Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Significance of the Dover Decision
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 121 of 150 (452583)
01-30-2008 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by randman
01-29-2008 3:04 PM


Still waiting for an answer
Edited by Admin, : Reduce image size.
Edited by Trixie, : sig removed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 3:04 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 7:19 PM Trixie has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 122 of 150 (452589)
01-30-2008 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Trixie
01-30-2008 7:08 PM


rape?
an answer on rape?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Trixie, posted 01-30-2008 7:08 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Trixie, posted 01-30-2008 7:35 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 123 of 150 (452590)
01-30-2008 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by bluegenes
01-30-2008 4:31 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
natural selection is not exclusive evidence of Darwinian evolution, nor imo is it evidence at all since it works against increasing genetic diversity and so against macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 01-30-2008 4:31 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2008 10:59 AM randman has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 124 of 150 (452597)
01-30-2008 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by randman
01-30-2008 7:19 PM


Re: rape?
That's my signature box

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 7:19 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Admin, posted 01-30-2008 8:06 PM Trixie has not replied
 Message 127 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 1:50 AM Trixie has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 125 of 150 (452610)
01-30-2008 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Trixie
01-30-2008 7:35 PM


Re: rape?
Maybe not the best signature in most threads.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Trixie, posted 01-30-2008 7:35 PM Trixie has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 126 of 150 (452677)
01-31-2008 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Percy
01-30-2008 3:49 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
I listed something like 16, by no means exhaustive. Imo, you have not discounted them and the ones you do blast seem to be based on either bashing the publication or saying a mistake is made or that it was in a book. Qualifying the differences between books and peer-review and peer-edited is fine. Just saying because evos don't like it that something was published doesn't cut it imo.
Moreover, you don't address all of the articles. Here is another one by the way.
D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315.
This experimental study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, finding that, “roughly one in 1064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain” and that the “overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077.” Axe concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.” Since Darwinian evolution only preserves biological structures which confer a functional advantage, this indicates it would be very difficult for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. This research also shows that there are high levels of specified complexity in enzymes, a hallmark indicator of intelligent design. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: "In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design." See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design".
The author clearly believes his article adds to the case for Intelligent Design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 01-30-2008 3:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2008 1:58 AM randman has not replied
 Message 130 by Percy, posted 01-31-2008 9:14 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 127 of 150 (452690)
01-31-2008 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Trixie
01-30-2008 7:35 PM


what a horrible signature line
As far as the Lemon test, you may be surprised to hear a majority of Supreme court justices have questioned it's validity. No case has come before them to overturn it, but I would not be surprised to see it thrown out.
But for this thread and my views, I think you are not appreciating my comments on being an originalist in interpreting the Constitution. Case law does not trump the Constitution. I don't accept the living document view of the Constitution and neither do many judges and politicians. We will see who prevails over time, but if you guys nominate Hillary, it may well be we do for the next 8 yrs...
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Trixie, posted 01-30-2008 7:35 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2008 8:35 AM randman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 128 of 150 (452693)
01-31-2008 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by randman
01-31-2008 12:46 AM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
That's already on your list. And if your list wasn't exhaustive then why not do some quality control on it ? Since the sub-title is "ID research as it relates to Dover" you could take out all the non-research papers for a start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 12:46 AM randman has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 129 of 150 (452734)
01-31-2008 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by randman
01-31-2008 1:50 AM


Geniunely curious
As far as the Lemon test, you may be surprised to hear a majority of Supreme court justices have questioned it's validity. No case has come before them to overturn it, but I would not be surprised to see it thrown out
I have no idea what time scales you are talking about here but the majority opinion from McCreary County vs ACLU of Kentucky:
quote:
Despite the intuitive importance of official purpose to the realization of Establishment Clause values, the Counties ask us to abandon Lemon’s purpose test, or at least to truncate any enquiry into purpose here. Their first argument is that the very consideration of purpose is deceptive: according to them, true purpose is unknowable, and its search merely an excuse for courts to act selectively and unpredictably in picking out evidence of subjective intent. The assertions are as seismic as they are unconvincing.
The last I heard it was only 3 judges that were of the opinion the Lemon test should go, Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas. Since then, who else has jumped on board? As you can imagine, our news media doesn't cover details about US constitutional opinion of a US branch of government too much.
As a side note, (I'm not looking to debate it, which is why I'm not replying to the post in question), whether or not Axe actually does support ID is under dispute. An interesting discussion can be found here - which is doubly interesting because of the acknowledgement: "Also, many thanks are due to Douglas Axe, who graciously helped me with early drafts of this essay. ". The only reason I mention this at all is because Axe was one of the few papers related to Dover: Dembski included it in his Expert Report, along with nine other papers.
Out of curiosity, has the dearth of papers that even remotely related to ID as shown by Dover resulted in an increase in ID's production of explicitly ID work? I've not seen any such increase in research, but that would make Dover quite significant - "a much needed kick in the pants", I believe you say stateside.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 1:50 AM randman has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 130 of 150 (452743)
01-31-2008 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by randman
01-31-2008 12:46 AM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
And from the Department of Redundancy Department we have:
randman writes:
I listed something like 16, by no means xhaustive...Here is another one by the way.
A list that you claim wasn't exhaustive, yet when you added one more we discover it was already on your list.
By the way, here's a hint: a cut-n-paste of a link is not itself a link, so no one can follow your "link" where it says "See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology 'Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design'". You need to either link to the original webpage (which was apparently at the Discovery Institute), or go to the trouble of recreating the links after the cut-n-paste, or cut-n-paste from the original HTML source if it doesn't rely in some essential way upon css classes.
The significance of the Dover decision is the exact opposite of what you're arguing. The decision ruled that ID is not science, because for the most part IDists don't do science, they do political lobbying. I guess you're presenting references to ID papers to show that the judge's decision was wrong, but using the paper you just referenced, the description of Axe's paper that you include isn't from the abstract. His paper doesn't mention intelligent design or specified complexity. You can find the original abstract, along with the proper representation of exponents (e.g., 1077 should have been 1077) at Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds. It may be the author's opinion that his research supports ID, but how are scientists going to know this if he only points it out at ID websites instead of in the paper itself?
That being said, D. D. Axe (not D. A. Axe is in your cut-n-paste) is taking the precisely correct approach, doing research and presenting it in peer-reviewed technical journals. If he and other ID researchers succeed in forming a consensus around ID within scientific circles, then ID will start appearing in textbooks and classrooms shortly after. Presenting persuasive research results is how all other science became accepted. It's the only avenue open to any new science.
Taking a scientific case to school boards instead of journals is a giant red flag that shouts, "We couldn't convince scientists, but we can sure convince hicks like you." Members of school boards should run from IDists the same way they would from someone on the street who says, "Psst, hey buddy, want to buy a genuine Rolex for just $10?"
The Journal of Molecular Biology charges $30 for access to articles, including the references, so I can't do a search to see which papers referenced the 2004 Axe paper, but there's an article over at Panda's Thumb (Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function) that gives a rough sense of the kind of scientific dialogue that should be taking place between Axe and his scientific peers. If Axe convinces his peers then celebrate, because it means ID wins. But right now ID remains an extremely minority view within science, one which is barely studied in any scientific manner.
Even within fundamentalist Christian circles ID is a minority view, since most are YEC creationists who reject not just evolution but much of science. Probably the true danger to ID comes not from scientists but from their fellow conservative Christians, who once they discover ID contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis will throw it out of the classroom faster than you can say "Adam and Eve." These are some of the actual significant aspects of the Dover decision.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 12:46 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 10:30 AM Percy has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 131 of 150 (452774)
01-31-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Percy
01-31-2008 9:14 AM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
It may be the author's opinion that his research supports ID, but how are scientists going to know this if he only points it out at ID websites instead of in the paper itself?
Imo, this argument is disingenious. We all know within evo circles, the idea of ID is highly charged and likely to set off a firestorm of persecution and protest among evos towards anyone daring to publish explicitly ID papers, though it seems that is happening nonetheless. I think what happened at the Smithsonian is ample evidence and example of such a witchhunt, and incidentally, the media and Congressional review came to the same conclusion. I realize you guys will disagree, but it's worth noting a lot of people that are not creationists or IDers agree it was a witchunt and wrong.
You know when the NYTs agrees with randman and other conservatives, that it's pretty doggone likely the case for persecution rather than objectivity is very strong.
Anyway, I think you realize a paper can be favorable to ID discussing one of it's tenets or discounting Darwinism without having to explicitly use the term, Intelligent Design, which would just create (to try to inject some humor here) the usual pavlovian response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Percy, posted 01-31-2008 9:14 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2008 10:39 AM randman has replied
 Message 134 by Rahvin, posted 01-31-2008 10:44 AM randman has replied
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 01-31-2008 11:08 AM randman has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 132 of 150 (452783)
01-31-2008 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by randman
01-31-2008 10:30 AM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
Imo, this argument is disingenious. We all know within evo circles, the
idea of ID is highly charged and likely to set off a firestorm of persecution and protest among evos towards anyone daring to publish explicitly ID papers, though it seems that is happening nonetheless. I think what happened at the Smithsonian is ample evidence and example of such a witchhunt, and incidentally, the media and Congressional review came to the same conclusion. I realize you guys will disagree, but it's worth noting a lot of people that are not creationists or IDers agree it was a witchunt and wrong.
This exact logic was tried by the defense in the Dover trial to explain why there was no papers and it was soundly rejected.
Some others who have read the transcripts might need to help me with my memory but I even believe that the defense was rebuked when trying use the smithsonian issue as rhetoric.
You cannot say that Congressional review came to the conclusion that there was a witch hunt at the smithsonian when all of 2 congressmen were the ones responsible for the biased report. 2 who have direct ties to the ID/creo movement.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 10:30 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 10:41 AM Jazzns has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 133 of 150 (452787)
01-31-2008 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Jazzns
01-31-2008 10:39 AM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
Soundly rejected by a judge in District court....doesn't mean all that much and if you guys understood that District courts rule all the time contrary to one another, you'd realize that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2008 10:39 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2008 10:45 AM randman has not replied
 Message 136 by Trixie, posted 01-31-2008 11:07 AM randman has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 134 of 150 (452791)
01-31-2008 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by randman
01-31-2008 10:30 AM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
Imo, this argument is disingenious. We all know within evo circles, the idea of ID is highly charged and likely to set off a firestorm of persecution and protest among evos towards anyone daring to publish explicitly ID papers,
As well it should becasue extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Let me repeat that.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
How about the last part.
...require extraordinary evidence.
If someone makes a claim as extraordinary as ID, that all life on Earth is actually the work of some higher designer, that someone had better be able to back it up with much better evidence than the easily falsified "irreducible complexity" BS, especially with the mountain of evidence directly contradicting ID (that many evolved structures, in fact, are stupid, they simply work well enough).
If you step into a room full of physicists and make a bizzare claim like "relativity is false!" (or anything like what tesla says every day around here), you should be met with ridicule unless you can back up your claim with ironclad evidence.
IDists have never produced any significant evidence beyond incredulity and religion. Until they do, real scientists will continue to make fun of them. Believing in god (or an unnamed "designer") is one thing. Believing you can prove it scientifically is quite another.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 10:30 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 11:11 AM Rahvin has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 135 of 150 (452792)
01-31-2008 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by randman
01-31-2008 10:41 AM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
Soundly rejected by a judge in District court....doesn't mean all that much and if you guys understood that District courts rule all the time contrary to one another, you'd realize that.
Actually IIRC, its because it was hearsay. The important thing is WHY it was considered hearsay. Exactly because there was NO Congressional ruling on the issue made it hearsay. Santorium was one congressman. He and his lacky hardly count as "Congressional review". Again, if you had read the transcripts you would know.
Are you ever going to answer the question as to why the Dover expert defense didn't drag out the many ID papers when they had the chance?

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 10:41 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024