Nothing that you have stated here demonstrates that the IDT is misrepresenting the scientific method. Perhaps you could be a little more specific.
So you think the way in which Casey Luskin represents the scientific method is accurate? Why would you think this? It is clear that he is misrepresenting the scientific method. I’ll break it all down for you since you don’t have time to, I don’t know, think.
For reference, here is his article at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/what_is_the_the075281.html
and a pdf that he wrote http://www.discovery.org/f/986
It is odd that Luskin attempts to claim ID is not a negative argument against evolution yet insists on using terms like “Darwinian biologists” and “Darwinists”. There is no such thing as a “Darwinian biologist” or “Darwinist”. He seems to be implying that those who accept the ToE as the best explanation of the natural world are somehow cultists that follow Darwin idea’s as if they were dogma. This is the same old trick attempted by creationists to equate Darwinism with Creationism as if they were equal theories in science. The trick is to add a derivational suffix to Darwin or Evolution to try to cast unwarranted doubt on the ToE. Doubt may be warranted, but you have to actually justify the doubt, not play word games.
Same old tricks, different name, oh but supporters of ID will claim that ID has nothing to do with creationism. I digress, let’s get back to the topic of the scientific method.
The four essential elements of the scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleaving or orderings of the following:
Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
Experiments (tests of the characterizations, hypotheses and Predictions)OBSERVATION:
(which I guess are the characterizations plus general observations made by Luskin or someone else who may or may not be identified by Luskin)
Luskin attempts to define “Intelligent Agents”, however the terms used to do this are not used in any scientific way. He fails to define the terms used to define “Intelligent Agents”, for example when he states that “Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems:” the concept of information are not standard in information theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
). He never actually properly defines “intelligence”, thus never providing any indication of how much “intelligence” can be expected to either prove the hypothesis or disprove it. Luskin also never defines “specified complexity” or “End Goal”. What exactly is the “End Goal” of biology? This is just absurd. On the very first step of the scientific method, ID has failed, and we haven’t even gotten to his misrepresentation of the scientific method.
In the evolutionnews.org article, Luskin does quote a definition for “complex and specified information” which was provided by William Dembski. “Complex and specified information” is defined as a rare or highly unlikely event which conforms to an independently derived pattern. This is basically “Irreducible complexity” which is worthless as evidence and is in fact a negative argument against the ToE (oops, so much for the claim that ID is not a negative argument against the ToE).HYPOTHESIS (PREDICTION):
Luskin for some reason equates his hypothesis with his predictions. Oddly enough they are just restatements of his Observations (characterizations) mixed with terms and concepts already discovered by science. Equating hypotheses with predictions is a misrepresentation of the scientific method. Predictions are only meaningful if they are able to say things which could not have been said otherwise. Predictions should be able to be made based on the hypothesis. If Luskin were representing the scientific method correctly then he would have properly defined his initial observations, formed his hypothesis about an “Intelligent agent” and then made predictions about what we can expect to find if the hypothesis is correct and what we shouldn’t expect to find.
None of the “Hypothesis (Prediction)” proposed by Luskin provide a direct link to the “Intelligent agent” nor isolate the “Ingelligent agent” as the sole or primary cause. The ToE on the other hand can provide explanations for all of the predictions made by Luskin.EVIDENCE:
(At this point, should I even bother continuing? I guess I will for fun)
I’m not even sure if Luskin understands his own words, which makes sense since he doesn’t define them, but whatever, CSI and irreducible complexity are garbage. The prime example provided by Luskin is also garbage as biologists have found that bacterial flagellum evolved from the type III secretory and transport system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
The prime example for Paleontology is also garbage since prior to the Cambrian explosion the world was essentially void of life, and once Hox gene’s evolved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
) they allowed for an unprecedented amount of diversity in species to develop rapidly and occupy an entire ecosystem. Additionally, it is well known that the fossilization process rarely occurs for specific forms of life as the precise conditions must be present in order for remains to fossilize (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Fossilization_%28palaeontology%29
As I continue to look at the examples of evidence, I’m not really sure what Luskin is trying to prove here. Since he never properly defined “Intelligent agent” or what level of intelligence this agent should be expected to have or how to gauge this intelligence I’m left thinking the “intelligent agent” is a complete dumbass. With systematics the hypothesis is that functional parts will be commonly re-used in different organisms (the experiment isn’t worth my time), however if we look at the mole rat (http://www.iovs.org/content/31/7/1398.full.pdf
) we find a vertebrate mammal where the eye (functional part) is re-used but with a different purpose when compared to other vertebrate mammals. This “intelligent agent” seems completely random in choosing when and where to re-use genes and other functional parts. Wow this entire part about systematics is just completely useless.
The section on genetics might be even more useless than systematic. Okay, so since scientists happened to find function for “numerous” types of “junk DNA”, we somehow get a conclusion confirming the hypothesis. This is total BS. How about actually predicting how much non junk DNA there will be. The prediction offered by Luskin is useless since it can’t ever be wrong. If we don’t discover a function for what is perceived to be “junk DNA”, well we just haven’t discovered a function yet.
Also, without the contrast to evolution, all this section says is that there are genes we do not know the function for yet. Luskin was really going out on a limb on that one wasn’t he. CONCLUSION:
(uh oh, I wonder if I’ll be surprised)
As I already stated, the conclusions are useless since the conclusion cannot be observed or tested. As is so often stated, what exactly is the difference between this “intelligent agent” and nothing? Luskin’s misrepresentation of the scientific method proved nothing. Perhaps if he would like to use the scientific method correctly, he might be able to prove something, but I have a feeling, that like so many others, he would only prove ID is pseudoscience. It’s fake, dressed up creationism pushing religion into public schools.
ID is truly dangerous as well. Just think what someone could do if all they had to do was dress bullshit up in scientific terms just to get gullible, uninformed and unsuspecting people to buy bullshit.
I agree that an isolated incident of inaccuracy in a high school text book does not necessitate the need to upset an entire curriculum. I used it as example to counter the OP and point out that naturalists will bark up a storm about inaccuracies in curriculums when it is perceived to somehow threaten their beliefs.....but remain ignorant and silent when the naturalistic teachings contain inaccuracies.
Yet you support pseudoscience bullshit like ID which has no evidence, makes no predictions and serves no purpose other than to subvert the U.S. constitution. Before you talk about hypocritical, perhaps you should look in the mirror.
It's not only hypocritical but it is highly suggestive of a militant mentality that seeks to use science as a means to invalidate God. That is NOT what science is about.
It really seems like you are describing yourself, only you’re using science as a means to validate God.