A Sociological Phenomenon
by BradfordIn the thread It was Never Really About Sternberg was it? some commenters mentioned the fact that ID has been rejected by the mainstream community. In previous comments within the same thread reasons for opposition to ID were identified. They included the sterotypical meme that ID was creationism as well as its Trojan Horse twin- that ID was about sneaking a creationist curriculum into public schools.
A smart, insightful observer pointed out something offlist. He noted that the rejection of ID is a sociological fact and could be studied as a sociological fact. A hypothesis would be rooted in the idea that the mainstream perspective is both stereotypical and superficial. You can allow the Dover school district and the views of DI fellows to fashion the lens through which you view all IDists if you wish. That's stereotyping. Their views are not dominant within the TT IDist community and it is doubtful they can be attributed to the larger community of IDists which span international boundaries. The continued focus on narrow concerns to the exclusion of broader issues is superficiality. Gathering the numbers and documenting the evidence would put meat on the bones of a hypothesis. It also would do much to explain a sociological phenomenon marked by stereotyping and superficiality.
December 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Lots of interesting ideas here, but this is the one I find most interesting to start with:
I'd like to hear more about what the Telic Thoughts community believes is wrong about the position of the ID community as represented at Dover by what everyone considers the leadering ID theorists. Does the TT community agree with the Dover ruling? Or would they just have presented a different defense?
I'm also interested in the larger aspects of this claim. How does an impartial observer such as myself distinguish valid ID theory from what the DI presents?
Comment by don provan — December 13, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
December 13th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
ID would stand a better chance with the scientific community if
(1)it could separate itself from creationism. Creationism says "God did it", ID says "A Designer did it." The only difference we can see is that creationists base their claims on ancient manuscripts.
(2)it could help biologists understand living things. Standard evolutionary theory starts with the observation that every metazoan starts as a single cell: a fertilized egg. RNA synthesizes itself, using DNA as a template. Proteins synthesize themselves using RNA and ribosomes as templates. Proteins form tissues, and/or enable or repress the synthesis of other proteins. Lipids form cell walls. Local differences in gene expression cause proteins and lipids to form various kinds of cells, which leads to structures. Changes in DNA sometimes lead to changes in rates or timing of cell formation, which sometimes leads to differences in structures. We know something about the chemistry of DNA mutation. If the Designer idea is to gain any traction among biologists, it has to be able to show how the Designer makes changes in DNA. Chemistry always proceeds in such a way as to minimize potential energy; if a Designer wants to make deliberate changes, he has to introduce energy to move specific electrons in different ways. How does this happen? Until ID can get some sort of grasp on that question, it'll remain a twin of creationism.
Comment by John Wendt — December 13, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
December 13th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Actually this isn't fair . . . . to creationists. Creationists actually put many specific ideas on the table to be analyzed empirically. None of them stood up to the evidence, but I hate to see the true creationists dissed when they did do something IDists never have: they made claims that could be supported and refuted.
What Johnson did to kick off the ID movement was lay out an approach to creationism which avoided making the "mistake" that the original creationists made of actually approaching the subject scientifically.
Comment by don provan — December 13, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
December 13th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I believe most TTers are on record as having expressed their doubts about the Dover school board prior to the decision. My own position is practical. A reigning scientific paradigm is the one which will be taught in schools. Anyone thinking alternatives are viable should not start by pushing for them in schools. The board destroyed their own case and made it possible for Judge Jones to rule against them on narrow but valid legal grounds. He would have been better advised to have done so.
Comment by Bradford — December 13, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
December 13th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Good point. I thought of saying that the creationists use their ancient manuscripts as a basis. But I couldn't think of anything parallel for ID.
Comment by John Wendt — December 13, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
December 13th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
dp:
Not unprecendented. Here.
Comment by Bradford — December 13, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
December 13th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Bradford,
I think what you say here about the Dover case is very wise, and I agree with it entirely.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I do want to go back to the DI specifically for a moment: would I be correct in guessing that you don't really have a problem with DI's ideas in general, only the specific action of defending the Dover school board? If your only argument with DI is political, then I can understand it and even agree with you.
But does that mean it's OK to stereotype you with their scientific and metaphysical positions? Or are there ways in which you also want to distance yourself from them in those areas, as well?
Comment by don provan — December 13, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
December 13th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I frequently read Evolution News and Views as well as many other non-DI websites. ID is not a monolithic front. I sometimes disagree with a DI author. At times I agree but think the matter is of minor importance. Other times I might even blog on the same issue and cite the DI source. We share the view that design is evident in nature. That's a broad statement though. David Heddle might agree with it too but think that empirical means of documenting that are non-existent. I would not go that far. Some of my political views are consistent with those of most DIers. I think their school board efforts are misdirected though.
Comment by Bradford — December 13, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
December 14th, 2008 at 8:54 am
He should start by providing some detailed experimental support for them.
But if you don't know how a Designer can move electrons into specific molecular orbitals, then you have to consider that this "evident design" may be nothing more than the demonstrated human tendency to find teleology even where it doesn't exist.
Comment by John Wendt — December 14, 2008 @ 8:54 am
December 14th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Let's see what we've got here. One ID critic thinks IDers should be less like creationists. The other that they should be more like creationists. OK, that sounds simple enough to do.
The latter also describes himself as an "impartial observer", although he comes off as nothing like that. Maybe he can describe what characteristics that he exhibits on this blog one can use to come to that conclusion.
As for some of the issues raised:
As I recall, the DI recommended against the action that the Dover BoE took. It was another legal group that promised to defend the Dover BoE if they undertook that policy.
That's a meaningless request to me. Pick an individual and give me a quote and a citation (preferably a link) and I'll be happy to comment on it. It's a waste of my time and yours to try to figure out what "ID community as represented at Dover by what everyone considers the leadering ID theorists" means.
I speak for nobody but myself, not any community . I think it could likely have been decided on narrower grounds, as Bradford said, with current USSC precedents in mind. But the entire jurisprudence of the Establishment clause is an abomination, as demonstrated by the the twin rulings of a couple years ago where one creche display was OKed, and another turned down, with no rational objective guidelines on why. Scalia is correct about what is wrong with the current Establishment jurisprudence.
A more rational approach to Establishment jurisprudence would have reversed the Dover verdict. Not to say that what happened in Dover was "good", but that it wasn't an issue for the Federal Courts.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 14, 2008 @ 9:38 am
December 14th, 2008 at 10:59 am
John Wendt
So let me get this strait
You need to know comprehensively how a design was accomplished before you can recognize it as designed?
Would a Native American or aboriginal Australian need to understand metallurgy before he could recognize a musket as designed?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 14, 2008 @ 10:59 am
December 14th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
We discussed this, so perhaps you should keep reading. Basically, John was speaking of creationists in the religious sense and observing that IDists don't appear to be any less religious, but I pointed out that there was a scientific creationist movement that was way more scientific that IDists. But even if it turned out differently and we had polar opposite opinions, how does that help you deal with either of them?
You don't think I'm impartial because you are not, so every time I object to some preconception you don't even understand you have, you ascribe to me motives of backing some other idea that I regularly deny any interesting in supporting. I have no desire for any specific answer to be proved correct, and you've seen nothing to suggest I do. I just know that the ID arguments given here are poor and I explain why all the time.
I know nothing about that, I only know that the blog said critics were stereotyping Telic Thought bloggers by expecting them to agree with what DI did in Dover.
Oh, sure, no problem. Here's the comment I was looking for insight on:
I'm sorry I wasn't more explicit. I should have quoted it to begin with and maybe put my comment right in the comments on the article itself to make it clearer what I was talking about. I'm looking forward to your response now that you know what I was referring to.
I'd be happy to discuss the Constitional issues of the Dover case with you, but I think that would be off topic here.
Comment by don provan — December 14, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
December 14th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Bradford,
I appreciate you clearing up your position. I promise to try to remember that your political stance is different from the DI's as long as you try to remember that you've just denied that your scientific and metaphysical stances are significantly different.
I'd like to move on to another part of your blog:
I agree that this is absolutely the case, but I'm disappointed that I cannot detect any of this. After years of trying, ID doesn't even have a coherent hypothesis to put meat on. Everytime I try to get one, I run into something like I did here earlier, where you said "symbols" and then got mad at me because you couldn't explain what "symbols" meant in a way that allowed us to agree on what were and weren't symbols in biological systems.
Comment by don provan — December 14, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
December 14th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
dp says:
And how do you know you don't have that backwards?
Can you give me a link to you doing that? And how do you know that I hold some specific preconception? I guess mind reader needs to be added to impartial observer.
Again, quotes and links are helpful in figuring out what incident you are talking about.
The same applies to me. Your observational skills are less than impressive.
And so are many of the Darwinist arguments. That you've failed to acknowledge such is a comment upon either your observational abilities, or your impartiality, or maybe both.
"I just know" isn't much of a credential for somebody claiming the title of "impartial observer".
As for the Bradford quote, it isn't really clear to me what the exact point of it is. I'm not sure what it has to to with Dover, or leading ID theorists. He seems to be saying that a lot of folks have a superficial understanding of Dover and ID, and have filled in the details with stereotypical details. True most likely, and very common in many areas. Take the $73/hour wage and benefit figure that has been tossed around about the Big 3 bailout, that is cleary untrue, but believed by many.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 14, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 7:40 am
No. We need to know that it's possible to accomplish it. Electrons always move in such a way as to minimize potential energy. That's what we mean by a natural process. If a Designer wants to accomplish something that wouldn't happen naturally, he has to provide energy to the electrons in order to force them to move the way he wants them to go. The energy has to go to a specific atom, in a specific chromosome, at a specific time in the cell cycle.
We have a pretty good idea of how natural processes, many but not all of them mutations, can cause the sorts of changes we see. We don't know of any non-human agency that can do that. In order for ID to gain any traction with the biological community, you have to show that there exists some sort of non-human entity that can move electrons around.
An aborigine looking at a musket is interesting but irrelevant. Before we can talk about detecting design, we have to know that design is possible. That involves moving electrons.
Comment by John Wendt — December 15, 2008 @ 7:40 am
December 15th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Depends on what you mean by "Darwinist". If you mean the argument in the Origin, then yes, Darwin's arguments were incomplete and in several cases wrong. He got some important things right, though, and evolutionary science has made a lot of progress in 150 years. To be sure, not all the people who argue for evolution are up to date.
Comment by John Wendt — December 15, 2008 @ 7:49 am
December 15th, 2008 at 8:28 am
John Wendt,
A Designer could use among other things kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy. And all energy always goes to a specific time and place by definition even in natural process.
Nothing spooky or unknown to science is required to accomplish design in a cell.
A Stone Age tribesman has a pretty good idea who natural processes like erosion can shape hard things but no Idea how a musket barrel could be created
Duh by among other things kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy. I don’t see the problem
That’s what all designers including Black Smiths do
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 15, 2008 @ 8:28 am
December 15th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Many aboriginal peoples are animists and believe everything is spiritually alive. So, people, animals, rocks, trees, arrows, huts, are all alive. Some believe they are all manifestations of a single Great Spirit. Making an arrow means inbuing it with a spiritual force. And the term "design" would apply just as much to a musket or a mountain. (The scare-quotes are due to the limitations of a language steeped in dualism.)
Comment by Zachriel — December 15, 2008 @ 9:34 am
December 15th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
John Wendt:
So tell us John how many electrons did you have to unnaturally move to create this designed message?
Comment by Bradford — December 15, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
The thread is becoming ever more derailed in a direction that takes it away from its theme. Rejection of ID by mainstreamers is a sociological phenomenon. The science reasons given for rejecting ID are belied by non-science reasons admitted to when the guard is down.
Comment by Bradford — December 15, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Because I can recognize when someone is acting impartially.
Yes, I can read minds because you act like all the other ID supporters I've encountered. But I'm open to being surprised, so surprise me.
See? I'm already correct that you think I care about Darwinist arguments.
Comment by don provan — December 15, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I think I've already made clear my position, but allow me to state it clearly in the context of this comment: Yes, I agree that the rejection of ID is, at this point, not a scientific issue. ID has been classed along with other pseudo-sciences such as astrology and telepathy, like it or not.
My claim, though, is that the reason ID was put in that class is scientific. Science is all about acquiring knowledge and then moving on based on what we know. The mainstream doesn't worry about the Earth being 7000 years old any more, and no one worries about whether the Earth is at the center of the solar system any more. If you want to call any of those "sociological phenomenons", I suppose that's accurate, but that doesn't make them mistakes.
Comment by don provan — December 15, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Of course it can.
The scientific community has already given its reasons why ID is without scientific merit. After that, continued discussion may begin as an attempt at education, but often ends with exasperation. (The latter can be studied as a psychological phenomena.)
Comment by Zachriel — December 15, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
You're making my point. If you compare a horoscope to the essays of Mike Gene, Guts, Krauze, Behe… you find tha latter focused on things like amino acids, codons, cellular structures, mutations, reverse transcription… you know, the stuff of… astrology? telepathy? So the very fact that ID is equated with the Age of Aquarius says more about those doing the lumping than ID or IDists.
Comment by Bradford — December 15, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
The reasons are contingent on dubious assumptions. Missing data will fit in with current paradigms and there are no limitations on science that bear on the telic v non-telic issue.
Comment by Bradford — December 15, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Astrologers also speak of stars and planets, and some even go into great detail about the exact positions of heavenly bodies. Yet astrology is still rejected not because people hate astrology, but because all the talk of celestrial mechanisms still doesn't lead to an actual connection between stars and our fates.
Furthermore, if we go back and look at all these cases and many more in detail, we see in every one specific reasons appropriate to each given for rejecting them, as have been given for rejecting ID. And in every case we also see the proponents complaining about being unfairly rejected with unsupported accusations of bad motives and unfair collusion and metaphysical problems, never with any scientific information to overturn the objections. So the association does, in fact, tell us more about IDists: they act like all the proponents of the other rejected ideas.
Comment by don provan — December 15, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Another parallel. Origin of life research does not lead to an actual connection between cells arising and the belief that they do. I've referred to such endeavors as alchemy in part to send a message that two can play this game. What we actually witness are differing interpretations of what is causally required to generate symbolic coding systems. The actual data can be argued either way.
Comment by Bradford — December 15, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
This is false. Origin of life research looks into specific ideas about conditions and processes that might have led to life. For some reason, telic thinkers don't participate, but I don't know why.
This is exactly why ID is not science. Science demands that data not be open to argument. ID cannot produce such data.
Comment by don provan — December 15, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Origin of life research does not lead to an actual connection between cells arising and the belief that they do.
All those ideas have chemical necessity as a starting point. A philosophical assumption.
Then let's not argue about it. Fine tuning indicates intelligent design.
Comment by Bradford — December 15, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
As I said, anyone is free to make any "philosophical assumptions", even telic thinkers. We don't know whether "chemical necessity" is actually required, but for whatever reason, nothing else is being studied. I cannot tell you why the hypothesis you want studied isn't being studied: really only people that think that hypothesis is interesting can explain why they aren't actually looking into it.
Anyway, nothing about what it doesn't look at supports the original claim that origins research is as pointless as astrology (or, at least, that's how I interpreted the claim).
"Indicates", or "suggests"?
Comment by don provan — December 15, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
An exagerration. There have been papers published favorable to ID.
Comment by Bradford — December 15, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
We're not talking about papers favorable to ID. We're talking about origin of life research.
That's the problem: all telic thinking ever produces is "papers favorable to ID". It never ever produces papers that actually help us solve problems.
Comment by don provan — December 15, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Trevors JT, Abel DL, "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life." Cell Biol Int. 2004;28(11):729-39
Comment by Bradford — December 15, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Quite a few. But I didn't design life on earth.
ID advocates are overly fond of saying "if humans can design things, why can't non-humans?" Everything in the chain from my keyboard to your monitor was designed and manufactured by humans. Much of the manufacture was done by machines, but if you trace the geneology of any machine you get back to a human muscle wielding a crude hand tool.
What in ID theory corresponds to human muscle? What's the ultimate motive force?
I keep trying to tell you the scientific reasons why biologists don't find ID useful:
1. Non-human design seems to violate conservation of energy. You can"t tell us where the energy comes from, or how it gets directed.
2. You haven't shown how ID helps to understand how living things work. You decide that "It was designed", and there's nowhere to go from there. We get the feeling that ID stands for Intellectual Defeatism.
3. You haven't been successful in separating yourselves from ancient-manuscript creationism. Dembski, Wells, Johnson and many others are explicitly theological. Maybe this is the sociological part. But it does suggest that you aren't ultimately serious about the biology.
Comment by John Wendt — December 16, 2008 @ 11:29 am
December 16th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
What is this?
Comment by don provan — December 16, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Link to the Trevors and Abel paper. I haven't read it in detail; they ask questions like "Where does the information come from?", not seeming to see that the chemistry is the information. We know how chemicals come together. What we don't know is how some sort of non-human agency can manipulate individual molecules.
Comment by John Wendt — December 16, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Hi Don,
I’m afraid this description is much too vague to be of any use. Concerning ID, you need to be more specific by answering the following questions:
1. What was proposed?
2. Why was it rejected?
3. Where was it rejected?
4. What IDers responded by complaining (as you describe) and where can I find these complaints?
Thanks.
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Hi John,
This is a misguided approach if one truly seeks to investigate whether or not life was designed. Ironically, Howard Van Til walked into this years ago when he distinguished between ‘the hands’ and ‘the mind':
http://www.counterbalance.net/id-hvt/doesi-frame.html
Detecting design is much more like detecting another mind than detecting busy hands. In fact, if you did not percieve the mind, the hands would not be detected as designing – they'd be detected as doing.
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
That's fine, but if you say an object was designed, it means it was manufactured or fashioned in some way. So how was the design-idea implemented?
Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Hi Mike!
Nice to hear from you again.
As to your comment, I suggest Don was talking about astrology and other rejected "scientific" proposals.
However, I will take the opportunaty to make my attempt at answering your questions…
DI's proposal was… "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
My ID proposal is to suggest that life and the universe is the result of interconnected quantum effects which is the foundation of life's consciousness (ala Penrose/Hameroff Orch OR).
DI's proposals has been rejected as unscientific and unconstitutional in public schools.
EAM and Orch OR has been rejected/ignored mostly because it doesn't support either side of the Culture War very well.
DI's proposal has been rejected in places like Ohio and Dover PA.
I understand EAM was rejected by the ARN community a while back.
Here is a link to one of many DI articles promoting Expelled….http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/10/ben_steins_expelled_coming_to.html
I finally watched the movie. It was worse than I had expected (and I had expected it to be pretty bad).
I happen to think EAM and Orch OR model of conconsiousness can be defended on its merits. It is a situation where the passaged of time is improving the situation.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 16, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Hi Zachriel,
That question does not become relevant until one first detects the design. I am not prepared to ignore Van Til’s excellent insight. Actualization follows conceptualization.
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Hi TP,
Good to hear from you again. I’m just back for a couple of days as a fellow commentator, as I’m off work and the kids are still in school and I just couldn’t resist. Their vacation starts Monday.
Just as I thought. On the one hand, we have the DI proposal and on the other hand, we have your very different ID proposal. To this we can add my very different ID proposal. However, do you think it fair to say that most people think of the DI version when they hear “ID”? In other words, might most people hear “religion” when ‘ID” is spoken and hear “God” when “designer” is written?
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
dp says:
So you assert. But the assertion is self-serving and backed by no evidentiary support. As such, it is appropriately ignored.
This from the guy who claims to be an "impartial observer". Already has everybody lumped into a single category as "ID supporters". More foolishness to be ignored.
If that's what you think, you got it wrong. See, you're not quite up to your own assessments of your abilities. Not particularily surprising though. The point of my comment was that you don't appear concerned about Darwinist arguments, and hence don't appear impartial.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 16, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
And it is similarly appropriate to ignore your unsupported claim that I am not impartial.
So you think. An impartial observer would recognize it as an impartial observation and would actually provide evidence to refute it if he thought it were inaccurate rather than just comment on my confidence as if that, alone, makes the statement wrong.
Huh?
Comment by don provan — December 16, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
dp says:
But I've made no such claim. Let's see, you don't appear to do well at mind reading, nor assessing your abilities and characteristics, and now reading and comprehending written English isn't one of your strong points either. Yet we are supposed to accept your unbacked and self-serving assertions?
Let's look at what I actually said:
I merely said you didn't appear to be impartial, but invited you to demonstrate how I got it wrong. You didn't appear to grasp the basic problem with your claim.
In addition to asserting other things about me that you've provided no evidence for.
Do you think people should take the assertions of folks posting on the internet at face value, especially when such assertions are self-serving and not supported? If not, why should you expect me to take them from you? If so, avoid those e-mails from Nigeria.
I guess we just have a different meaning for "impartial observer". I would say an impartial observer would recognize the generic stereotyping and non-specific claims as being incapable of being refuted and discount the statement as meaningless.
Even less perceptive than I thought. Not a good quality in an impartial observer.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 16, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Of course it's relevant. If someone claims an object is designed, they're saying it was manufactured or fashioned. It's the most obvious empirical implication and independent verification of the claim, and what should be a fruitful line of inquiry.
Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
We're done. I have no interest in dealing with your quibbling.
Comment by don provan — December 16, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Ah yes, the impartial observer who can dish it out, but can't take it.
I'm impressed.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 16, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
JW:
Sounds like a non-sequitur but let me try to shed some light on this. A design inference is not dependent on a contravention of natural law. Design can come about through the manipulation of natural laws and evidence of design can be natural.
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
That's an epistemological position. Nucleotides are not information. They symbolize it. Ink is not information either but can represent information.
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
And nobody complains about this kind of "design inference", only the kind that does not offer any evidence, even conceptually, of the manipulation of natural laws.
Comment by don provan — December 16, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Yes, it would be relevant, but only as one means of independent verification. Prior to this independent verification, there must have been something to independently verify. So that takes us back to the important distinction that Van Til makes – the mind-like action of designing and the hand-like action of actualizing. As I noted, conceptualization precedes actualization. Thus, detecting design is much more like detecting another mind than detecting busy hands. In fact, if you did not perceive the mind, the hands would not be detected as designing – they'd be detected as doing.
Thus, how does one go about detecting the hand-like action of actualizing without having some clue about the mind-like action of designing? Again, Van Til’s point is crucial:
Without making any serious and honest effort to detect the mind-like action of designing, a focus on the hand-like action of actualization will not signal design. On the contrary, any attempt to point to the hands without the ability to see the mind will be dismissed as vacuous.
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
December 17th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Provan wrote:
Let me help you.
You're a bigot.
Does that help/clarify?
Comment by Jean — December 17, 2008 @ 9:18 am
December 17th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Hi RogerRabbit,
Well stated.
Comment by MikeGene — December 17, 2008 @ 9:50 am
December 17th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Hi Don,
A truly impartial observer would not need to ask such a question. A truly impartial observer would have remembered when I told him there is no such thing as “ID theory.” A truly impartial observer would attempt to accurately gauge the DI position and would thus be able to determine for himself if someone else’s position is different from the DI position.
Since an impartial observer would not want to paint targets around arrows, why not first specify, in as much detail as possible, what the DI presents.
Comment by MikeGene — December 17, 2008 @ 10:13 am
December 17th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Nice to see you posting, MikeGene.
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 17, 2008 @ 10:38 am
December 18th, 2008 at 5:28 am
No, it doesn't.
Comment by don provan — December 18, 2008 @ 5:28 am
December 18th, 2008 at 5:32 am
That's what I was trying to do. Impartially.
An impartial observer would ask the person that said, "You can allow the Dover school district and the views of DI fellows to fashion the lens through which you view all IDists if you wish. That's stereotyping," if he could be more specific.
Comment by don provan — December 18, 2008 @ 5:32 am
December 18th, 2008 at 11:01 am
If we can't see the "hands", how do we know there's a "mind" at all? The Designer is either material or immaterial. If material, you're just kicking the ball down the road: Who designed the material Designer? If immaterial, how does he interact with the material world? If there isn't any way to interact, then the material world can't have been designed, at least by this Designer.
Van Til's "excellent insight" uses the hazardous rhetorical strategy of invoking an analogy to support his point, rather than just to illuminate. For support, there has to be a close corrspondence between the entities and behaviors of the analogue and the analogized. Doesn't work here: automobiles don't self-assemble, molecules do.
Comment by John Wendt — December 18, 2008 @ 11:01 am
December 18th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Ink on paper represents information, but needs a mind to interpret it. The information might be conveyed equally well by pixels on a screen, vocalization, sign language, Braille, or smoke signals. None of it is informative until a mind interprets the represented information.
Molecules are different. In a typical cell, molecule A might attach to molecule B, which is attached to a particular place on molecule C. The shape of protein B changes, causing it to lose its grip on molecule C. This allows molecule D to assemble on molecule C, which allows molecule D to assemble. Molecule D collides with molecule E; the combination allows molecule F to assemble. Molecule F attaches to molecule G, embedded in the membrane of a cell; G changes shape, ultimately allowing molecule H to assemble itself.
For convenience we say that A is a transcription factor, B is a repressor protein, C is DNA, D is messenger RNA, E is a ribosome, F is a signaling protein, G a receptor, H a growth factor. We can interpret the sequence as information being conveyed from molecule A to molecule H, but it's all just chemistry. The shapes of the individual molecules allow electrical interactions to make the chemistry happen. If information is something that makes or allows something to happen, then the molecules are the information.
Comment by John Wendt — December 18, 2008 @ 11:41 am
December 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
JW, show me the chemical formula that produces a genetic code out of nucleotides on a lifeless earth like planet along with a means of transcribing and translating it.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
ID can't handle anything more complex than "The Designer did it"? OOL research starts with the observation that electron orbitals arrange themselves in such a way that their mutual repulsion minimizes potential energy. This causes the polarity of water, for instance. It allows carbon atoms to link in chains and rings. Rings with nitrogen become RNA, which can polymerize to the extent that some of them can catalyze themselves, and other molecules. To be sure, there are gaps in the theory, things that haven't appeared yet. Our solution is to keep looking, experimenting, and thinking. Your solution seems to be to give up. Accept the existence of a totally unknowable Designer, with no knowable means of moving atoms into specific orientations. Emphasize specific. In a naturalistic scenario there are lots of variants; some survive, some don't.
Words like "code", "transcribing", and "translating" are our shorthand for chemical processes. If you can't show how the Designer manipulates individual atoms, no one who actually cares about biology will pay any attention to you.
Everything in a living organism is non-living. CO2 isn't alive, but it forms the raw material for glucose, which isn't alive, but forms the raw material for amino acids and lipids, which aren't alive, but form the raw materials for cells. Glucose also stores the energy for the production of ATP, which moves all the processes of a cell. When you get to the orderly release of the energy of glucose, you begin to talk about life. (A brief nod here to deep-sea life powered by HS. Who designed that?)
Comment by John Wendt — December 19, 2008 @ 9:34 am
December 19th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
JW:
Your entire comment can be reduced to a simple argument i.e. observing chemical processes also entails assuming the causal sufficiency of prior chemical reactions to produce what is observed. It's a philosophical position. There are no causal reasons why a particular amino acid polymer is generated to produce a unique protein configuration. Except the utility it affords a cell. Selection is not a chemical explanation outside a cellular environment. But cells did not always exist. The causal selection explanation for the existence of cellular structures does not apply to non-cellular environments. You can try to make linkages but they are contrived.
Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Hi John,
We don’t. An open-ended investigation into whether or not life was designed is not for the intellectually timid who need to "know" things before proceeding. But we don’t need to see the hands with our eyes to see a mind with our mind’s eye.
These are metaphysical questions that don’t add anything of use to an open-ended investigation into whether or not life was designed. In fact, you’ll notice that my original question, a question of central importance, was never really answered by your three questions. How does one go about detecting the hand-like action of actualizing without having some clue about the mind-like action of designing?
No, Van Til, an ID critic, is using the analogy to illuminate design. And it is an excellent insight. Design is a mind-like action and thus detecting design is akin to detecting another mind. Conceptualization precedes actualization. I’ve taken it further to note that a focus on the hands without an earlier focus on the mind is a misguided approach. And if you took off the battle gear, you might even notice that this is precisely why the DI approach to detecting design is doomed to fail. But then again, I’m assuming folks have the intellectual ability to think about ID without the prism of the DI. You think I would have learned by now that the vast majority of critics do not have this ability.
Well folks, that’s all the time I have for TT this time around, as the kids are off school. So let me wish everyone here a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Comment by MikeGene — December 19, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
December 21st, 2008 at 4:43 am
I'm convinced. What's our next step in this investigation?
Comment by don provan — December 21, 2008 @ 4:43 am