The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge

It's the chicken or the egg son, potato potato.See, to me science is science. The questions differ, so the fields differ. Geology, biology, astrology, physics, astrophysics, and now someone says intelligent design, like it's a field. It’s not a field, it's a question asked to acknowledge the potential of greater being.Consider the difference that is made in the evolution of a species when it is manipulated by an intelligent being. Plant cross breeds and hybrids, fox's become dogs. What role does such a tiny planet play in the realm of intelligence in the universe?That is the real question. Intelligent Design is one proposal as an answer to that question. Just like the big bang is a description of what mathematically happened, which some unanswered questions remain, and there is needed more detailed proof to support interpretations by allowing opposing interpretations to exist for debate and argument.

If it was a scientific question, it would be phrased as an hypothesis, and it would be addressed using the scientific method. It would define specific data that it would address, along with a proposed explanation for that data. And most importantly, to be a scientific question, it would have a proposed method to test that hypothesis.Unfortunately, to date, intelligent design has been addressed primarily through public relations and propaganda (i.e., the Discovery Institute) rather than through science. Even the most "scientific" of approaches, that of Behe, has been shown to be simply religious apologetics in disguise--and that in a Federal court and under oath! But is intelligent design a scientific hypothesis? What is the data set that it purports to explain? And how can it be tested against that data set? Can it successfully make predictions? Is the explanation more parsimonious than existing explanations (existing theories)?To date, the proponents of intelligent design have been peddling religion in disguise, and thinly disguised at that. Look at that text book, Of Pandas and People and how it evolved. Here is a good link:"Cdesign Proponentsists" | National Center for Science EducationAfter the Supreme Court decision banning creationism, the authors revised a draft of their book to replace "creationists" with "design-proponents." But they didn't do a good job and ended up with "cdesign-proponentsists" in one place. The rest of the text remained the same, but "creationists" was mostly replaced with "design-proponents."That's not only dishonest, but its a serious boo-boo on their part. Its not that the rest of us didn't know what they were trying to do, but they spilled the beans big time! Major egg on face!So until you can come up with something that relies on the scientific method more successfully than Behe, and is not just religious apologetics, such as the Discovery Institute and Of Pandas and People, don't expect for intelligent design to be taken seriously by scientists.It is religion dolled up and pretending to be science, and everyone knows it.

All what you said still doesn't show how you would go about researching ID, try to read a bit about how hypothesis are checked:
Tests of special relativity - WikipediaThis:

quote:

---

Special relativity also predicts that two light rays traveling in opposite directions around a loop or closed path require different flight times to come back to the moving emitter/receiver (this is a consequence of the independence of the speed of light from the velocity of the source, see above). This effect was actually observed and is called the Sagnac effect. Currently, the consideration of this effect is necessary for many experimental setups and for the correct functioning of GPS.

---

is of particuliar interest since the test has direct real world application in our day to day lives.Just hand-waving around is not science, you need to show how you would actually work.

Either way you cut it, it's still a scientific question. you can argue til the day is dead, and it will not change the fact that the question of the chicken or the egg is still one people want answered, and science is the path to understanding our universe.Was a flying car first introduced into the paths of science? not really, it has been an old dream and science breakthroughs eventually made it possible to create one.What about A.I.? Do you really doubt that we will not eventually figure out a way to create that?So what about origins? Do you really believe science has all the answers? So why are you in such a huff about scientists admitting God is a potential until science can figure it out, if ever? But the probability of knowing sooner or later depends on what you invest in.The only thing naysayers do is otherwise slow down scientific funding and discovery because they disagree with a hypothesis that needs more research. Research on Pluto or planets start with capabilities, and that’s all you have been bickering: we don't have the capabilities. I said, oh hey, since we KNOW how brains share and send information, let’s try using that method of reading and writing by scanning waves of the electromagnetic spectrum to see if we could communicate with an intelligence that is greater, but oh wait, we can’t do that because WE DONT HAVE THAT CAPABILITY. Yet. So go get, get funding for it, and admit your atheistic and negative approach to anything concerning God in science is foolish and more damage to science than good. Many people are waking up to the reality that science and politics is run by intelligent idiots, people incapable of recognizing when they are being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn, and in the process are slowing science. So you know what? I have nothing more to say to you.

Then you don't get the five million dollars, because you'd spend the entire amount trying to figure out how to spend five million more dollars.The complaint that inspired the OP is that the Discovery Institute claims to be doing research into Intelligent Design, but appears to be doing nothing more than what you are doing, namely talking trash about where they want to look. Then you come along and do more of the same trash talking, but with even less specificity than we can find at DI's Biologics Institute. I think I saw one of those things on 'The Jetsons'.

My solution is more complete because the places to put the money already exist.Examine my suggestion:
First: The science communities as a whole accept the question to answer: does greater consciousness exist? (God) and the current answer known is: I don't know, but it is potential.Second, the institute that supports research to that end will simply disperse the funds to the growing fields that show promise to that end: be it A.I capabilities, Space travel, or scientific physical data on consciousness, such as chemical and electrical similarities with ideas or emotions.The point is to give the religious or spiritual to have a place to put funds into research that may one day make it possible to communicate with 'God' more effectively. But it's a science hub, supported by all scientists, to do research in their fields to progress the species, and give us the understanding we need to work together to solve global problems.See?

Yes I see what you've posted. But you've posted nothing that changes my mind. Perhaps an example of something from DI would be helpful here.Once you get past the 'Perspectives' PR on the front page, uou can find the following discussion at the Biologics Institute webpage:Research - Biologic Institute

quote:

---

To address these questions, we are measuring the functional information in proteins by examining their ability to withstand sequence alterations. We are teaming up with mathematicians, like William Dembski, to examine the issue of fundamental constraints on search-based acquisition of information. And we are building and testing computational models that mimic the role of genetic information in specifying functions by means of structure-forming sequences.

---

So we have some idea of what DI would spend money on if they were really doing research. Or at least we would have an idea if "fundamental constraints on search based acquisition of information" wasn't just "poke and hope" (a phrase often used to describe my miserable aim on a pool table.) This is the kind of stuff that I and others are complaining about (well that and the fact we know the kind of malarkey some Dembski has produced in the past). In fact, these guys seem much like me at the pool table; talking much game -- pocketing very few balls.Yet your proposals are even more sketchy. With the kind of hints you've given out, it would seem more productive to fund Wile E. and Acme than to give you the 5 million.See?

Hi Tesla,Let's imagine an application form for the $5 million ID research grant:

1. What is your hypothesis? Please include a description of the evidence upon which your hypothesis is based.
   ​
2. How will you investigate your hypothesis? General outlines of the experimental and/or observational procedures are sufficient.
   ​
3. What results are expected if your hypothesis is true? Please be specific.

This is the minimal amount of information necessary for considering a research proposal.--Percy

Hello Tesla I firmly BELIEVE? You are invoking a priori thought system here and you want to talk about ID qualifying as a science?You do know the checklist for the Scientific Method don't you?1. Make observations in the REAL universe (not some fantasy scenario thought up in one's head).
2. Postulate hypothesis that explains the observations.
3. Check the hypothesis by experimentation/corroborating evidence - there MUST be positive predications that can be verified.
4. Define the conditions of FALSIFIABILITY - hint - it is even more important to describe what a hypothesis CANNOT do than what it can. A hypothesis that can glibly say everything is possible is NFG.
5. Subject to corroboration of point 3 and that identified falsifiables do not in fact occur in the scenario under consideration, move tentatively towards the powerful scientific theory, whilst all the time being prepared to modify or completely trash the hypothesis in the light of new evidence.Above all, the hypothesis/theory must be validated by REAL evidence in the REAL universe.If the above 5 point scientific method is not strictly followed then the practitioner is NOT doing science no matter what shit they think.Here is an example of the scientific method at work:1. OBSERVATION: Life on Earth is very diverse with many organisms adapted for life in numerous ways. Linnaen taxonomy indicates a 'tree of life'. How did this come about?2. HYPOTHESIS: Life on Earth originated from a common ancestor and diversified as a result of mutation and natural selection and enabled by geographic (amongst other) barriers that separate groups of individuals and allow speciation and variation to proceed.3. VERIFY BY EXPERIMENT/EVIDENCE CORROBORATION: If life started from a common ancestor and diversified there will be evidence of this in the genetic make up of species which will reflect the ordering. This will also be apparent in the fossil record and species population demography to name but a few fields.4. HOW IS THIS HYPOTHESIS FALSIFIED?: There should be a strict ordering of fossils according to time (no rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian) and no innovative features should 'jump' lines (i.e. the correctly wired cephalopods eyes suddenly jumping into late developed mammals eyes) to name just two major falsifiable factors for the above hypothesis -even one example in either of the two factors would totally trash the hypothesis.5. After 150 plus years of observation and experimentation, point no. 3 is in the affirmative and point no. 4 has no evidence of falsifiability (despite the conditions being given that allow it to be so) so ....the hypothesis becomes the ToE in all its strength.Now....Please list the scientific methodology for ID. I would be particularly interested in your descriptors of the FALSIFIABILITY section. This should read as in the example above - REAL statements that can be checked in the real world. If you cannot do this then ID cannot conform to the Scientific Method and is NOT science.You are aware of the background to ID, the Wedge Strategy and the dishonesty it all implies aren't you?Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.(But don't say that! We've got to pretend we're doing science!)

Indeed! I can't wait to see how he provides falsification for something he can't even vaguely describe.

I'm still not seeing a testable hypothesis, and experiments that are meant to test it.

I am not asking for places to put money. I am asking for specific hypotheses, and the experiments that are needed to test those hypotheses. For example, here is an excerpt from an NIH R01 grant:

quote:

---

Aim 1. To define the structural variation in parvovirus capsids, and to determine the effects on capsid
functions and DNA release. Hypothesis: That the capsids of parvoviruses undergo structural variation that is
important for infection. That occurs through the binding or release of divalent ions, by site-specific proteolysis,
or by variation in specific intra- or inter-chain bonds.
a) Further define the structural flexibility in the capsid through analysis of the structures and to identify
sources of variation using specific peptide and protease analysis.
b) Determine the functions of specific capsid structures by preparing mutants with altered inter-chain bonds,
divalent ion binding sites, or protease cleavage sites.
c) Compare the functions of capsid structures in mutant or naturally variant viruses to reveal the structures
and interactions that are critical for capsid stability, TfR binding, and the processes of cell infection.
The page you’re looking for isn’t available | NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

---

That's the type of science I am asking for. I am asking for specific hypotheses that relate directly to how life was designed in the past, and the experiments that are need to test these hypotheses. All you have offered so far is to fire people off in space in hopes of finding people who already have the answers. That isn't science.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Look Percy it is this simple:1. 'God' is potential. Greater intelligence has never been found or measured, and we cannot communicate with lesser intelligence effectively. Which means: there is a lot we do not know, and in light of that, we should research.2. Research should include interstellar, as well as mind and intelligence generated through 'artificial' intelligence models, which may and could become greater intelligence.The bottom line: To absolutely say God is not, or that God is, is an assumption, a chosen belief. And scientists are being foolish by not allowing funding from those who would and could fund such research as long as the title of the research also includes an admittance that God is a possibility.I know it is falling on deaf ears, but hey, ignorant, arrogant, intelligent fools cannot see wisdom.Edited by tesla, : structure.

Alternatively, intelligent people recognise arrogance and ignorance when they hear it.