From what I can tell, only evolutionists here are concerned about apologies. Smokey wants M to apologize to him and you want me to apologize to you. What childish kind of sentiment and immaturity has gotten into evolutionists these days? I recommend you grow up and act like professionals instead of seeking obeisance. It's a much more honest position to take.
This is a heated argument over strongly held positions. It is my chosen task here to point out mistakes in strong terms, defend my own position with impunity, and shoot down all undeserving arguments. It's yours, too. If you can't take the heat that comes from it, I suggest you spend your time doing something more enjoyable. No, I don't intend to apologize to you! I've shot down arguments from both sides (ID and evolution) in the past. I'm not going to apologize for what I do to the best of my ability and get lambasted for doing from you and others! Do you think people who deliberately insult other people's abilities (and not just their arguments) deserve an apology? I don't, but then again, I'm not asking for any! I think only someone cowering or off balance from a devastating critique asks for an apology in a polemic. It only shows a weakness in intellectual position, anyway.
R, that's just more meta-discussion to help you (not me) ignore the real discussion about the facts and the evidence. In my field, when someone is factually wrong, they admit it. If their wrongness has resulted in an unfounded accusation against another scientist, they apologize. That's professional behavior in my world. It's not a sign of weakness; it is, in fact, a sign of strength. Sorry if that is not the case in whatever field you work in. I know it's tough to admit that you are wrong, because I've had to do it hundreds of times with hypotheses that get shot down when we do the experiments to test them. It gets easier the more you do it, however.
Back to the real discussion - do you understand the difference between my hypothesis (Meyer lied) and one of the supporting observations (Meyer was wrong about peptidyl transferase)? Do you understand the scientific facts that underlie the observation, i.e. the difference between a protein and a ribozyme?
"The possibility has not been dismissed. But there is NO EVIDENCE FOR IT other than theology and pseudoscience."
...And the fact that TEAMS of teleological agents are required to produce the programming, circuitry and intricate machines that mimic what we find in the cell. Why you dismiss this POWERFUL IRREFUTABLE evidence is astounding.
- - - "Generate some objective evidence for this teleological agent and then see if that EVIDENCE is dismissed."
Do you require the agent himself to tap you on the shoulder and shake your hand? Why can't you recognize teleological activity for what it is? Programming, circuitry, information processing, Boolean logic, automatic control systems, nanotechnology, automated assembly and production, jigs, fixtures, precision machinery, the list goes on. Why are you so determined to ignore it?
- - - "As I see it, there are at least two things you can do to save your sanity. Alleviate your ignorance, or quit exposing it on fora frequented by the less ignorant."
As I see it, you are exposing your die-hard adherence to a crumbling naturalistic worldview.
On the contrary, the topic of this column is whether Meyer's book should be listed under religion. It's not back to some 'real' discussion and questions that you determine, David. This is the autocratic manner I have been repeatedly entreating you about. I don't ask for any apology from you for doing it either! I just want to point out the behavior in the hopes of getting it corrected.
I believe that people who are overly concerned with the practice of apology-making use it to overlook human flaws and placate their own inadequacies. That is, it's usually a self-defense mechanism used to avoid the responsibility of having to change one's own behavior. In that sense, it can be a projection of one's own guilt on others and often looks like a last line of emotional self-defense.
Sure, I have faults. I just don't go around talking to other professionals about them very often. And I most certainly don't confide the details of them to professionals of opposing viewpoints.
That's not even evidence, much less "POWERFUL IRREFUTABLE evidence". It's a flawed argument from analogy ("people are needed to create machines, cells are like machines, therefore things like people are needed to create cells"). In the first place, cells are like machines only in your imagination; the more we know about them, the more that analogy breaks down. That's another place where you would be well served by attempts to alleviate your ignorance, or quit exposing it here in the presence of actual biological scientists.
Secondly it ignores the intelligence inherent in the interactions of the environment (both biotic and abiotic) and reproducing organisms. That interaction, manifested as natural selection, fits Dembski's definition of intelligence. Why are you ignoring it in favor of teleological supernatural agents, when there is no objective evidence for teleological supernatural agents and plenty of evidence for natural selection?
Thirdly cells, unlike machines, can reproduce themselves. This salient distinction between machine and living thing makes your analogy even more untenable.
You have put a lot of effort, a lot of intentional ignorance, and a lot of words into objecting to what you call the "crumbling naturalistic worldview". I assume that you have powerful evidence FOR an alternative non-naturalistic (i.e. supernatural) explanation for the diversity of living things on the planet. Why don't you present that evidence? And remember, if that analogy above is what you consider evidence, we're going to have to ask you to do better than that. Heck, I'd be satisfied with a testable hypothesis that promised objective evidence FOR ID; evidence would be a real bonus!
Re your question, again I have to ask for clarification. What is "the chance hypothesis", M?
Suit yourself. It's "autocratic" when I point out your behavior, but it's apparently OK for you to do that. We live in different worlds, for sure.
And discussion of an scientific error in the book, which you and your co-religionists didn't recognize even though it seriously damaged Meyer's arguments, is, I submit, a valid discussion point that is on topic in this forum. Yet I am "autocratic" when I try to steer the discussion back there, while you are more than content to wallow in amateur psychoanalysis of the other participants on the forum, which is most assuredly not topical.
David, you say: "That's not even evidence, much less "POWERFUL IRREFUTABLE evidence". It's a flawed argument from analogy ("people are needed to create machines, cells are like machines, therefore things like people are needed to create cells")."
Cells ARE machines, and they are machines that are controlled by SOFTWARE! You will assign intelligent causation to the least bit of scrawling on cave walls, but you won't do the same for the software that controls the cybernetic activity of the cell?
- - - "In the first place, cells are like machines only in your imagination"
WHAT?!? Are you going to start the same game with me that you have been playing with Richard? Do we need to define "machine" now?
- - - "the more we know about them, the more that analogy breaks down. That's another place where you would be well served by attempts to alleviate your ignorance, or quit exposing it here in the presence of actual biological scientists."
Please, sir, tell me: besides their size and being even more sophisticated than anything modern man has devised, how exactly do they differ?
- - - "Secondly it ignores the intelligence inherent in the interactions of the environment (both biotic and abiotic) and reproducing organisms. That interaction, manifested as natural selection fits Dembski's definition of intelligence."
Natural selection has NEVER been observed to generate sophisticated machinery or the software that controls it. It is ASSUMED to have done so. For that matter, neither has it ever been observed to generate wings, feathers, brains, tissue of any kind, body plans, etc. It is ASSUMED to have done so. On the other hand, intelligence generates such systems all the time. And I will need a citation on the Dembski definition, please, even though it is ridiculous to compare a blind natural environment to a teleological agent that can make willful predetermined decisions that fulfill a specific purpose.
- - - "Thirdly cells, unlike machines, can reproduce themselves. This salient distinction between machine and living thing makes your analogy even more untenable."
Man-made machines reproduce themselves all the time! Ever watch robots make cars? Ever watch a robot make a robot? Automated machinery is required to make machines these days; the only difference is that intelligent humans fill the gaps between certain steps, but only because it is not cost effective (for now) to automate the entire process. Mining natural resources is automated, processing raw material is automated, manufacturing individual components is automated, assembly is automated, packaging is automated, the list goes on. As technology advances, human intervention becomes less and less a requirement. All you demonstrate by pointing to the cell as being completely autonomous in this regard is the way modern manufacturing appears to be headed. You make no argument in your favor here, sir.
- - - "I assume that you have powerful evidence FOR an alternative non-naturalistic (i.e. supernatural) alternative. Why don't you present that evidence? And remember, if that analogy above is what you consider evidence, we're going to have to ask you to do better than that."
Again, I have said nothing of the supernatural (although a myriad of other considerations can lead us to that very conclusion), but one thing is certain: if sophisticated nanotechnology and the software that controls it is not enough to persuade you of the past activity of a teleological agent, nothing will.
- - - "What is "the chance hypothesis"
As opposed to necessity, but never mind. What's the point.
MH sez - "Cells ARE machines, and they are machines that are controlled by SOFTWARE!"
Adding exclamation points to your bald-faced assertions doesn't make them any more than assertions. It is simply an metaphor to say cells are machines, and that metaphor is useful in a limited sense because people understand machines, and saying that cells resemble them is one way to help people start to understand cellular biology. Sometimes we tell people that cells are like cities too! Is a city a machine?
But there are innumerable places that the cell=machine metaphor breaks down, not the least of which is the fact that they are self-replicating AND can undergo mutations. I'd suggest you read a book that I have actually reviewed here on Amazon, "Wetware: A computer in every living cell", by Dennis Bray.
Another good place to start would be this blog post from ScienceBlogs (http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/01/16/_wells_centrioles_and_cancer_b/), but you will have to know quite a bit of cell biology to get through that. If that doesn't describe you, then maybe you can get a good cell biology book and start reading. You might get past this simple-minded metaphor with a bit more reading. But seriously, it has to be embarrassing when you reveal here, for all to see, that you don't know the difference between a metaphor and evidence.
As for Dembski's definition, I'll be happy to oblige. In 2000 he wrote:
by intelligence I mean the power and facility to choose between options-this coincides with the Latin etymology of "intelligence," namely, "to choose between"
And no, you said nothing of the supernatural, per usual. I merely pointed out, and will keep pointing out, that your hammering at evolutionary theory and saying that naturalistic explanations must be wrong is never accompanied by any description of an alternative non-naturalistic theory with the same amount of objective evidence in its favor. Unless and until you and your ilk provide an alternative theory, that apparently will not be naturalistic, you can avoid using the word supernatural. But it's not fooling anyone, least of all me.
So I'll tilt at that windmill again. I assume that you have powerful evidence FOR an alternative non-naturalistic (i.e. supernatural) explanation for the diversity of living things on the planet. Why don't you present that evidence? Heck, I'd be satisfied with a testable hypothesis that promised objective evidence FOR ID; evidence would be a real bonus!
As for chance or necessity, have you heard of the concept of the false dichotomy? No, of course not.
I said: "That's a lie, UBP. At no point does Meyer tell the reader that ribozymes actually DO ANYTHING in modern cells."
M replied: "And yet on p.304 we have: "the RNA in ribosomes (rRNA) promotes peptide bond formation within the ribosome"."
Exactly. The reader is still left with the impression that this RNA is just a minor helper, not the actual enzyme known as peptidyl transferase-it'd be hard to deny that ribosomes contain RNA, don't you think?
Meyer is fudging to support his lie. Again, M, the fact that YOU were utterly certain that peptidyl transferase is a protein after reading the book is powerful evidence.
Did you figure out which important ribozymes Meyer omitted, or are you still too scared to look?
I thought I would drop in to point out that Meyer admitted, to a large crowd at Biola on May 14, that the cells-machine metaphor is not a very compelling argument, since it breaks down at several levels (including one that I described at the Biola event).
"Yet I am "autocratic" when I try to steer the discussion back there, while you are more than content to wallow in amateur psychoanalysis of the other participants on the forum, which is most assuredly not topical."
Leave it to you, David, to bring up topics you aren't serious about discussing for long. Your discussions are demonstrably short-lived; your interests trifling; your rejoinders, showing a lack of seriousness about issues. For instance (evidence, too), you ask for an apology and summarily abandon the matter when it is shown that you don't deserve one. I guess that it's the way to tell you're wrong as well as to discover when you have lost an argument: you invariably change the subject. Then you scathe us for not following your diversions into other subjects of interest to you, announced with hauteur in credal form, all the while criticizing our continuance of the matters you have raised. Some science; you present evolution as the science of feintand bigotry. Indeed, if your performance of this isn't a lie per se, it's certainly turned into the deceitful, habitual practice of hypocrisy. I'd say we are learning a great deal from you about an autocrat's need for psychoanalysis.
EVOLUTION AS PORTRAYED IN THIS COLUMN BY ITS ADHERENTS IS NOT ART BUT ARTIFICE; NOT DARWINISM BUT MACHIAVELLIANISM. The real reason why evolutionists are engrossed in the practice of locating any and all syntactic errors in Meyer's book is because it has captivated Americans interest and has turned the media focus of the ID/evolution debate away from them. They cannot stand to be out of the limelight and not in control in the debate. Your personal manner is a prime example (evidence) this, too, David.
I cannot emphasize enough that the current protein vs. catalyst criticism over Meyer's book appears to be a publicity stunt. The lack of cohesion and clarity in explanations of it and its avowed significance, the protracted time it has taken to get the criticism out into the open, the gruelling history of receiving requested details and answers to inquiries (i.e., committments) from its advocates, and the emphatic defensiveness and impatience shown by its advocates all point in one direction: THIS CAMPAIGN IS MORE A SMEAR ON MEYER THAN AN ANALYSIS AND POINTED CRITIQUE. CONSIDER ITS LEAP IN LOGIC (A LOGICAL FALLACY) FROM ALLEGATIONS OF MISTAKEN WORD SELECTION DIRECT INTO CONCLUDING A DELIBERATE ACT OF LYING WITH ONLY EVOLUTIONIST DOUBTS AND SUSPICIONS TO CONNECT THE TWO. THIS MATCHES THE FEATURES OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND URBAN MYTHS.
Although I am not a biologist, I know evolutionists. They appear to be engaged in a concerted attempt here to find any point, no matter how trivial, in Meyer's book to highlight and blow out of proportion. It not me; evolutionists as a group don't understand what they have found or its import. They are waiting in a queue to take turns at explaining it to potential believers, each taking independent, unconnected stabs at giving their own take on it. THEY CANNOT EXPLAIN THE CRITICISM OR ITS IMPORT CLEARLY OR SUCCINCTLY IN WORDS, ONLY IN EMOTIONAL EFFECTS. THAT'S WHY ONLY CAN CONSIDER IT IN GENERAL TERMS AS BEING A LIE. ANY STATEMENT FROM MEYER'S LINE OF REASONING WOULD HAVE SERVED THE PURPOSE AS WELL (OR ACTUALLY, AS POORLY). THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CLAIM SHOW THAT THE PURPORTED MISTAKE IN WORD SELECTION IN MEYER'S ARGUMENT HAS BEEN BALLOONED INTO A LIE. EVEN IF TRUE, THE MISTAKE WOULD NOT BE A VERY BIG ONE. ITS MEYER'S ARGUMENT THAT IS BIG, NOT AS EVOLUTIONISTS ALLEGE- ONE WORD IN IT!
Oh, by the way, David, the reason why you cannot see your goalposts moving as you shift them side-to-side in your end zone is short-sightedness. You are looking only at them and yourself while in motion. The theory of relativity explains it well. People of limited vision and a small mindset miss out a lot on the events in the real world.
Is everything backward in your world? I bring up topics that I'm not "serious about discussing for long"? My discussions are "demonstrably short-lived"?
I've been asking UB why I should care about "meaningful information" in a discussion of evidence for ID for many pages now. I've been asking you, or anyone else, to give us just ONE TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS that could yield objective evidence FOR ID ever since I joined this discussion. Not one answer to either of these long-standing questions, yet I keep asking them. And to you that indicates a short attention span.
BTW. the only reason I quit asking for an apology was that you addressed the question directly. You made it abundantly clear that you are congenitally incapable of even admitting you are wrong about facts, and much less capable of apologizing for the slander that resulted from your wrongness. You answered that question. Answer the other questions just once and see what happens!
If you are planning to quit your day job and go pro with your amateur psychoanalysis, don't. And do learn about the theory of relativity before you expound on it in another thread.
Can you state a single testable hypothesis that could provide objective evidence FOR ID? Or will your next comment address the meta-discussion rather than the factual one?
"You made it abundantly clear that you are congenitally incapable of even admitting you are wrong about facts, and much less capable of apologizing for the slander that resulted from your wrongness."
You made it abundantly clear that you are congenitally incapable of even admitting you are wrong about facts, and much less capable of apologizing for the libel that resulted against Meyer from your wrong(y)ness, David.
"True to form, more meta-discussion and hypocrisy."
All I did was to copy your words and mimick them. How does that action constitute more meta-discussion and hypocrisy? Unless somehow it means you are doing the same thing? Do you still maintain you've made no mistakes?
David, that should be an important matter to you. You've got to judge every matter as an ethical one, of who is right and who is wrong. It looks like a sign of religious bigotry to me. Or is zealotry to blame? Yawn.
Read this column for testable ID hypotheses. I'm not a FAQ file to support your negligence or to feed your compulsion.
Slander? Why didn't you say libel instead? I guess your attribution of slander magically turns into a lie through the same sort of fetish and hocus-pocus used to excise individual words from Meyer's book and turn them into purported lies, doesn't it?
You're right. It was libel when you accused me of moving the goalposts, since it was written down rather than verbal. My mistake. Good catch.
But your "support" for your criticism is groundless. I stated a hypothesis about Meyer and supported it with observations. It's still only a hypothesis, but you've provided nothing in the way of counter-observations, so it remains a strongly supported hypothesis. Furthermore you confused one of my observations with the hypothesis, and have thus far failed to acknowledge that confusion. In subsequent comments you have completely ignored that point, so for you to say that any of that provides support for anything (except your inability to focus on the topic) is laughable.
But not as laughable as this - "Read this column for testable ID hypotheses. I'm not a FAQ file to support your negligence"
Richard, I've been asking for a testable ID hypothesis for years, and I can document that with links to other discussions here and elsewhere. To date no ID supporter has been able to generate one, either on this "column" or elsewhere. Without testable hypotheses, ID is not science. This goes directly to the heart of the topic of this thread. If it is science, and not religion, give us one (just one, for god's sake) hypothesis to support that claim.
Since you can't, and since not one of your partners in pseudoscience can do that either, a book about ID (like Meyer's book) should not be classified as science here on Amazon.
Your constant diversions have not succeeded in disguising this simple fact.
David, you're not reading the whole column. ID has responded to this criticism several times in this column and many times elsewhere. The truth is whatever ID produces or has produced is not good enough for people such as you. Everybody should be asking themselves why. I have been trained in hypothesis testing and tested hypotheses many times, and higher (unreasonable and unprecedented) standards are being set for ID. Nothing is good enough if it comes from ID, it would seem. This has been used as evidence of injustice, prejudice and malice being received from evolutionists, and I think rightly so.
Also, I maintained you equivocated observations for hypothesis support with value judgments, preconceptions, biased opinions and your own conclusions, essentially. I don't see you dealing with that main point. I am not infallible, but your point didn't seem worth the trouble. It appeared a minor, tertiary-labelling matter to me as regards the main critique I supplied. In principle, I maintain that your hypothesis test (or its argument, if you will) is biased towards finding only support, discontinuous in its tracing of cause to effect, imprecise in places, and handled as a thesis, not a hypothesis, being based on circular reasoning.
I have read the whole column, as well as lots of other output from ID believers. There is no testable hypothesis that could provide objective evidence FOR ID. If you have found one, please provide a link. As for "whatever ID produces", I think that the evidence is pretty clear there as well. ID has produced nothing but words. No results, no products, no processes, no insights into how the world works. Again, if you think so, please provide evidence. Bald-faced assertions won't be enough.
But this sentence implies that you are either the biggest hypocrite I have encountered on the ID side, or the most self-unaware person on the planet. You wrote: "I maintained you equivocated observations for hypothesis support with value judgments, preconceptions, biased opinions and your own conclusions, essentially." Read that again and tell me why you excoriated me and others when we passed the same judgment on Meyer. Apparently it's OK for you to say that about me, with very little objective evidence in support of the accusation. But it's beyond the pale when I hypothesize, and present objective evidence in support of that hypothesis, that Meyer is guilty of the same things. It's "autocratic", "totalitarian", and "MACHIAVELLIAN", right? Got a mirror? Use it.
Finally, none of that meta-discussion matters in the face of the facts and the history. Adapting an aphorism from the legal world - "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have history on your side, pound the history. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." You, and all the other ID proponents here, are merely pounding the table. And looking more foolish and hypocritical with every comment.
I await the links pointing me to those testable hypotheses that could provide objective evidence FOR ID, and other links pointing me to things that ID has produced (other than income for the likes of Dembski and Meyer and Wells). I suspect that I'll just get more table-pounding, but hope springs eternal...
Arthur, I was interested in your experience at Biola. It didn't seem to me that any critic of creationism would ever be given a real opportunity to address the issue directly. I thought your approach was more successful than most.
David A Rintoul wrote: "Richard, I've been asking for a testable ID hypothesis for years, and I can document that with links to other discussions here and elsewhere. To date no ID supporter has been able to generate one, either on this "column" or elsewhere. Without testable hypotheses, ID is not science."
David, I disagree. To his credit, M. Holcumbrink provided a testable hypothesis earlier in this discussion, as well as its predictions.
All of them were wrong, of course, but at least he was trying to be scientific.
Thanks, Smokey, that's actually amazing news! I must have missed MH's hypothesis in my scanning of the 800+ posts in this thread, and I'm sorry I did. Seems I've been waiting for a decade or more for this event, and I missed it!
I'll go back and hunt for it, but if anyone has it already bookmarked and can provide a permalink, I'd appreciate it.
"If life has been created by a willful intelligent designer, I would expect to see ALL machines at the molecular level to be the epitome of precision and efficiency, especially if the designer is in fact an all-knowing God."
If so, I'm a bit worried about his dependence (again) on using the metaphor of cellular machines in what is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis. And I'm even more worried about his ignorance about basic biology.
I know he's an engineer, but even engineers must have had to take basic biology, if only in high school. Didn't he learn about photosystems I and II? These are the molecular "machines" in plant chloroplasts that convert solar energy to chemical energy. The great biochemist, Otto Warburg, opined that ""In a perfect nature photosynthesis is perfect too", and claimed to have experimental results that proved the perfection (100% efficiency) of this process.
Sadly for Warburg (and MH), it just isn't true, and we teach this in high school biology and introductory university biology classes! Theoretical calculations indicate that photosynthetic "machinery" should be able to convert 11% of solar light energy into chemical energy. Actual observed efficiencies are in the range of 3-6%.
Prediction - unsupported by the data Hypothesis - not true
Do we think that this will cause a scientific thinker like Holcumbrink to change his mind about that "all-knowing God"?
Prediction - Never Observation - still to come, perhaps here on this very thread.
If not, then we can add yet another distinction between science and pseudoscience that is important here. Scientists change their mind when confronted with data disproving their hypothesis. Pseudoscientists never do.
"I have read the whole column, as well as lots of other output from ID believers. There is no testable hypothesis that could provide objective evidence FOR ID. If you have found one, please provide a link. As for "whatever ID produces", I think that the evidence is pretty clear there as well. ID has produced nothing but words. No results, no products, no processes, no insights into how the world works. Again, if you think so, please provide evidence. Bald-faced assertions won't be enough."
Then all ID can tell, David, is that you're not up to the objective standards required for a valid hypothesis test. Why could you not do the task you've selected to do? From the ID viewpoint, you're either too lazy, impressionistic, biased, uninformed, or (I have to include this last one as a possibility) inept to find what you've said you are looking for. And be sure, ID hypotheses are there to be found, but you almost never define your terms in an objective manner, so we cannot tell what you've bungled. I guess ID hypotheses are apparently for research methodologists to find and understand, and not for the positionally austere, or blind and bigoted. If you couldn't find any predictive ID hypotheses mentioned in this column by anyone else's definition (yours just isn't there), then it is not at all clear what kind you are actually looking for, for you have not enunciated the matter clearly enough to show what you are doing, or for us to know what you intend to be doing. Moreover, I think this is a very deliberate state of affairs on your part- conveniently arranged to disadvantage ID; any opponent should. Perhaps you could provide us more information the definition, search terms, and search procedures you used in your 'investigation', which now gets called into question.
You are obviously self-satisfied and absolutely convinced within your own frame of reference that your search was adequate to 'task'. How can WE be expected to convince you otherwise. It's not our job. We are your opponents and you have not taken anything seriously that we have said up until now, and especially our replies saying there are testable ID hypotheses mentioned in this column. You are determined to not accept such as evidence I think, so you do not see such. Some science! You have made evolution the science of how to not find (or accept as valid) any position-relevant data of an opponent.
The terms you mentioned and evidently used to guide your search- ID "results, products, processes, and insights into how the world works"- are inappropriate to the search task. They are essentially unscientific terms. In the case of all but the final term in your list, you have mentioned only manufacturing terms as I see it. And as usual, you define none of them. Sure, you sometimes offer a synonym, but that is as far as you go typically. It makes what you were doing look highly subjective, an impressionistic and cursory activity, and thus one quite susceptible to bias.
Let's try to get to the bottom of this matter you have brought up anyway. I will use scientific terms to look into this: If you did not find any perfect ID hypotheses, what less-than-perfect ones did you find? If you did not find any testable ID hypotheses, what ID propositions did you find? And if you did not locate any ID propositions at all, what ID assertions did you find? If you did not find any ID assertions, or are only passing summary judgement on those you do find (immediately rating them as outliers or unacceptable and not reporting them here), then you are incompetent for this task. And why do continue to misinterpret the finding of an absence of confirming data as conclusively showing the nonexistence of any such data? Doing that publicly without demonstrating that you have eliminated all reasonable possibilities that your research design could have been in error or that you're biased against finding 'suitable' instances is not only scientific presumptious and arrogant, it is naive and stupid!
You appear to make such illogical inferences and unsubstantiated leaps of faith often in your scientific reasoning and judgements. That is the most likely explanation currently for what appear to be only impressionistic observations and a condemning summary.
Let's check out your research: How much time did you devote to the recent search? Were you continuously involved in the search for that whole amount of time? How long did you spend in reading the column for purposes of this research? I think this was done in a day or less by my figuring; how could that be so? Did you employ skim reading, scanning for specific terms (if so, which), note taking, or the standard rauding approach to this end? How did you record less-than-adequate instances of ID hypotheses? Did you use a rating scale of any kind? How did you measure objectivity, or was this a completely subjective determination? What did you do in order to control the effects of your own subjectivity or to eliminate all influences of bias? Was this a double-blind investigation? ID has a need to know and the right to ask such questions.
"I have read the whole column, as well as lots of other output from ID believers."
The second half of this statement (after the comma) relates to your past efforts at locating ID hypotheses. You include these personal 'observations'/opinions as data, too. This fact evidences that a significant part of your findings and even of your search was conducted prior to your current definition of the research problem. How can we tell how careful you were when dealing with your memories of past experiences? Were these recollections rated on any kind of scale according to their degree of relevance to the research question or relative to any measures of clarity or objectivity? If not, you were most likely involved in the activity of thesis-support here, creating findings out of past views and impressions, and not of hypothesis testing, and maybe even to a very great degree. It calls into question your work, especially considering you found nothing! Could the definition of your dependent variable be at fault? Perhaps it was unrigorously defined, with your checks of text rushed and maybe insincere, not desiring to find anything- a highly subjective approach to the problem. We need to eliminate these possibilities in order to understand the results you obtained.
"ID has produced nothing but words."
This is one of your conclusions. Apparently you can locate ID rhetoric, but not identify what it means scientifically speaking. Your "nothing but" conclusion here exposes the strong possibility of prejudice and judgmentalism in your research, and an absolutist's approach to scientific investigations in general. It also shows a complete unwillingness to draw tentative scientific conclusions and employ scientific reasoning in appropriate manner to arrive at an unbiased and professionally-acceptable conclusion. Your investigation could be the total antithesis of Popper's views on scientific investigation. It could be an example of the pollution of science from personal bias and the tainting of data due to a malicious prosecutor's vendetta involved in the research.
SHOULD WE TRUST AS SCIENTIFIC PEPSI'S CONCLUSIONS OF ITS OLD TASTE-TESTING COMPARISONS OF PEPSI AND COKE? WHY CANNOT EVOLUTIONISTS SEE THEIR OWN BIASES? ID PROPONENTS CAN. DOES THIS MAKE ID SCIENTISTS MORE OBJECTIVE? HAVING BEEN A FORMER EVOLUTION RESEARCHER MYSELF, MY ANSWER OF THIS QUESTION IS, "ABSOLUTELY!"
"There is no testable hypothesis that could provide objective evidence FOR ID."
You have wrapped this conclusion in a value judgement and laced it with your position in order to personally control all possible interpretations of it. This is evidence you are employing the scientific method for an improper purpose and as a guise. Please show otherwise. You said I do table-pounding. What about you- Isn't this 'research' the work of a quack?
Thanks, R, for the additional evidence that ID produces nothing but words (and lots of them), as well as the additional evidence for distinctive differences between science and ID.
1) Technically MH's hypothesis is NOT an ID hypothesis. The salient claim of ID is that you can detect design without knowing anything about the designer. MH made explicit assumptions about the characteristics of the designer. Dembski would not recognize MH's hypothesis as an ID hypothesis, and neither did I.
2) After being told that I was wrong, I did further research. I found that, indeed, I had overlooked something that had been proposed as an ID hypothesis. I admitted my mistake. So I did the extra work, found the error, and changed my conclusion. That's how science works. But that's not how ID works. I didn't see evidence that MH had changed his conclusion; I saw plenty of evidence that he is clinging to it. You, and the others on this thread who are ID proponentsists, will never change your conclusion. So when you bluster "It also shows a complete unwillingness to draw tentative scientific conclusions and employ scientific reasoning in appropriate manner to arrive to a proper conclusion.", you are, once more, looking in a spittle-flecked mirror.
QED: The book does not belong in a science category, and neither you nor its other defenders think or act like scientists.