John Dough wrote: I'm not part of the ID community but William Dembski a prominent member of the ID community disputes what you just said:
Argument from authority works for the law/public policy, because the authority "is" the law. Argument from authority fails for science, because the authority is not the science. The idea that the universe was designed is at least 10,000 years old. It predates Darwin by millennia. I'm not interested in what Krauze conjectures about Darwin or his theories. I'm interested only in what Krauze can actually hypothesize and then prove with a verifiable experiment. Richard Lenski, PH.D., can prove evolution occurs by placing bacteria under environmental stress. There is no evidence within the limits of scientific measurement that what is occurring is the result of a pattern or directed force. What is left is what science calls random. If you or any other ID advocate believes that there is a pattern, then conduct an experiment and show the pattern so that other scientists may verify your experiment. Until you do -- it's all just argument from authority. Great for public policy -- lousy for science.
This is another "argument from authority." If Mr. Dembski can prove that ID is the source of evolution, let him do so. This requires more than mere mathematical reasoning. He must conduct an experiment with real organic matter which behaves substantially according to his mathematical model. Until he or someone else does so, Dembski's math is no more valid than Einstein's math would have been had no one been able to test special relativity. But, as others were able to test special relativity, Einstein's math was confirmed by experiment -- at which point it was no longer a theory -- it became a scientific fact.
John Dough wrote: You are obviously confused. Krauze is quoting Michael Ruse a Darwinist that is pointing out the undeniable fact that it took Darwin's idea 60 years before it was tested scientifically. Why you think this obligates Krauze to posit a verifiable experiment is beyond me.
come on, do you believe ANYBODY, let alone scientists, would have taken Darwin's word for it? this is not early 20C any more, we are millions of hours of dedicated research and orders of magnitude closer to the molecular, supramolecular processes involved... we are not there in the park playing with words at a fluffy semantic level of understanding... randomness at all levels of the edifice... there simply IS no causal explanation for origins but again, you have failed to explain to me why this should be a problem and address any of the questions in my earlier post... seems that to you, only your questions matter... not much of a spirit of fairness, seems to me... and you are expecting to gain converts???
John Dough wrote: You evidently don't know what an argument from authority is. The Dembski quote was to show that a prominent member of the ID community doesn't posit the supernatural in his ID hypothesizing. This was to counter your claim that ID is all about proving the existence of God. Is Dembski allowed to be an authority on his own views? LOL. Same goes for the Krauze article. No appeal to authority there either. Just the historical fact that Darwin's idea took 60 years before it became subject to scientific testing.
thats early 20C philosophy and factually incorrect too, even on a non-quantum scale... look at non-equilibrium, non-dissipative systems... just because man has started by identifying the relatively more obvious, easier to grasp, macroscopic "deterministic" features of his environment, doesn't and never meant that that is all there is... works both ways doesn't it? anyway, i have no interest in superficial philosophical chatter... i'll pass
you are being unkind here... i find ID just as reasonable as IS (intelligent santa) or even the flying spaghetti monster theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster