Re: [asa] CSI Forensics WAS Staggering drunk WAS Romans 1:20

It doesn't. That's why I called it the uncommon descent variant of ID (taken
from the name of Dembski's blog). Michael Behe is an ID proponent that does
believe in common descent. If common descent ID was more forcefully
proclaimed then it might not be as likely abused by YEC. I have tried to
propose a synthesis between ID and TE on the Uncommon Descent blog and got
myself banned for it.

On Nov 23, 2007 7:29 AM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Wow. Where did I say ID = uncommon descent? In fact, I thought I have
> made it clear that I accept the evidence for common descent. My use of ID
> was in reference to Gould's hallway that constrains the staggering drunk and
> facilitates forward progress. Whatever this mysterious mechanism is, it
> loosely qualifies for a weak ID definition.
>
>
>
> Just like Dick's response, I think there is a lot of emotional reaction on
> this list to the concept of ID. That is what I tried to clarify earlier in
> this thread whether the specific objection to ID was based on science or
> this emotion. I think the answer is both.
>
>
>
> I think George's contribution of the distinction between micro and
> macrostates of molecules in a container is very helpful. I think this same
> analysis needs to be applied to the concept of design in life and this
> distinction needs to be factored into the use of the term, otherwise we are
> just a tower of Babel and speaking different languages.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Rich Blinne
> *Sent:* Friday, November 23, 2007 9:14 AM
> *To:* John Walley
> *Cc:* 'Randy Isaac'; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] CSI Forensics WAS Staggering drunk WAS Romans 1:20
>
>
>
> So, what's the forensic evidence in favor of ID? The example below is
> where the "gut feel" is overturned by detailed forensic evidence. This kind
> of evidence actually goes against the "uncommon descent" variety of ID. If
> you look at human chromosome number 2 you see detailed forensic evidence
> that it is fused chromosomes 2a and 2b of chimpanzees and other great apes.
> If you want to do your own CSI work go here:
>
>
>
> Shows the matched chromosome:
>
>
>
>
> http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?hgsid=100027956&clade=vertebrate&org=Chimp&db=panTro2&position=chr2a%3A11%2C250%2C001-12%2C250%2C000&pix=&Submit=submit&hgsid=100027956
>
>
>
> Shows the matched telomere:
>
>
>
>
> http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?hgsid=100027956&clade=vertebrate&org=Chimp&db=panTro2&position=chr2a%3A11%2C250%2C001-12%2C250%2C000&pix=&Submit=submit&hgsid=100027956
>
>
>
> User Guide to the Genome Browser:
>
> http://genome.ucsc.edu/goldenPath/help/hgTracksHelp.html
>
>
>
>
>
> This is not some vague analogy to forensics but applies the very DNA
> techniques used to reverse convictions. Namely, the forensic DNA evidence is
> extraordinarily strong for common descent of humans from a common ancestral
> great ape. I hope your friend has a chapter on human chromosome 2.
>
>
>
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:44 AM, John Walley wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The absence of being "fully" random is not the sign of divine guidance.
>
>
>
> I have this one last niggling ID doubt. I have trouble accepting the
> above. This is where the ID forensic argument comes in and I have to admit
> it is somewhat convincing.
>
>
>
> For instance, in our RTB Chapter in Atlanta, one of our scientists is a
> Forensic Toxicologist that works for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. He
> analyzes tissue samples for the presence of certain drugs and testifies as
> an expert witness for the state in court cases. His work involves mostly
> DUI, cocaine and methamphetamine, but occasionally he gets the bizarre and
> recently got some local black widow type woman that had a penchant for
> poisoning her husbands and he had to find the trace evidence of whatever it
> was that she used in order for the state to prosecute her. Since a couple of
> her previous husbands had died as well now they suspect she poisoned them
> too.
>
>
>
> This is the real CSI stuff. He took me down to the GBI lab one time and
> gave me a tour of all the departments and I met all the people and it was
> really fascinating. In addition to his toxicology lab they have a ballistics
> dept where they analyze all the different types of guns and bullets and a
> document and forgery dept that analyzes all the different kinds of document
> fraud several other depts and a DNA lab. In fact I met the two girls that
> run the DNA lab and their work was recently in the news that you may have
> seen since the GBI just did a paternity test on Atlanta megachurch pastor
> Earl Paulk and determined that his 34 year old nephew who had replaced him
> as pastor was really his son through an illicit affair with his brother's
> wife. Talk about bizarre.
>
>
>
> They also have a synthetic fiber analysis dept and I met the guy that was
> one of the ones that actually analyzed the carpet fibers in the famed Wayne
> Williams serial murder case in Atlanta back in the 70's. The guy I met was
> retiring that week and he had come on as an intern almost 30 years ago when
> the GBI was conducting that investigation.
>
>
>
> Anyway my friend is a strong ID advocate and he uses his knowledge and
> experience of forensics in his presentation on ID and last I heard he was
> even writing a book about it. One example he uses is the Wayne Williams case
> mentioned above. In fact Wayne Williams was the first capital murder case
> conviction ever won on the basis of forensic evidence. They basically
> identified carpet fibers found on several of the bodies to the carpet in
> Wayne Williams' house and car and it turns out the particular carpet found
> in his home was a certain type from a certain small manufacturer of a
> certain odd color that was made in a certain small lot size and only sold in
> the Atlanta area be a few retailers for a certain small period of time. The
> prosecution's case was basically massive circumstantial evidence and came
> down to what are the chances that all these victims would have that carpet
> fiber on them if they hadn't all been in Wayne Williams house before they
> were murdered?
>
>
>
> This is far from being an airtight case but they won the conviction. It
> has been contested though from the beginning because Atlanta was sharply
> polarized along racial lines at the time (Wayne Williams is African
> American) and his defense attorney at the time (who happened to be my scout
> master) released a famous quote that "Wayne Williams was convicted on the
> law of averages instead of the law of the land". And still today there are
> efforts underway to get his conviction overturned and prominent local
> politicians continually call for that.
>
>
>
> My friends point in his presentation is that here is an example of how the
> govt uses science and probability arguments to convict a man of a capital
> murder charge for which he could have been executed, so it is therefore
> disingenuous for Dawkins and others in academia to deny design in the
> universe in the face of the same massive amounts of circumstantial evidence.
> Granted neither case is totally airtight and they both come down to whether
> or not we can rationally infer a cause beyond a reasonable doubt but we seem
> to have different criteria in play here. It seems like Dawkins gets away
> with what Wayne Williams couldn't.
>
>
>
> To me this has always seemed like a very reasonable argument. So Dawkins
> want to make the metaphysical claim that evolution has no distant targets so
> therefore he gets to throw out all the complexity and probability evidence
> against him. How is this different than Wayne Williams attempting to come up
> with some claim to get all the carpet evidence against him thrown out that
> we would never buy? Why do we seem to allow this theoretical scientific
> ideal in academia but in the real world of the courts where people's lives
> are on the line, we don't?
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 23 09:35:20 2007