Continued:
5. The effort of such a "DNA Pattern Institute" is bogus because their real agenda is put get their religious ideas in textbooks.
All people are biased to some extent. Is it not possible that a pro-evolutionist secretly wants to discredit religion as revenge for trauma caused by being discovered having pre-marital intercourse by his adolescent church group? The definition of science should not depend on such human motivations. Linking the definition of science to human emotions and motivations is asking for trouble. It would turn science into a soap opera. We don't know how to reverse engineer living neurons, so measuring motivations is barely more than an art. Again, science should focus on ideas, not what people are thinking.
6. String Theory at least involves math, but ID has no math.
Evolution used to not have significant math associated with it either and was still considered a scientific theory at that point, or at least a scientific idea. MU generally is not defended via math either. Having a mathematical model boosts a theory, or at least the testability of a theory, but is not a prerequisite to be called a scientific idea based on historical patterns.
7. Humans have such a strong bias toward proposals that involve intelligent intervention or interference that we should discard them.
The suggestion that any intelligence-based theory should be summarily thrown out is ridiculous. The laws of the universe don't activate or deactivate based on what humans think. It is even possible to accidentally be right. We may also be able to create our own life forms, virtual or real, one day. Summarily tossing all theories related to biased writers reminds me of the saying, "Just because you are paranoid does not necessarily mean they are not out to get you". I doubt any human being is bias-free anyhow.
8. Your working definition of Intelligent Design (below) assumes one can measure "complexity". There is no consensus way to measure complexity
That is perhaps true. However, all "origin of complexity" theories will be stumped by the same problem. If it is claimed that evolution can "increase complexity", then lack of a complexity metric will make such a claim hard to test. If one instead reduces evolution claims to merely "explaining change", then one could point to many other agents that also cause change; such as weather, radiation, lava, meteors, chemical reactions, rust, etc. Merely claiming to cause change is not very useful and does not help separate competing agents of change. Thus, evolution is potentially in the same boat.
9. You compared SETI to looking for patterns in DNA. But SETI does not claim they can always know intelligent signals for sure when they find something.
Almost nothing in science is "for sure". There is strong evidence, medium evidence, and weak evidence (and everything in-between). I don't see why the definition of science should include the finding of only strong evidence. Nature's secrets are not always going to gush forth so easily. Searching for tough-to-find evidence is still part of science (although not always the wisest expenditure of effort).
Like mentioned above, scientific ideas such as MU are perhaps never even testable in the end. I think most would agree that finding the first million prime numbers right next to each other in DNA would at least be weak evidence for intelligent design or intelligent interference of some sort. Extra points if the prime numbers alternate with the digits for Pi (using a base appropriate to DNA).
10. If we open the door to speculative ideas such as ID, then we will have to allow in ghosts and fairy tells.
This is a typical slippery-slope fallacy. I have heard ID-like questions raised in biology class, but never fairy tells (outside of jokes). If and when it does become a problem then the issue can be revisited. Until then, just relax.
More to come...
Working Definition of Intelligent Design
Because there are various incarnations of ID floating around, I felt I should make clear the working version I am using here.
Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully observed source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers: our fellow humans who engineered and built them. Thus, it is reasonable to suspect or at least inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made by intelligent being(s).
The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came back in time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers, etc. ID does not actually attempt to identify a specific intelligence at this stage. Further, the intelligence does not have to be supernatural or omnipotent to qualify as a potential designer. In fact, the designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have limited skills, use trial-and-error, etc.
If this version differs too much from those put forth by Bible proponents, then so be it. This version is based almost entirely on the observation of sources of complexity, not religion.
"Fully observed" means there is a clear human-observed record of the process creating complexity from basic building materials such as raw elements and commonly-occurring minerals and chemicals. Issues regarding measuring complexity are addressed in the question and answer section above.
Common Abbreviations Used Here:
* ID - Intelligent Design hypothesis
* Evo - Evolution theory based on Darwin's Natural Selection concept
* MU - Multiple Universe hypothesis based on the Anthropic Principle
* ST - String Theory, a model attempting explain physics at large and small scales
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
5. The effort of such a "DNA Pattern Institute" is bogus because their real agenda is put get their religious ideas in textbooks.
All people are biased to some extent. Is it not possible that a pro-evolutionist secretly wants to discredit religion as revenge for trauma caused by being discovered having pre-marital intercourse by his adolescent church group? The definition of science should not depend on such human motivations. Linking the definition of science to human emotions and motivations is asking for trouble. It would turn science into a soap opera. We don't know how to reverse engineer living neurons, so measuring motivations is barely more than an art. Again, science should focus on ideas, not what people are thinking.
6. String Theory at least involves math, but ID has no math.
Evolution used to not have significant math associated with it either and was still considered a scientific theory at that point, or at least a scientific idea. MU generally is not defended via math either. Having a mathematical model boosts a theory, or at least the testability of a theory, but is not a prerequisite to be called a scientific idea based on historical patterns.
7. Humans have such a strong bias toward proposals that involve intelligent intervention or interference that we should discard them.
The suggestion that any intelligence-based theory should be summarily thrown out is ridiculous. The laws of the universe don't activate or deactivate based on what humans think. It is even possible to accidentally be right. We may also be able to create our own life forms, virtual or real, one day. Summarily tossing all theories related to biased writers reminds me of the saying, "Just because you are paranoid does not necessarily mean they are not out to get you". I doubt any human being is bias-free anyhow.
8. Your working definition of Intelligent Design (below) assumes one can measure "complexity". There is no consensus way to measure complexity
That is perhaps true. However, all "origin of complexity" theories will be stumped by the same problem. If it is claimed that evolution can "increase complexity", then lack of a complexity metric will make such a claim hard to test. If one instead reduces evolution claims to merely "explaining change", then one could point to many other agents that also cause change; such as weather, radiation, lava, meteors, chemical reactions, rust, etc. Merely claiming to cause change is not very useful and does not help separate competing agents of change. Thus, evolution is potentially in the same boat.
9. You compared SETI to looking for patterns in DNA. But SETI does not claim they can always know intelligent signals for sure when they find something.
Almost nothing in science is "for sure". There is strong evidence, medium evidence, and weak evidence (and everything in-between). I don't see why the definition of science should include the finding of only strong evidence. Nature's secrets are not always going to gush forth so easily. Searching for tough-to-find evidence is still part of science (although not always the wisest expenditure of effort).
Like mentioned above, scientific ideas such as MU are perhaps never even testable in the end. I think most would agree that finding the first million prime numbers right next to each other in DNA would at least be weak evidence for intelligent design or intelligent interference of some sort. Extra points if the prime numbers alternate with the digits for Pi (using a base appropriate to DNA).
10. If we open the door to speculative ideas such as ID, then we will have to allow in ghosts and fairy tells.
This is a typical slippery-slope fallacy. I have heard ID-like questions raised in biology class, but never fairy tells (outside of jokes). If and when it does become a problem then the issue can be revisited. Until then, just relax.
More to come...
Working Definition of Intelligent Design
Because there are various incarnations of ID floating around, I felt I should make clear the working version I am using here.
Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully observed source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers: our fellow humans who engineered and built them. Thus, it is reasonable to suspect or at least inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made by intelligent being(s).
The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came back in time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers, etc. ID does not actually attempt to identify a specific intelligence at this stage. Further, the intelligence does not have to be supernatural or omnipotent to qualify as a potential designer. In fact, the designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have limited skills, use trial-and-error, etc.
If this version differs too much from those put forth by Bible proponents, then so be it. This version is based almost entirely on the observation of sources of complexity, not religion.
"Fully observed" means there is a clear human-observed record of the process creating complexity from basic building materials such as raw elements and commonly-occurring minerals and chemicals. Issues regarding measuring complexity are addressed in the question and answer section above.
Common Abbreviations Used Here:
* ID - Intelligent Design hypothesis
* Evo - Evolution theory based on Darwin's Natural Selection concept
* MU - Multiple Universe hypothesis based on the Anthropic Principle
* ST - String Theory, a model attempting explain physics at large and small scales
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
