What's wrong with a little argument from authority?

ID creationists like to claim that scientific evolution and that even scientific materialism is going to meet it's early demise at some point in the near future. They have various justifications for holding this view, one of them being that more and more scientists are deserting "evolutionary dogma" and realising the truth of intelligent design. They even make list of scientists who doubt evolution. Well, to show that IDers assertions are false, a list of scientists - all named Steve - who support evolution was amassed (as an ongoing project). As of April 24th, 2007, no less than 800 people are on that list. Given that ONLY people named Steve (in various languages) can sign and that roughly 1% of the population has this name, this would in effect represent some 80,000 signatories. IDers lists typically contain a few hundred signatories - no name restrictions.

Yeah, scientists are really starting to lean towards ID.

Theistic predictions? Materialistic predictions?

I encountered a ... well, I'm not sure just what to make of this guy. In PandasThumb, he uses the name Philip Cunningham and posted this little tidbit:

1. Materialism did not predict the big bang, Yet Theism always said the universe was created.
2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space, Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space.
3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s theory of relativity, Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.
4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants, for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism.
5. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man, Yet Theism would of naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.
6. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what very well may be, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.
7. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Theism would of naturally expected this.
8. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth, Yet we find evidence for photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Sarah Simpson, Scientific American, 2003). Theism would have expected this sudden appearance of life on earth.
9. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record, The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Theism would of expected such sudden appearance of the many different fossils in the Cambrian explosion.

Someone called bornagain77 managed to post the same drivel at uncommondescent (26th April, 2007). Perhaps some people over there might actually think that this guy has anything to say. Rather than going through them all and pointing out all the flaws, I will just point out the blatant illogic that almost all of them suffer from. First of all, to say that materialism predicts anything is plain non-sensical. Materialism is not a hypothesis, it is a philosophical stance that says that matter is all that exists. Second, theism doesn't predict anything either. Given that theism includes any conceivable god that can do any of an infinite set of things, you can't predict what any of those "things" are. Third, it is claimed that materialism does not predict x, YET theism predicts y. x and y are half of the time not even remotely the same thing. There is no opposition, as bornagain77 would have us think.

This has got to be the most logic-deprived 9 point list I have seen in my life (although, I would be happy [and frightened] if someone pointed out an even worse example than this). I would suspect a troll, but then I've seen worse arguments from ID creationists before.

Da da dum dum dum another one bites the dust?

DaveScot at uncommondescent is in a tis. Write he:

Another icon of evolution, the world famous fossil “Lucy” was found to not be in the modern human lineage at all. The interesting part of this is that this is extremely newsworthy but because it casts a very unflattering light on so many scientists who, uncritically it seems, placed Lucy in the modern human line of descent, you won’t find it widely reported except in the Darwin-denier blogs and websites. This strategy is common when embarrassing mistakes are found in widely accepted evolutionary dogma. Keep it mum and let the embarrassing news become common knowledge over a long span of time. Haeckel’s embryos are a fine example of it.

You can always count on DaveScot to make some far-reaching and yet unsupported claims. First of all, what is embarrasing? The researchers were able to draw this conclusion based on the find of a new specimen of Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy's kin). The data available before that were in accordance with the notion that Lucy's kind were our ancestors. The new data supports another conclusion. It is not embarrasing to change your view in light of new evidence; What is embarrasing, is seeing someone claim this very thing, though.

The article states:

They should therefore, the Israeli researchers said, “be placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.”

So, as opposed to Lucy being our direct ancestor (which no one thought anyway), it seems that she was a very close cousin to our human ancestors.

About "evolutionists" not shouting about this from the roof tops: This "strategy" is common when, to the ID/evolution discussion, insignificant new observations that don't affect evolution are found. No one thinks to bring it up, because it doesn't matter to the discussion at hand.

ID fits the evidence!

Columbia Medical Professor John Marshall, a signer of the ‘Dissent From Darwinism’ document, likes intelligent design. Says Marshall:

“It’s as much science as Darwinian evolution is science,” Marshall said. “And as a theory, I believe that intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwinian evolution.”

OK. Given that ID says NOTHING about the designer, it also follows that the designer could be - just to name a few from an infinite list - your next-door neighbour Albert, an intelligent gas cloud, God or Howard the Duck. For the same reason, a potential designer could have designed ANYTHING and make things look ANYWAY it wanted. So, when Marshall says that "intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwinian evolution" he is not totally wrong for the simple reason that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can count as evidence for ID. And as anyone who even knows he tiniest bit about scientific evidence, this goes TOTALLY against Marshall's claim that “It’s as much science as Darwinian evolution is science” . Real scientific theories have to be testable and in order for them to be so, we can't have every single observation possible count as evidence for them.

If ID is science, then so is my claim that "everything is because of qwerty ".

Common ancestry

Logan Gage at evolutionnews is wondering "What Exactly Does Genetic Similarity Demonstrate?". Given the 98.8% DNA sequence similarity between chimps and humans, Gage writes:

Some design proponents think the evidence for common ancestry is good (e.g., Michael Behe), while others—citing the fossil record, especially The Cambrian Explosion—do not. But neither group thinks that sequence similarity alone proves either common ancestry or the Darwinian mechanism, as so many science writers of our day seem eager to assume.

That last sentence is nothing but a straw-man. The strength of the evidence regarding evolution does not rely on any one particular field of study or observation but it is the combination of evidence, often from hugely disparate fields, that supports the notion that all extant life-forms share common ancestry. What Gage seems to be forgetting is that the idea of common ancestry didn't start after DNA sequencing became common practice (heck, he even mentions fossils in the previous sentence), but actually predates it by at least 100 years - and Darwin wasn't even the first person to propose it. Although not making any suggestions of common ancestry, Carl von Linné set the stage by classifying living organisms based on purely phenotypic criteria. It wasn't a huge leap of the imagination (by today's standards, anyway) to suggest that the similarities found between different organisms was due to common ancestry. The sequencing of genetic material - including entire genomes - has confirmed what we already suspected - common ancestry. Using evolutionary theories, we would have expected the DNA of phenotypically similar organisms to be similar. The case for common ancestry was, therefore, strengthened. Using ID theory, we would have expected... well, we wouldn't expect anything in particular. Even if all organisms share common ancestry, there is no reason, under an ID theory sceneario, to predict that phenotypically similar organisms should also be genotypically similar. After all, "the Designer" might have changed the DNA to whatever he/she/it wanted. And no, this suggestion does not go against ID and there is NO reason for ID supporters to think it preposterous. Remember, ID theory says NOTHING about the designer, so it is quite a plausible ID scenario if we speculate - as we can - about the "mysterious ways" of the designer. No wonder the ID folks can't agree on whether they believe that all extant life forms share common ancestry.

Summa Summarum: No scientifically minded person claims that DNA sequences alone "prove" common ancestry - although it certainly strengthens the case.

TOTALLY OFF TOPIC: KEVIN BACON!!!!

I must have totally gone of my rails. Two off-topic posts - the only ones ever - in one day! This one should give anyone a reason to stop doing all that thinking/worrying about intelligent design. It's the game of "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon". Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to link any actor you wish, through their roles in films, to Kevin Bacon. Me and a mate in our lab used to do this all the time (until he managed to finish his MSc and left). In our version of the game we didn't link to Kevin all that often - any two actors would do. As an example of how the game works, consider this:

We want to link Bruce Willis to Christian Slater.
We can start with Bruce in "Ocean's 12". In "Oceans's 12" we find Brad Pitt. Brad Pitt was also in "Interview with the Vampire" with Christian Slater. Tada! Linked.

This has to be done using at most six links (movies). Let me tell you, it's scary just how good you can get at this game with a bit of practice (we had LOTS). Even though we weren't allowed to use any of the actors in "Ocean's 12" or "Austin Powers: Goldmember" we would still crack just about any combination of actors we both knew in under one minute (we used to name one actor each and then compete for who could find the solution first). Why did we not use "Ocean's 12" or "Goldmember"? For the simple reason that it just got too easy. These movies contain some (read loads of) actors that are so well-connected that we hardly had to name the actors at the start of the game before someone came up with the solution.

Give it a go!!!

ANZAC day!

Off topic:
Today is ANZAC day in New Zealand. As the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association describe it:

ANZAC Day (25 April) is observed in New Zealand as a day of commemoration for those who died in the service of their country and to honour returned servicemen and women.

It's always good to keep in our minds that in wars, whether they be justified or not, people suffer and die. And the suffering doesn't stop the day the war does...

New "One the ID World Article".

I have written another article "Dembski's Complex Specified Information (CSI) and the Universal Probability Bound - a critique" on "On the ID World". Enjoy.

Design in nature is self-evident!

GilDodgen at uncommondescent is complaining, because:

Even the most vociferous and vehement ID opponents (e.g., Richard Dawkins) admit that design in nature appears to be self-evident. Why then, the heroic efforts to explain design away, with such silliness as random variation and natural selection providing the engine that produced highly sophisticated biological software and information-processing systems?

Is GilDodgen serious? Yes, most people (including me) would argue that design in nature is self-evident. I know of no one that is trying to explain design away. What is being constantly criticized is the idea of intelligent design. In science, the apparent design of living organisms emerges due to various evolutionary mechanisms, such as selection. I can see why someone that is new to the ID/evolution debate might not have realised this, but GilDodgen has been doing this for some time now. He should really know better.

Eugenics revisited.

Egnor postings and admissions that eugenics is not Darwinism have hardly "left the presses" before another IDist (John West) feels the need to chirp in and claim that 'eugenics was in reality a reasonable deduction from Darwin’s theory and is properly described as “Darwinian.”'. It's about time that the ID crowd stared getting their shit together. They have for ages been claiming that teleology - read goal-directed selection - of any kind is not Darwinism but clearly intelligent design (this is how they keep on claiming that there is soooo much ID research going on. Just about every experiment on biological organisms is goal directed). Eugenics is clearly goal-directed.

The ID crowd are at a cross-road and it's time to make their minds up. Either selective breeding is not evidence of ID or eugenics is applied ID (notice how I didn't say eugenics is either ID or Darwinism).

Darwinian eugenics? No, it's not. It's official!!!

I've blogged previously about some ID supporters' claim that Darwinism led to eugenics. More properly, since eugenics is selective breeding and since ID supporters like to claim that selective breeding is, in fact, intelligent design, it follows that eugenics is actually applied intelligent design. As it turns out, even Michael Egnor (the Discovery Institute's latest darling) agrees. Writes Egnor:

The experimental selection of "desirable" bacterial variants is bacterial eugenics, using the same empirical principles that eugenicists applied to human breeding. Eugenics is human breeding, and is every bit as much of a misapplication of Darwin’s theory as are Dr. Cartwright’s examples of bacterial breeding.

Maybe, as opposed to what several pro-evolution bloggers say, Egnor isn't such an "egnorant" after all. But then he goes and spoils it all by saying something stupid like:

Modern eugenics arose from a philosophical proposition. The basis for eugenics was philosophical materialism, which denied the inherent dignity and sanctity of every human life. Denial of transcendent ethical standards eventually leaves "because we can" as the sole ethical standard.

Sigh. Even the absense of philosophical materialism (I assume he meant naturalism) can deny any "inherent dignity and sanctity of every human life". The fact that some "supernaturalists" see "inherent dignity and sanctity of every human life" is because of their arbitrary choice of philosophical supermaterialism that see "inherent dignity and sanctity of every human life". And, of course, an arbitrary choice of philosophical materialism can also give "inherent dignity and sanctity of every human life". Point being: there is only "inherent dignity and sanctity of every human life" if you claim that there is.

Where art thou from, Mitochondria?

At a Darwin vs Design conference at Southern Methodist University the other day, some protesters held up a banner asking “Why do the ribosomes (protein synthesizing machinery) in our mitochondria match those of bacteria?”. William Dembski has two major points to make against this banner:

1. ...the more interesting question for me is what causal powers were required to produce ribosomes in the first place.

This is, of course, a very common IDist type of question which is usually followed by a certain type of statement. E.g., since science has yet to produce a satisfactory explanation of something complex (the question [that actually doesn't read like a question the way I wrote it - never mind]) it automatically means that something intelligent designed it (the statement). Nothing new under the Sun here.

2. Since I’m happy for the sake of argument to allow common descent, ... But the poster, even taken on its own terms, is problematic. Eukaryotic, prokaryotic, and mitochondrial ribosomes are all quite different (see here), and it’s not clear whether mitoribosomes, as they’re called, are closer to prokaryotic than to eukaryotic ribosomes by any reasonable metric. In any case, to say that bacterial (prokaryotic) ribosomes “match” mitoribosomes seems false on any reasonable construal of the term.

Interestingly, the link he provides has no sources after 1996, which means a 1998 paper that examined various DNA sequences found that the alpha-protobactrium Ricksettsia had the best match to mitochondria. Was it a "match" (as required by Dembski)? It was the best match that had been obtained so far. Given that Dembski is happy to allow for common descent I would say that that makes for a reasonable metric.

Additional:
Even though the protestors seemed to think that the question "Why do the ribosomes (protein synthesizing machinery) in our mitochondria match those of bacteria?” was evidence against ID, this is NOT the case. In fact, no possible observation can count as evidence against ID - and this is, of course, why ID is totally vacuous.

T. rex was vegetarian - I kid you not!

Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis is opening a creation museum in Kentucky, USA. In it will displayed typical creationist propaganda regarding the wrongness of evolution and the rightness of the bible. In an interview with BBC News, Ken is claiming that Tyrannosaurus rex - the rather iconic bad-ass carnivore - was in fact vegetarian. Before you wet yourself laughing/pick your jaw up from the floor/recover from fainting/etc, let's hear Ken out. He does give an argument for why this could actually be the case. From the article:

Most geologists would say humans and dinosaurs were separated by more than 60 million years. And those dinosaurs have very sharp teeth!

"So do bears", says Ken, "but they eat nuts and berries! Remember, before the sin of Adam, the world was perfect. All creatures were vegetarian." One of the dinosaurs lets out a rather contradictory roar.

Wow. Ken does have a point. Bears do have fangs and they do eat "vegies". Could Ken be on to something? Of course not!!! Are you kidding? Even a 12 second search on the web should give you enough information to dispell any such notions. For example, Wikipedia has this to say:

Bear teeth are not specialized for killing their prey like those of cats. Normal canine teeth in a carnivore are generally large, pointed and used for killing prey, while bears' canine teeth are relatively small and typically used in defense or as tools. Bears' molar teeth are broad, flat and are used to shred and grind plant food into small digestible pieces.

(emphasis added)

Look at the teeth of a T. rex (as per above) and you will see a complete lack of broad, flat molar teeth that can be used to shred and grind plant food. What you do see - exclusively - is the large, pointed type used for killing prey (or at least tearing meat).


Now you may continue laughing...

Ozzy Osbourne and Michael Egnor - what is the connection?

Rather than leaving you in limbo I'll give you the answer straight away: paranoid. For those not in the know, Michael Egnor is the Discovery Institute's latest media darling and Ozzy is, of course, Ozzy... The reason Ozzy is paranoid is simply because he wrote the song "Paranoid". The reason Egnor is paranoid is his latest writings at the evolutionnews.org site - "Airbrushing the Evidence for Reverse Engineering in Biology: Darwinist Makes Wikipedia Reference 'Disappear'". Before I get into explaining why Egnor is paranoid, I just want to examine some of the claims Egnor makes in the article, but before I do, let's see what it means to reverse-engineer something. A common thread for most definitions is as follows:

The process of learning how a product is made by taking it apart and examining it (copied from here).

So, in an sense, when one is elucidating the workings of a biological organism by examining it's "components", one is reverse-engineering - although, more properly, one is engaging in reductionism. The term reverse-engineer implies that whatever one is reverse-engineering was "engineered" in the first place. Which is perhaps why Egnor makes the following claim:

Reverse engineering in biology is an inference to design, even if the inference is implicit and not explicit, and even if the scientist using the reverse engineering methodology doesn’t agree with the philosophical implications of the design inference. Much of modern molecular biology is the reverse engineering of biological molecules.

First, reverse engineering in biology is no inference to design. That is just plain silly. The fact that something can be broken down into smaller components in order to understand the workings of the whole simply means "that something can be broken down into smaller components in order to understand the workings of the whole ". Unless, of course, one assumes that whatever one is examining was designed in the first place - in which case the design inference is simply a circular argument. Good one, Egnor. In reality, the examination of biological workings of organisms could be called reverse engineering only if one assumes that the biological organism was "designed" in the first place. Let's leave the term outside of biology.
Which brings us back heading of Egnor's article for this post. Egnor is upset because the WikiPedia entry for reverse-engineering has had any mentioning of biology deleted from it. Well, as I've argued, so it should.

Which leaves us with me explaining why Egnor is paranoid. Writes Egnor:

Looking a little further, is seems that DrLeeBot (the person that modified the Wiki entry) has an agenda. He has repeatedly modified Wikipedia articles on "pseudoscience" and modified articles on President Bush in ways that that make them more critical of the President.Darwinists felt so threatened by my mundane observation that they actually airbrushed out the relevant part of the Wikipedia link for reverse engineering. This is how Darwinists debate. I made the simple point that
much of modern molecular biology is biological reverse engineering, and that the implicit inference to design may be helpful in guiding biological research.

Their reply: delete the evidence.
What are Darwinists afraid of? Intelligent Design scientists try to help people see the evidence. Darwinists are afraid they'll see it.

First of all, I find it interesting that, since DrLeeBot has previously changed articles on pseudoscience and President Bush(?), Egnor immediately comes to the conclusion that DrLeeBot has a "Darwinian agenda". Is Egnor implying that ID is pseuodoscience? What has Bush got to do with anything? Maybe DrLeeBot's agenda was simply to correct the definition of the word.
Notice how Egnor writes:

Darwinists felt so threatened by my mundane observation that they...

Who are THEY? It was one guy. He was right. Egnor is paranoid.

Second, why does Egnor feel that "Darwinists" are out to get him? The definition of a word was altered so that it actually reflected it's meaning better. No evidence was deleted. Egnor's claim the "Darwinists" are afraid that people might see evidence is a non-sequitur since we are not talking about evidence here. We are talking about the definition of a word that, the way Egnor uses it, makes a perfectly circular argument that biological things were intelligently designed. Circular reasoning is only evidence to pseudo-scientists... such as Egnor. Feeling that people are out to get you for the simple reason that someone corrects the definition of a word is paranoia.

Patron Saint of ID!

Did you know that ID has a Patron Saint?

Will falsifying IC falsify ID?

IDists like to think so. For example, Michael Behe has said that if it could be shown that the bacterial flagellum could be shown to arise through darwinian mechanisms, then his irreducible complexity (IC) argument would fall. Some people see this as proof that ID is falsifiable - and that, because of this, ID is science. This conclusion is, however, a non-sequiteur - for two reasons:

1: It doesn't matter what Behe says about falsifying IC. The falsifiability has to be built in to the IC hypothesis. It isn't. Even if the bacterial flagellum was shown to arise "naturally", there is still a long list of other "IC" structures to examine. IDists could play that game 'til the end of time.
2: Falsifying IC does no falsify ID. There are more criteria by which IDists recognize intelligent design such as Dembski's CSI. Some of the IDists arguments even go outside of biology, such as the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants. If these were different, life (and depending on how they are set - even matter) could not exist.

So the question in the heading should really be: is there really any way to test ID? Under what circumstance could we show that ID is not a good "hypothesis"? This is a question to IDers, btw?

What is wrong with Luskin's attack on Sober? Part III.

I have already detailed what was wrong with part II and part III of Luskin's "rebuttal" of Elliott Sober's article "What is wrong with intelligent design?". Here is my take on Luskin's fourth attempt. As per previous, it helps to have read both Sober's article and Luskin's "rebuttal" before reading this.

This time around, Luskin's states his mission as:

In this final installment I will show that Sober is wrong to claim that ID is not testable because he bases his argument on the false claim that ID permits the possibility that a designer produced a universe where natural processes can produce novel specified complexity on their own.

Luskin takes offense at Sober's statement:

If a newspaper contains complex information, ID proponents are not obliged to say that the press used to print the newspaper is intelligent; presumably, the press is just as mindless as the paper it produces. Rather, their claim is that if you look back further along the causal chain, you'll find an intelligent being. And they are right -- there is a person setting the type.

Luskin responds:

But the printing press gives an inappropriate example because of course we know that printing presses are designed, and we do not find printing presses in nature. The question is not “can processes which we know are human-designed re-transmit information and complexity?” but rather “can processes we find at work in nature generate novel specified and complex information?”

First of all, the printing press is not that an inappropriate example. While we don't find printing presses in nature (for the simple reason that they don't reproduce), what they have in common with humans and life in general is, at least according to IDists, that they are ALL designed. In this sense, humans could very well be like printing presses - they only do what they were designed to do. The question could very well be "can processes which we know are intelligently designed re-transmit information and complexity?".

What the question is NOT (despite Luskin's protestations) is "can processes we find at work in nature generate novel specified and complex information?” (CSI). Remember, ID says nothing at all about the designer or it's modus operandi. The designer might, according to ID, just have made the universe so that nature was primed to generate CSI. The fact that Luskin gives a quote from William Demski that agrees with what Luskin is arguing means nothing, since this is simply just another case of an ID proponent claiming something that ID does not.

Luskin finishes with:

This is an eminently testable claim, and again it seems that Sober attacked only a straw-man version of ID.

Actually, Luskin is defending a straw-man version of ID. So, I'm afraid that my not-so-high hopes that Luskin might actually have had something real to say against Sober's writings have been dashed. Shame.

ID predicts... again...

scordova at uncommondescent has a post (11 Apr, 2007) where it is yet again claimed that ID predicts that "junk" DNA should not be junk, but actually have functionality. The quote is from ID supporter Andras Pellionisz (a published scientist, no less) who says:

Most Darwinists erroneously predicted that 98.7% of the DNA was devoid of function (“junk”), while the ID/ET theory correctly predicted some yet to be decoded function of junkDNA.

Why is it that ID proponents don't understand their own theory? Intelligent design theory does NOT predict this! Some ID supporters might have claimed to have predicted this (or more likely, postdicted), but ID does NOT - and I repeat NOT - predict this.

What is wrong with Luskin's attack on Sober? Part II.

I already covered part II of Casey Luskin's "rebuttal" of Elliott Sober and this time around I want to go over part III. Again, it helps to have read both Sober's and Luskin's writings beforehand.

In part III, Luskin claims that Sober ignores the positive predictions that exist for intelligent design. He quotes from Michael Behe's "Darwin's black box" wherein Behe writes:

[I]rreducibly 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.

The way I see it, the positive argument is entirely circular, which only leaves the negative one. In order for ID to predict ("positively") that "intelligence" generates irreducibly complex (IC) systems, ID would have to say why intelligence did do so instead of not generating IC (for a more in depth discussion of so-called ID "predictions", see my article at "On the ID World"). Here, Luskin shoots himself in the foot. Writes he:

He (Sober) wrongly expects ID to identify the "goals" of the designer, but then fails to recognize that ID identifies the "abilities" of the designer.

Since the designer, according to ID, could do ANYTHING, claiming that ID can identify the designer's abilities means absolutely nothing. On top of that, ID's inability to identify the goals of the designer means that ID cannot predict whether or not the designer should have used IC or non-IC when designing life. Luskin's claim that it does is a pure ad hoc explanation, something Luskin claimed, in part II of his rebuttal, to oppose.

On top of discussing why he thinks that IC is a positive indicator of design, Luskin also brings in Dembski's CSI. But, just as for IC, CSI is no positive indicator of design - and for the same reason.

Is there anything wrong with Sober's writings on intelligent design? If there is, Luskin has failed to point it out in parts II and III of his rebuttals. Part I of his rebuttal deals mainly with the history of intelligent design, something of which I am not terribly interested, so I can't really comment. Luskin has, however, also written a part IV, and maybe, just maybe he might be on to something there... Stay tuned.

Darwinian eugenics?

It is farily fashionable among IDists/creationists to complain that Darwinism led to eugenics - they are claiming that "weeding out inferior" (selecting "fitter") humans is something that comes out of accepting "Darwinism" (as William Dembski did, for example). But does this claim really stand up to scrutiny? On April 10th, 2007, William Dembski writes on his blog:

In reading Reuland’s critique, try to keep track of “rational design,” “directed evolution,” and “Darwinian methods.” Reuland conflates the last two. In so doing, Reuland completely misses the boat. So let me spell it out: DIRECTED EVOLUTION IS NON-DARWINIAN. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IS NON-DIRECTED. I’ve been saying this now for close to a decade (see ch. 4 of my book No Free Lunch). Just because the word “evolution” is used doesn’t mean that that homage is being paid to Darwin. “Directed evolution” properly falls under ID.

Follow Dembski's logic here:
Premises:
DIRECTED EVOLUTION IS NON-DARWINIAN.
Directed evolution properly falls under ID.
Eugenics is directed evolution.
Conclusion:
Eugenics is NON-DARWINIAN.
Eugenics properly falls under ID.


Uncommondescent regular poster bFast is halfway to understanding the logic above when he responds to Dembski:

Directed evolution requires a director. Any director that I can envision uses intelligence in the process of directing. Directed evolution is unquestionably an ID position.

How long will it be before the IDists wake up and realize that, according to their own logic, they are actually claiming that eugenics is an ID endeavour?

What is wrong with Luskin's attack on Sober?

In "What is wrong with Intelligent Design?", Elliot Sober details why ID can not be considered to be scientific. Casey Luskin has responded to this article in four separate posts and I want to give a response to the second of those. In order to understand my writings, it would help if you have read both Sober's and Luskin's writings beforehand.

Writes Luskin:

Thus, in Sober's view, ID must make predictions with respect to neo-Darwinism in order for ID to be testable: “If ID is to be tested, it must be tested against one or more competing hypotheses.” His method might be called "relative testability," and it has clear implications for the scientific status of ID: Since Sober measures ID’s testability by comparing it to neo-Darwinism, the implication is that Sober should measure the comparative testability of neo-Darwinism by trying to test it against ID. The unavoidable conclusion is that under Sober’s methodology, ID and neo-Darwinism must have equal, relative testability with respect to one-another. Obviously Sober believes that neo-Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory, so doesn't that mean ID must also qualify as a scientific theory? Yet Sober implies ID is not a scientific theory, revealing a possible double-standard.

Luskin's claim that Sober applies (possible) double-standards regarding the scientific validity/testability of ID vs "neo-Darwinism"(ND) is wrong. While comparative testing is a good thing, it does not follow that ND should be tested against ID at all or that ID is science. What Luskins seems to fail to realize is that there are more hypoteses (although ID is not a hypothesis, of course) than ND and ID (this is a common IDist fallacy, btw). Lamarkism, for example, can be tested against ND. In fact, Lamarkism has been tested and found wanting since ND explains observed phenomena better. So, the unavoidable conclusion is NOT that ID and ND have equal, relative testability with respect to one-another or that ID is a scientific theory - although a lack of a logical train of thought might make you think so

Writes Luskin:

Sober writes: “It is crucial to the scientific enterprise that auxiliary propositions not simply be invented. By inventing assumptions, we can equip a theory with favorable auxiliary propositions that allow it to fit the data.” Auxiliary assumptions, when misused, are like the epicycles used to defend the long-discarded geocentric model of the solar system: they are post-hoc explanations used to square a theory with contrary data. I agree with Sober's statement here, which makes it all the more curious that Sober fails to recognize how often Darwinists have made auxiliary propositions to square their theory with the data:"

First of all, auxilliary assumptions are not post-hoc, although they could potentially be ad hoc (as when they are simply invented) - hopefully Luskin knows what the difference between these terms is. As Sober writes, the auxiliary propositions we use have to be "independently justified" in the sense that our reasons for accepting them do not depend on (i) assuming that the theory being tested is true or (ii) using the data for arriving at the hypothesis. Luskin agrees when Sober says that auxiliary propositions should not simply be invented which is interesting - mainly for the reason than Luskin doesn't even try to deny that IDists do anything but "simply invent" them (as Sober argues, they have to). Instead Luskin gives what he thinks are instances of Darwinists making "auxiliary propositions to square their theory with the data". Luskin simply throws out a few instances of new scientific discoveries and doesn't even try to justify why these are not justified propositions (how ironic). Problem for Luskin is that the examples he give are "independently justifiable" (and I would say that the third one he lists is simply a straw-man; Co-option and exaptation don't replace natural selection - the features that were "co-opted" and "exapted" would have been subject to selection.).

So, if you accept Sober's writings regarding auxiliary propositions, it would follow that you don't consider ID to be science. Given that Luskin doesn't even try to deny that ID simply invents it's auxiliary propositions (and given that he thinks that that they shouldn't simply be invented) it is quite safe to say that Luskin doesn't think that ID is science either. He doesn't seem to care about that and instead tries to claim that evolution is not science either. Here, as I noted above, he fails. Luskin's attempt at responing to Sober's claims seems to have failed as well.