So you think the way in which Casey Luskin represents the scientific method is accurate?
My personal opinion is that IDT certainly pushes the boundaries of the scientific method but, yes, I feel it is accurate.
ID fails the scientific method, or at least I haven’t seen ID successfully utilize the scientific method to prove anything. I really don’t understand what you mean by “pushes the boundaries”, and I would associate any phrase like that with failing to use the scientific method accurately. I don’t believe you actually care if ID uses the scientific method properly. I do believe your only interest is that science be used to validate God.
My point was never that ID misrepresents the scientific method, only that Casey Luskin has in his article about ID. I have yet to see any scientific paper in regards to ID which uses the scientific method accurately. ID fails as a hypothesis, and thus should not be taught as science.
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”.
Where are you seeing this? I did not observe these words in the either of the links you provided.
It is in the second link:http://www.discovery.org/f/986
Under Table 1. Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations)“(4) Intelligent agents typically create functional things (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, not realizing its true function): “Since non-coding regions do not produce proteins, Darwinian biologists have been dismissing them for decades as random evolutionary noise or ‘junk DNA.’ From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much ‘junk’”
Under Table 3. Examining the Evidnece (Experiment and Conclusion)“(3) Systematics – Similar parts have been found in organisms that even Darwinists see as separated by more closely related forms that do not contain the similar parts in question. Clear examples include genes controlling eye or limb growth in different organisms whos alleged common ancestors are not thought to have had such forms of eyes or limbs”“(4) Genetics – Genetic research continues to uncover functions for “junk-DNA,” include functionality for pseudogenes, introns, LINE, and ALU elements. Examples of unknown DNA functions persist, but design encourages researchers to investigate functions, whereas Darwinism has caused some scientists to wrongly assume that non-coding DNA is junk.”
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)
Where did you get this from? I think you failed to cite your source or are you crediting yourself with this?
I went with the 4 essential elements for the scientific method as defined in Wikipedia (a source I already provided). I provided other sources as well in Reply #76.
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 ).
None of this makes any sense. Intelligent Agents have been defined….a good example of which is in the second link you provided. What terms require definition? The last sentence (bolded) makes no sense at all.
My apologies, my grammar was poor for the bolded part, the point I was making was that “but his concept of information is not standard in information theory”. He never defines what he means by information, is he talking about entropy, joint entropy, conditional entropy (equivocation), mutual information (transinformation), kullback-leibler divergence (information gain), kullback-leibler divergence of a prior from the truth, other quantities like Renyi entropy (a generalization of entropy), differential entropy (a generalization of quantities of information to continuous distributions, conditional mutual information, some of the above or all of the above.
From the way he is defining “intelligent Agents”, he seems to be defining humans. Is Luskin saying that humans designed everything in the universe?
He never actually properly defines “intelligence”
Look it up in the dictionary. It’s a common word.
Well, since “Intelligence” is such an important part of ID, I would think that it would be thoroughly discussed, if the scientific method is being used.
But Okay, I looked it up.
I’ll used Merriam-Webster’s definition of “Intelligence”:
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)
b : Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind
c : mental acutemess : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL
b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION
4 a : INFORMATION, NEWS
b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information
5 : the ability to perform computer functions
Well I sure hope Luskin isn’t using the “1 b : Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind” or “2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL” definitions of intelligence, otherwise ID would be religious and there goes the whole idea, of teaching ID in public schools, right out the window.
, thus never providing any indication of how much “intelligence” can be expected to either prove the hypothesis or disprove it.
What makes you think that a certain level of intelligence needs to be identified?
Well, if “intelligence” is defined as a skilled use of reason, one could find that the “Intelligent agent” had no skilled use of reason, yet the “Intelligent agent” could still be considered to be proven to exist because unskilled use of reason was used.
Without properly defining the key elements of the observations, hypothesis and experiements, ID is set up to be proven correct no matter what. Why even go through the trouble of pretending to be scientific? Just assume the Intelligent Agent exists and if anyone asks for evidence just point to existing science like evolution as your proof.
Luskin also never defines “specified complexity”Then what is this?:
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.
That is a definition of “complex and specific information”, which is supposed to be a means of detecting an Intelligent Agent. Luskin doesn’t actually define “specified complexity”, but he does note that Dembski wrote that “the defining feature of intelligent causes is their ability to create novel information and, in particular, specified complexity”.
So I guess “specified complexity” is a form of novel information which is a defining feature of intelligent causes. I personally don’t think that qualifies as a definition, the definition of “complex and specified information” is better. You could be correct though and they are one in the same, although Luskin doesn’t actually say they are one in the same.
Likely though, both “specific complexity” and “complex and specific information” are the types of information Luskin are using, however as I said, neither are standard forms found in information theory.
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.
While you've written of words so far, you have done nothing to discredit or invalidate IDT as being scientific.
If a supposed science can’t define words, how exactly is it science? If what I’ve said so far doesn’t invalidate ID in your eyes, then I doubt anything would. Everything is science then.
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).
This is a common misconception amongst opponents of IDT.
Irreducibly complex systems such as mousetraps and flagella serve both as negative arguments against gradualistic explanations like Darwin's and as positive arguments for design. The negative argument is that such interactive systems resist explanation by the tiny steps that a Darwinian path would be expected to take. The positive argument is that their parts appear arranged to serve a purpose, which is exactly how we detect design. (Darwin's Black Box, pp. 263-264 (2006).)
I am still working through the rest of your post.
Well considering that neither mousetraps and flagella are irreducibly complex, your bold quote from “Darwin’s Black Box” is off to a bad start. So the quote says, IC is both a negative argument and a positive argument, how exactly does that show that IC is not a negative argument?
Also, I’m okay with things appearing arranged, however I would like to see any kind of evidence linking that which appears to be arranged and a designer. After all, we know that humans are conditioned to see patterns.