The growing irrelevancy of Behe

Very fitting quote from Darwin, especially since ID via IC via Behe is an argument from ignorance and lack of imagination.

Insert another promotion for my badly-written blog entry.

Did you get a load of the comment from Himself on "Thoughts in a Haystack"? Words fail me. The man is not just deluded and dishonest, he's a genuine mental case.

Of what use is half a butt propeller?

That Chicago Tribune article is among the best I've seen in the 'mainstream media' at combating Behe's BS.

Indeed, Bayesian, and I don't think the NY Times, with all its vaunted tradition of science reporting, has to date come up with anything even close, as it damn well ought to do to wash away the shame of the dreck that's been published by what's-her-name the religion reporter.

Behe via Thoughts in a Haystack:

The interesting story is that essentially no progress whatsoever has been made in a Darwinian framework on the systems I discussed in Darwin's Black Box since it was published ten years ago. The Free Press will soon release a tenth anniversary edition of DBB in which I review exactly that lack of progress in a new chapter-length Afterword.

I imagine his review will run roughly along the lines of his Dover testimony: See that stack of papers over there? Worthless, all of it! The authors? Morons, all of them! (In the movie, Behe will be played by Wallace Shawn, reprising the role of Vizzini in _The Princess Bride_.)

I'm also kind of wondering why we are supposed put any weight on Behe's assertion that in his mind ID is the explanation. "In my mind" Behe cannot possibly have a degree in biochemistry. Please don't confuse me with the facts.

But where are the butt propellers on the backside(s) of Mount Rushmore?

There's nothing inherently wrong with efforts to find out whether or not a posited mechanism is capable of producing the results that are credited to it. The problem with Behe is that he knows so little about evolution, and has no coherent strategy even for supposedly showing that some biological structures could not evolve. Even worse, he ignores the considerable evidence that his supposed IC structures, like the bacterial flagellum, did evolve from other structures (vice-versa is a possibility, and hardly changes anything). How is anyone supposed to make sensible criticism of evolutionary mechanisms when he pays no heed to the meaning of the homologous genes responsible for the flagellum?

Behe has only one thing going for him in the PR campaign that is called ID--he's a SCIENTIST who is supposed to have shown that "Darwinian mechanisms" are incapable of producing complexity in organisms. Beyond that he's quite a bore, with none of the snappy little "facts" that Kent Hovind puts out for the unwitting. There is, however, no replacement for Behe in the IDC pantheon, so he won't disappear soon.

But he can't come up with anything new, or even seemingly new, and has turned out to be about as bad a witness as we suspect Dembski would have been. Beyond the religionists he's already irrelevant, I would wager. Even among the religionists I suspect that his stock is waning, because he certainly didn't get (positive) results at Dover, and surely the droning about Mt. Rushmore and the flagellum must be getting old. If he really had a reason the flagellum couldn't evolve, or even a good little lie as to why it couldn't evolve, the IDist cretins would chant it forever. But his bald assertion that it couldn't evolve is likely to wear thin even with, say, DaveScot. The fact that Behe's a SCIENTIST who claims evolution can't happen (or can, but only to an arbitrarily-defined point) isn't going to have the same cachet with the faithful when the courts are laughing at his "evidence".

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Ken Miller wrote: (via Pharangula/via Thoughts in a Haystack

"Critics of ID say its proponents have ignored the scientific method, offering no testable ideas about how the sperm flagellum or anything else came to be. Instead they simply leap to the conclusion that a designer made complex biochemistry.
"They've admitted, under oath, that they have no direct evidence for design at all," [Kenneth] Miller said."

We plead guilty.

Everything Miller says is correct.
There is no empirical; evidence, either observational or experimental that supports the notion that living things were "designed", much less, that they were designed by a supernatural being.
That having been said, it is incumbent upon me to point out that neo-darwinism suffers from the same lack of empirical evidence. So instead of wasting my time trying to support intelligent design, it's more useful to point out that darwinists have likewise ignored the scientific method. They offer no testable ideas about how such highly organized systems as the blood clotting mechanism and molecular motors came to be. Note the word "testable" which is the foundation of the scientific method. Instead they offer just-so stories that are no different from the creation myths of creationists. They simply leap to the conclusion that highly organized structures and processes "evolved" by the mechanism of mutation, selection, drift and chromosome duplication without a shred of empirical evidence.
As I've said before many times, neo-darwinism and religious creationism are both in the same dilemma and without any substantive evidence they will continue to fight tooth and nail for the bottom rung on the ladder of credibility.

The interesting story is that essentially no progress whatsoever has been made in a Darwinian framework on the systems I discussed in Darwin's Black Box since it was published ten years ago. The Free Press will soon release a tenth anniversary edition of DBB in which I review exactly that lack of progress in a new chapter-length Afterword.

Ignoring the untruth of his premise, wouldn't a more appropriate subject for the tenth anniversary edition (it's so tough being an ostracised IDist, isn't it?) be the amazing progress made by IDists on those systems in the last ten years? After all, ID is an amazingly powerful new way of interpreting biological evidence free of the shackles of materialistic scientific methodology, so Behe's groundbreaking book must have inspired lots of productive research. Right?

Actually, the scientific method relies on "observable" and "empirical" means, not necessarily upon "testing". One may get into interminable discussions where people will claim that observation constitutes "testing", and I'm sure it can be argued. But in the end, it's usually easier to claim empiricism and thus to bypass the stupid concept of science held by Charlie Wagner.

We "test" evolution via the genetic evidence for derivation of flagella and the rest of organisms. Or, using a more conventional definition of "test", we observe details of genetics and morphology and we make sense of them via evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory must be consistent with the details, or it must change to fit the facts. All of which suggests that Charlie remains as far from understanding science as ever.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Evolutionary theory in no way resembles Rudyard Kipling's "Just So Stories"--I suspect that most of the creationists who throw up this comparison have never actually read the stories. Evolution-based explanations are examined (as Glen observed) in light of facts and scientific principles; the ID explanation of poofing into existence is more similar to Kipling's "explanations" than are the evolution-based ones.

Glen Davidson wrote:

"Actually...."

Observation certainly does constitute testing. It is a form of empirical evidence, just like experiment.

I don't recall calling your remarks "stupid" so why do you offend me so?

I'm not interested in testing evolution. I have declared it a fact. I'm interested in the mechanism. There is no empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that supports the notion that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" by a darwinian mechanism any more than there is empirical evidence that it was "poofed" into existence by God. What you call evidence proves that all living things are closely related and probably had a common origin. I agree with that.
Where is your evidence that mutation, selection, drift and chromosome duplication is the mechanism? Where is your evidence that random, accidental or unguided processes can lead to the emergence of new, highly organized structures, processes and syatems like the baacterial flagellum and other molecular motors? Huh?

I don't recall calling your remarks "stupid" so why do you offend me so?

Why? Because you're an asshole, Charlie. An ignorant asshole incapable of learning.

There is no empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that supports the notion that the bacterial flagellum "evolved"

That's a lie that I've explained to you two dozen times at least during the last couple of years, Charlie.

And yet you keep repeating it.

Like I said: you're an asshole, Charlie. A gaping ignorant disgusting asshole.

Dry up already. And blow away.

(In the movie, Behe will be played by Wallace Shawn, reprising the role of Vizzini in _The Princess Bride_.)

I think the most compelling argument for bringing the Three Stooges back from the dead is that future generations will need their talents for a film that tells the story of the Intelligent Design movement. Curly can play Behe, Larry can play Jonathan Wells, and Moe can play William Dembski. (Moe's talents will also be needed for the definitve film biography of David Horowitz.)

The Free Press will soon release a tenth anniversary edition of DBB in which I review exactly that lack of progress in a new chapter-length Afterword.

Maybe someone should publish an alternative viewpoint for the 10th anniversary summarizing the evidence contrary to each of the examples presented in DBB.

The irony is that it is you all who think you know so much. :-)

I'm sure someone has brought this up before. But doesn't the awesome complexity of nature argue against a "designer" more than for one? Let's turn it around on the intelligent design "scientists" for a minute. Where did God learn about bacterial flagellums (flagella) and how to "create" them. If you were God, wouldn't you have gone for a simpler designs without quite so much detail? I mean who's going to notice if you cut a few corners? If you can just design anything you want, what is the point of this incredibly complex DNA in every cell of every living thing? I think I would have skipped that part. Why not skip to the more advanced life forms immediately? Many of these ID "scientists" agree that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that the fossil record shows that microbacteria were the first life forms. If you were God, would you first create microbacteria and then wait a billion years (give or take) before creating some other life form? God must have beaucoup patience if that's true. What the hell was he doing for all that time anyway? I think I would get right to the point and create men right from the get-go if they were to be my ultimate creation. I mean what's the point in letting trilobites, cephalopods and brachiopods rule the Earth for hundreds of millions of years?

These are questions I would like the Behe's of the world to answer some day.

"Actually...."

Observation certainly does constitute testing. It is a form of empirical evidence, just like experiment.

If you want to go with that, fine. Then your previous complaints are meaningless.

I don't recall calling your remarks "stupid" so why do you offend me so?

Is there supposed to be some reciprocity between those who constantly misuse and mis-state scientific issues, and those who defend science? Anyway, I think GWW said it best already.

I'm not interested in testing evolution. I have declared it a fact. I'm interested in the mechanism. There is no empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that supports the notion that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" by a darwinian mechanism any more than there is empirical evidence that it was "poofed" into existence by God. What you call evidence proves that all living things are closely related and probably had a common origin. I agree with that.

See, it's just like GWW said. You just bleat on and on about meaningless claptrap. I don't care if you think evolution is a fact, it's a meaningless statement unless you actually have a model that can make predictions. Do you understand the issue? It's about testing. RM+NS can be and is tested, because it actually predicts relatedness, "nested hierarchies", and once it is understood according to genetics and DNA, it predicts the neutral and selectionist patterns that we find in genomes (within the expected resolution). For you to say that you accept evolution without a predictive mechanism is almost meaningless.

You're still far too incompetent in science even to recognize the value of the testing that has been done with regard to evolutionary theory, and you deny the actual tests as stupidly as ever. And yes, I have every reason to call your statements stupid, while you have no reason to complain at what I have written, for the simple fact that what I wrote wasn't stupid.

Where is your evidence that mutation, selection, drift and chromosome duplication is the mechanism?

Have you ever even considered looking at the genomic evidence, or are you too busy restating the same exploded stupidities to actually learn anything? Or are you incapable of meaningfully comparing divergent genomes, you know, genomes--which show the effects of mutation, chromosome duplication, selection, and drift? Why don't you take a course?

Where is your evidence that random, accidental or unguided processes can lead to the emergence of new, highly organized structures, processes and syatems like the baacterial flagellum and other molecular motors? Huh?

We're overwhelmed with the evidence that such processes are responsible for life (the predicted patterns) and you stupidly ask, "Huh?"

Look, it isn't my fault that you're obtuse, that you can't reason from predictions made by current evolutionary theory to the results that we find in the various genomes. More and more of the tests of the mutation plus natural selection (to state it simply) are coming in positive, and all you can do is to ask for RM+NS to be tested, claiming that it hasn't been. It's appalling that you ever taught anybody, since you can't recognize that evolutionary theory could be considered the paradigm for testing in the historical sciences, with the predicted patterns emerging so regularly that the obtuse think that the predictions of RM+NS are simply what would be expected from any evolutionary scenario whatsoever.

What you take to be expectations for evolution are the predictions of RM+NS, no more or less. We know of other evolutionary processes, like language evolution and the evolution of manuscripts, and if similarites between biological evolution and these other processes are in evidence, biological evolution follows a distinctly "Darwinian" path. Again, the tests have been done, and evolution has been found to be "Darwinian" or "neo-Darwinian" (actually it's difficult to write in the presence of IDiots, since we should only be discussing "evolutionary theory", but they're always claiming that non-predictive ideas are also evolutionary theories, however idiotically). Maybe you should learn something about the evolutionary theory that you so stupidly denounce.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Many of these ID "scientists" agree that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that the fossil record shows that microbacteria were the first life forms.

Actually, most ID advocates, following the example of Philip Johnson, keep a politic science about the age of the earth. And they're certainly not shy about making common cause with those who believe in a young earth: one of Dembski's anthologies, Mere Creation, includes an essay by "noted" YEC "baraminologist" Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer.

Net cartoon, but I think it's the wrong species to represent IDers.

It should have been equus caballus.

"Of what use is half a butt propeller?"

Half the speed? (Assuming naively that the halved length gives half output efficiency and that speed is proportional to that - I'm no mechanist.)

Which somehow reminds me of charlie... :-)

Speaking of charlie, in all fairness there is a difference between evolution the fact and evolution the theory. But as Glen says, "For you to say that you accept evolution without a predictive mechanism is almost meaningless." is also true.

One giant leap for charlie, one small step for humankind.

Glen Davidson wrote:

"If you want to go with that, fine..."

Man there's a lot of anger, hostility and bad kharma here today....

"O Amida,
Oneness of Life and Light,
Entrusting in your Great Compassion,
May you shed the foolishness in myself,
Transforming me into a conduit of Love.
May I be a medicine for the sick and weary,
Nursing their afflictions until they are cured;
May I become food and drink,

During time of famine,
May I protect the helpless and the poor,
May I be a lamp,

For those who need your Light,
May I be a bed for those who need rest,
and guide all seekers to the Other Shore.
May all find happiness through my actions,
and let no one suffer because of me.
Whether they love or hate me,
Whether they hurt or wrong me,
May they all obtain true entrusting,
Through Other Power,
and realize Supreme Nirvana."

Namo Amida Buddha

Charlie: too bad Buddhism is a very science-friendly philosophy.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. -- Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha Sakyamuni

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism." -- Albert Einstein

They offer no testable ideas about how such highly organized systems as the blood clotting mechanism and molecular motors came to be.

Yes they do, there are a wide number of testible predictions that can and are made from these models. The primary example is Russel Doolittles'prediction, based on gene duplication and molecular clock rates, that fish would lack the extrinsic component of the clotting system. Behe's prediction was they would not. Guess what, fish don't have the extrinsic clotting system. Evolutionary theory will also predict that simpler precursor systems will exist (whereas Behe categorically denies that they can). Amphioxus has thrombin without the vast majority of the clotting system.

This just sracthes the surface of the testable predictions that you can make about complex systems suc as the clotting system.

"I'm not interested in testing evolution. I have declared it a fact."

That's not how science works. You don't ever just declare things fact. They have to constantly be put to work to earn their keep against all available evidence.

"Where is your evidence that mutation, selection, drift and chromosome duplication is the mechanism? Where is your evidence that random, accidental or unguided processes can lead to the emergence of new, highly organized structures, processes and systems like the bacterial flagellum and other molecular motors? Huh?"

It is found in studying the particulars of these structures in eveyr modern and extinct creature to triangulate a history of its development. Showing that a particular mechanism was at work is harder, but so far we CAN say that what we've so far learned of the history of all sorts of differnet complex structures is that their particular histories are consistent with the mechanism of natural selection, which demands a very peculiar SORT of history (one with gradual modifications), as well as the final product bearing all the characteristic features of things designed by natural selection in other arenas (the wasteful redundancies, exaptions, feedback loops, structure via slightly altered repititions, modifications consistent with known genetic mutation mechanisms, and so on) It seems like there's, well, a lot to go on, actually.

Ian wrote:

"Yes they do, there are a wide number of testible predictions that can and are made from these models."

Ian, old boy! How the heck are you?
Hope the family is well, Peta, Jack, Michael and...Andrew?

Now we've been over all of this before and you know how I feel about it. It's a mistake to judge the worth of a theory on it's ability to make predictions. The same prediction could be the result of multiple causes. You fall into the trap of thinking that if all dogs have tails, that every animal that has a tail is a dog.
A good example of this is redshift. The Big Bang theory predicts that the universe is expanding and therefore the recessional velocity of the stars and galaxies should produce a redshift. We see a redshift, so we conclude that the Big Bang is confirmed without considering that there might be another cause, not related to the Big Bang, for the observed redshift.
A theory should be judged by the amount of observational and experimental evidence that supports it. A theory that just makes predictions without any observational or experimental evidence is worthless. It's nothing more than a story.

Hey, Charlie, if you've got evidence for a different cause for all the changes, let's hear it.

So far, evolution's the most reasonable one, since it works on the small scale, there's thus far no magic stop sign (if you've got one, show us!) to prevent those small scale changes from adding up, and it works in simulations built on its principles.

A theory that just makes predictions without any observational or experimental evidence is worthless. It's nothing more than a story.

Funny. A theory that makes true predictions is pretty much by definition worthwhile. Of course, the observations and experiments carried out to verify those predictions are a big chunk of evolutionary theory. There's also all the fossil and genetic evidence we've collected that you seem to be in the habit of ignoring.

Additional question: Do you expect the prosecution to actually carry out a duplicate of the murder they're trying to prove?

Additional additional question: If scientists duplicated the theoretical history of evolution exactly, would you wuss out by saying that the actual history might be attributable to alternate phantom causes?

I feel the need to point out that that mount rushmore cartoon is a direct ripoff of an earlier Mad Magazine version. At least in Mad their asses were clothed in period attire.

Speaking of simpler precursor systems, the rotor of ATP synthase is a very plausable structure from which the bacterial flagellum could have derived. Both share many protiens, hexameric symmetry, both are powered by an inflow of hydrogen ions (and in both cases rarely, sodium) etc..etc... I really like Martino Rozzotti's book "Early Evolution" as a good analysis of the data.
As a Phycologist, (algae researcher) I come across all kinds of information on the origin of plastids and organelles. Endosymbiosis is something that creationists know absolutely nothing about! Many algal plastids (and perhaps even cilia in protists, etc...) have been aquired through ancient endosymbiotic events. Why would a cryptophyte have plastids surrounded by four membranes that just happen to correspond with the rRNA and nuclear evidence pointing to the modern descendants of organisms that would have "donated" these membranes to an endosymbiotic event? Just recently in Science, Okamoto and Inouye produced good evidence of an endosymbiotic event in progress! (Sci vol.310 pg.287)
It goes on and on in fascinating detail which makes the study of unicellular algae ever rewarding. I really don't see phycologists as having an evil agenda. When I discovered that I could go on a super-bountiful microbiological safari in the most unseemly of locales, it was obvious that discovery and beauty would last a lifetime and always be available.
It took maybe three billion years to get the first modernish eukaryote-esque cells. However, prokaryotic photosynthesizers have been around since the early Archean sub-era of the Precambrian! Much of that initial development of molecular "machinery" (happy now Dembski?) took place amoung these guys. A review of the Phyco-liturature could be an unexpected source of inspiration for some, and nausea for others.

[Ian Musgrave drops some fascinating tidbits about clotting in fish and Amphioxus]

Thank you for that, Ian -- I recall, while reading _DBB_, wondering: "Just who's clotting system is he describing here, and what sort of variety in leakage-control systems exists across the whole animal kingdom?" (A type of question I learned to ask from certain posters on t.o) So thanks for confirming my suspicions that there was a lot Behe wasn't telling me.

"A good example of this is redshift. The Big Bang theory predicts that the universe is expanding and therefore the recessional velocity of the stars and galaxies should produce a redshift. We see a redshift, so we conclude that the Big Bang is confirmed without considering that there might be another cause, not related to the Big Bang, for the observed redshift."

Bull. Like any good science, we devise more and more tests to try and rule out these additional possibilities. They do it with redshift, and they do it with evolution. That's exactly why they aren't just so stories: people actively search to find ways to test all the elements of the proposed "story." Unlike with ID, where simply proposing it is the end of your career: there's nothing more to test or to do, so you can just go catch up on your whittling.

Well said, plunge.

Additional note: All scientific conclusions are tenative. Someone could very well discover some astounding evidence that falsifies evolution tomorrow. Science advances more from "That's funny" moments than from cries of "Eureka!" like those the ID crowd is screaming. Because of that, scientists will do everything they can think of to falsify their theories. Evolution has been doing an amazing job of withstanding all those falsification attempts. It's needed a few tweaks here and there, but that should be expected for any theory.

IDers, on the other hand, give up and call it "Irreducibly Complex" when thinking about it hurts too much.

""I'm not interested in testing evolution. I have declared it a fact."

That's not how science works. You don't ever just declare things fact. They have to constantly be put to work to earn their keep against all available evidence."

I would never believed that I would support charlie! But I read his comments such that he agrees with the fact that evolution has taken place, but that he has problems understanding evolution theory's explanation (as so much else) of observations such as paleontological evidence.

But you are entirely correct here, and below, that continuing testing is essential and part of elucidating the mechanism. Pity charlie can't grasp that! He wants readymade bedtime stories.

"We see a redshift, so we conclude that the Big Bang is confirmed without considering that there might be another cause, not related to the Big Bang, for the observed redshift."

Charlie, you should know by now that this is (due to the efforts of continuing testing and developing theory) not the only observations supporting bigbang, and not even the expansion. And I believe the theory wasn't conclusively confirmed until recently, when COBE showed that all of the peculiarities of the microwave background was due to bigbang theory. We have now three independent tests of BB (expansion, nucleosynthesis, MWB) and finally know the age of the universe with some accuracy. Those 'other cases' are pipe dreams now.

Cases, causes... Potatoes, potatos...

Lt Kithze wrote:

"Just who's clotting system is he describing here, and what sort of variety in leakage-control systems exists across the whole animal kingdom?"

Quite a bit. Ascidians plug leaks with circulating cells called thrombocytes (and have no coagulation system to speak of, although thay have enzymes that are used in coagulation in other animals). Chordates progressively add bits to the primitive thrombocyte plug until we have our system of platelets and multicascade coagulation systems. Crustacea use a one step system, Horseshoe crabs a two and three step system. It looks like the clotting systenm of vertebrates stared out as a simple coagulogen system used for imobilising bacteria, and was then co-opted into clotting as our vascular system became more complex.

Re: the title, doesn't that contain the implicit assumption that Behe has been relevant at some point?

Yes, right, look at Mt Rushmore. And also, look at the Giant Causeway! It can't just have been created by blind chance. How do I know? Well, isn't it obvious?

Of course it's obvious: Mount Rushmore and the Giant Causeway don't reproduce (or at least I haven't seen them reproducing) with inheritable variability. Of course, the most likely explanation is that they're human constructions, because they serve human purposes.

Of course, blind chance isn't all that effective in my experience. That's why I prefer blind evolution, where chance is merely an innovator, not the whole of the mechanism.

Personally, I've found that reducing the role of my desired design goals helps me to build better ACs. It really helped me when I let go of my preconceived notions of what equipment an AC should have: I more effectively base my AC and piloting skills on what actually works, rather than what I think would work.

Charlie Wagner wrote:

Now we've been over all of this before and you know how I feel about it. It's a mistake to judge the worth of a theory on it's ability to make predictions.

But Charlie also wrote:

They offer no testable ideas about how such highly organized systems as the blood clotting mechanism and molecular motors came to be.

So first you crticise modern evolutionary theory for not making testable predictions, when it is pointed out that it does make testable predictions (and that these are confirmed), you say it doesn't matter. But that observational and experimental evidence is needed.

What part of confirming a prediction does not use observational and experimental evidence? What aspect of showing that fish don't have the extrinsic clotting system doen't require obsevational or experimatla evidence? Which part of showing that simpler clotting systems exist is not obervational or expeimental evidence. What part of showing the clotting componets are homologous is not experimental or observational evidence. What part of shwoing that gene duplication is very common (you almost certainly have a duplicated geen your parents didn't have) isn't observation or experiment? What part of deteremining that significant numbers of duplicated genes gain new function isn't observation or experiment?

Evolutionary biologists have made testable predictions (falsifying your first claim) about the origin of the clotting system. These predictions have been confirmed by multiple lines of observational and experimental evidence (falsifying your second claim).

Charlie wrote :

We see a redshift, so we conclude that the Big Bang is confirmed without considering that there might be another cause, not related to the Big Bang, for the observed redshift.

Charlie, you know this is incorrect. There have been many tests for non-cosmological redshifts, and all non-cosmological explanations have been falsified. Also, you know that the evidence for the Big Bang rests on more than just redshift. Please don't be disingenous.

Ian wrote:

"So first you crticise modern evolutionary theory for not making testable predictions, when it is pointed out that it does make testable predictions (and that these are confirmed), you say it doesn't matter. But that observational and experimental evidence is needed."

Testing a prediction is not the same as testing the mechanism. And if the prediction is confirmed, it does not mean that the mechanism is confirmed. The claim is that mutation, selection, drift etc. are capable of generating the structures, processes and systems that we find in living organisms. To the best of my knowledge, there is no empirical data that supports the view that there exists a link between the effects of mutation, selection, etc. and the highly organized systems that we find in living organisms.
The fact that fish do not have an extrinsic clotting system is a prediction that evolutionary theory might make, and it has been confirmed. Evolutionary theory also may predict that simpler clotting systems should exist and that the clotting systems of different forms contain homologous components. These predictions have also been confirmed.
In addition, it has sufficiently been demonstrated that mutations do occur, natural selection is a valid process in nature and that in some cases, duplicated genes can develop new functions.
What is missing, however, is any empirical evidence that links these effects together in such a way that your mechanism is supported. Each of those predictions that you made could equally apply to structures, processes and systems that were intelligently designed. It is a clear fact that in nature, the same processes, structures, genes and systems are used over and over again in a wide variety of applications across a broad spectrum of life forms. Clearly, all living forms are closely related, more so than we probably ever imagined and they all probably had a common origin.
So, like I said, the value of testing and confirming predictions is questionable. However, all it does is not falsify the theory. The best we can conclude after all the testable predictions are confirmed is that the theory has not been falsified.
Insofar as redshifts are concerned, we know that in science there are an almost infinite number of hypotheses, some of which we have not even identified. I will agree that all of the hypotheses that have been tested have been falsified, but there still may be some process or some other effect that we don't understand. It is impossible to test all possible hypotheses, and in cosmological redshift, we probably have not even scratched the surface.

Testing a prediction is not the same as testing the mechanism.

Nonsensical as that statement is, it's also moot.

"Testing a prediction is not the same as testing the mechanism."

Of course it is, how else could we do testing? By testing we get verifications and failed falsifications which shows that the mechanism works. You continue to show lack of understanding of the scientific method.

"Each of those predictions that you made could equally apply to structures, processes and systems that were intelligently designed."

What gave you this idea? ID has never been able to predict anything that have stood up to testing.

"It is impossible to test all possible hypotheses, and in cosmological redshift, we probably have not even scratched the surface."

It doesn't work that way. Often theories have a common component and can be dismissed en masse. For redshifts all explanations must correlate with distance, and that excludes a lot of alternative ideas.

But all that is moot anyway since redshifts are only a component of all bigbang evidence.

Charlie wrote:

Testing a prediction is not the same as testing the mechanism. And if the prediction is confirmed, it does not mean that the mechanism is confirmed.

Charlie, stop evading the issue. You have made patently false claims about what evolutionary theory does, and keep avoiding acknowledging you original statments were completely wrong with increasingly irrelevant diversions.

If you wish to claim that ID is so content free that any observation can be compatible with it, then you acknowledge that ID is not science.

Wow! I need to find what planets are aligned again. Let's see, it goes something like this...
Charlie makes a statement in general terms about the lack of "empirical" evidence regarding evolution.

Very smart people give - ohh.. about a half dozen specific, documented, and provable examples, whereby Charlie aruges the meaning of empiricism. Charlie then repeats his generalities, (and how intolernace to his Wagnerisms hurts his feelings).

Charlie, I am sure you are a nice guy... but I also believe that you know what you are doing, and it is a bit insidious. (Hint - when I need that much attention, I give my wife a hug).

Where is charlie? I can't wait for his response...

Charlie, God created the world last Thursday. Disprove.