Please point me to the studies that have confirmed the scientific testability of macro evolution. You know, the lab data, the double blind studies, the repeatability achieved in a controlled environment that shows the process in action.

Just to be clear, by "macro evolution", you mean "species changing into other species"? Well, there's this, to start. As I said before, common descent – as established as anything can be in science – pretty much inevitably implies 'macroevolution'. (Just looking at endogenous retroviruses is extremely convincing.)

BTW, the distinction between so-called 'micro-' and 'macro-evolution' is rather fuzzy at best. An illustrative quote I saw once: "There is no distinction in nature between microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution is just larger quantities of microevolution over much longer times. It's like saying that there's 'microwalking' which is what I do from the car park to the office every morning, and down to the shops on weekends, and that can result in changes of my location over time on a small scale; but the idea that people, over tens of thousands of years, walked out of central Africa into Europe, then over to Asia, across to North America and into South America – that's 'macrowalking' and it's impossible."

Those very document errors are used by skeptics to cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible, and yet the process is also used to illustrate (however loosely) the process of evolution. And you call ID'rs dishonest?

I fail to see the inconsistency. Copy-with-modification is ubiquitous, and has consequences. Some of them are obvious (like nested hierarchies), some are less obvious (like evolution). Even in the Bible, though, some of the 'mutations' seem to have become 'fixed in the population', so to speak. (E.g. here.)

Now, copy-with-modification on functional 'text', like DNA or program code, can have effects and properties that prose doesn't display. (The Bible is not a computer program or a genome.) I was curious back in the 90's, and was able to swiftly duplicate the results of this guy myself, which I linked to above, and even find some new tricks evolving.

As to the Incompleteness Theorem, I'm okay with that. It's not clear that the universe is a formal system in the sense of Goedel in any case…

You may find the commentors, or even the article authors, to be uncivil. But the relevant question is whether or not they are wrong. From looking into those arguments, they do seem to me to have the right of it.

That's a worthy retort, but for me the evidence is murky and the jury is still out.

(b) that other universes, if they exist, are forever disconnected from ours, causally.

You will need to back that claim up with something solid.

Also, if as you say each universe is a closed system, that would make it subject to the Incompleteness Theorem, to whit: solutions exist which cannot be discovered using the internal formalities of said closed system.

https://twitter.com/FightingGadfly

@FightingGadfly's comments are indented:

I have several contentions with Uncommon Descent's FAQ http://bit.ly/l72Ph that I will post as soon as possible.

First of all, Uncommon Descent's first mistake: science is about the "search for truth". Theory is about best models not truth.

I would say that your citation of the Uncommon Descent FAQ is not a particularly valuable source for a wider understanding of the concept of Intelligent Design.

The uproar over ID in the schools and in the media (not to the mention the courts) has greatly politicized the very idea of a "search for the best models" when it comes to First Principles. Sure, the Discovery Institute is essentially a PR organization. What else is new? The same thing can be said about the National Center for Science Education, whose motto is: "Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools"

Also have a problem with contention that one can always recognize the result of an intelligent agent. Chaos theorists would debate that.

There is a discussion in the thread above regarding the Omega Point Theory. I understand part of the argument to underline the value of Chaos in helping to define emergent systems. Eg., The Incompleteness Theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems wherein it is stated that, in any formal mathematical system, there are solutions which can never be discovered from within the said system.

I would say that's pretty devastating to anyone who wants to lock in a Materialist view of the universe.

I'm not saying there is no designer, just that I don't assume one from the beginning.

I can reasonably conclude that ID proponents see a designer in a design because they want to see one.

In other words, are some really seeing the marks of a designer, or do they just THINK they see the marks of a designer?

"They see a designer because they want to see one." I don't necessarily buy the premise, but in any case SO WHAT? Discoveries are driven first by observation and ideation. Your comment implies that scientific facts are somehow tested before the test is even conceived. How could Isaac Newton have developed a Theory of Gravity before first conceiving of it?

On the issue of the supernatural, there are plenty of documented experiments on gestalt. A child sees horrors in shadows. Are they there?

To the extent that a child can *conceive* of a threat in the shadows, that threat exists. Fundamentally it does not matter if the threat is real or not — what matters is that the idea itself was manifested.

In other words, a *thought* is quite literally the same thing as an *action*. It can be identified as a particular set of electrical impulses within the brain. But a thought is still the product of a dynamic mind. Each thought occurs within the story arc of a particular life.

Did Isaac Newton's insight about gravity occur at the instant he saw an apple fall from a tree as the moon rose in the Eastern sky?

Does it matter if the story is a parable or not?

No. The idea is plain enough: The moon is falling around the earth for the same reason the apple fell from the tree: gravity.

So where did the Theory of Gravity originate? In the thoughts of Isaac Newton.

Ideas are real. At least they are representative echos of real events in the brain of a human being at a particular point in their life. Each idea is generated within the causal stream of consciousness that occurs within each individual. Every person manifests their thoughts first as electrical impulses in the brain, and thereafter as a cascade of physical effects that echo through the body and touch off causal waves of human interactions across whole societies and even across time.

Indeed this concept could be applied to any animal with a nervous system.

What about "superstitious ideas"? I submit that these individual instances of superstitious belief are independent ingredients in an soup of collective thoughts that looks something like Jung's Archetype.

Reference the Beast of Dr. Morbius in the movie Forbidden Planet.

Antiquity does not equal quality.

Descent claims ID is defending a very old idea. Yes, and the early 'ID' proponents also defended a earth-centered solar system

Here you are reaching back into antiquity yourself, and holding up the earth-centered solar system as an example of a bad idea once excepted at true by the establishment.

The irony here is that you yourself are appealing to the Principle of Mediocrity to prove your point that there's nothing special going on in the Creation of Life on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_mediocrity

Ironic because accounting for the Observation Selection Effect is a methodological requirement in any argument that tries to explain the origins of the Universe. I suspect the OSE may even be required to explain the origin of life itself.

I'm sorry, but there are many natural explanations for readings on instruments used by 'paranormal researchers'
about Descent then ventures into an argument that science can address the supernatural, if it's allowed

So, it's not like the historical record of early 'designers' had great footing in a search for supportable fact.

The problem is that Copernicus and Gallileo flew in the face of many 'design' proponents of that era.

In more ironic contrast, the theory of the Big Bang was quite a hard pill to swallow for those anti-design proponents of the Steady State theory of the universe. Even Hubble went to his death in 2001 convinced that universe was not created at a specific moment in time that we call the Big Bang.

Matter of fact, it took Penzias and Wilson — two COMMERCIAL astronomical technicians — to discover the proof of the Big Bang BY ACCIDENT.

Could you imagine: what if the Standard Model of a static universe were the accepted rule of cosmology right now — today?

Could you imagine and grandsons of Penzias and Wilson asking their department heads for a grant to study the background radiation of the universe in an attempt to validate their hypothesis that the universe had a beginning?

Could you imagine the implications if Herr Doktor Professor Dawkins — our Grand Overseer — were to get wind of it? Heads would role, my friends.

Uncommon Descent makes the case that design paradigms are older than evolution and part of science from the beginning

Perhaps the greatest mistake Uncommon Descent makes is assuming that what occurred before Darwinism could be called a 'science'.

In the end, guidance must be proved. It cannot be assumed. That's why any theory that assumes a designer is seriously flawed

"Proved vs. assumed" is not a credible rationale for dismissing the possibility of Intelligently Guided creation. You assume that the Scientific Method is always applied in the same measure to every question of science.

For example, the obvious fact that macro-evolution is THEORETICAL by definition is frequently overlooked or ignored by both the mainstream media and by lower level science educators. Even the Multiverse hypothesis is widely accepted by cosmologists, but in the end it too is a THEORETICAL MODEL that CANNOT be demonstrated or tested, but only inferred (eg., through the Double Slit Experiment).

It appears that the standard for "proof" is not set by the Scientific Method at all, but by the fuzzy measures of social consensus.

Anti-IDers love to have their cake and eat it too, and that is intellectually dishonest.

Uncommon Descent suggests ID is a viable alternative to any theory on unguided formation of compexity. Problem is one cannot assume guidance

Uncommon Descent then makes the claim that ID falsifies evolution. It does nothing of the sort. One cannot assume a designer

If one cannot assume a designer for complexity, then one cannot assume a designer as the cause of anything. That rips out the heart of ID

Not that I am trying to prove there is no designer. Just that one cannot assume a designer when looking at complexity

The trouble is that anti-IDers condemn any assumption or framework that conflicts with the popular sensibilities of unguided materialism.

That's dishonest, and that is why anti-IDers have lost all credibility with me.

I think I just did that.

Uncommon Descent then goes on about any alternative that could explain the rise of complex systems without a designer would disprove ID

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian. Though the ID group gets points for claiming Jefferson as an ID proponent. Sort of.

Uncommon Descent makes the very common mistake of quoting the Dec of Independence on "Creator God"

In short, Uncommon Descent can say we should overlook Dembski's faith, but no one would suggest Dembski thought "laws" made everything

And being a theologian naturally means he will open his thinking with the assumption of a 'creator'. Thus, he is a creationist

However, being a theologian, tied to his statements on his faith, make it pretty clear who he thinks the 'designer' is.

So Dembski is guilty by association with his faith? Guilt by association is a logical fallacy on its face.

Uncommon Descent claims Dembski's theology background should not be used to dismiss him as a scientist. That's fair enough

There are random patterns that can give rise to complexity. Are we then to assume these are intelligent, too?

This is a straw man argument: I have never hear the argument that "random patterns give rise to complexity." That is not an observation but an introduced rhetorical device.

Uncommon Descent also holds to ID can mean one believed natural laws can "design" the universe. Law = intelligence is a mighty stretch

That is not to say that a designer does not exist, but that one need not factor a designer into the system in order to explain it

If there exist complexities arising without guidance, why should one assume intelligence behind ANY natural pattern or process?

Back to abiogenesis. How did life start?

"There is no truly 'standard model' of the origin of life." — wikipedia entry on abiogenesis.

If you don't have a quick and glib answer to this question, then you CANNOT take Guided Intelligence off the table.

But that's exactly what anti-IDers want to do.

As stated, it can be shown that there are complex patterns for which no intelligent guidance is needed.

Uncommon Descent also asserts that ID is empirically-based. The problem is in the assumption of design

Uncommon Descent also asserts that being right on the issue of "junk" genes means evolution is wrong. Not all evol'ists were "junkers"

I counter that the issue is not that esteemed natural science journals are biased against ID but that ID does not meet their criteria

Neither does the Many Worlds Interpretation of the Universe, but I don't see any gangs of anti-Multiverse crusaders trying to shout the theory down at the top of their lungs as they do for Intelligent Design.

Granted that claiming these journals are not esteemed can be met with charges of bias

Uncommon Descent asserts that ID is published in credible science journals. Not one in their list are among the esteemed in the field

Frank Tipler is a signatory of the Dissent from Darwinism. He is a respected theorist whose book The Cosmologic Anthropic Principle was a standard text book for many years before the anti-IDers realized he was talking Heresy.

Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer reviewed by Oxford's David Deutsch (who won the Paul Dirac award for his work on Quantum computing). The theoretical model of the OPT has been found sound. Look up chapter 14 of Deutsch's book The Fabric of Reality for a full analysis of Tipler's OPT.

Thus complexity in and of itself is not proof of an intelligent 'beginner' to all such complexity.

Thus, I submit there exist very complex structures that do not require "intelligence", thus ripping out the heart of the ID argument

Point of all this? Not all patterns have an intelligent "hand" in the background.

Holland and others talk about self-organizing patterns in nature and the universe

Also, SETI scientists can readily show many perfectly coincidental patterns in nature than look like intelligent creations.

Some ID proponents have borrowed Holland's ideas to support ID, but he shows in nature examples of RANDOM patterns rising to compexity

Holland's algorithms do not require the guidance of an intelligent "hand" in order to produce complex structures.

John Holland, founder of genetic algorithms also demo'd that very simple 'atoms' can give rise to very complex structures.

In the end, your argument rests almost entirely on the FAQ page from Uncommon Descent and on the supposed incredibility of one ID researcher. Additionally, your core argument seems based on a perfunctory dismissal of Guided Intelligence as a solution for any possible problem.

I can demonstrate the inaccuracy of this approach simply by directing you the theory of Directed Panspermia, in which many leading scientists (including Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick among many others) have found a solution to the origin of life.

If Directed Panspermia isn't an example proposing a "Guided Intelligence Solution" I don't know what is.

Regarding copy-with-modification, yes, ancient documents were reproduced that way, with the attendant scribal errors. The errors are always regarded as corruptions, diluting the integrity of the document, sometimes to the point where the document had to be discarded. The original document, with enough errors, could be reduced to gibberish.

A particularly bad analogy, I would say. Those very document errors are used by skeptics to cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible, and yet the process is also used to illustrate (however loosely) the process of evolution. And you call ID'rs dishonest?

Evolution certainly doesn't belong in the ranks of the other things you cited. Putting evolution in such a list lends gravitas to it that is not warranted by the facts.

Well, you can have your opinion on that. But the evidence for evolution really does strike me as, well, staggering. Here's a good one: The "twin nested hierarchies".

Books used to be copied by scribes, and (despite a lot of care) sometimes typos would be introduced. Later scribes, making copies of copies, would introduce other typos. It's possible to look at the existing copies and put them into a 'family tree'. "These copies have this typo, but not that one; this other group has yet another typo, though three of them have a newer typo as well, not seen elsewhere…" This is not controversial at all when dealing with books, including the Bible.

Now, this process of copy-with-modification naturally produces 'family trees', nested groups. When we look at life, we find such nested groups. No lizards with fur or nipples, no mammals with feathers, etc. Living things (at least, multicellular ones, see below) fit into a grouped hierarchy. This has been solidly recognized for over a thousand years, and systematized for centuries. It was one of the clues that led Darwin to propose evolution.

Today, more than a century later, we find another tree, one Darwin never suspected – that of DNA. This really is a 'text' being copied with rare typos. And, as expected, it also forms a family tree, a nested hierarchy. And, with very very few surprises, it's the same tree that was derived from looking at physical traits.

It didn't have to be that way. Even very critical genes for life – like that of cytochrome C – have a few neutral variations, minor mutations that don't affect its function. (Genetic sequences for cytochrome C differ by up to 60% across species.) Wheat engineered to use the mouse form of cytochrome C grows just fine. But we find a tree of mutations that fits evolution precisely, instead of some other tree. (Imagine if a tree derived from bookbinding technology – "this guy used this kind of glue, but this other bookbinder used a different glue…" – conflicted with a tree that was derived from typos in the text of the books. We'd know at least one tree and maybe both were wrong.)

The details of these trees are very specific and very, very numerous. There are billions of quadrillions of possible trees… and yet the two that we see (DNA and morphology) happen to very precisely match. This is either a staggering coincidence, or a Creator deliberately arranged it in a misleading manner, or… common ancestry is actually true.

Once you accept common ancestry, it's a very short step to neo-Darwinian evolution. Lots more evidence there. But, as I recall, you're one of the people here at IC who's not sure about common ancestry.

(Single-celled organisms are much more 'promiscuous' in their reproduction and spread genes willy-nilly without respect for straightforward inheritance. With single-celled creatures, it looks more like a 'web' of life than a 'tree'. But even if the tree of life has tangled roots, it's still very definitely a tree when it comes to multicellular life.)

And it didn't take long to being in the condescending "until you study them" comment. Yup, every one who believes in God is an idiot, while SCIENCE will lead us to truth and peace.

Um… no. Not what I said at all. I said they were counterintutive – which is pretty much the opposite of "only idiots doubt them". You might need to be a genius to discover something like heliocentrism or Relativity, but you certainly don't need to be a genius to learn about them and decide that they are solid theories with a lot of compelling evidence, that make testable predictions that are borne out again and again.

Like evolution.

Okay. You haven't provided any actual evidence to back up this claim, but in the interest of advancing the argument, let's just say it's true.

Now please answer part two of my question. That is, now that you have identified the boundary of the OSE, please let me know *where* in time and space this border exists. In other words, does this "twilight" exist only at the start of the universe, or does it exist much closer to our own time — let's say within the last 5 billion years? Or is is possible that the OSE Twilight Zone is even closer than that?

Oh, and BTW, this video deserves its own post…

I have already admitted that I am not especially well informed about the biological arguments in favor of ID.

But… that's what you'd need to study up on to determine if the comments (you seem mostly to be focusing on the comments and not the articles themselves) were warranted or not. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, "You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong… Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is 'wishful thinking.' You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself… If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic…"

You may find the commentors, or even the article authors, to be uncivil. But the relevant question is whether or not they are wrong. From looking into those arguments, they do seem to me to have the right of it.

To my way of thinking, in the multiverse, it is certain that some universes will go to Heat Death while others will go to Big Crunch… All the other universes (either with stars or without) will subsequently fall into place under His Divine Will.

But current cosomological theory indicates (a) that our universe is headed for a Heat Death, and (b) that other universes, if they exist, are forever disconnected from ours, causally. Even if there's a "Big Crunch God" out there in another universe, with infinite computational steps and effective energy supply… It still can't affect this universe. At most, It could simulate this universe within that universe. (Then we get into the whole simulation hypothesis stuff, but that seems like the kind of chin Occam's Razor was made to shave.)

Evolution certainly doesn't belong in the ranks of the other things you cited. Putting evolution in such a list lends gravitas to it that is not warranted by the facts.

And it didn't take long to being in the condescending "until you study them" comment. Yup, every one who believes in God is an idiot, while SCIENCE will lead us to truth and peace.

Here's the money quote from Panda's Thumb that I think defines the entire approach of the anti-ID crusaders:

Examine, then destroy the fallacious claims made by Intelligent Design proponents with logic and science.

Just imagine if you and I were the judges in a trial in which evidence was presented to us under an a priori conclusion that all "claims" presented by the defense were "fallacious" before any evidence was even heard.

Would this not be an iconic representation of a classic "kangaroo court"?

It seems reasonable to assume that a certain percentage of ID supporters are intellectually dishonest. In light of the evidence, I think it's safe to say the same about the fulminating ID detractors at PT, ERV, and really throughout the mainstream media.

So where does this leave us?

I have already admitted that I am not especially well informed about the biological arguments in favor of ID.

However, I am somewhat more informed about cosmological arguments for Intelligent Design.

I am certain you are already familiar with Frank Tipler's Omega Point Theory describing a theoretical model in which a closed (3-sphere) universe may be converted en masse to Intelligent Purpose.

Despite the fact that Tipler is a well-known and respected theorist with a perfectly qualified pedigree, lesser scientists (like this knuckle-dragger) are notoriously quick critics of his conclusions.

But other more respectable scientists like David Deutsch are rather more credible sources. I always recommend that jerk-knee detractors of the OPT have a good look at chapter 14 of Professor Deutsch's book, The Fabric of Reality.

While Deutsch does not hold Tipler's conclusions about the emergence of a super-computational Intelligence at the far end of time, he nevertheless CONFIRMS Tipler's theoretical model as entirely reasonable on its own terms:

The key discovery in the omega-point theory is that of a class of cosmological models in which, though the universe is finite in both space and time, the memory capacity, the number of possible computational steps and the effective energy supply are all unlimited. This apparent impossibility can happen because of the extreme violence of the final moments of the universe’s Big Crunch collapse.

To my way of thinking, in the multiverse, it is certain that some universes will go to Heat Death while others will go to Big Crunch.

The thing is, an intelligently-guided Big Crunch only needs to happen ONCE in order to establish the Omega Point.

God only needs to do it *one* time. All the other universes (either with stars or without) will subsequently fall into place under His Divine Will.

If ONCE is all it takes for God to create Himself in the multiverse, well, that's good enough for me.