Monday, September 25, 2006


1. russ // Permalink to this comment">Sep 25th 2006 at 12:30 pm

If I may I would like to plug Wells’ book. It’s easy for a non-technical person like myself, but I’ve been able to glean even more from a second reading (and underlining). It would make a great gift book as well, since it’s a pretty comprehensive overview of the entire debate.

Comment by russ — September 25, 2006 @ 12:30 pm

Apparently they do not use google over at uncommondescent. Otherwise they might have found the chapter by chapter dismissial of the very same book. It's been the 1st or second result on a google search for a while now. Or perhaps they think that because they've been blocked from google that they can't search it? Would not surprise me at all.

Now, most books dont get big groups of people dividing it up and directing a bright light on it, chapter by chapter. So, no matter what you think about the issues, it's gotta make you stop and think a bit right? Not russ! He loves it! Perhaps he's been underlining the words he does not understand? Or perhaps, like in the bibble, there's a secret code that contains the answers to all of russ's question's (and i'd pay money to see those!).
Bet people just love getting presents from russ! Ordered 25 you say? Hmm. Oh Dear. Bet christmas is great over at russ's! And somehow, i just know he celebrates it :)

Sure russ, go ahead, plug the book. Nobody else will!

Monday, September 18, 2006

ID Exam Question: design can be objectively detected, and that it’s not all that difficult

Apparently so. This is from GilDodgen over at UncommonDescent (where else!)

He says

My bottom-line thesis is that design can be objectively detected, and that it’s not all that difficult.

Well, Mr GilDodgen, would you care to illustrate how exactly it can be detected?
This illustration should be sufficient to allow a 3rd party to come to the same conclusion (objectively done, remember!) as yourself.
Which strikes me as odd, as nowhere does GilDodgen explain if he detected design in his own writings (I did not!) and how he would go about it anyway if he were to try.
So not only does he indicate that design is easy to detect he then fails to detect design in his own writings! So, if he fails at that point what hope is there for detecting design elsewhere also?

He then says

If a few alliterative M’s can spark a conclusive design inference, what about nature and living systems? I propose that the only reason for denying design in nature is that it would make some people philosophically uncomfortable. They should just feel uncomfortable and get used to it.

Oh, of course, that's why all those biologists reject ID - because their feel philosophically uncomfortable with it? Doh, it's so clear now! I mean, it's not as if 5 odd years of higher learning and then perhaps another 5 on top of that make much of a difference, it's because they are not open minded enougth to accept de truth. Thanks for pointing this out, however this would seem to fall under the "opinion" section, if you want these actual scientists to come round to your point of view you'd better try harder then this! This is real schoolkid stuff, right here!

And what crap about alliterative M's anyway, if this is conclusive proof of design then please show your working! If there was 1 less M would it have been almost conclusive proof? Not quite but 99% proof?

It would appear he's been drinking 99% proof to believe this drivel.

Part of the headline of the article is

When does design become obvious?

Now, excuse me but I thought that design detection was at the forefront if ID "science"? If you are still asking the most basic inane questions about the bedrock of your "science" then is it really apt to say "I propose that the only reason for denying design in nature is that it would make some people philosophically uncomfortable. They should just feel uncomfortable and get used to it."? Perhaps the reason they reject your "science" is that you cannot even answer the most basic questions about it, such as when does design become obvious?

And the full headline is:

ID exam question: When does design become obvious? And a challenge: Write a meaningful English sentence with the greatest number of alliterative M’s.

ID exam question indeed - this is the ultimate wet dream of these morons, but it will
never happen that there is such a thing as a ID exam paper. What, exactly, will be on it?

Here is a picture of the "face on mars"

a) determine if this is a natural object, or has been designed
b) put a value on the complex specified information in this object

When it's put like that, it seems almost reasonable but the thing to remember is that you'd never get a mark back on this exam because THERE IS NO ANSWER BOOK. Even the "experts" on ID cannot put a figure on any object's CSI ("it has alot of it" or "it's obviously designed" will not do) or if any given object is designed or not. And even if they could, no two of them would agree on the answer anyway (if they did, then that's a bit more like science eh?)

So before throwing out such shit as

“A microbe did not mysteriously mutate into Mozart and his music, and most people, thankfully, are smart enough to figure out that this is a silly idea.”
why dont you get back to answering the most basic questions about your "science" instead? What's so mysterious about mutation anyway? The fact that it seems mysterious to you because you are ignorant about mutation does not count, is this where you do your science? On a blog? Get out there into the real world and start to put some action behind your words, or are you just here to play to the crowds and get you 10 minutes of "fame". Mind you, if my audience was the dribbling morons that frequent the comment section at UD (with the odd exception) then i'd hardly consider that "fame" or even a sucess. Get a life GilDodgen, go out and do something worthwhile with it instead of defending religion dressed up as science.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Another Gem From DaveScot - why ID has failed so far

If you want ID to succeed, you’d better hope that it can produce something better than what it has so far.

If you want to ID to remain censored you’d better hope you can continue to find sympathetic judges who will agree it is a violation of the establishment clause to even criticize chance worship dogma in public schools. Absent that, NDE is a dead duck.

Comment by DaveScot — September 15, 2006 @ 3:23 pm

This little Gem of an exchange has been in my drafts folder for a few days, but i just cannot let it go without comment.

So, according to DaveGeniusScot (IQ of a million!) the reason (the ONLY reason) that ID has not taken over is that it's censored in public schools. There are a few problems with this, that i can see:

a) There are alot of private schools already "teaching" creationism (lets call a spade a spade, ID == Creationism)
b) What would be the point of critically examining something before you've even learnt what it is?

What i mean by b) is that evilution is a big, vast subject, with over 40 books written on the evolution of the immune system for starters. Any problem you might find with a specific topic is specific only to that topic - you can hardly say "no way could the eye have evoloved, therefore all of evolution is bunk". Except that is in fact exactly what they are saying "no way could the flagellium have evolved, therefore nothing did".

So, yes, lets critically examine Evilution. However, lets do it outside of school, in the lab where you can do "experiments" (remember those DaveTard? People DOING things, not just writing about them and pointing out mistakes that are not really mistakes but seem like it due to your lack of education in the subject) and come to conclusions that are not driven by people with an agenda (and whatever you say, the ID's agenda is not to find the TRUTH, or even look for it, but to give a place for god in science).

And, is ID really censored? Hardly. As noted, plenty of places teach creationism, and as this
post at UD explains

Around the US, and around the world, intelligent design is in the college classroom. 100+ universities and colleges listed as including intelligent design in their class plans. Universities are investigating intelligent design analytically and synthetically. Biology, physics, philosophy of science, philosophy, politics, and religion classes are evaluating the research and publications of ID theorists and scientists. Below is our confirmed list of classes, some of which are reoffered, some not. Classes listed here are not necessarily strictly about intelligent design, but they do have discussion, assignments, and/or a unit on intelligent design.

Make your mind up (such as it is) DaveTard, it's either being censored or it's not? And according to scordova (a font of wisdom!) there's over 100+ universities already discussing ID.

So, DS, I say to you you are a LIAR! If ID is being censored, explain the 100+ uni's discussing it RIGHT NOW?
Looking for that Dead Duck still? Look in the Mirror!

DaveScot says "I can’t blame Nazi eugenics entirely on Darwin." Mixing up a science batter.

Well, that's a relief. Cant blame it entirely on the Nazis. Blames it almost completely then? Or what?

DaveScot opens it and this gem flows out:
"I can’t blame Nazi eugenics entirely on Darwin. The observation that superior parents tend to produce superior offspring is ancient and that is the principle behind the science of eugenics. The problem comes about when we apply scientific principles unleavened by compassion".
Comment by DaveScot — September 15, 2006 @ 10:28 am

So, when we apply scientific priciples "unleavened" by compassion we get Nazi eugenics?
Wikipedia says this about unleavened
A leavening agent (sometimes called just leavening or leaven) is a substance used in doughs and batters that causes them to rise. In the presence of moisture, heat, acidity, or other triggers the leavening agent reacts to produce gas (often carbon dioxide) that becomes trapped as bubbles within the dough. When a dough or batter is baked, it "sets" and the holes left by the gas bubbles remain. This is what gives breads, cakes, and other baked goods their soft, sponge-like textures.

Ok, so now we're getting somewhere. Bubbles eh? Not the Chimp, i must add!
So If we distribute bubbles of
compassion through our science batter (mmm, batter), we will avoid Nazi Eugenics? Sounds great.
Phew. I knew i could see Nazi's in the bottom of my batter bowl. Nobody believed me, but i'd forgotten to add the compassion and they were in straight away. Nuthin worse then lill nazis all covered in science cake mix.
I just was not getting the soft, sponge-like textures the ID'ers have been getting all along in their mixes! Damm them, what are they doing different?

So if I were to have mixed up a pudding according to ID principles, I may have done the following:
  1. Hire empty room
  2. Make no effort whatsoever to create conditions suitable for batter creation
  3. Watch as no batter is created.
  4. ??
  5. Proclaim Victory - no batter was created!
or, to put it another way:
A predictionmade by this hypothesis is that no method of abiogenesis absent intelligent intervention can ever be demonstrated in a laboratory
Filed under: Intelligent DesignDaveScot @11:41am
Ironic really, as far as i know Intelligent Design scientists have demonstrated absolutely nothing in the laboratory themselves. I guess that's their area of expertise, talking about things that will not and cannot possibly happen in a laboratory - until they perhaps do happen, and then, well, honestly it was all about something else completely really, honestly....

You know, there's more actual science in the art of cake mixing then there is in Intelligent Design. Read the stuff at that link, it's great!
A better understanding of mixing would benefit many industries, Muzzio says. "Without good powder mixing," he says, "you can't build a road, you can't make a cake, and you can't even kill crabgrass, let alone make high potency
pharmaceuticals." From Science News, Volume 164, No. 4, July 26, 2003, p. 56.

So, people in actual science labs making cakes are doing it with more rigour then the ID'ers. Wow. And contributing along the way to other aspects of science too. Neat.

They are making science and cakes and whats going to beat that?

Well, perhaps living in a delusional world where invisible spacemen poke sticks into atoms to re-jig them on a whim beats that, but i think i'd rather have the cake. mmm, least you can eat the goddam cake, instead of talk about it endlessly.
"not possible for that cake to exist naturally, nobody could have make that cake, it's more then the sum of it's parts" -
"it's not possible for a hot cake from the oven to contain ice cream without the ice cream melting - a creator must be intervening". (talking about Baked Alaska).
"nobody saw the cake come into being, therefore we cannot say that an intelligent agency was not invloved".
"the CSI of this cake is 1.92344823121212...212. If we cut it in half, i get to choose if you get to cut"

Perhaps we should add that last one to the earlier post looking for a value of the Complex Specified Information in any object at all. It's the best answer that's we got so far. And we've now found out that you can alter the CSI of an object by cutting it in half! What does the CSI then become i wonder...
I feel another thread coming on!

Testable ID?

Of course not.
Expirements require scientists. Scientists add CSI to the mix. Therefore anything that we ever find out proves ID.
These people sicken me. They want it both ways - scientists cannot create life? That's because life is to complex to have arisen on it's own (as the expirements are trying to prove.
Scientists create life - ah, this proves life needs intelligent design.

In that case, dog shit on the street requires an intelligent designer. However, there's more then one poster/commenter over at uncommonidiocy that i doubt could even manage that! Tread on it and track it back to the "lab".
Hey, you've got proof of a ghostly designer on the sole of you shoe!

Amazing how they are always predicting the demise of Evilution, but cant come up with any predictions of when it'll happen, or a test that will disprove it.

but it's ok - there's only trivial evidence in any case for it, so it's not surprising that it's due to fail.
What is not so widely understood is that there is no scientific evidence to support this theory in other than trivial biological ways. Not that these trivial biological events don’t have major repercussions such as Social Darwinism and eugenics have shown. But these ideas are based on the most simple and straightforward biological processes. Comment by jerry — September 14, 2006 @ 9:46 pm

So, just so i'm clear, the towering edifice of darwinisn is about to fall, but they are still trivially supported? How come? It's falling but stable at the same time.
No scientific evidence on uncommondescent perhaps, but THERE'S A FRIKKIN TON OUT THERE IN BIOLOGY LABS, BOOKS, PEOPLES HEADS.


Thursday, September 14, 2006


but it's from Davescot, so it's a little hard to understand!

ID predicts that intelligent agents are capable of bringing about abiogenesis so we expect these research programs to succeed while at the same time we predict that abiogenesis attempts absent intelligent agency will fail
Comment by DaveScot — September 14, 2006 @ 1:40 pm

So that's just great then. All we have to do is sit around and wait for nothing to happen, thus proving ID. wow. Nice one, where do i sign up? At the idiot farm where they are giving out free turnips?
They seem (ID'ists) to have responded to the charge of never doing any actual research by leeching onto other peoples work. Now, if some band of scientists manage to create artifical life, it'll be a victory for Idiots like DaveScot? hmm
The links there are as fragile as their whole "not about Jesus at all but we talk about him alot anyway" ID delusion over at UD

then more
Means to abiogenesis that are restricted to only what was available to nature absent any intelligent agency (no machines, no laboratory environments that don’t mimic those found in nature), are predicted to fail. Comment by DaveScot — September 14, 2006 @ 2:27 pm

Amazingly, in the thread this is all in, over at UncommonDescent somebody calls him on that and he responds.

his is not a very practical prediction. It may take million or even more years for scientists to demonstrate ID-free abiogenesis in a laboratory.
  1. It may be done next year too. Discovery is like that. No one knows how long it will take. If we knew how long things will take to discover we could prioritize our efforts rather nicely. Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. How long will it take to discover a cure for aids? How long will it take to develop practical fusion reactors to generate electricity? Nobody can answer these questions. Welcome to science and engineering.

    Comment by DaveScot — September 14, 2006 @ 2:40 pm

Wow, welcome to a new world of engineering - just find a room and wait for things to happen, he's quite right - sooner or later (likely to be towards the long side of infinity) pratical fusion reactors will assemble themselves before your eyes, a cure for aids will generate from nothing.
Welcome to the world of ID science! Need an artificial limb? I predict that somebody somewhere will make one at some point in time.
Yay! I'm an ID scientists mom! I can enter the field of science and engineering from my armchair, and make them scientists jump with my little finger.

What's that? I've got it all wrong? Well, that's just too bad.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

While we are waiting for the CSI blockbuster

We'll need something to keep us going....

Here's a neverending story about a Chap called AFDave and his UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis. So far it's 180+ pages of utter inanity (supplied by Dave) and interesting sciency tidbits from the rest of the folks there. It's like AIG meets talkorigins drunk in an alley. AIG gets their butt kicked, sure, but in the meanwhile all sorts of funny happenings occur.

Comments like this from afdave:

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,06:16

"Also, we covered the supposed "upward evolution" of bacteria in a separate thread a LONG time ago. Not planning on repeating this. Here's a link to help you get started understanding this issue."

are followed by links to AIG and that appears to cover it, no further comments required, not even a permalink to where it had already been covered earlier on in the thread. That's what they are for AFDave! So you dont have to cover it all over again. And as to the links, well If it baint bin found by a bible bashing website, it cant possibly be true!?! Does you version of google only index "saved" sites? Open you eyes man! Over 800 posts and counting, and still not a jot of sense in any of them!

And it just keeps getting better, another AFdave classic knockout blow.

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,18:43

"I suppose you mean macro-evo? I think you are confused. Noah did not have to carry millions of animals on the ark because micro-evolution does indeed occur and many varieties of animals would have developed after the Flood from just a single pair. The reason he had to carry 35,000 (Morris/Whitcomb's guess) is because macro-evo has never happened and never will happen. If macro-evo was possible, there would be no need for an ark to preserve distinct kinds."

Now, if we were to quote mine this as his YEC friends are wont to do, we could get "there would be no need for an ark" and ba-boom! The bible is disproved. End of story.

So thanks for that Dave! Saved us all some trouble!

The most fasinating thing about the whole ID debate for me is CSI, or the lack of it.

And that's what this blog is about.
Let's make a special place, and in it will go the best attempt i've found so far to give a value for the CSI of a given thing. Any thing. At all.

The best description i've read so far of CSI likens it to a definition of porn - You know it when you see it! Or something more subtle, like obcentity.

But the way they talk about it, you'd be forgiven for thinking it's an equation that can be solved or a number that can be assigned. Presumably 2 people (crack CSI calculators) would come up with the same value if asked to determine the CSI in any given thing. Or is that too much like science?

For example, in response to this comment over at UD from Tom English

“Even we earthlings, familiar as we are with natural processes on earth, do not know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability.”

DaveScot says "Yes, we earthlings have. In the case of Mt. Rushmore forming by natural processes we do indeed know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability. The reasonable estimate is zero and it’s arrived at by way of elimination. If you think of a reasonable reason it should be non-zero to a significant degree please give those reasons otherwise through the process of elimination you must agree that a reasonable estimate is zero. What we earthlings don’t know how to do is arrive at a precise probability. There is some exceedingly small chance Mt. Rushmore could be a natural phenomenon but it’s so small there’s no way to give a precise number. Duh."
  1. Comment by DaveScot — August 31, 2006 @ 3:00 am

Duh indeed. So the CSI of Rusmore must be a non-zero number then? Perhaps 1? 1.111? Or something else? I'm confused! Is it even expressed as a number?

Earlier in the same thread BarryA was trying to explain,

"why is it fair for you to make the same accusation against ID proponents when they are attempting to account for specified complexity several orders of magnitude greater than that seen at Mount Rushmore?"
Comment by BarryA — August 30, 2006 @ 4:19 pm

I'm still confused, but at least now we are getting somewhere - it's several orders of magnitude greater then 1 or 0 or some other number we've not determined yet. Where are these attempts to account for CSI much larger then in carvings of people happening? Is there a workshop i can go to? Perhaps peer through one-way glass windows at them hard at work?

The chair challenge:
So perhaps what is needed is a smaller target, perhaps a everyday object such as a chair
Please send in your guesstimates for the CSI of a chair, and bonus points are available for showing your working!

No doubt there will be an upper and lower
range on the values you'll give.
Or is there an
archetypal chair out there that can be assessed?

I look forwards to reading the best estimates you can manage of the CSI in anything at all!