Letter to the Editor

[drachefly]

"I don't know" isn't even TRYING to be a theory.

ID is not even trying to be a proper scientific theory either, moron. Dr Behe even admitted under oath that he had to expand science to include Tarot reading and astrology for that to be so.

"I don't know" isn't a theory even in the colloquial sense. It doesn't say how, it doesn't even provide an extremely large but nonetheless constrained category of explanations like ID does.

ID isn't a scientific theory because it isn't scientific to toss out all the data to go after something more complicated and less predictive than another adequate explanation. In this case, it is not even close, so it's REALLY unscientific.

[Darth Wong]

OK, here's a question for DracheIdiot:
Do you reject Occam's Razor?

Simple question, because your arguments seem to reject it completely. You simply do not recognize the necessity of having defined terms. You seem to think that in a scenario where a theory fails, one should simply make up an alternate theory with undefined terms so that you cannot say it fails because it is untestable.

Either you are completely ignorant of the requirements of the scientific method or you're trolling. Which is it? Do you honestly believe that untestable "theories" with undefined terms are legitimate science and that we have to attack their evidence without addressing this huge flaw?

[Lord Zentei]

"I don't know" isn't even TRYING to be a theory.

ID is not even trying to be a proper scientific theory either, moron. Dr Behe even admitted under oath that he had to expand science to include Tarot reading and astrology for that to be so.

"I don't know" isn't a theory even in the colloquial sense. It doesn't say how, it doesn't even provide an extremely large but nonetheless constrained category of explanations like ID does.

ID isn't a scientific theory because it isn't scientific to toss out all the data to go after something more complicated and less predictive than another adequate explanation. In this case, it is not even close, so it's REALLY unscientific.

"I don't know" is not supposed to be a scientific theory. It is a mature admission of ignorance, which is neccesary for any true learning to take place once we have accumulated sufficient evidence. A scientist is being scientific when he admits that he doesn't know something as opposed to making shit up. ID is just as ignorant but a lot more dishonest.

Your statement:

If he can provide one non-evolution, non-ID alternative that is not less plausible than ID, I'll immediately concede.

Admitting ignorance is not less plausible than being dishonestly ignorant. The plausibility of ID is zero.

[drachefly]

BAYES THEORY TAKES CARE OF VAGUENESS. I AM INCLUDING IT IN THE ARGUMENT.

Not to the extent that no modeling can take place with a theory.

Presuming you mean 'such a crappy theory', I'd say why can't it? It's really vague, so Bayes REALLY suppresses it.

If you were to get out a wacky-complicated parameter space in which life could be, you could smear ID predictions all over it, while evolution would occupy a MUCH smaller region.

The "anything goes" model is still a model. It's just crappy to the extent that it gets knocked off by any nonfalsified more specific theory.

Not to exclusion, no. You must also point out that their theory is useless even when they distort the evidence to suit their needs.

Well, here's another point: Ordinary Joe doesn't care so much whether a theory is useful as whether it's correct. Complaining that their theory doesn't do much won't convince him it's false. So yes, I think it's bad strategy.
"These guys are liars" is actually better than "These guys are liars, and if they were right it still wouldn't be useful".

Presumptions do not make a theory scientific, with or without Bayes.

Every theory has assumptions. They're called the content of the theory. They can be required by the evidence, or not. In this case, they are not. That is the problem.

[drachefly]

OK, here's a question for Drachefly:
Do you reject Occam's Razor?

edited for not being annoying to read

Heres a simple question for you: do you have any clue what Bayesian analysis is? It includes Occam's Razor. I'm saying we got the razor in the basic argument, no need to be redundant by whipping it out in a separate argument.

My arguments only seem to reject Occam's Razor if you don't read them.

[Lord Zentei]

BAYES THEORY TAKES CARE OF VAGUENESS. I AM INCLUDING IT IN THE ARGUMENT.

Not to the extent that no modeling can take place with a theory.

Presuming you mean 'such a crappy theory', I'd say why can't it? It's really vague, so Bayes REALLY suppresses it.

If you were to get out a wacky-complicated parameter space in which life could be, you could smear ID predictions all over it, while evolution would occupy a MUCH smaller region.

The "anything goes" model is still a model. It's just crappy to the extent that it gets knocked off by any nonfalsified more specific theory.

"Anything goes" is not a model any more than "I don't know". The latter is more honest, though.

Not to exclusion, no. You must also point out that their theory is useless even when they distort the evidence to suit their needs.

Well, here's another point: Ordinary Joe doesn't care so much whether a theory is useful as whether it's correct. Complaining that their theory doesn't do much won't convince him it's false. So yes, I think it's bad strategy.
"These guys are liars" is actually better than "These guys are liars, and if they were right it still wouldn't be useful".

Ordinary Joe is not the one to ask about such things. And you have to knock down each lie in turn, and answer allegations from the ID guys that evolution is not perfect.

Presumptions do not make a theory scientific, with or without Bayes.

Every theory has assumptions. They're called the content of the theory. They can be required by the evidence, or not. In this case, they are not. That is the problem.

My point was that having no evidence for your mechanism, a presumption does not make your theory scientific. Your rebuttal is a concession.

[Darth Wong]

Heres a simple question for you: do you have any clue what Bayesian analysis is? It includes Occam's Razor. I'm saying we got the razor in the basic argument, no need to be redundant by whipping it out in a separate argument.

My arguments only seem to reject Occam's Razor if you don't read them.

Bullshit. Bayes Theory assumes that the hypothesis actually makes predictions, you idiot. A hypothesis with undefined terms does not make predictions. You even admitted that it has shit predictive power, and vagueness is not a form of prediction, yet you continue to insist that it somehow wins by default, by being so vague that it can "permit" anything.

Well guess what, your particular mutilation of Bayes Theory supports the "we don't know" theory as well, moron. Just like ID, it does not have defined terms. Just like ID, it "permits" things instead of predicting them. Just like ID, the range of things it "permits" occupies all of an imaginary probability space.

The fact is that all of the arguments you've made for ID also apply to "We don't know". You just don't want to admit it, so you simply mumble that "We don't know" is not really a theory, without explaining why it doesn't fit your arguments just as well as ID does.

[drachefly]

"I don't know" is not supposed to be a scientific theory.

Of course! That's what I was saying. Our gracious host said it was a theory.

Don't blame me for arguing against dumb positions that you didn't hold but someone else did.

If he can provide one non-evolution, non-ID alternative that is not less plausible than ID, I'll immediately concede.

Admitting ignorance is not less plausible than being dishonestly ignorant. The plausibility of ID is zero.

You mean it's absolutely impossible that someone came in and modified genetic material on this planet some time in the past, in some limited fashion, using ordinary naturalistically-derived methods?

Or that it's actually absolutely impossible that there is actually some overarching world-creating entity which doesn't give a shit about us personally but likes the idea of there being intelligent beings in his cosmic sandbox?

Plausibility of these? VERY VERY LOW. nonzero.

[drachefly]

Bayes Theory assumes that the hypothesis actually makes predictions, you idiot.

The predictions can be arbitrarily vague, though.

[Darth Wong]

"I don't know" is not supposed to be a scientific theory.

Of course! That's what I was saying. Our gracious host said it was a theory.

Don't blame me for arguing against dumb positions that you didn't hold but someone else did.

You will, of course, retract this strawman immediately. I was saying that it met YOUR bullshit requirements of a theory, not mine.

[Darth Wong]

Bayes Theory assumes that the hypothesis actually makes predictions, you idiot.

The predictions can be arbitrarily vague, though.

"We don't know" makes vague predictions too. It predicts that anything can happen, because we don't know what's causing it. That's a vague prediction. Hence, it meets YOUR bullshit requirements for a theory.

[drachefly]

You even admitted that it has shit predictive power, and vagueness is not a form of prediction, yet you continue to insist that it somehow wins by default, by being so vague that it can "permit" anything.

Vagueness is not a form of prediction? Well, duh. Vagueness is a property of a prediction. Geez, your illiteracy is astounding.

Well guess what, your particular mutilation of Bayes Theory supports the "we don't know" theory as well, moron. Just like ID, it does not have defined terms. Just like ID, it "permits" things instead of predicting them. Just like ID, the range of things it "permits" occupies all of an imaginary probability space.

One prediction of ID: the life on earth would have hallmarks of being designed. Designed non-incompetently.

This is a strong prediction. It is also FALSE, as you pointed out in your great 'unintelligent design' piece.

THIS IS WHERE WE SHOULD ATTACK ID.

[Lord Zentei]

"I don't know" is not supposed to be a scientific theory.

Of course! That's what I was saying. Our gracious host said it was a theory.

Don't blame me for arguing against dumb positions that you didn't hold but someone else did.

Again, your statement:

If he can provide one non-evolution, non-ID alternative that is not less plausible than ID, I'll immediately concede.

Admitting ignorance is an alternative. You did not ask for an alternative that was a THEORY.

If he can provide one non-evolution, non-ID alternative that is not less plausible than ID, I'll immediately concede.

Admitting ignorance is not less plausible than being dishonestly ignorant. The plausibility of ID is zero.

You mean it's absolutely impossible that someone came in and modified genetic material on this planet some time in the past, in some limited fashion, using ordinary naturalistically-derived methods?

Or that it's actually absolutely impossible that there is actually some overarching world-creating entity which doesn't give a shit about us personally but likes the idea of there being intelligent beings in his cosmic sandbox?

Plausibility of these? VERY VERY LOW. nonzero.

As I pointed out, one can make up bullshit all day. Yes, the plausibility is indeed zero from a scientific perspective while no evidence exists, and it is a hell of a lot less honest than "I don't know. More to the point, it provides useless and counterproductive baggage to our thinking when new evidence comes along. Why the hell do you think we are having problems with ID morons in the first place? Precisely because of such baggage (inherited from religion) that has no supportive evidence and that people won't let go.

[Darth Wong]

You even admitted that it has shit predictive power, and vagueness is not a form of prediction, yet you continue to insist that it somehow wins by default, by being so vague that it can "permit" anything.

Vagueness is not a form of prediction? Well, duh. Vagueness is a property of a prediction. Geez, your illiteracy is astounding.

Do I really have to explain that we're talking about SCIENTIFIC predictions here? Or do I have to keep putting up with you nitpicking because I just used the word "prediction" without the "scientific" qualifier?

Well guess what, your particular mutilation of Bayes Theory supports the "we don't know" theory as well, moron. Just like ID, it does not have defined terms. Just like ID, it "permits" things instead of predicting them. Just like ID, the range of things it "permits" occupies all of an imaginary probability space.

One prediction of ID: the life on earth would have hallmarks of being designed. Designed non-incompetently.

Without defining what those "hallmarks" are, it is useless. And ID does not define what those hallmarks are, except to assume that anything not explained by evolution must be a hallmark of intelligent design by default. That's the whole fucking point of the argument that the inscrutable term makes it a useless theory.

This is a strong prediction. It is also FALSE, as you pointed out in your great 'unintelligent design' piece.

It is NOT a strong prediction, fool. You are simply pretending that it has been defined when in fact it has not been defined at all. And the various pieces of logic you used to justify your argument (pretending that "permit" and "predict" are "flipsides" of each other, so one is as good as the other, or pretending that Bayes Theory makes vague theories superior to specific ones by making them unfalsifiable even though that is considered a harmful trait in science) have been shown to be completely useless because they apply equally well to "We don't know", but you refused to concede that.

THIS IS WHERE WE SHOULD ATTACK ID.

And we should NOT point out that it has no predictive power? Bullshit. Your refusal to admit that a lack of predictive power is a serious problem for a scientific theory does not change anything, and pretending that we should attack ID on only one front is stupid.

In fact, you never conceded anything, even your obvious strawman of my position where I said that "we don't know" fit your argument, and you pretended that I was saying it was a valid scientific theory. And that's despite making a clearly worded challenge which I met to the letter (whereupon you simply moved the goalposts).

[petesampras]

One prediction of ID: the life on earth would have hallmarks of being designed. Designed non-incompetently.

What are the hallmarks of being designed? Without motivations behind a design or knowledge/models of the methods used in construction how can something have the hallmarks of being designed? What is it you are looking for?

Without any specific details of either the motives or the methods of the intelligent designer, there can be no hallmarks to look out for. Maybe, god wanted us to suffer from retinal detachments and hence designed our eyes that way. Without specifying either motivations or methods ID predicts absolutely nothing.

[drachefly]

And the various pieces of logic you used to justify your argument (pretending that "permit" and "predict" are "flipsides" of each other, so one is as good as the other, or pretending that Bayes Theory makes vague theories superior to specific ones by making them unfalsifiable even though that is considered a harmful trait in science)

Hey, mr. reading comprehension. You have a mouth full of straw. I said vagueness is a bad thing in Bayesian analysis. I repeated it over and over, I relied on it. However, if a very specific theory conflicts with the evidence, it is ruled out much more strongly than a theory which is more vague, which does not necessarily conflict with said evidence.

For example, there were theories of planetary formation which claimed that the ratio of the orbital lengths would have to be similar to those of our solar system, and that gas giants could not occur near the primary. These were very much more specific than the theories we now have, which pretty much say 'anything goes'. Why? Because the stronger theory was FALSIFIED. Specific falsification trumps being vague in the reject pile.

And we should NOT point out that it has no predictive power? Bullshit. Your refusal to admit that a lack of predictive power is a serious problem for a scientific theory does not change anything

It is a serious problem for a scientific theory! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT?

, and pretending that we should attack ID on only one front is stupid.

In a letter to the editor (note the topic), a word is better spent on attacking along the one or two most fruitful lines of attack, which IMO are that they have zero evidence, and they're liars. That their theory lacks predictive power comes in not long later, but it's not as juicy as the first two.

In the internet, bastion of making as much argument as you want, go ahead, argue every single line you can think of. Including this one.

[Darth Wong]

And the various pieces of logic you used to justify your argument (pretending that "permit" and "predict" are "flipsides" of each other, so one is as good as the other, or pretending that Bayes Theory makes vague theories superior to specific ones by making them unfalsifiable even though that is considered a harmful trait in science)

Hey, mr. reading comprehension. You have a mouth full of straw. I said vagueness is a bad thing in Bayesian analysis. I repeated it over and over, I relied on it. However, if a very specific theory conflicts with the evidence, it is ruled out much more strongly than a theory which is more vague, which does not necessarily conflict with said evidence.

None of which defends your assumption that ID would become a viable theory in the hypothetical event that evolution was shown to be flawed, you fucking idiot. You admit that vagueness is bad, just as you admit that lack of predictive power is bad, but then you go on to pretend that ID would be a viable theory anyway. The fact that you contradict yourself does not make my rebuttal a strawman.

For example, there were theories of planetary formation which claimed that the ratio of the orbital lengths would have to be similar to those of our solar system, and that gas giants could not occur near the primary. These were very much more specific than the theories we now have, which pretty much say 'anything goes'. Why? Because the stronger theory was FALSIFIED. Specific falsification trumps being vague in the reject pile.

Hey dumb-shit, no one denied that in a hypothetical scenario where evolution was shown to be wrong, it would not be shown to be wrong. So stop wasting time with this idiotic false dilemma fallacy. ID is so vague that it cannot predict anything. This means it does NOT automatically become a valid scientific theory if evolution were to fail. Using Bayes Theory to show that evolution would fail if evidence disproved it is just long-winded red-herring horseshit; no one ever denied that evolution would fail if evidence disproved it. We're talking about the fact that an undefined theory is not a scientific theory at all, and you are pretending that this is not a vald criticism of ID.

And we should NOT point out that it has no predictive power? Bullshit. Your refusal to admit that a lack of predictive power is a serious problem for a scientific theory does not change anything

It is a serious problem for a scientific theory! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT?

Then WHY DO YOU KEEP DENYING THAT IT IS A VALID WAY TO ATTACK ID, MORON? Why did you actually claim earlier in this thread that a theory reliant on inscrutable terms is not necessarily a bad one? Your backpedaling is obvious to anyone who actually bothers to read your first posts and then compare them to your latest ones.

, and pretending that we should attack ID on only one front is stupid.

In a letter to the editor (note the topic), a word is better spent on attacking along the one or two most fruitful lines of attack, which IMO are that they have zero evidence, and they're liars. That their theory lacks predictive power comes in not long later, but it's not as juicy as the first two.

On the contrary, they can bring up endless examples of "here's something you can't explain" and there's no way you can pre-emptively address them all in a Letter to the Editor. You're much better off trying to point out the underlying flaw in their philosophy.

In the internet, bastion of making as much argument as you want, go ahead, argue every single line you can think of. Including this one.

You've got it ass-backwards. It is far more space-efficient to go after their philosophy than their evidence, because they can just make up new "evidence" at will, by using the "evolutionists cannot explain feature X on species Y" trick with randomly chosen species names and features that may or may not be correctly described. You can't possibly address them all in advance, and they can easily win converts by trying to make you look foolish for saying they have no evidence when, in the eyes of many laypeople, they do. Far better to attack the philosophical problems with the way they define "evidence".

[drachefly]

ID is so vague that it cannot predict anything. This means it does NOT automatically become a valid scientific theory if evolution were to fail.

If evolution were to fail, it would become worthwhile splitting ID into cases, each of which has predictive power (though in aggregate they have no prediction whatsoever) and falsifying the individual cases. It'd be a pain in the ass, and if anyone could come up with alternatives it'd be great. But to say "I don't know" and STOP... that's ending inquiry more than working with subsets of a class of theories which in aggregate predicts nothing.

What cases could be pulled out and looked at more carefully? Well, SETI seems like a place to start... look for patterns among the pieces of evidence eliminating evolution for any hints. Any unexpected homologies? And so on.

The 'God' angle is going to remain fruitless, sure.

And we should NOT point out that it has no predictive power? Bullshit. Your refusal to admit that a lack of predictive power is a serious problem for a scientific theory does not change anything

It is a serious problem for a scientific theory! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT?

Then WHY DO YOU KEEP DENYING THAT IT IS A VALID WAY TO ATTACK ID, MORON?

I think 'no predictive power' is a suboptimal strategy because on the one hand, people don't get the importance to science; and on the other, it's a conglomerate of individual theories, which muddies the water.

I think 'Failure of Imagination Fallacy' is a good strategy, and it is closely related.

Why did you actually claim earlier in this thread that a theory reliant on inscrutable terms is not necessarily a bad one?

It is not necessarily a WRONG one. It is definitely a BAD one. And in the argument in the populace in general, being WRONG is worse than being USELESS.
In some cases, bad theories are all we're going to get. In that case, damn it, sucks to be us. As I've said from page 1.

Your backpedaling is obvious to anyone who actually bothers to read your first posts and then compare them to your latest ones.

Funny you should mention that, I had just checked back to see where the debate had gone, and looking for any points that hadn't been answered.

The only thing I said that ID should not have to do is provide the mechanism. This is a far cry from arguments about its vagueness; as if we could pin down exactly WHAT genetic hanky-panky had been done, WHEN it had been done, WHERE it had been done, it's quite specific already. HOW and WHY are things I'd be willing to spot the theory at that point.
Investigation would then proceed on those points, incidentally.

Also, I have maintained that while vagueness in a theory is a serious problem, it is not immediately fatal like falsification is.

[Lord Zentei]

ID is so vague that it cannot predict anything. This means it does NOT automatically become a valid scientific theory if evolution were to fail.

If evolution were to fail, it would become worthwhile splitting ID into cases, each of which has predictive power (though in aggregate they have no prediction whatsoever) and falsifying the individual cases. It'd be a pain in the ass, and if anyone could come up with alternatives it'd be great. But to say "I don't know" and STOP... that's ending inquiry more than working with subsets of a class of theories which in aggregate predicts nothing.

That is not anyone's position. You don't STOP when you admit that you don't know, you seek answers as opposed to clinging on to theories that have no evidence and no predictive power.

You also missed my post above.

And you had agreed to concede if Darth Wong provided one non-evolution, non-ID alternative that is not less plausible than ID. ID has zero plausibility because it has no supporting evidence and cannot model or predict. It is not a theory. "I don't know" is not a theory either, and it similarly models nothing. Only it is more honest. Your challenge was met.

[drachefly]

If evolution were to fail, it would become worthwhile splitting ID into cases, each of which has predictive power (though in aggregate they have no prediction whatsoever) and falsifying the individual cases.
...

You don't STOP when you admit that you don't know, you seek answers as opposed to clinging on to theories that have no evidence and no predictive power.

But when you go on asking questions, you will be asking questions about specific theories, some of which are in the set of ID theories, no?

Or will you not begin to consider the possibility of an intentional version of panspermia?

You also missed my post above.

This one?

Admitting ignorance is an alternative. You did not ask for an alternative that was a THEORY.

Ah. Well, that's what I meant. I thought it was clear. Of course if evolution were disproven we would be up shit creek proverbially speaking, and no one would know. However, "We don't know" isn't a foundation for a line of inquiry. Subsets of ID could possibly be, as mentioned above.

ID has zero plausibility because it has no supporting evidence and cannot model or predict.

The second and third of those have nothing to do with plausibility; and as for the first, lack of contradicting evidence is more important to plausibility than existence of supporting. Much of science is to decrease the range of plausible theories.

As I pointed out, one can make up bullshit all day.

Yes. this is an important part of the scientific process.
;)
(note, this is a weak attempt to insert some humor into this debate)

More to the point, it provides useless and counterproductive baggage to our thinking when new evidence comes along.

You mean, assuming ID to be CORRECT adds baggage, right? Just leaving it its tiny (~ 10^-large) corner of the table does not, IMO.

Why the hell do you think we are having problems with ID morons in the first place? Precisely because of such baggage (inherited from religion) that has no supportive evidence and that people won't let go.

Because they're lying? Because they're using failure of the imagination fallacies? Because their theory is extremely vague and nonparsimonious? Because many but not all of them come to it with massive preconceptions supporting it?

[Lord Zentei]

If evolution were to fail, it would become worthwhile splitting ID into cases, each of which has predictive power (though in aggregate they have no prediction whatsoever) and falsifying the individual cases.
...

You don't STOP when you admit that you don't know, you seek answers as opposed to clinging on to theories that have no evidence and no predictive power.

But when you go on asking questions, you will be asking questions about specific theories, some of which are in the set of ID theories, no?

Or will you not begin to consider the possibility of an intentional version of panspermia?

What I will not do is to give bullshit the benefit of the doubt simply because I don't have any non-bullshit theory lying around. As I pointed out, Dr Behe has been forced to concede under oath that if ID is scientific, so is astrology and Tarot reading.

You also missed my post above.

This one?

Admitting ignorance is an alternative. You did not ask for an alternative that was a THEORY.

Ah. Well, that's what I meant. I thought it was clear. Of course if evolution were disproven we would be up shit creek proverbially speaking, and no one would know. However, "We don't know" isn't a foundation for a line of inquiry. Subsets of ID could possibly be, as mentioned above.

ID is NOT a theory any more than "we don't know" is.

ID has zero plausibility because it has no supporting evidence and cannot model or predict.

The second and third of those have nothing to do with plausibility; and as for the first, lack of contradicting evidence is more important to plausibility than existence of supporting. Much of science is to decrease the range of plausible theories.

Actualy, yes. Yes it does have much to do with plausibility. And that science is to decrease the range of plausible theories has nothing to do with claiming that a theory which is not plausible is.

As I pointed out, one can make up bullshit all day.

Yes. this is an important part of the scientific process.

(note, this is a weak attempt to insert some humor into this debate)

Only to an extent. Anything does not go.

More to the point, it provides useless and counterproductive baggage to our thinking when new evidence comes along.

You mean, assuming ID to be CORRECT adds baggage, right? Just leaving it its tiny (~ 10^-large) corner of the table does not, IMO.

Zero. Not 10^-large. Unless you have been holding out on us with regards ot evidence.

Why the hell do you think we are having problems with ID morons in the first place? Precisely because of such baggage (inherited from religion) that has no supportive evidence and that people won't let go.

Because they're lying? Because they're using failure of the imagination fallacies? Because their theory is extremely vague and nonparsimonious? Because many but not all of them come to it with massive preconceptions supporting it?

Indeed. And therefore to accept that ID is a scientific theory even in principle is to give them an inch where they deserve none.

[Lord Zentei]

Or will you not begin to consider the possibility of an intentional version of panspermia?

And specifically on this: if you are referring to your proposed scenario with alien primogenetors, you are NOT replacing evolution in that case, since the primogenetors presumably evolved somewhere. You are merely adding a new feature to evolution, you are not replacing it.

[drachefly]

NOTE: the official version of ID is immune to the defense I am offering the general idea. This is because they advocate a departure from scientific approach in the event that evolution is ruled out. (see the "Behe's acolyte on the Radio" thread)

Further response, going out of order for maximum clarity:

You mean, assuming ID to be CORRECT adds baggage, right? Just leaving it its tiny (~ 10^-large) corner of the table does not, IMO.

Zero. Not 10^-large. Unless you have been holding out on us with regards ot evidence.

I repeat: is it IMPOSSIBLE for some outside force to have influenced our development? If not, then the share is not zero. Period. It can get really really small.

You also missed my post above.

This one?

Admitting ignorance is an alternative. You did not ask for an alternative that was a THEORY.

Ah. Well, that's what I meant. I thought it was clear. Of course if evolution were disproven we would be up shit creek proverbially speaking, and no one would know. However, "We don't know" isn't a foundation for a line of inquiry. Subsets of ID could possibly be, as mentioned above.

ID is NOT a theory any more than "we don't know" is.

What it is, that "I don't know" is not, is a statement of things that happened, which attempts to be part of the answer to the question "How did we come to be".
It it is a very short just-so story, but "I don't know" is a blank page.

ID has zero plausibility because it has no supporting evidence and cannot model or predict.

The second and third of those have nothing to do with plausibility

Actualy, yes. Yes it does have much to do with plausibility.[/quote]

You are using an extremely odd definition of plausible. I bet if you tried you could come up with some examples of plausible things that do not provide much in the way of model or realistically testable predictions.

Like, say, that there was/was no photon of exactly 400nm wavelength proceeding along some well-defined path at some well defined time, in the past, and we didn't measure it.

BTW: to clean something up, I got snowballed into missing it:

You will, of course, retract this strawman immediately. I was saying that it met YOUR bullshit requirements of a theory, not mine.

he is referring to the point at which I complained he said "I don't know" is a theory. I believe he thinks I was referring to his allegation that "I don't know" fits all my criteria of a theory (an unsupportable allegation since I had never listed all of my criteria); actually, I was referring to his answer of "I don't know" to my request for a better option. Since I thought I had made it clear enough that I was asking for theories, it seemed there that he meant it was a theory; however, Lord Zentei pointed out that I had not specified this, and so it is now clear that DW did NOT mean that "I don't know" is a theory.
Whew, we all agree on it.

[drachefly]

Or will you not begin to consider the possibility of an intentional version of panspermia?

And specifically on this: if you are referring to your proposed scenario with alien primogenetors, you are NOT replacing evolution in that case, since the primogenetors presumably evolved somewhere. You are merely adding a new feature to evolution, you are not replacing it.

I know it's been a while (yesterday), but I have referred only to (nonexistent) proofs that OUR life did not evolve, not that evolution is in principle impossible. IIRC, even Behe admits that evolution is in principle possible; he just holds that it doesn't explain our particular case, because unlike 'real evolved creatures', we have irreducibly complex structures.


And really, what kind of evidence could you come up with to oppose abiogenesis and evolution as a general phenomenon?

[Lord Zentei]

NOTE: the official version of ID is immune to the defense I am offering the general idea. This is because they advocate a departure from scientific approach in the event that evolution is ruled out. (see the "Behe's acolyte on the Radio" thread)

Well, that's something at least.

You mean, assuming ID to be CORRECT adds baggage, right? Just leaving it its tiny (~ 10^-large) corner of the table does not, IMO.

Zero. Not 10^-large. Unless you have been holding out on us with regards ot evidence.

I repeat: is it IMPOSSIBLE for some outside force to have influenced our development? If not, then the share is not zero. Period. It can get really really small.

It is implausible as long as you have no supporting evidence. It is not IMPOSSIBLE that there is an invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's garage either, mind you.

ID is NOT a theory any more than "we don't know" is.

What it is, that "I don't know" is not, is a statement of things that happened, which attempts to be part of the answer to the question "How did we come to be".
It it is a very short just-so story, but "I don't know" is a blank page.

So? "I don't know" is honest and not bullshit. YHVH creating the universe is also a just so story, and it is dishonest if you try to dress it up as science. There is a reason astronomers don't invoke a creative intelligence when they freely admit that they don't know what "caused" the Big Bang.

You are using an extremely odd definition of plausible. I bet if you tried you could come up with some examples of plausible things that do not provide much in the way of model or realistically testable predictions.

Not if I were looking for something SCIENTIFICALLY plausible.

Like, say, that there was/was no photon of exactly 400nm wavelength proceeding along some well-defined path at some well defined time, in the past, and we didn't measure it.

Not even an attempt at a theory or a model. Not a meaningful comparison.