to believe everything we see is the result of blind chance.”

But evolution is not understood to be random.
btw, on an earlier post you claimed that there was no death in Eden before the fall. I asked how there could be reproduction if there was no death. Please respond.

“The idea that the earth is young, or there was a recent global flood has never been falsified. Unless you prefer to accept the conclusions of scientists who have a scientific naturalism worldview.”
What you are basically saying is this: “These ideas can’t be falsified if you toss out the scientific method.” And then you must accept that God created the earth 6000 years ago, destroyed it with a food 4500 years ago, then erased all of the evidence of these two events and replaced it with evidence of en entirely different natural history. Hmmm…

Arv said,

“If you are going to look at the possibility of alien intervention, don’t leave out the fact that many believe the so-called alien activity is the work of fallen angels and demons. There is a lot of evidence that makes this connection.”

Fascinating! Please explain all the evidence.

“The idea that the earth is young, or there was a recent global flood has never been falsified. Unless you prefer to accept the conclusions of scientists who have a scientific naturalism worldview.”

We can measure the age of the earth. We would be able to see evidence of a global flood. Why not take the word of a scientists who are able to investigate such things?

” Science has limits. There is a line of demarcation where real science ends and scientific naturalism begins. It might be worth your while to learn to tell the difference.”

Yes, science has limits because science the human activity of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena. For example, when a disease breaks out, you look for the pathogen causing it. The natural world is not all there is, but that is all science can address. You are the one having problems with defining science.

Olorin,
You wrote, “The first leap is bad science, because alternatives are known. The second leap [positing an intelligence behind the design] is non-science, because science by definition cannot study non-repeatable, non-predictable supernatural forces.”
It seems like you are willing to regard as science everything that Behe had done until he theorized that the design was intelligent.
Would you agree that science also includes the construction of a theory to connect the dots? I think you would. After all, that’s an important aspect of science. However, you balk when Behe posits “intelligent” design. Why? Is a scientist only allowed to look at natural, unintelligent causation? Must all our dollars be poured down the drink in a biased attempt to prove Darwinian naturalism? It’s like hiring a detective who refuses to consider any suspects over six-foot-tall. This bias might allow the real perp to slip through his fingers.
Why the bias against super-naturalism? Is naturalism any more scientific? I don’t think so. While we all recognize that phenomena occur according to formula, these laws might find their origin in the mind of God. Oddly, there is no scientific evidence for naturalism. Nevertheless, it has co-opted the sciences.

“Oddly, there is no scientific evidence for naturalism.”
What do you mean, Daniel?

Ok Daniel, let’s get back on topic…
The perimeter of the Pyramid of the Sun in Mexico has the same base dimensions as the Great Pyramid of Giza. This is a scientific fact. And in each case, the 3 main pyramids are laid out according to the stars in Orion’s belt (although the middle structure in Mexico didn’t get finished). This is also a scientific fact.
It is also correct to say that there is no credible evidence that ancient engineers traveled between Mexico and Afica giving advice on how to layout and build pyramids. So up to this point, the pseudo-archaeologists would agree with the mainstream archaeologists.
This is a difficult problem. IDid this happen by coincidence? By design? Mainstream archaeologists bias their speculations against extra-terrestrial intervention. This is perfectly acceptible since there is no working theory about how such a thing could happen. However, the pseudo-archaeologists insist that this COMMON pyramid DESIGN shows evidence of a COMMON pyramid DESIGNER — a speculative claim which can’t be substantiated. There are many ordinary reasons why these designs could be similar. But since the pseudo-archaeologists are hardcore alien enthusiasts, they claim that this evidence supports their Ancient Alien hypothesis.
So according to the logic you are using to support intelligent design argument, this type of intelligent design/alien-of-the-gaps argument also constitutes responsible science. Why not? The ID agenda is all about fairness and academic freedom.
Remember, this isn’t about what is or isn’t true. But rather, what is or isn’t science.
Gordon

Gordon (and Arni),
I thought your video was very well-done, but also highly propagandistic, let alone unreasonably dismissive of ID.
There are several significant differences between the ID and Alien hypotheses that serve to invalidate your analogy:
1. The God-hypothesis (ID) finds support from many independent lines of evidence. The Alien hypothesis only has anecdotal evidence. SETI has come up with vilch!
2. Consequently, ID is parsimonious. Rather than adding an additional leap of faith, ID falls back to the One cause that is adequate to explain all phenomena. (Please see my latest post on ID!) In contrast, naturalism must invoke all sorts of absurd leaps-of-faith to explain such diverse things as consciousness (something that allegedly happens when matter becomes complex enough), fine-tuning of the universe (an infinite number of universes), irreducible complexity (co-option of other structures), DNA (chemical self-assembly)….
3. Postulating ID is NOT merely a matter of filling the gaps left behind by the naturalistic hypothesis. It is also POSITIVELY warranted. We have a pretty good understanding of the products of intelligent causation versus formulaic causation. When we encounter poetry, a comb or kitchen utensils, we automatically and appropriately ascribe them to ID. When we see crystals or fractal patterns, we can correctly ascribe these phenomena to formulaic causation. In fact, from what I understand, their patterns can be simplified into formulas. However, you can’t do this with a novel (Nor DNA!). There is no way that we can study the first 200 pages, and then formulaically decide the letter pattern that appears on the last page!
4. ID also has the advantage of explaining the origin and functioning of the laws of physics, biology, etc. While science has been co-opted by naturalism, which suggests that these laws are independent, unintelligent, impersonal and natural, there exists not a shred of evidence for this. This has never been observed, measured or quantified. Instead, they may merely be a part of the mind of God. (Interestingly, the Bible often mentions the laws by which God governs the universe!) In fact, this thinking is preferable. It provides the very unifying principle that scientists have long sought.

Daniel,
Your post is so silly I don’t know where to start, but let’s start with this:

“ID also has the advantage of explaining the origin and functioning of the laws of physics, biology, etc.”

But of course. “God did it. End of story.” Or do you have something to add?

BeagleLady Karen,
Sorry for being so silly, but the aliens made me do it!

After watching natural explanations replace supernatural explanation for 2000 years, after watching supernatural explanations NEVER replace natural explanations in 2000 years, it amazes me how many still cling to supernatural explanations.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that there ARE one or two ID proponents who aren’t just using ID as a smokescreen to push the Christian God back into public school science classes (as in the Wedge Strategy).
These ID proponents rely on the argument that “we haven’t figured out every detail of how this happened naturally, so it MUST be divine.” Look at Daniel’s post above for a classic example. He dismisses the “alien hypothesis” because SETI has found nothing. Many other IDers/Creationists refer to SETI’s lack of success as evidence that we are God’s unique creation. But SETI’s lack of success provides exactly zero evidence for God. All it provides is evidence for.. well.. SETI’s lack of success. But the universe is a big place. Drawing the conclusion that SETI proves we are alone is like a flea examining a centimeter wide circle around itself, and upon finding no other fleas, concluding it is alone on the Earth.
Another argument that is used to promote the “God did it” hypothesis is the improbability that proteins suddenly burst forth fully formed by random accident from the primordial soup. Stephen Meyer is particularly fond of this strawman argument.
Evolutionary processes have demonstrated an extraordinary ability to build complexity. Unless you think the Divine Designer is actively tinkering with the physical and biological world daily, then you must agree that all the complex web of life on Earth grew out of those original proto-cells. There is vastly more complexity in the world today than there is in those early cells.
So if natural processes can create something more complex than a cell, why can’t they create a cell?
And all the probability arguments go right out the window once you start an evolutionary “mutation plus selection” process. Anyone who has ever written even a simple evolutionary algorithm know is it reaches useful conclusions an a tiny fraction of the time that random chance requires.
The problem is that we don’t know yet. But to declare “the Divine Designer did it” and stop researching would be quite simply stone-age thinking.
But of course, the steadfast ID believers can fall back on one final argument. If we DO create conditions in the lab similar to what may have existed in the early Earth, and we DO generate organic molecules that can start evolving – even if we make this enormous breakthrough – the IDers will simply say “well, the scientists are intelligent designers, aren’t they?”
You can’t disprove the Intelligent Designer any more than you can disprove God or disprove the incorporeal dragon in my garage.
But what you CAN do is keep God, the Designer, Allah, Thor, and the dragon out of science classrooms and allow children to learn the wonders of the real world.
Nothing real requires faith.

Daniel, you sound like a panentheist.

“Sorry for being so silly, but the aliens made me do it!”

Thanks for your reply, Daniel, but I’m very disappointed. You said,
“ID also has the advantage of explaining the origin and functioning of the laws of physics, biology, etc.”
I was hoping you’d tell me how ID explains these things.

Daniel mann (Oct. 3, 2009 3:31 PM): “It seems like you are willing to regard as science everything that Behe had done until he theorized that the design was intelligent’
Why do you think I admitted design as science? Only in the sense that th eenvironment “designs” organisms by way of natural selection. In fact, natural selection fits under Dembski’s definition iof intelligence: A force with the power to choos among alternatives.
“However, you balk when Behe posits “intelligent” design. Why? Is a scientist only allowed to look at natural, unintelligent causation?”
A scientist looks only at natural causation. The problem with “intelligent” causation is that it is non-repeatable and unpredictable, by definition, as long a s the intelligence can make truly arbitrary choices. The ultimate goal of science is to control the forces of the world. This requires predictablity and repeatablity.
“Must all our dollars be poured down the drink in a biased attempt to prove Darwinian naturalism?:
Do your really think that evolutionary rersearch involves doing experiments to “prove” evolution? The experiments’ purpose is to find out HOW evolution works in given situations. For xample, to design programs for saving endangered species, or to design flavor enhancers for food products. (The class of compounds known as “taste modulators” were discovered when a researcher determined that the conventional theory of taste would not allow it to have evolved. By studying how taste sensors had evolved, he found compounds that, although they had no taste of their own, can influence the taste of other chemicals—e.g., making fruits taste sweeter than the really are, so you don;t have to add sugar.) Other experiments trace the evolution of limb regrowth in salamanders, so we can transfer that ability to humans.
If this is a waste of time and money, what would you suggest instead?
In fact, how would you design an experiment to prove design? Think about it for a while. For a long while, because no one has yet been able to do it.

Theory’s of mankind being a high-bred, genetically altered caveman or other variations of it, all related to interpretation of manuscripts and symbols found throughout history and in all cultures, millions will take these theory’s as their truth with perhaps some minor alterations to correspond with their personal believe. But what about truth? This so called lost symbol that they refer to which is related to the lost word in freemasonry which points to a special kind of knowledge undoubtedly indicates advanced knowledge by the ancients.
But their knowledge does go beyond a calendar or star-map or even gene manipulation. It is about everything, and I mean Everything. It is far more important.
Lets consider for a moment this given theory of manipulation of genes by an alien race, where it is said, if they would not have done so we would still be caveman. So who manipulated the genes of the alien’s? The theory tells us they are perhaps a million years ahead in evolution.
Many conspiracy theorists and researchers complain about archaeological findings that do not fit the current theory’s and are kept out. Ranging from petrified finger, footprints overlapping those of dinosaurs, a petrified hammer findings deep within mines, to them more proof of alien intervention .
But does it need an evolution of millions of years? To have technological advanced machines capable to influence time and space, to be enlightened beings, to communicate telepathically and all these other things they are suppose to be able of doing.
Please think of the following and ask yourself, does it need time or insight?
Science is nothing but the finding of unity. As soon as science would reach perfect unity, the search ends because it would reach the goal. Thus, Chemistry could not need to research any further when it would discover one element out of which all others could be made. Physics would stop when it would be able to fulfil its services in discovering one energy of which all others are but manifestations… All science is bound to come to this conclusion .
At some point some thought the answer was a field called ether and science now tell us that all matter is energy. That even seeing is nothing more then the photons collected on the retina turned in to electrical signals that produce an image in the back of the brain.
But lets think about this for a moment, are there different photons? Or is their vibrational frequency different and I do not just mean colour.
There must therefore be information within a photon, what kind of information? What do you see when you look at a snail or a flower? Apart from colour and shape? You also pick up on ratio’s such as the golden ratio, it is likely that you are not aware of it, but as it is a natural phenomenon, you recognize it as beauty and you recognize it because you too are based on this ratio.(remember what the word recognize means) and this happens not just on a conscious level but subconsciously too. So a photon must have all of these within it.
While there are many more of such ratio’s and principles which are not only seen in the physical expression of the body and within its individual parts, but it is also expressed in his expressions, his actions, but again most of the time not aware of. Lets take an artist for instance, without him or herself being aware of using the golden ratio, while some are aware of it and use it in their art as they are aware of its effect on the viewer.
Nowadays, marketing is using it, for example, on the A4 paper you are reading right now. So how does this relate to the lost symbol you might ask, this so called lost symbol contains all these things. All these laws and ratio’s.
What could contain all of these, like a book full of informations? Mathematical principles, in fact a language, one such thing would be geometrical patterns. The lost symbol is not a star map, the star map is only a part of the symbol because they to are governed by the same laws.
And there is only one that contains all of the above mentioned ratio’s, laws, patterns. Yes, a photon must contain all of these, when influenced, it alters it’s internal pattern, behaving like a particle or wave
The ancients knew it, they could for-see events to come and it is the reason why so many of the religious scriptures have the same numbers and similar story’s.
In the story of the birth of Jesus, there were wise men who saw a star that led them to the birthplace, but if this were true then why did they have to go to king Herod? First of all, a star does not move in close proximity so they could follow it as if it were headlights of a car. Others suggested that it was a cometh, but this could also not guide them in such as way.
So what was that light that pointed the way for the wise men? Known as the star of Bethlehem, also in some way related to the star of David and the promise of God, the seven rays, there is only one such symbol that has all of these.
It is the tree of life, but also the tablets that bore the laws and were placed in the Ark of Covenant, you all know of the great power it represented and what would be greater then all the laws of creation? This knowledge would be very close to God, and a great treasure indeed and certainly dangerous in the wrong hands.
This lost symbol is closely related to another thing the freemasons lost. The lost word. But both were never really lost for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Imagine having such powers being controlled by emotions. It is no wonder that only the pure of heart could enter the gate. No wonder it was something of great value that one must earn, something the alchemist should know all about, where the transmutation is really that of the heart. It doesn’t need to be hidden, it simply loses its power and becomes weak when it does not find its reflection. Wisdom and love. Only the lesser can these words create when not spoken in that light. Like seeing, when not this love and wisdom looks upon it, how could it recognize ?( look at the cover of the lost symbol, the blazing-star, the Star of David and two tails, now look at the star of Bethlehem shown on this website.)
This is the real lost Symbol. And the two circles represent the eight 8.
The sign for eternity is symbolically represented (and all other symbols of importance) throughout history, a few: the I ching, the Dendera stone in Egypt
are just two, the prophecy of Pacal Votan concerning the culmination of the great shaking of planet earth with the Mayan calendar, which is actually the wheel of eight(8). Where the wheel of 8 is seen in the positioning of three constellations.
The wheel of 8 is seen in the Dharma wheel of Buddha who predicts the coming of the second Buddha for this present time, it is also seen in the Coptic key given by Jesus to the ancient Gnostic s as a sign of the entry to higher realms.
Then the temple of Hermopolis in Khemenu Egypt, was called the city of Eight, its symbol was the Octagon emerald, which is eight sided and the temple was presided over by Thoth the leader of Eight. Within the great hall of Hermopolis was kept the secret of secrets concerning all universal life.
The lost symbol was not lost neither was the word but what was lost is what it represents in all its glory.
Love knows, in all the wisdom of it’s oceanic nature, thoughts and feelings are it’s waves and ego it’s current.
Ego and the waves it causes can never become the ocean and the ocean can never become a wave.
19-9-2009
Moshiya deBroek.

There are many religious story’s that give similar accounts to the story told in the bible. Some which pre-date the Christian era by thousands of years, there are story’s that do not look the same at first glance because it uses different settings or vehicles to carry the message and therefore, many do not see that they are based on the same knowledge, the same laws and therefore the same source.
Having shown the most known to be of the same source, I like to take one this time that most are somewhat less familiar with, the Cambodian Angkor.
They used a measurement called a Hat and when one looks at how many hat are involved in significant dimensions of the temple, such as the distance between the western entrance and the central tower, the distance came to 1,728 hat and another component of its axis measured 1,296 hat. Maron who did this research in the 70’s found them to correlate with the four ages or Yuga’s of Indian thought. The first of these, the Krita Yuga, the golden age lasting 1,728000 years, the next three ages lasted for 1,296,000 ,864,000 and 432,000 years respectively. The fact that the length’s of these four eras correlates exactly with particular distances along the east-west axis of Angkor suggest that the “code” for the temple is in fact a kind of pun that can be read in terms of time and space. The distances that a person entering the temple will traverse coincide with the eras that the visitor is metaphorically living through en route to the statue of Vishnu in the central tower.
Walking forward and away from the west, which is the direction of death, the visitor moves backward into time, approaching the moment when the Indians proposed that time began.
In her research Moron also discovered astronomical correlations for ten of the most frequently occurring distances at Angkor Wat. Astronomers working with her found that the sitting of the temple was related to the fact that it’s western gate aligned at sunrise with a small hill to the north-east, Phnom Bok . Moreover, at the summer solstice and observer, standing just in front of the western entrance, can see the sunrise directly over the central tower of Angkor Wat.
This day, June 21, marked the beginning of the solar year for Indian astronomers and was sacred to a king whose name, Suryavarman, means protected by the sun and who was a devotee of Vishnu.
The close fit of these spatial relationships to notions of cosmic time and the extraordinary accuracy and symmetry of all the measurements at Angkor, combine to confirm the notion that the temple was in fact a coded religious text that could be read by experts moving along the walkways from one dimension to the next.
The learned Pandits who determined the dimensions of Angkor Wat would have been aware of and would have revelled in its multiplicity of meanings. To those lower down in the society, perhaps fewer and fewer meanings would be clear.
This lining up of temples could serve utilitarian purposes. Ernst Zimmer reports that temples were aligned by the ancient Egyptians so they could be used as star clocks. Sun-clocks were used for daytime measurement and the Egyptians had water clocks which could be used day or night.
However, they also determined the hours of the night by noting when curtain constellations reached their highest point in the sky. In order to determine these zeniths, it was necessary to know where the meridian was. This presented no difficulty for the Egyptians, says Zimmer, since the determination of the north-south and east-west directions at the laying of the foundation-stone of a temple was among the most important functions of a king. The process of determining these directions was depicted in exactly the same way on relief’s from the 4 th millennium up to the birth of Christ. The measuring apparatus used by the king consisted of a straight edge (an alignment stick) bent upward at one end and with a plumb line attached, together with the split rib of a palm leaf. There are tables found in the burial chambers of the Egyptian Pharaohs Ramses VI and IX dating from between about 1160 and 1120 B.C. which list what constellations correspond to what hour of the night and show a picture of a sitting man. The process of observing the passage of the hours of the night required two such observers, aligned along the meridian.
So far a piece of Gordan Fisher in his book Marriage and divorce of astronomy and astrology.
Connections between religion, astronomy, astrology and predictions are very ancient, no doubt prehistoric. The “the Etrusscans begin to speak” Zaharie Mayani describes a relatively late ceremony which unites the three. His description is based on a fresco on the wall of a tomb, known as the tomb of Augurs, which dates from 530 B.C. Two priests are seen marking out the bounds of a holy area consisting of a square in which two medians were marked, one running from north to south and the other from east to west. The quarters of the square are also subdivided and each resulting section is assigned to a particular deity. The square is a kind of mirror of the heavens, since the divisions of the square correspond to a conceptual division of the sky. A priest could stand in the centre of the square and with the help of a special staff determine in which zone of the square the direction of a celestial omen fell, hence which deity was sending the omen. Thus the holy area or templum constituted an observatory for observations were a mean of learning the will of the Gods.
While it may sound impressive they still look at it in a way that would give the idea that it is not an exact science and based on nothing more then or a little more then wishful thinking. Much of it like the present future tellers. This is partly to do with the mind set of the investigators/researchers who have been indoctrinated into believing society has risen above and are smarter then those ancient civilisations, part due to thinking that present day technology’s are proof of their advancement on them.
But the truth is their “ the ancients” knowledge far surpasses that of present day science. Anyone who is able to let go of these fixed ideas will see that there is a very precise mathematics which describes the mechanics of creation from the infinity small to the infinitely large and, unlike most think, it is not one part influencing another but the whole influencing all.
Coming back to the ability to see it all is not, as so often thought stillness. While in this stillness there is a possibility to gain insight as it is uninterrupted by thoughts and feelings but focussing on anything through mind-stuff still gets translated by the known. The very believe system one has to let go off, to really see one’s need to face the other way, the way to God and through him all is revealed.
In relation to this I like to return to the lost word, it is not the word itself that is lost but the truth that lies hidden within it. Such truth has the power to say: get up and walk.
To give you an idea of the mathematics and mechanics which joins astrology and astronomy, the circle of the zodiac has a cycle of 25920 years, some will feel the need to point out that NASA has another figure but this will be explained in another article, recall that the one has to move from left to right side of the eight which is the tree. In other words from 18 to 81 by the Ark as told in the story of Noah which is 45.0000. 45 times 18 is 81(0) now those familiar with the Kabbalah know there are 32 path’s or steps where each must be brought to the other side so 32 times 81 is 25920 and 81 divided by 3,125 is 25920( do not pay attention to the decimal point, the zero too needs to be understood.) 31.25 was revealed in the Torah and explained in previous articles and is related to 32 like the 2 and 5. Any number multiplied by 5 is equal to the same number divided by 2.
So 32 times 81 is 25920 and 32 times 18 is 576 which is the circumference of the eight. But 3125 has another key if we divide 25920 by 3125 you get 82944, the very number related to all of natures constants equal to 288 x 288.
The 288 sparks that fell to earth, from above to below 288 + 288 = 576. and the light was divided by seven ray’s which, those who have looked at the tree as shown here on the site and face book group truth & revelations will know has seven rays or points on its circumference.
And 32 x 0.3125 makes the 10. The Ark of Noah itself was not measured by the El but by the cubit of 52.36 .
Now the Ark of Covenant contains the tablets and Aron’s staff so lets divide 56.25( 1.5×1.5×2.5) by the El, the answer is 18 or the one staff and the eight of eternity. All this will provide you with the mathematics and mechanics of what, when and where, and ultimately why.
And if we translate it into letters then you get the story you are familiar with “ the holy scriptures”, those tablets indeed contain the 10 Laws, to keep to them was needed to ensure clear view of the whole and not fall in the W-Hole and get trapped by the B-hole or black hole or the veil which is what has fallen into the darkness of the sub-conscious, the cause of thoughts and feelings.
It gets triggered by the rays you are not aware of. Astrology, astronomy, Kabbalah, alchemy, biology, physics, psychology etc. are all subject to and ruled by the same laws until you come to the father through me Jesus the Christ said.
They seem simple words seen through the eyes of a conditioned mind.
Some will say, why would I need to understand this? Isn’t my believe good enough? When you do think this then you did not understand it, the pure of heart are one with Christ/Krishna… they do not see through the conditioned eyes of ego, of personality who translates all to its own liking, but see with new eyes and hear with new ears. They can see that each word is a sentence full of light that can transform. Numbers are not just letters but contain the wisdom of creation within them.
6-9-2009.
Moshiya deBroek
Copyright © Truth & Revelations

john paul,
Please stop pasting your website here.

Olorin (and BeagleLady Karen),
You wrote, “A scientist looks only at natural causation. The problem with “intelligent” causation is that it is non-repeatable and unpredictable, by definition, as long as the intelligence can make truly arbitrary choices. The ultimate goal of science is to control the forces of the world. This requires predictablity and repeatablity.”
I have several thoughts about your response:
1. If you want to eliminate ID from consideration by defining science in a manner that excludes it, you must also demonstrate how this definition not only conforms to the reality of science but also how it promotes fruitfulness.
2. However, I don’t think that fruitfulness is being served by your naturalistic interpretation. I think that instead it reflects a bias that will limit fruitful discussion and research. But closing their minds to other considerations (namely super-naturalism causation) and theoretical explanations, science would be promoting a narrow repressiveness that can only serve to suffocate it. Besides, this close-mindedness represents a refusal to follow the evidence.
3. Your definition also rules against Darwinism. Although both naturalism and super-naturalism are equally capable of generation predictions, your criterion of “repeatability” can not be satisfied. Ultimately, Darwinism is a theory about origins — one-time phenomena. Rather than being repeatable, it is a theory about history, what had happened in the past.
Similarly, you wrote, “In fact, how would you design an experiment to prove design? Think about it for a while. For a long while, because no one has yet been able to do it.” This difficulty, once again, equally impacts Darwinian naturalism. “How would you design an experiment to prove” naturalism — that the underlying laws or mechanisms are natural laws rather than intelligent ones situated in the mind of God?

Daniel Mann,
Why oh why do you keep dodging my question?
You said,

“ID also has the advantage of explaining the origin and functioning of the laws of physics, biology, etc.”

Now is the time for ID to shine in all its glory! Now tell us how ID explains these things, or simply state that it doesn’t.

Daniel mann: “1. If you want to eliminate ID from consideration by defining science in a manner that excludes it, you must also demonstrate how this definition not only conforms to the reality of science but also how it promotes fruitfulness.”
The “reality” of science is defined by its practice. Over the past thousand years, it has become more and more a search for natural explanations. Over this time, science has made steady and at times spectacular progress by replacing supernatural explanations with natural explanations. Over this time, it has never fruitfully replaced a single natural explanation with a supernatural one.
Daniel mann: “2. However, I don’t think that fruitfulness is being served by your naturalistic interpretation. I think that instead it reflects a bias that will limit fruitful discussion and research.”
Here’s an example of both facets. Newton replaced God with a natural, predictable force as the enforcer of planetary orbits. But Newton found that his laws resulted in instabilities that required the hand of God to neutralize. And he stopped there. LaPlace then invented perturbation theory to account for the irregularities. This natural explanation later led to the discovery of several new planets. Newton had invented all the mathematical tools needed for perturbation theory. But his reliance upon a supernatural explanation blinded him from seeing it.
Daniel mann: “Besides, this close-mindedness represents a refusal to follow the evidence.”
Which evidence did you have in mind? This is a constant claim of creationism/ID, that there is actual evidence somewhere over the rainbow. Or under the next shell. Without actually producing any specific goods. You can’t stalk unicorns that don’t exist; you can’t follow evidence that isn’t there.
Meanwhile, of course, there are 1,750 (2007 number) peer-reviewed papers per year of observations of evolution, descriptions of how itr works in specific situations, and predictions that can be verified or falsified by further research. Following the evidence, in other words.

Sorry it took me so long. It turns out that this site doesn’t work in Google Chrome — the captcha destroys messages.

Please help me to understand the “subtle” distinction you are making. Michael Behe is an IDer. What part of his research isn’t science?

Behe isn’t only doing research; he’s also doing instruction.

When he identifies the protein structures that comprise the flagellum, is that not science?

Not at all. When he does that, he’s instructing people. That’s not science; it’s teaching.

When he begins to assess how these proteins and their structures came to be assembled as they are, is that not science?

It absolutely IS science, and it should be assessed in terms of science. The problem is that it’s bad science. The question he’s asking is a very good one: “can accumulation of random micromutations directed by unguided natural selection produce this structure?” The means he uses to compare the two are incredibly simplistic: he assumes that the only path to evolve the structure is to build it from successively smaller structures, all of which perform the same basic function.
This is simplistic because there are two other ways to build a structure with a function: first, one may build a larger structure with the desired function and then shrink it, as humans do when using a scaffolding to erect a building; or one may build the structure for one purpose, and then after it’s no longer used for that purpose, find a different use.
Both methods can work together, of course; for example, a cell organelle might be duplicated, allowing one copy to degenerate and eventually be used for a different function. The duplication serves as scaffolding, allowing the less optimal copy to continue to be expressed.

Or perhaps the fact that he entered the laboratory with certain religious ideas frolicking in his head should disqualify him from doing science?

No. But neither does it immunize him from criticism for his omissions in doing science — and he’s especially guilty for putting himself in a teaching position while not teaching the entire truth.

It seems that you have eliminated ID by definition and not by any concern for science.

I followed ID for many years; I still check up on it. It seems like a very good idea. But the scientific question it asks can be stated, “what are the creative capabilities of unguided evolution?” And once that question is answered, “God” will not be used to fill in the places where evolution doesn’t fit. Believers will still say that God works everywhere, where evolution is working and where it isn’t; and unbelievers will still say that God is nowhere, even when they have no answer for how a given result occurred.
An honest Creationist, like Todd, examines the evidence, finds that it favors some of the statements of the evolutionary theories, and admits that. He then says that he places the testimony of the Bible ahead of the simple theory that’s being offered by today’s evolutionary theory, and keeps searching for a theory that matches that Biblical testimony.
I’m impressed with that honesty. Yes, he disregards extensive physical evidence — but he’s honest about what he’s doing, and he’s careful to explain that he’s doing it because he truly thinks that the evidence he’s following is more likely to be fruitful in the long run. He may be wrong; but he’s certain to have a lot of things to research. You (or Behe) may be right; but you’ve got nothing whatsoever to research, since you’ve “proven” only a negative, that evolution couldn’t have done it (and you’ve not tried to even suggest what did).
-Wm

“Over this time, it has never fruitfully replaced a single natural explanation with a supernatural one.”
Be very careful with claims like this. For instance, is pathology/autopsy a science? When an autopsy replaces a presumption of “death by natural causes” with “homicide”, this replaces a natural explanation with an arguably supernatural one, using some of the definitions of some of the ID camp.
Of course, the situations are very different; but your argument can’t distinguish.
-Wm

I’ve offered my response to Glover’s argument here:
http://telicthoughts.com/id-vs-alien-intervention/

BeagleLady,
Sorry, I didn’t mean to bypass your question about why ID is a better explanation for the laws of nature. (Actually, I thought that I had addressed it??)
For one thing any effect must have an adequate cause, one which is at least as great as the effect. If this wasn’t the case, then we could argue part of the effect would be uncaused (and we don’t want to go there). In light of this, God is the only adequate explanation for the various phenomena.
Not only is God adequate for each explanation, He is adequate for all! He is the one unifying force that brings harmony to all creation. When naturalism tries to explain them, it must resort to a cacophony of various, absurd explanations. For instance, trying to explain the fine-tuning of the universe, naturalism is forced to posit an infinite number of universes. When trying to explain the origins of proteins or DNA, naturalism must posit the self-assembly of these substances. To explain consciousness, naturalism suggests that it is a natural outgrowth of matter once it reaches a certain level of complexity. When trying to account for the laws of nature, I guess naturalism tries to invoke the Big Bang, as if order can naturally arise out of chaos?? Besides, there is no scientific evidence for any of this. Therefore, naturalism is inadequate and unsupportable, leaving only super-naturalism (intelligence). (Please see my post on “Intelligent Design”!)

Olorin and Wm,
I am a science-twit, so perhaps you are in a better position to assess how science has been practiced over the past 1000 years. However, I am also aware of the fact that many Christians had pursued science in order to uncover God’s laws to His glory. They were trying to uncover the workings of His laws as reflected in formulas and equations in His governance of creation—something entirely opposed to the concept naturalistic explanations.
Instead, naturalism implies that everything can be rendered into formulas without recourse to a Creator, even the origins of all things—laws, substances, matter, energy. (Interestingly, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics rules against a natural and gradual appearance of these!) If the naturalist wants to try to do this, that’s fine. However, when he then redefines science to ONLY consider, mention, or be guided by naturalism, I must cry “foul!”
Your example about Newton and LaPlace and conclusion that ID had led Newton in an unfruitful direction went over my poor head. However, would you be willing to grant that ID had led Newton in some fruitful directions also? If so, then you have undermined your argument against allowing ID a place at the science table.
You demand to know what scientific evidence has ID put forward. As you know, there is no major university funding ID, and so it’s not surprising that the research coming from this worldview is negligible. However, this should not be a basis to eliminate its voice. How can any new avenue in science get any traction if this type of argument is employed to always eliminate the new-kid-on-the-block? How stifling! And how can you discriminate against ID because their papers don’t appear in peer-reviewed journals when they are not allowed to appear there for the same rationale that you are presenting? A Catch-22!
Nevertheless, I think that ID has made some very important contributions. For instance, DNA and proteins are only created by living cells, as far as we know, thereby contradicting wild theories of self-organization. DNA represents informational patterns and not those that can be reduced to a formula, thereby eliminating any formulaic explanations.
And what has Darwinism proved? Have the naturalists proven that there are natural forces? They have provided no evidence for this whatsoever. Instead, it makes for a far more parsimonious theory when we posit that these laws exist in the mind of God. Why then eliminate super-naturalism from discussion?

To Bilbo,
You seem to think that my argument can be easily dismissed. So naturally I was quite exited to see what you had to say on your blog. Concerning Stonehenge and the design inference, you said, “What Glover should have done at this point is ask why no rational person would have questioned design.”
Hmmm… The answer to this question is so obvious that I shouldn’t even have to answer it. But I assume that you were being serious when you asked it so here is the two-fold answer: (1) Because there are no known unintelligent physical processes that can arrange stones this way, and (2) because there were intelligent beings who preceeded the appearence of Stonehenge that could act freely and apparently had the material means to accomplish this (even though the details are still sketchy).
Did I really have to answer that for you?
But from there it only gets worse as you wrongfully conclude, “Then he should have asked if the same sort of reasoning would lead a rational person to at least suspect that the first living cells were also designed.”
Is that your argument?
Once again, the answer is two-fold: (1) Unlike Stonehenge, there ARE unintelligent physical process that can account for living cells (even though the details are still sketchy), and (2) unlike Stonehenge, by definition there were no intlligent agents on earth who preceeded the first living cells AND who had the material means to assemble the first living cells.
Some atheists like to speculate that Aliens seeded the earth with the first living cells, and many theists like to speculate that only God (who by definition did preceed the material cosmos) could have built the first cells from scratch. But both hypotheses are unscientific in that they raise more problems than they solve.
For example: if aliens visited earth and planted life, who seeded their planet to create them? Must we now accept an infinite regress of extra-terrestrial seeding? How does this solve the problem? It doesn’t. Ergo: not science.
If God created the first living cells by fiat (which He could have done since He alone is God), then how does a spiritual being mediate His agency from the spiritual to the physical world? Did God incarnate Himself 3.8 billion years before the birth of Christ and start building self-replicating protiens in a make-shift laboratory? If so, why did he wait 10 billion years to do this? But if God can create life by fiat without using natural processes, then surely he could have also forged the necessary carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen from hydrogen without using stars. Why wait 9 billion years for stars to convert Hydrogen into heavier elements before assembling these by divine fiat in His make-shift laboratory in earth? Why not just make it all in a week like Genesis says? And if He did do it that way, why go to so much trouble to make it look like it took place naturally over billions of years? Hmmm….
So you can see how rediculous, speculative, and un-scientific the design inference becomes when applied to the chemical and biological origins of life. Whether it becomes “aliens of the gaps” or “god of the gaps” — ID solves nothing. In both cases, the cost of answering the question about how life first appeared on earth is an infinite regress of unanswerable questions. This is not how science works. If God did create life on earth by fiat (as opposed to creating it through natural means), that discussion belongs in a philosophy class, not a science class.
Perhaps your victory here was premature?
Gordon

“As you know, there is no major university funding ID, and so it’s not surprising that the research coming from this worldview is negligible.”
No excuses. All they have to do is sift through the mountains of data currently explained by evolutionary theory and show how how intelligent design theory explains it better. If they could simply do this, then the money would start pouring in for new research. They could easily fund this project with the Discovery Institute’s exising budget for “scientific” research. But they don’t because ID is a vocuous theory that offers nothing but an infinite regress of unanswerable questions (see my last comment).
I believe it is your emporer (or idol) that has no clothes.
GJG

Daniel mann: “As you know, there is no major university funding ID, and so it’s not surprising that the research coming from this worldview is negligible. However, this should not be a basis to eliminate its voice. How can any new avenue in science get any traction if this type of argument is employed to always eliminate the new-kid-on-the-block? How stifling!”
Claims of discrimination and suppression are endemic to all forms of pseudoscience. Pons & Fleishman for cold fusion. Joe Newman for his perpetual-motion motor. Rene Blondlot for N-rays. Immanual Velikovski for colliding planets.
The Discovery Institute opened and funded its “Biologic Institute” lab in 2005. Output: nothing. Several universities have biology departments and creationist policies—Biola, Liberty, Bob Jones. Their research putput in ID—or for that matter in any field of biology: zero. Michael Behe has tenure at Lehigh, and 40 reviewed papers. Tital output of papares on ID: nada.
Daniel mann: “And how can you discriminate against ID because their papers don’t appear in peer-reviewed journals when they are not allowed to appear there for the same rationale that you are presenting? A Catch-22!”
William Dembski started a jouirnal (PCSID) expressly for papers on ID; no discrimination there.. And no articles at all for 4 years. Dembski and Robert Marks recently published a paper in an IEEE Transactions that they claim places limits on evolution. (Of course, this is still not evidence FOR design.) But they did get the paper published.) The problem with publication is not discrimination. The problem is that publication requires some new evidence to present, and ID can’t find any.
The situation remains today as it was in 2005 when Michael Behe testified under oath at the Kitzmiller v. Dover that there are no experiments or calculations providing accounts of how design might have occurred.

Daniel mann: “I am a science-twit, so perhaps you are in a better position to assess how science has been practiced over the past 1000 years.”
Yes. I’m a lot older than you. And I’ve worked professionally with industrial and university rsearch scientists from many different fields for almost 50 years.
Dm: “However, I am also aware of the fact that many Christians had pursued science in order to uncover God’s laws to His glory. They were trying to uncover the workings of His laws as reflected in formulas and equations in His governance of creation….”
I will certainly agree with you there. Francis Crick, for example, does so today. Ken Miller shares this view in his books. We’re not talking about WHY these people engaged in their research—their motivation is irrelevant. This is, in case you hadn’t noticed, a major difference between science and theology.My motivation for finding a natural law is irrelevant to the validity of that law. That Darwin’s theory may have validated eugenics movements is immaterial to the validity of variation with selection for the origin of species—just as the use of atomic energy to make horrendous bombs is irrelevant to the validity of E=mc^2.
When I look at the grand sweep of evolution over 4 billion years, I am in awe of God’s handiwork. Newton uncovered a natural law for this purpose. But the purpose doesn’t matter. What matters is that gravitation is a repeatable, predictable—that is to say, “natural” force. Besides, why do you believe that, if you can understand it, then God didn’t do it? That’s God-of the-gaps in reverse.
And intelligent design wishes to foist off a hteory that inherently involves an arbitrary, supernatural designer whose actions by definition are unrepeatable and unpredictable. Unless, that is, you agree to limit the power and capability of God. Then maybe we can talk.

Wm Tanksley: “Be very careful with claims like this. For instance, is pathology/autopsy a science? When an autopsy replaces a presumption of “death by natural causes” with “homicide”, this replaces a natural explanation with an arguably supernatural one, using some of the definitions of some of the ID camp.”
In autopsies and crime scenes, we are not inferring intelligence in thw abstract. We infer HUMAN intelligence. We can do this because we are very familiar with the physical attributes of humans, with their mental capabilities, and with their motivations. In other words, we have evidence that there is such a thing as human intelligence, and how it operates in many situations.
Even in SETI research, we are at least assuming characteristics and abilities of an alien intelligence as somewhat human. if these exist but our assumptions are wrong, we’ll never find them, even if they are right under our olfactory organs. Witness, for example, the aliens in Chrichton’s “The Andromeda Strain.” People didn’t even know whether the aliens were intelligent or not. Or what their goal–if any–was. Another good read is SDchwartze’s “Der Schwarm” (now available in English as “The Swarm”). The “alien” was actually living on the Earth for millions of years. But it was not recognized, because its intelligence was so—alien.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, posits an intelligence whose physical form (if any) is completely unspecified, whose abilities are unknown, and whose motivations cannot be investigated. In fact, the ID movement takes great pains to disavow any limitation whatsoever on their prized creation. Of course, an entity with no limitations can explain anything. Junk DNA has a function? The Designer would produce good designs. The human citric cycle is broken? The Designer need not produce good designs. ID is not a valid scientific explanation exactly because it can “explain” any result—while simultaneously providing no insight whatever into how the actions of their intelligence might be predicted, or—heaven forfend—manipulated by us for practical applications.
One reason so many people fall for ID is probably the human hyperactive agency detector. Research has shown that babies and young children attribute a purposeful agent to the actions of not only the people around them but the inanimate objects also. As they get older, they begin to realize that some actions obey an imposed purpose, while others do not. However, studies have shown that the bias toward attributing agency remains strong even in adulthood. The Greek philosophers attributed many physical phenomena to agency. The rock falls to the ground because it “wants” to be near its own element. Fire rises because it “desires” the heavens. Even in Newton’s day, scientists saw forces as residing in physical objects themselves. Newton’s other great insight was F=ma. That is, forces arise extrernally to the objects, not from some internal desire to move. (Here again, Newton converted a quasi-supernatural explanatory to a naturalistic, measurable, predictable explanation.)

Olorin,
I think you have misunderstood ID. You wrote, “What matters is that gravitation is a repeatable, predictable—that is to say, “natural” force. Besides, why do you believe that, if you can understand it, then God didn’t do it? That’s God-of the-gaps in reverse. And intelligent design wishes to foist off a hteory that inherently involves an arbitrary, supernatural designer whose actions by definition are unrepeatable and unpredictable.”
IDers have the same respect for science and formulaic causation (by the laws that God has put into place—I’m trying to sidestep the use of the term “natural” that is loaded with un-testable baggage!) as you do. Consequently, an IDer doesn’t do science differently than anyone else. However, the IDer understands and relates the findings differently. Whereas, the Darwinist sees descent when regarding the common traits among species, the IDer tends to see common design elements when he surveys the species. While the evolutionist is guided by their naturalistic presuppositions, the IDer is guided by ID presuppositions. I cannot fathom how this is any less science.
Besides, what you accuse ID with can also indict evolution, which is also unrepeatable.

Olorin, I agree with your message. Almost all well said. But…
“In autopsies and crime scenes, we are not inferring intelligence in the abstract. We infer HUMAN intelligence.”
I’ve heard that argument, but it misses my point. I wasn’t saying that a good detective or pathologist can detect any kind of intelligent causation; I was saying that the science of pathology has the purpose of detecting events brought about by intelligent cause when the default assumption is natural causes. I was rebutting the claim that science had NEVER decided that an event had a supernatural cause. On the contrary, science has regularly done this.
Now, I liked the rest of your message, because you expressed correctly the problem with ID — that it completely refuses to attach any specific, testable, describable intelligence so that science can make predictions using it.
-Wm

WmTanksley: “I was rebutting the claim that science had NEVER decided that an event had a supernatural cause. On the contrary, science has regularly done this.”
OK. First, I did not intend to include “human intelligence” as being a “supernatural” cause. Because supernatural by definition is beyond natural—not governed by any law.
Second, I wasn’t speaking of individual phenomena, but of scientific theories. That is, no one has ever replaced natural gravitation with an explanation involving deities moving heavenly bodies around, or quantum tunneling with God winkling electrons through walls.
Does that clarify anything?

“IDers have the same respect for science and formulaic causation (by the laws that God has put into place—I’m trying to sidestep the use of the term “natural” that is loaded with un-testable baggage!) as you do.”
Olorin’s point about “God-of-the-gaps in reverse” is a really, really powerful one. The problem is that there are two groups of people who see the advance of knowledge in science as being capable of discovering where God is: IDers and devout atheists. Christianity doesn’t require this; Christianity allows God to work through entirely natural events, even things like the casting of a lot (roll of a die). Gordon’s other videos include the very good point that Christians still claim that God formed each of us in our mother’s womb, even though we accept a completely naturalistic explanation of that formation. God did it; He did it through the mechanisms He created.
“Consequently, an IDer doesn’t do science differently than anyone else. However, the IDer understands and relates the findings differently. Whereas, the Darwinist sees descent when regarding the common traits among species, the IDer tends to see common design elements when he surveys the species. While the evolutionist is guided by their naturalistic presuppositions, the IDer is guided by ID presuppositions. I cannot fathom how this is any less science.”
It’s not any less science. It’s merely largely useless. There is a hierarchical arrangement of features in nature (like a lineage tree)), and not a categorical arrangement (like a person placing tags on flickr photos). That is, common elements appear in lineages, not in arbitrary groupings. The normal thing is to see that (say) the group of creatures that has the same citric gene disablement as humans also shares a lot of other features in common with humans. The rare thing is to see a common feature shared among organisms with no obvious close relation (for example, the octopus and vertebrate eyes).
-Wm

Daniel,
If “God did it” is the best explanation for virtually everything, then why on earth should ID be funded? And what sort of research are they currently seeking funding for?

Olorin,
“OK. First, I did not intend to include human intelligence as being a supernatural cause. Because supernatural by definition is beyond natural—not governed by any law.”
We’re discussing ID in specific, not an abstract “supernatural” that you can define as you wish (although that’s an odd definition — by it perhaps only Tiamat the embodiment of Chaos would qualify; certainly not the God of the Bible). It’s only reasonable to admit that ID intends to include human intelligence as some of the causative agents it claims to study. Therefore, if your argument addresses ID, it must do so on its terms; so claims you make about its results must include intelligence.
“Second, I wasn’t speaking of individual phenomena, but of scientific theories. That is, no one has ever replaced natural gravitation with an explanation involving deities moving heavenly bodies around, or quantum tunneling with God winkling electrons through walls.”
The two are not opposed. The entire problem with theurgic explanations is that they’re all ad-hoc “individual phenomena”. Science is the study of how what seems to be individual phenomena are actually part of the orderly fabric of nature.
-Wm

ID does not do science in the same ways that scientists do. Very briefly, science offers theories that not only tell you what happens, but how it happens.
For example, evolution per se is not a theory. LaMarckianism is a theory. It posits evolution through acquired characteristics. This has been tested. Most famously by cutting off the tails of mice for dozens of generations. (Note: it didn’t work.) Darwinism is a theory. It entails heritable variation, overfecundity, and reproduction of the fittest. This has been tested. Genetic mutation is observed. Overfecundity is observed. Selection is observed. New species are observed. Where we observe small changes in the present and retrodict to the past, we find confirming results.[1] The mechanisms have been tested in many ways, from a number of different disciplines that could have given inconsistent results.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It’s not right or wrong per se; it’s not a theory at all. A theory must explain something, explain WHY ii happened. ID doesn’t explain anything. The definition of intelligent design is exactly this:
“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is
able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.”
That’s not a theory, it’s a promise. What observations you would make, or experiments you would conduct—FROM THE DEFINITION—to determine whether a certain organism, or organ, or molecular pathway is or is not designed? It proposes no mechanism. How were the designs instantiated? At what level diod the designs occur? ID followers do make predictions. But not from the soi-disant “theory.. For example: There is no junk DNA, because an intelligent designer would produce good designs. But a broken citric-acid cycle does not falsify ID, because the designs need not necessarily be good designs. Okay….
Here’s a historical example: In 1912, Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift. Unlike ID, he even had observational evidence: similar coastlines and geology, similar old–but not recent—flora and fauna. But he had no plausible theory. (He suggested winds and tides.) In the 1950′s, plate tectonics offered a mechanism, a model for powering continental drift. NOW we had a theory of continental drift that could be investigated, tested, expanded, overturned.
If ID wants to be a scientific theory, it must propose a mechanism that can be tested. How does a generic disembodied intelligence influence DNA?[2] What limitations constrain the options open to the designer?[3] The Kitzmiller v. Dover court decision found—after 40 days of testimony, during which ID was allowed as many witnesses as they wished[4] and given carte blanche as to scope of inquiry–that ID is not a scientific theory.
Then, of course, we could ask why none of the supporters of ID are practicing biological researchers.[5] How is it that religious leaders, politicians, and laymen know more about the origin of species than those who have studied it for decades, and who contribute to its advancement?[6]
==================
[1] For example, Vavilov’s Law is confirmed in historical casesm, so we trust it farther back in time. The Fisher-Wright equations accurately predict gene spread over times we observe, so we trust it to find, e.g. migration patterns of Polynesians in prehistory. The molecular clock has been tested, and courts trust it to determine paternity and other relations. Hominid precursors are found (when they are found) in predicted locations in Africa. Intermediate fossils of whales are predicted in a certain age of sediment off the west coast of india, and are found there.
[2] Hint: Descarte believed it was through the pineal gland, but that one has not stood the test of time.
[3] You may or may not wish to hold your breath for my p-baked (p

Wm Tanksley (October 6, 2009 7:54 PM): “The rare thing is to see a common feature shared among organisms with no obvious close relation (for example, the octopus and vertebrate eyes).”
But this depends upon the level of commonality of the feature. From an evolutionary standpoint, vertebrate eyes originate as brain tissue that is light sensitive. That’s why the innervation is backwards. The brain-cum-retina could never flip over. Octopus eyes, on the other hand, originate in the embryo as light-sensitive epidermal (skin) tissue. Skin is innervated from the rear.
Simulations have been run that show an ability to start with a simple light-sensitive patch and evolve it into a camera-type eye with transparent lens (most water-soluble proteins are transparent) in less than 400.000 generations. Even the writers of the simulation were amazed how easy it was. And, of course, the selective pressure for vision is rather high.
Speaking of optimal designs, though, I’d really like to have a multi-lens zoom feature on my eyes. Like my Nikon. But perhaps human designers are smarter than ID’s eminence grise.

(Continued). ID may say, but what about the light-sensitive patch in the first place? Even primitive bacteria have opsin proteins, the light sensors in all eyse—vertebrate, mollusc, insect, nautrilus, whatever. Of course, the bacteria don’t use it for eyes. They use it for cell signaling. (Bad news for ID: most proteins have more than one function. Truth.)

Daniel mann: “Besides, what you accuse ID with can also indict evolution, which is also unrepeatable.”
Why do you say that? Mybe you didn’t read about the recently completed 30-year experiment with several millions of generations of bacteria that were split after every 500 generations. They evolved repeatably, although different mutations produced different species. One strain had even evolved the ability to eat the supposedly inert substrate that they were grown in.
If you mean will evolution always produce the same output from the same input, the answer is no. But then we call mutation, the source of change “random” for a reason.
Repeatability is not the only indicium. Predictability is another. We predict gene flows in populations from the Fisher-Wright equations, and we observe them. We predict plant-species origins from Vavilov’s law; we look there, and we find them. We predict age and location of the transition between fish and amphibian; we look there and find Tiktaalik.
We think that humans and chimps are related, yet chimps have two more chromosomes than we do. So we look for a split in chimps, or a fusion in humans. Lo and behold, we find human chromosome two has two different centromeres, and a nonfunctional telomere smack dab in the middle. This was an absolute surprise. No one had ever thought even to look for such a fusion before. One of the best tests of a theory is that it predicts something that is completely unexpected.
Try repeating a design in the manner of the above experiment. Try predicting something unexpected from design theory.

Daniel mann: “Besides, what you accuse ID with can also indict evolution, which is also unrepeatable.”
Wait. I think I see your problem. You claim that repeating evolution would not reproduce the present world just as it is now, with human beings, chigger mites, and HIV. What is the chance of that? Practically zero.
In probability theory, your argument is known as the “queen of England” paradox. There are 60,000,000 residents of England. The chance that any one of them is the queen (or king) is thus 1 in 60,000,000. These odds are so high that we can confidently assume that THERE IS NO QUEEN OF ENGLAND.
Do you catch the drift yet?

Daniel,
You said, “However, the IDer understands and relates the findings differently. Whereas, the Darwinist sees descent when regarding the common traits among species, the IDer tends to see common design elements when he surveys the species.”
I submit that the IDer must turn a blind eye the data in order to maintain the common desgin explanation over and against the common descent hypothesis. I could give you 100′s of examples. Here is one of my favorites:
ID assumes that each species was created individually by divine fiat and therefore the similarities and differences between the species need not follow any particular pattern whatsoever. In other words, any pattern we find can be attributed to the will of the designer, rather than being the result of a natural process. So ID is a very difficult theory to falsify.
Evolution, on the other hand, assumes that each species was created via common descent, and thus the similarities and differences between the species must follow a very specific pattern of groups within groups (or a nested hierarchy). And no matter what features are used to construct the grouping, each pattern must be identical. So common descent should be a very easy theory to falsify, since the odds of this happening apart from evolution are practically nill.
However, when we compare the physical features of the 30 major biological groups, they do fit into a perfectly nested pattern of groups within groups. Could this be a coincidence? Is it possible that God designed and created each species separately, but chose to distribute their anatomical features according to a universal tree so we could properly describe and classify them? After all, systematic biology would be pointless without this pattern.
Well, we can atually test this idea. How? Since there are more than 10^38 different ways to arrange the 30 major biological groups into a nested heirarchy, the odds of discovering any one of these are 100%, since we have to find at least one of these. But how do we know if these patterns are the result of common design or common descent?
Easy.
Take any common metabolic protein, like Cyt-C for example. Every species with a mitochondria uses this enzyme (it’s part of the electron transport chain). With 100 aminio acids, there are 3^100 different ways to spell out the amino acid sequence using the language of DNA because there are approximately 3 different 3-letter codes for each of the 22 amino acids (64 codons for 22 amino acids). What this means is that a gene sequence can tolerate a significant amount of variation without changing the resulting protein.
So if each species were designed and created independently, then there should be little or no variation in the gene between species, since the enzyme works exactly the same way in the mitochondria of every organism. Or, if God really wanted to make a statement, He could have given each species (or kind) a unique pattern and still leave the resulting amino acid sequence in tact (ie: different codes can be translated to say the same thing). There are enough unique codes to give every species that ever lived their own specially-designed sequence. That would have pretty much been the end of the common descent hypothesis.
There is absolutely no reason, apart from common descent, why the similarities and difference in the cyt-c gene should match the same pattern produced from comparative anatomy. In fact, the odds of such a thing are less than 1 in 10^38. Yet, that is exactly what we find.
So if you still wish to maintain that similarities and differences between species are the result of design, then you must also believe that not only did God purposefully distribute anatomical features according to a nested hierarchy, but He also used the exact same pattern when designing the cyt-c genes of each species. What would be the point of this? If He really wanted us to believe ID and reject evolution, he had 10^38 chances to do this. Why did he go out of His way to pick the 1 design that scientists would use to confirm evolution? Nonsense!
Just to put this perspective, no other constant in nature can be measured out to 38 decimal places. Most things in nature can be measured out to 7 or 8 at best. The gravitational constant can only be measure to about 3 or 4 decimal places of accuracy. Yet, common descent can effectively be measured out to 38 decimal places!
You then said, “While the evolutionist is guided by their naturalistic presuppositions, the IDer is guided by ID presuppositions. I cannot fathom how this is any less science.”
ID is not “less” science. It is NON-science. In science, you don’t get to overlook mountains of data that have a perfectly natural explanation and focus on the one or two areas that where we are still ignorant, for the sole reason of pushing an supernatural hpothesis that explains nothing.
This is exactly what the Paleo-contact crowd does with aliens. They know that there is no direct evidence of aliens visiting earth, so they go after all of difficult questions that archeaology can’t answer (forget about all of the things that we do know with a high degree of certainty) and try to create doubt. That’s the only “proof” they have — gaps and anomalies.
That’s not how science works.

Olorin, in the post I quote below you were reacting to something I said — but I think you missed that on this, you and I are in agreement. Convergence is a crucial test of the theory of common descent; and it passes precisely because there’s so little of it. As I said, the evidence indicates lineage, not categorization; this means that “common feature=common designer” doesn’t have enough power.
“Speaking of optimal designs, though, I’d really like to have a multi-lens zoom feature on my eyes. Like my Nikon. But perhaps human designers are smarter than ID’s eminence grise.”
This type of argumentation is fairly low-power. I know you’re not hanging anything on that, but I’d recommend avoiding weak arguments; it only diverts people from the real issues (your “God-in-the-gaps in reverse” argument is, I believe, one of the strong arguments). In this case, the argument is weak because there are good reasons to use only one flexible lens made of biologically manipulable materials, even though other arrangements would increase vision power.
-Wm

Wm, you took seriously something said in jest. The zoom-lens argument is indeed weak. But I did appreciate the pun in calling it a “low–power” argument.

Gentleman,
Allow me to try to refocus our discussion. While you have argued that ID doesn’t deserve a place at the science table, I’ve argued affirmatively, claiming that, while both positions can make predictions, neither is repeatable. They both claim to explain ultimate past origins, and as such, these are historical one-time phenomena.
I gladly admit that Darwinists can make predictions. I never claimed otherwise. (However, it doesn’t matter what I claim. I have no science background, and there are ID scientists who can make their case far better than I!) However, you must also acknowledge that ID can make predictions. Here are some that I can recall:
1. Vestigial (leftover) organs have almost in all cases been shown to have functions.
2. Instead of evolution into higher forms, we find many evidences of de-evolution: the deterioration of our genomes; the disappearance of 98% of the species; exploding stars without new formations being directly observed.
3. The failure to experimentally induce positive mutations that might represent progress in complexity, even through many thousands of generations of fruit flies.
4. The great gaps in the fossil record that, more than any other form of evidence, should have enabled us to clearly discern descent.
This is just a small sampling. I’m not trying to prove ID; I’m just trying to argue for the fact that it has a valid voice that shouldn’t be squelched.
Gordon, I see numerous problems with your argumentation, even though I don’t have the knowledge to dispute your particulars. Your argument is basically this: common traits = common descent. Here are some challenges to chew on:
1. Common traits are equally explainable by ID. You argue: “If He really wanted us to believe ID and reject evolution, he had 10^38 chances to do this. Why did he go out of His way to pick the 1 design that scientists would use to confirm evolution? Nonsense!” This is like the argument, “If God exists, He should just appear in front of me right now…See, He doesn’t exist!” Perhaps our Lord isn’t interested in providing this type of proof. Clearly, He has allowed all manner of heresies to thrive.
2. It is easy to produce “commonalities” and non-existent patterns. I would have my student place 20 random dots on the board, and I would connect them in ways that seemed to manifest “patterns” inherent to the dots themselves. Darwinists used to demonstrate all sorts of patterns of descent from the fossil record and common anatomical structures. Even though they were able identify many common traits, they largely abandoned the case for common descent based on THESE “commonalities.” Genetics has now become the new rallying point.
3. This isn’t surprising. Genetics is a new frontier where the Darwinists have all the resources to generate congenial findings. With a thousand times more “findings” than IDers can lay claim to, they can easily cherry pick those that conform to their theory. You point to 30 traits where the inter-species commonalities are profound. But how about the million other traits? You must weigh the commonalities against the differences.
4. There are many discontinuities that this reasoning ignores, which also have to be factored into the equation—those things that you call “convergent evolution,” observations that point to the fact that the distribution of traits represents more of a mosaic than a lineal progression.
5. There are also the over-arching problems with Darwinism that demand volumes to enumerate responsibly.

Daniel,
Again, if “God did it” is the best explanation for virtually everything, then why on earth should ID be funded? And what sort of research are they currently seeking funding for?

Re Daniel mann’s four predictions—
Prediction (1) This is not a prediction. Predictions are claims about future results, not about things we already know. Also, evolution doesn’t say that vestigial organs have no function, but rather that their primary function has decreased from that of their ancestors. Third, in what sense is this evidence of a design process at work? An organ in one animal that doesn’t function as well as it does in another animal would seem to be an argument for evolution, not for design.
Prediction (2) this is also not a prediction, for the same reason as above. A prediction has the form: “If are looking for a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapod, we should dig in a rock stratum 360-390 Mya that was at that time.” Neil Shubin did that, and found Tiktaalik. Second, as opposed to design, evolution does not have a direction. Therefore, loss of a function and genome “deterioration” are arguments against design, not for it.
In what way is disappearance of 98% of species an argument for design? It seems to be an argument that the designer failed in almost everything he tried.
Exploding stars fall under the writ of cosmology, not evolution. But, aas to that, if you haven’t observed any new star formation, your telescope is malfunctioning. Or your beliefs have interfered with your vision.
Prediction (3) Do you understand what a prediction is? It’s something foretold about a future event. Your example is a prediction only in the sense that “No one has ever seen a unicorn” is a prediction. In fact, beneficial mutations have been observed. How else would you explain AIDS? (Well, it was good foer the virus, not for us.)
Prediction (4) In what sense might this be a prediction? Reread the definition above. But, again, what gaps might these be? In the past ten tears, we have discovered Tiktaalik, which is smack-dab in the middle between a fish and an amphibian. And found exactly where predicted. The difficult gap from land mammal to whale has been festooned with a continuous series of intermediate fossils. Again, found exactly as predicted. Ardi has very recently filled in a million-year gap before Lucy.
Daniel mann: “This is just a small sampling. I’m not trying to prove ID; I’m just trying to argue for the fact that it has a valid voice that shouldn’t be squelched.”
Well, first, none of these four are predictions at all–they are observations of events past. Second, none of them are arguments FOR design. In what way would they constitute evidence for design, even if they were predictions and not facts we already know? (1) and (2) are evidence for evolution, not against it. (3) and (4) are purely arguments from ignorance: “If we don’t yet know what’s in the fossil gaps, then design mist be true. Yeah, that must be it.” “If thousands of generations have not yet produced a beneficial mutation, then design must be true. A fortiori.” I don’t know where you got your information about the fruit flies, but it’s wrong. You might wish to read “Evolving protein functional diversity in new genes of Drosophila,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101:16246-16250 (Nov. 16, 2004)
You might even have a beneficial mutation yourself. A human protein that originated from a mutation about 6,000 years ago seems to enhance cognitive power. It has so far spread to about 35% of the population. A 2008 investigation into bat evolution—long a puzzle, because their fossil appearance is very sudden—found that a mutation in the regulation of a single gene (Prxl) is responsible for the long fingers of a bat’s wing. The scientists placed the mutated regulator into normal mice, and their wing-fingers grew 6% in a single generation; Genes & Development 22:141-151. You might be interested in a tomato plant studied by Darwin, in which a single mutation led to an improved leaf pattern; “Natural Variation in Leaf Morphology Results from Mutation of a Novel KNOX Gene,” Current Biology, 18:672-677 (6 May 2008). As you say, just a small sampling of recent stuff.
So, four runups, four crashes on takeoff. They’re not predictions, they’re not evidence for design even if they were predictions, and at least one of them is factually incorrect. If this is ID’s basis for a seat at the table of science, bon chance.

Oh, I almost forgot a good example of a beneficial mutation. Bananas are the country’s favorite fruit. Historically, though, its anxcestor plantain was 3-4″ long. red in color, and so hard to chew that it had to be boiled and pounded to be edible at all.
Then, in 1836, Jean-Francois Poujot found this mutant in his plantation in Jamaica. It was long and soft and yellow and yummy. Right there before his eyes.
BTW, if you like bananas, you should stock up. The growers have so flagrantly disregarded evolutionary principles that they will probably be all gone in a few decades. Darwin’s revenge, you might say.

Daniel,
Do you even read our posts? Or do you simply key in on a few words and then write a hasty reply? The reason I ask is this: I can accept that you will disagree with our arguments, but I can’t figure out why you fail to even grasp them?
Example: you said “You point to 30 traits where the inter-species commonalities are profound. But how about the million other traits? You must weigh the commonalities against the differences.”
I did no such thing. I was talking about phylogenies constructed from the morphological and chemical traits of the 30 major biologial groups — not 30 selected traits. You failed to even grasp the significance of the argument.
But then again I guess there is no point in confronting you with the evidence since you already have a ready defense: “Perhaps our Lord isn’t interested in providing this type of proof. Clearly, He has allowed all manner of heresies to thrive.” — so there you have it! We don’t need to believe the evidence because God planted it there to test our faith!
Perhaps the evidence for heliocentricism is also a test of our faith and we should have sided with the clear teaching of Scripture? Or perhaps the evidence for a spherical earth is a test? Perhaps the mustard really is the smallest seed and God makes it appear bigger to test our faith? Hmmmm….

BeagleLady,
Please don’t misrepresent ID. If it’s really such a foolish position, then the facts are able to speak for themselves. Instead, you stated, “Again, if “God did it” is the best explanation for virtually everything, then why on earth should ID be funded? And what sort of research are they currently seeking funding for?”
If ID is just about “God did it,” how was it that ID was able to inspire the vast majority of 16-17th century scientists in their monumental discoveries, scientists who put science back on the map? Should they not have been funded?

Daniel said,

“Please don’t misrepresent ID. If it’s really such a foolish position, then the facts are able to speak for themselves. Instead, you stated, “Again, if “God did it” is the best explanation for virtually everything, then why on earth should ID be funded? And what sort of research are they currently seeking funding for?”
If ID is just about “God did it,” how was it that ID was able to inspire the vast majority of 16-17th century scientists in their monumental discoveries, scientists who put science back on the map? Should they not have been funded?”

Earlier on this thread you had said,

“Sorry, I didn’t mean to bypass your question about why ID is a better explanation for the laws of nature. (Actually, I thought that I had addressed it??) For one thing any effect must have an adequate cause, one which is at least as great as the effect. If this wasn’t the case, then we could argue part of the effect would be uncaused (and we don’t want to go there). In light of this, God is the only adequate explanation for the various phenomena.
Not only is God adequate for each explanation, He is adequate for all! He is the one unifying force that brings harmony to all creation……”

That is how you explained ID. You are SO confused about science! Now please tell us about all the research that modern ID theorists are trying to fund.

“Perhaps the mustard really is the smallest seed and God makes it appear bigger to test our faith?”

Not quite– in N.T. times it really was the smallest seed, but Satan made it bigger later on to deceive the faithful. Or maybe God did it to test our faith? (You get the picture. LOL!)

haha you sound like SNL’s church lady… Could it be…Satan?

Gordon,
Can you please explain your reasoning for differentiating between believing in UFO’s and believing in God? You say “Yes, there are many unanswered questions. But not being able to explain exactly how primitive man built these great megaliths is NOT evidence that aliens intervened in human history. All it means is that our understanding of these ancient civilizations is still immature, and we have a lot more to learn.” This is a great example for why we cannot say aliens exist, but can’t the same apply to God? Yes we don’t know how the origin of life or the universe came to be, but “…our understanding…is still immature, and we have a lot more to learn.”

Gentlemen,
Regarding your argument for evolution—common structures = common descent—neuroscientist and evolutionist Paul Patton made an interesting revelation, at least for me:
“One of the most common misconceptions about brain evolution is that it represents a linear process culminating in amazing cognitive powers of humans, with brains of other modern species representing previous stages…However research in comparative neuron-anatomy clearly has shown that complex brains—and sophisticated cognition—have evolved from simpler brains multiple times independently in separate lineages.” (SCIENTIFIC AMERICA MIND, “One World, Many Minds,” Dec 2008/Jan 2009, 72-73)
Patton acknowledges that what had been promoted as the evolutionary pathway of the brain (from simplicity to complexity), is not so. Previously, it had been taught that our brains derived from four sequential evolutionary steps in which the fish brain was overlaid by a reptilian complex and later repackaged in over-lying paleo- and then neo-mammalian brain additions:
“A ‘neural chassis” corresponding to the brains of fish and amphibians; a reptilian comples, consisting of the basal ganglia, which were held to dominate the brains of reptiles and birds; a paleomammalian component, consisting of the brains limbic system, which supposedly emerged with the origin of mammals and which was responsible for emotional behavior; and finally a neomammalian component, consisting of the neocortex, the site of higher cognitive function.” (75)
What does this say about the common brain structures that cast fish as our ancestors?
“In recent decades scientists have cast aside a linear, sequential view of brain evolution in which the human brain incorporated components resembling the brains of modern fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds.” (79)
What then explains the similar inter-phyla brain “components” if not a “linear, sequential…brain evolution?” Not much, if they evolved “independently in separate lineages!” This would seem to be major bad news for the Darwinist. Traditionally and necessarily, they have argued their case by virtue of homology—common structures suggest common ancestry! However, common structures fail to necessarily argue for common descent.
Another example of this is flight. Darwinists admit that insects, reptiles, birds and mammals had all taken to the skies evolutionarily independent of each other. Now they are admitting the same about the brain. However, their case for common ancestry by virtue of the common brain structures had been particularly impressive. We had been led to believe that the theory of evolution was not only established by homology but also by the fact that the more recent species had gradually added additional brains structures upon the old, one on top of the preceding structure like building a house—the frame built upon the foundation; the roof on the frame, each requiring the prior structure. Not so!
Genetics has become the Darwinists’ Alamo. It’s there that they are making their last-stand. However, the reasoning is still the same: common genetics proves common descent! But this reasoning has consistently failed to demonstrate a common ancestry instead of a common Designer.

Daniel mann: “Please don’t misrepresent ID. If it’s really such a foolish position, then the facts are able to speak for themselves.”
The facts do speak for themselves, and the facts offer no support whatever for ID. We have 1,750 reviewed papers per year offering facts as to how evolution has occurred in specific situations. The only support for ID is a feckless appeal to gosh-ain’t-it-wonderful complexity.
Daniel: “If ID is just about ‘God did it,’ how was it that ID was able to inspire the vast majority of 16-17th century scientists in their monumental discoveries, scientists who put science back on the map? Should they not have been funded?”
Please don’t misrepresent science. ID holds that biological complexity is the result of an unspecified intelligence, whose nature is forever unknowable, and whose actions are arbitrary and unrepeatable. Newton and other scientists of his time believed that God operated through natural, regular laws, and they wished to discover how those laws work. These two motivations could not be more different.
The natural laws discovered by Newton and his confreres has led to centuries of fruitful research, whereas ID has led to nothing at all. No deeper understandings—”God did it” is the end of the inquiry. No practical applications—how do you control a deity for your own purposes?
Please do not malign early scientists by suggesting that they were followers of intelligent design. Or Thomas Jefferson, or any of the other famous figures that the Discovery Institute wishes to co-opt for their own purposes.

BeagleLady,
I am deeply honored by your copious quotations. However, I must point out that you failed to understand me within the context. I wasn’t saying that God was the only cause, but rather, that He is the ULTIMATE cause. To maintain that He is the only cause denigrates science and all learning. Instead, I and IDers have been maintaining all along that God works through the laws He created, thus making science a legitimate pursuit.
Perhaps it’s easier to deal with misrepresentations than actual arguments and Scripture?

Or oft-quoted Einstein. His opinion on this subject is clearly stated in a letter that was auctioned yesterday:
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

Daniel mann: “Instead, I and IDers have been maintaining all along that God works through the laws He created, thus making science a legitimate pursuit”
In that case, why does ID not pursue any research into such laws.”Certain features of biological organisms were designed” is no more a law of nature than “all flamigos are pink.” It dosn’t explain anything.
If ID really wants to becoem a theory instead of an idle hope, there are many avenues of research open. They could try to find out whether their intelligence is physical or immaterial. If the latter, they could try to determine how it interacts with matter to produce physical results. They could try to determine the attributes and chaaracteristics of the intelligence. They could determine whetehr the motivations of the intelligence are consistent or arbitrary. They might try to find out what limitations this intelligence has. (This might, for instance, explain some of its dumb mistakes.)
But ID does not even suggest any such research, much less perform it. A few years ago, the Templeton Foundation gave the Discovery Institute a $400,000 grant to sponsor a research program into ID. After a year, the Institute could not even come up with an agenda for such a program. Templeton then took back the money.
The fact is that ID deliberately avoids any research into the mechanism of design because their real motivation is to install the Judeo-Christian God as the Designer. Attempting to characterize or limit God has a name—blasphemy. Attempting to control God for human purposes also has a name—sorcery. Both heinous offenses. In order to maintain the facade of science, ID must claim to conduct research. In order to advance their actual program, they must never perform any actual investigation. Hence the shell game—the research is always under the next shell.

Good questions Charlie,
“This is a great example for why we cannot say aliens exist, but can’t the same apply to God? Yes we don’t know how the origin of life or the universe came to be, but “…our understanding…is still immature, and we have a lot more to learn.”"
Indeed the same could be said of our belief in a Creator. This is why such things as the fine tuning argument, the existence of immaterial absolutes, the uniformity of nature, etc… are not proofs of God. They are data points by which the faithful can draw a trajectory that points to a Creator, but they are not arguments of logical necessity.
And neither should our faith in God be contingent on those things that still defy a naturalistic explanation, like the Big Bang or the sudden appearence of life on earth. Our position as Christians should be that could have had done any of these things through ordinary or special providence. I prefer to think that God endowed His creation with all the requisite properties for complex life to self-organize, but if He couldn’t quite get it done this way, I’m also ok with God working in “manual overide” mode.
The problem I have with I.D. is that they start with a position that arbitraily limits God’s power: EVOLUTION IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. And then they strive to demonstrate why “manual overide” mode was God’s only option. I just don’t get it.
Gordon

Gordon,
You said “I prefer to think that God endowed His creation with all the requisite properties for complex life to self-organize, but if He couldn’t quite get it done this way, I’m also ok with God working in “manual overide” mode.” Is this belief in faith alone? (no evidence to support God’s existince/intervention with the world) There are things we know and things that are unknown about the world. Fortunately, our knowledge continuously grows. Is it your stance that God explains what we do not understand or that, regardless of what we have discovered as fact, God is responsible for it? If your stance is the latter, why do you believe that? Also, how can you distinguish “manual overide” from not yet understood processes that follow the natural laws? Isn’t manual overide kind of the same thing as saying that the process is irreducibly complex?

Gordon J Glover: “And neither should our faith in God be contingent on those things that still defy a naturalistic explanation…. Our position as Christians should be that could have had done any of these things through ordinary or special providence.”
This is the central point, in a nutshell. The rest of us are merely blathering around it.
Why should anyone’s faith require confirmation by science? Personally, I am of the opinion that science will one day explain religion according to evolutionary principles. Would this destroy my faith? Why should it? In fact, rather then destroying religion, such an explanation might well effect a rebirth.

Okay Daniel,
You continue to move the goalposts around and then whine about being misunderstood when cornered. Okay, so maybe now you will PLEASE describe the research that Id theorists would like to get funding for. That is one of your persistent complaints– that ID gets insufficient funding. So let’s hear it! Please!

Charlie, you’re really making me think today!
“Is this belief in faith alone? (no evidence to support God’s existince/intervention with the world)”
No, I believe that faith must have a rational basis. If the data can be interpreted in such a way that points to a transcendent Creator, faith permits us to make the final jump to belief. This jump is not something done in spite of the evidence, as some might think. Rather, it merely extrapolates beyond the evidence. Faith is the evidence of things unseen (Heb 1), not an excuse to believe something demonstrably false.
As I previously said, proofs for God’s existence are not proofs of logical necessity (like those deductive proofs we see in mathematics). Since inductive reasoning can only take us so far (and always leaves room for doubt), faith is a necessary condition for belief.
“There are things we know and things that are unknown about the world. Fortunately, our knowledge continuously grows. Is it your stance that God explains what we do not understand or that, regardless of what we have discovered as fact, God is responsible for it?” — the latter.
“If your stance is the latter, why do you believe that?” — You will hear all sorts of pompus answers as to why one believes or doesn’t believe. But at the end of the day, it all boils down to a personal choice, based on a combination of rational and non-rational factors.
“Also, how can you distinguish “manual overide” from not yet understood processes that follow the natural laws?”
Manual Overide = Water into wine, the dead rising, the seas parting, etc… But even these could be based on physical processes that are not yet understood. There is no way to know for sure. In terms of natural history, manual overide might leave some sort of physical discontinutiy, or singularity — an observable break in the ordinary chain of material cause and effect. Such a physical discontinuity might manifest itself as incoherent, anomolous or missing data. But these could just as easily be evidence of some yet unknown physical process. That’s why it’s best to stick with methodological naturalism when doing science. At least with naturalism yow won’t shut down the investigation prematurely.
“Isn’t manual overide kind of the same thing as saying that the process is irreducibly complex?”
I think the two are independent of one another. For starters, nobody can even demonstrate that irreducible complexity is incompatible with ordinary (non-intelligent) causality, unless one wants to assume that we know everything there is to know about the forces of nature and how they act on ordinary matter. Even a common hurricane, for instance, could be a complex machine designed to take heat energy from the tropics, convert it to mechanical energy (wind) and latent heat (water vapor) and transfer it to the coast. If this is its intended purpose, then it also meets the criteria of specificied complexity. The eyewall has no purpose apart form the low pressure eye, the internal convection cells would not function apart from the eyewall, etc… Not even man can design and built a machine that transfers and distributes a comparable quantity of energy over thousands of miles in a 1-2 week period. And yet the entire thing is self-organizing. No manual overide necessary — based on our very limited understanding of atmopheric phenomena. So it is quite a presumptuous thing to assume that just be we finite creatures can’t understand how something works (abiogenesis for example), that it necessarily requires manual overide.
So again, it’s better to stick with methodological naturalism when doing science. Trying to descern whether a given structure is the product of intelligent or unintelligent causes is only a distraction, and the answer to the question adds nothing to our material understanding of the object in question.
Gordon

Gordon,
For your manual overide examples, I find it difficult to interpret a lot of what the Bible says literally and I personally think such writings are symbolic. With Adam and Eve or the Ark with all the animals in the world aboard, most see these as symbolic. Do you see some stories as symbolic and some as truth? How do you decide which one’s are truth? Regardless, do you know of any more modern manual overide examples or examples that have been recorded from other sources besides the Bible? Also, what interpretation of data leads to the possibility of a transcendent Creator? You also stated there were rational and non-rational reasons for your belief in God establishing the universe and it’s physicial laws. What are some of the reasons? Thanks for responding. It’s interesting getting the perspective of someone melding science and religion together. One thing I think we definitely both agree on is “Trying to descern whether a given structure is the product of intelligent or unintelligent causes is only a distraction, and the answer to the question adds nothing to our material understanding of the object in question.” Couldn’t have said it more perfectly.

Charlie,
“Do you see some stories as symbolic and some as truth? How do you decide which one’s are truth?”
First, allow me to apologize on behalf of those Christians who, in their zeal to defend the Bible, have created these false dilemmas by failing to read the Bible in its native context. Literary categories such as “symbolic” and “truth” are things we post-enlightenment moderns like to impose on ancient texts. But these neatly defined genres simply didn’t exist in the Ancient Near East as we know them today.
The easiest way for me to explain this is to use a modern epic tale, like the story of Paul Bunyan, the giant lumberjack who moved westward across the U.S. taming the wilderness. Along the way, he battles giant creatures, cuts entire forests down and builds cities with his bare hands — his footsteps make craters large enough to fill as lakes and when the arid desert of the American Southwest started to wear on him such that he could only drag his axes across the desert floor, the Grand Canyon was created. I thnik he even lived sevaral hundred years (sound familiar?).
This is a uniquely American mythology that communicates to children the challenges and difficulties of westward expansion. And the story uses larger-than-life characters to communicate these larger-than-life themes. Sure, one could still ask of this story, “is it symbolic or is it true?” — but the answer would be nonsensical. For starters, the narrative makes no attempt to be factually accurrate on the technical details. But the larger themes clearly have to do with the grit and determination of the American Frontiersmen who carved a civilization out of the wilderness through trials and tribulations. The story is indeed TRUE on that level. It’s not as if westard expansion never happened, even though you would never find this version of the story in an Encyclopedia!
So the question a Christian must ask of any biblical narrative is not: “is it true or is it myth” but rather, “on what level is the text communicating TRUTH to us?” We start with the assumption that the Bible is Truth, and then we study it to descern how it communicates this truth to us because truth can be communicated via details that are factually incorrect. Genesis communicates truth on an entirely different level than the Gospel of Luke, for example. We know from the large collection of comparative literature out of the Ancient Near East that this method of written communication was widely accepted. So the onus in on us post-enlightenment moderns to make the necessary adjustment in or epistemology when approaching these ancient texts. It is pointless for us to project our 21st century western scientific worldview onto the scriptures.
“…do you know of any more modern manual overide examples or examples that have been recorded from other sources besides the Bible?”
Personally, I’m not the most “sensitive” Christian when it comes to miracles. I’m naturally very skeptical, so I am prone to offer a natural explanation for things where other believers might be convinced that a miracle took place. I also think that there are many things God can accomplish without any large-scale manipulation of the cosmos. After all, the cosmos is indeterminate at the lowest levels, and it is also complex enough such that contingent events in the quantum domain might be amplified into perceptible events that appear “uncaused” to us via the butterfly effect.
I’m no John Polkinghorne, but when it comes to all of this stuff, we have to remember how little we still know about how the cosmos works. There is so much wierdness at every level of material organization, that everything we attribute to “spirit” could actually be emergent properties of ordinary matter. Which would ironaically mean that even the most rigorous Christian evolutionist would still be guilty of employing “spirit” of the gaps arguments whenever he/she appeals to the transcendet to explain an answer to prayer, etc.
“Also, what interpretation of data leads to the possibility of a transcendent Creator?”
I like the fine tuning argument, especially when taken together with convergent evolution. But I would never offer this as proof of God. Others like the argument from natural law, but that one doesn’t really appeal to me so much.
“You also stated there were rational and non-rational reasons for your belief in God establishing the universe and it’s physicial laws. What are some of the reasons?”
Another way to put it is “objective” and “subjective” reasons. In a nutshell, a subjective (non-rational) reason could simply be that I like being part of the Christian community. It is a network of individuals who (for the most part) sacrafice for one another, who give without expecting anything in return, who are motivated to care for and help others who might otherwise fall through the cracks. It’s fairly egalitarian in that it matters not what your social status is. In fact, it is geared toward those who might otherwise be on the margins of secular society, and is cautious of those whom the world readily embraces. I can tell you that my marriage would not be what it is today if it was rooted in “us” and not “him”. So these are all subjective reasons. Of course, all of this only holds true when Chrisians are following in the spirit of Christ. And it’s so easy to fly off tangents and personal crusades (eg: the Christian right in America). Others might have a horrible experience with Christians and vow never to darken the door of a Chruch again. That’s what I mean by subjective.
“Thanks for responding.” — Sure.
GJG

ping

Hi Gordon,
I’ve been on vacation so sorry it;s been so long. Because we can’t really determine “on what level is the text communicating TRUTH to us” how do you feel about how certain politician interpret truth with respect to life at conception or gay marriage. From my understanding, there is some interpretation (and not necessarily the correct interpretation) as to what the Bible says about these. I feel this is important because these interpretations govern us all. I still don’t really understand how you also can differentiate natural law that is improbable to natural governed by God. As far as fine-tuning goes, who;s to say if it was tuned differently, life would not arise? Yes it would probably be VERY different. But the knobs had to be adjusted somewhere. I guess the fine tuning example only has support if life arising is almost impossibly improbable.

Simple .The joining of evolution and Creation + Intervention by another being ,,ie Race of intelligent beings simply explains these “Anomalies” and the leftover structures here on earth,the bible ,,,all religion based creation ,,possibly the missing link and other missing links pertaining to humanity,,so my friend your argument and the rest here all miss the point ,,,why not intervention as it offers the most evidence and yes I am aware of the collusion between religion “Christianity” and science as you have done justice by stating the obvious my friend….”I whole-heartedly agree that God exists, that He created the universe from nothing, and that He sustains its existence moment by moment….”Obvious” as your statement” whole _heartedtly ” supports a thought process of denial that we are not alone in this universe ,,,now are we mate??……….peace