RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Need references for Wiki article on ID, Calling people with too much free time..< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2006,06:16   

I'm one of the people who watches the ID article on Wikipedia, though I'm mostly active on the talk page. Here is the part that I'm currently working on.  For people who chose not to go to Wikipedia and look at it, here's the summary of what I've been asked to provide:

Behe's quote about astrology: Gave reference to KvD transcripts.
Experiments requested by IDist: I found a reference fpr the create-flagellum-in-a-flask theoretical experiment (Behe) but I'm still looking for a create-bacteria-in-a-flask reference.  Any other versions of that experiment are appreciated.
Predictive power of ID: Given that I don't even remember what IDists say that ID predicts, I don't know where to start looking for references.
Experiments that refute statements made by IDists (ie immune system): Have them bookmarked? The more the merrier.  However, I'll probably pick through for the best ones.

Given that I have a Real Life, I'd rather not spend all of my hours gathering these references.  That's why I've come here. ;) Even if you just remember a key phrase, toss it in and I'll start digging through Google.

Thanks.

   
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2006,08:28   

NCSE transcripts page 39, line 9. This is where Behe says that Astrology is a scientific theory. Hope that's one that you wanted.

Quote
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the
7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
8 also a scientific theory, correct?
9 A Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my
10 definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the
11 word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it
12 means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain
13 some facts by logical inferences. There have been many
14 theories throughout the history of science which looked good
15 at the time which further progress has shown to be
16 incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that
17 because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many
18 many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect
19 theories, are nonetheless theories.


--------------
Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

   
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2006,09:03   

Quote (bourgeois_rage @ May 30 2006,14:28)
NCSE transcripts page 39, line 9. This is where Behe says that Astrology is a scientific theory. Hope that's one that you wanted.

Thanks, but I already got that. ;)

I just found mention of Behe's flagellum-in-a-flask theoretical experiment. Does anyone remember any others?

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2006,12:12   

Quote
Predictive power of ID: Given that I don't even remember what IDists say that ID predicts, I don't know where to start looking for references.


From the IDEA centre:
Quote
Intelligent design theory predicts:
1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as
2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record,
3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and
4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!


Of course none of these things are actually predictions but they're the best they've got. Perhaps you could say:
Quote
Critics argue that since all of these things were known before the appearence of the modern ID movement, they don't count as predictions.


Also, when I mentoined that ID advocates are claiming that 'if you put some bacteria in a flask they'll never evolved a flagellum' is a legitamte sceintific prediciton to a professor of evolutionary biology they laughed so hard they sprayed beer out of their nose. But I don't know if that is suitable for a wikipedia article.  :D

Sometimes it is claimed that ID can be tested by removing components of a structure to test irreducible complexity. Although since the definition of IC is that all the components must be vital this is a tautology. The only reference I can find for this though is DaveScot.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2006,16:59   

Re "Of course none of these things are actually predictions"

Except the ones that are also predictions of the current theory. They sometimes seem to miss that an "alternative" should have different predictions than the thing for which it's supposed to be an alternative. (Yeah, I know I'm just reiterating the obvious here, but I just felt like throwing in my two cents anyhoo.)

Henry

  
edmund



Posts: 37
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,04:28   

When/if you quote that IDEA club statement that ID theory predicts "specified complex information", you should also note that, in "The Design Inference", Dembski points out that a designer can design something that *appears* natural.

IOW, design theory doesn't really predict SCI at all.

I don't have the reference for this, unfortunately-- I just happen to remember it. Of course, this makes my comment utterly unhelpful. Does anyone else out there happen to be able to give a precise reference?

Another claim I can't give a precise reference for: try the last chapter or two of "No Free Lunch". Dembski states a few more predictions of ID there.

I am sorry that I can't provide anything more than vague pointers.

--B. Spitzer

  
  5 replies since May 30 2006,06:16 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]