Beckwith on ID
by BradfordFrank Beckwith wrote The truth about me and Intelligent Design which has been panned by some IDists. Beckwith wrote this:
Despite my interest in this subject and my sympathy for the ID movement’s goal to dismantle materialism and its deleterious implications on our understanding of what is real and what counts as knowledge, I am not, and have never been, a proponent of ID. My reasons have to do with my philosophical opposition to the ID movement’s acquiescence to the modern idea that an Enlightenment view of science is the paradigm of knowledge.
Beckwith identifies what may be the most underrated idea motivating both supporters and opponents of ID. Perhaps the most frequent charge leveled against ID is that it is not a scientific theory. That tends to confirm Beckwith's allegation that ID critics view science as the determinant of authentic knowledge in accordance with a worldview deemed modern even as its roots go back centuries. It is not that IDists and their critics disagree about the utility of science or even the validity of the data itself in most cases. The bone of contention centers around the belief that truth is pegged to empirical results. Yet if both sides value science for its practical utility why are there disputes? Disputes center around issues that a scientific approach is ill-equipped to resolve. Whether the issue is mind/brain duality, the origin of life or the anthropic principle, empirical testing is unlikely to render definitive answers fully supporting either IDists or their critics. Critics can complain about God in the gaps but the truth is that an inability to produce conclusive scientific data is attributable to limitations inherent to scientific methodology rather than IDists exploiting a temporary absence of scientific knowledge.
Why would one complain about God in the gaps? Complainers tout themselves as defenders of science, as if a belief in divine causality jeopardizes good science. It doesn't of course. One can correctly identify a scientific law with the cause of a physical event and still attribute a divine hand to the process. Theistic beliefs are not negated by scientific knowledge. Science is ill-equipped to even define valid knowledge or resolve epistemological questions.
Beckwith has a point in that some IDists unintentionally validate the philosophical underpinnings of critics when they engage critics on their own terms. The antithesis of ID is not science. Its antithesis lies in the belief that it is more rational to believe that the physical world supports an ateleological perspective. Scientific data, as opposed to the scientism embraced by many critics, does not support ID's antithesis.
November 15th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Great post Bradford. I think this really gets to the heart of the debate. Although there are many rational reasons to believe in a Designer, science will never be able to conclusively lead us to that belief. By using scientific investigation to infer a Designer we give the impression that we believe in science's ability to answer this question. We have fallen into the same trap as our opponents who believe that science has proven that there is no Designer.
Comment by 0112358 — November 15, 2008 @ 8:54 am
November 15th, 2008 at 9:04 am
I found this page by Beckwith interesting too.
From the page linked in the OP:
I find this a very odd claim; the practical consequence of “Ockham’s razor? Science all about determining the nature of things, so I have to say, I disagree. Beckwith goes on to reference someone as an example of this, but this reference is from 1948. Perhaps if he is having to devle back sixty years into the pastto find example, this gives us an idea of common this belief is. However, hat is not the point of the OP…
I think a lot of ID critics are scientists, and what they objecting to is the corruption of science. Whether that is people promoting the teaching of pseudo-science in school, or the misreporting of science, or the quote-mining of science, even just pretending that your claims are backed by science. These things all serve to devalue science if left unchallenged. If IDists did not do these things, scientists would not care about ID nearly so much, and the number of ID critics would plummet.
Too right. Scientists demand evidence to support claims, IDs think otherwise.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 15, 2008 @ 9:04 am
November 15th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Bother, my formating has gone awry, and I am on an old computer that does not support the fancy edit facility. Ho hum…
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 15, 2008 @ 9:08 am
November 15th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Yes, but that is just what this OP is pointing out.
What ID critics fail to see is that their own view of science is often just as corrupt.
Comment by 0112358 — November 15, 2008 @ 9:44 am
November 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
First fallacies first.
Saying that ID does not meet the definition of a scientific theory doesn't mean that science is the "determinant of authentic knowlege". More precisely, saying {
ID} is not a member of {Science} does not imply that {Science} is identical to {Authentic Knowledge} or even that that {Science} is a member of {Authentic Knowledge}.The use of the term "truth", like {
Authentic Knowledge}, conflates the concept of scientific verification with logical or absolute Truth.It's still a fallacy. Let's assume for a moment that human consciousness is supernatural, completely outside the ability of science to comprehend. You can't merely wave your hands and point to the scientific gap and then correctly conclude that you have provided evidence of the supernatural. One parsimonious explanation for a gap in knowledge is human or personal ignorance.
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 10:24 am
November 15th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Pixie:
You coopted what I intended as a follow-up entry. The razor is focused more on conciseness than truth. There is more coming on this.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 10:50 am
November 15th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Zachriel:
You're promoting your own fallacy and in the process demonstrating the accuracy of Beckwith's point. You believe that my evidence for the supernatural is predicated on scientific results. Wrong. It is based in part on my belief that the history recorded by both biblical and secular historians of the first century is accurate. It is also based on personal interaction with God- mind to mind; a spiritual occurance which is independent of physical constraints. You're free to disbelieve in this phenomenon but it is one that has transformed many lives throughout the centuries. When science ceases to effectively predict it has lost its empirical utility. So to use your own hypothetical, if consciousness is completely outside the ability of science to comprehend then we need to cease speaking of scientific gaps and speak instead of scientific limits.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 11:09 am
November 15th, 2008 at 11:11 am
0112358:
Well said.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 11:11 am
November 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
You just claimed that the particular Gaps are due to limitations inherent to scientific methodology. Even if we accept that {
Limitations imply Gaps}, that is not logically equivalent to the particular {these Gaps imply these Limitations}. You are left assuming your conclusion.Even if you *know* through revelation that these Gaps are filled with a supernatural explanation, it still doesn't represent scientific evidence or even an argument. The only *argument* you have is to point at Gaps and exclaim.
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Gaps in knowledge are ubiquitous. As long as there is knowledge to be gained there will be gaps. Scientific methodology is directed at acquiring knowledge through a specified approach. It has yielded much fruit. But it is neither exclusive of other approaches or infallible. You err in stating that I attribute gaps solely to limitations of scientific methodology. Gaps can occur in spite of a valid use of science due to technological limitations. What I have been claiming (and Beckwith as well AFAIK) is that an empirical testing approach has no claim to superiority within the realm of epistemological options.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
In your original post, you attribute the gaps in human knowledge of the origin of life to "… an inability to produce conclusive scientific data is attributable to limitations inherent to scientific methodology …" Your argument remains {{
Limitations imply Gaps} therefore {Gaps imply Limitations}}, a fallacy.I note you left the first fallacies first for last.
ID is not scientific theory.
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
No, the argument is not that gaps are implied by limits to scientific methodology. The concept of gaps in knowledge predates the scientific era. What followed the advent of science was the philosophical position that science is an exclusive and sufficient means of bridging all gaps. That assumption will never bring about conclusive data which can resolve design questions one way or the other.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Zachriel: ID is not scientific theory.
Bradford: The antithesis of ID is not science. Its antithesis lies in the belief that it is more rational to believe that the physical world supports an ateleological perspective. Scientific data, as opposed to the scientism embraced by many critics, does not support ID's antithesis.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Okay, then we agree that ID has no scientific basis. You may want to provide a clear definition.
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
To be clear neither ID nor its antithesis would qualify as scientific theories although proponents on either side are free to and often do cite scientific data in support of their arguments.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
You seem to be saying ID is orthogonal to science. That would mean it has nothing to do with science, or only tangentially so. Metaphysics perhaps. That is contrary to what most people claim about ID.
Also, you forgot to provide the definition of ID.
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
My own definition would be that Nature (the universe included) indicates that life and the universe were intelligently designed. To support or oppose that argument one must reference physical properties of Nature.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
"Nature" can be a rather vague term. But if you refer to the observable properties of Nature, then the evidence strongly supports the Theory of Evolution as a natural, spontaneous process.
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Just make sure there is a viable cell available.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Let's assume had no knowledge of precellular life. What reasonable scientific conclusions could you draw?
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
0112358
Claiming that science indicates there was no designer certainly would be a corruption of science, but the number of scientists that actually do that is pretty small I think (even Dawkins has said recently that a case can be made for a designer, or something like that). Or are you thinking of something else? Some evidence to support a claim can be helpful.
Bradford
Sorry, if I had known I would have waited. That said, I am not sure your point is quite the same.
We believe that because your posts at Telic Thoughts are primarily draw from science
How odd. I cannot recall any posts here on the history of the first century or your personal interactions with God. I hope you can see how we might get the mistaken impression that your belief in a telic force is science-based.
The God-of-the-gaps argument is the same as the argument from ignorance. We do not understand thunder, so it must be a supernatural being doing it. We do not understand how prebiotic chemicals assembled to make the first cell, so it must be a supernatural being doing it. We do not understand how the Big Bang happened, so it must be a supernatural being doing it. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and the philosphical position that followed is that ignorance is not a good foundation upon which to base your claims.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 15, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Bradford:
This is my experience as well. I am positive of God’s existence in the person of Christ. Science can’t lay a glove on that one.
My interest in ID has nothing to do with proving God with science or any other such nonsense.
It’s about an interesting speculation about how God might have accomplished his purposes in our physical universe.
It’s about questioning the atheistic presuppositions that undergird much of what passes off as science today and trying to evaluate evidence from a frame work that is not hostile to design at the outset.
It’s clear to me that once you allow the possibility that God might have left objective evidence of his existence. Open minded folks can’t help but see that evidence. I don’t care if this process is called "Science" or something else.
If on the other hand you are only interested in explaining away what you know to be true. You will find a way to do that as well.
It would be a mistake to call such a process Science or to claim that you have scientific support for your denial IMHO.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 15, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
All the above is a manufactured caricature. Theists don't believe any of that garbage, not now, not hundreds of years ago. No theist believes that when we understand a detailed scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon that God is unconnected to his creation. But enjoy your fantasized caricature.
Nice speech. I suppose the implication is that you are endorsing my position on abiogenesis- ignorance not being a good basis for a chemicals to cell thesis.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
fmm:
You're in good company fmm. That was the approach of earlier scientists to natural philosophy.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Bradford:
Really? Nobody believed that, say, Thor had a hand (or a hammer) in thunder and lightning? At the time it probably sounded just as sophisticated to theists as ID does in modern times. Now we all have a good laugh at Thor, although certain theists apparently still believe that Katrina was God's punishment of "Sin City". You may not like that your fellow theists believe all kinds of nonsense, but you do not speak for them.
Comment by Raevmo — November 15, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Raevmo:
The ancients aren't easily caricatured either. They knew it to be the mythological metaphor it is. What's with the strawman caricature fixation. When you indulge in it do you feel like you've just boosted your own IQ?
Those really focused on sophistication are the ID antithesists. It's a new phrase just introduced into the English language Raevmo. Look it up in a coming edition of Langenscheidts.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Now, I'm not sure that Zachriel is a scientist and I'm not sure that he would ever make the claim that science indicates that there was no Designer. But when scientists and others make statements like:
It gives the impression that they are making that claim.
Now these people certainly have a right to believe this way but it is just that . . . a belief. It is not scientific fact.
Another person may have the belief that the observable properties of Nature provide strong evidence for a Designer. This also is a belief and not a scientific fact.
As Frank Beckwith says in the quote posted by Bradford:
The point is that both ID proponents and ID critics are in error when they insinuate that science is our only way of knowing.
Comment by 0112358 — November 15, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Bradford
Is it? I understood the IC argument to be: Evolution cannot produce an IC system, therefore it must be an intelligent designer. That is an argument from ignorance (we do not know how an IC system might appear, so assume a Designer). How about the Expanatory Filter? Again, the argument from ignorance wrapped up in probability calculations (the probability of X is so very low it must have happened in some unknow way, i.e., a Designer).
That is an interesting claim. Do you think they did not believe in their own gods at all, or just that they did not attribute the unexplained to their gods? I wonder what they did attribute to their gods?
Do you think the creation of the universe by God is a mythological metaphor? How about the miracles in the Bible? I assume not. So why do you suppose the pagans' beliefs were merely mythological metaphor?
Any chance you can support this surprising claim?
I was interested to hear what you thought about those who attribute Hurricane Katrina to God (eg here). Is that just a mythological metaphor?
Thank you.
Of course. Ignorance is no basis at all. That would be why scientists are trying to learn as much as possible about abiogenesis.
0112358
Read Denton's book, Nature's Destiny. Denton, an IDist, advocates a Designer who created a universe where the process Zach described takes place to produce mankind. Talk to theistic evolutionists. They believe in the Christian God, and accept evolution too. Bear in mind that a lot has been published in the scientific literature (in part by Christians of course) that supports Zach's claim that there is evidence. Sure, people might "have the belief that the observable properties of Nature provide strong evidence for a Designer", but the scientific evidence is zilch.
Beckwith argues that science should not be the be the final arbitrator of Truth – and I will agree with him, because there certainly are issues science cannot investigate.
If you want to talk about science, it is a fact that the evidence strongly supports the Theory of Evolution as a natural, spontaneous process, and there is no evidence for a Designer. The issue of this thread is whether ID should or can use science. Beckwith says "no". The numerous posts on this site about scientific papers suggests to me that IDs around here say "yes" (in common with IDists in general). Unless it happens to suit them to say "no" on a particular day, of course.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 16, 2008 @ 8:49 am
November 16th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Pixie:
Do you have scientific evidence that hurricanes are not attributable to God?
If you read Denton and Zach side by side it does not sound like they are talking about the same process. That’s the point
Your point is? I’ve never read a single IDer who rejects evolution
This is exactly the kind of statement that bugs me. When you say there is no evidence of a designer do you mean that…. ???
1. Scientifically It appears that there is no designer
2. We have no way of knowing scientifically that a designer exists
3. We have defined Science in modern society in such a way that it rules out the kind of investigation that would produce evidence of a designer
The way you answer that question makes all the difference in this debate
I would say 3 is correct.
I would expect Denton to say 2 is true.
And
I'll bet you and Zach think 1 is correct
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 16, 2008 @ 9:26 am
November 16th, 2008 at 10:42 am
We say that salt dissolving is water is a natural, spontaneous process—even if you are the one who dumped the salt in the water. The Theory of Evolution is a robust scientific theory that makes important predictions in a number of fields from geology to molecular genetics. There is no scientific evidence to support Biological ID.
Please note the claim is limited to within the vantage of science. I don't *argue* that you must accept scientific findings, which are tentative after all. Or that you even believe the world is older than Last Thursday. But if you care about sick children, then you probably hope scientists will apply their knowledge to effect a cure. Demons may cause disease, but that medieval concept has not been useful in finding a cure for tuberculosis or the plague. Angels may push planets on crystal spheres, but that medieval concept hasn't helped guide robot planetary explorers.
I would certainly not make that claim. However, many in the ID Community have falsely *claimed* that the scientific evidence supports teleology in biology, and that the Theory of Evolution is incapable of generating the complexity and diversity we observe in life.
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 10:42 am
November 16th, 2008 at 10:43 am
The problem is providing a non-vacuous scientific definition of "attributable to God". Is salt dissolving is water is a natural, spontaneous process? If you're using words in a private manner, then we may have no disagreement other than semantics.
Your first problem is providing a clear, scientifically useful definition of what you mean by "designer". The scientific method is just that, a method. An important component of the scientific method is to crop off extraneous entities. We often say that lightning is caused by static electricity. This is the scientific explanation. Naïve notions of an angry sky god on Mount Olympus who hurls lightning at the wicked in the Vale of Tempe below have largely been abandoned. But maybe the god is invisible, inscrutable, undetectable. But it is scientifically vacuous to say that such a god hurls lightning, but has no empirical effects other than creating lightning in a way that we observe to be identical with static discharges in the atmosphere.
We test for designers all the time. However, we can't scientifically test scientifically vacuous claims.
Scientifically vacuous claims are ruled out in science. There is nothing to prevent science from investigating non-vacuous claims of design. It's done every day.
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 10:43 am
November 16th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Zach:
Can something be non-vacuous and not be “scientific”? I would say yes you I’ll bet would say no
It depends on whether or not there is a person doing the dissolving
My words are public
Must all public speech be Materialistic and Atheistic so that they meet your definition of science?
One who designs Duh
The problem is when you define anything that is not natural as extraneous
But lighting can be the result of Design
What about a Designer that controls aspects of the weather for his own purposes? You cant rule this out as we have evidence for such a designer
Or maybe he is none of these things and is instead a master designer
Who said such a designer has no has effects other than this? We all see the effects of this particular designer all over the place I saw a convoy of his designs move past me on the highway just yesterday
Even though his lighting might appear to be not designed it most assuredly is.
To say that Scientifically It appears that there is no designer in the case of this paticular lightning just because it looks like it was caused by static electricity would be untrue a big mistake and a science stopper
The problem arises when you define vacuous to mean not confined to the material universe.
When in fact it means
1 : emptied of or lacking content 2 : marked by lack of ideas or intelligence : STUPID , INANE a vacuous mind a vacuous movie 3 : devoid of serious occupation : IDLE
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 16, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Zach:
The closer we look at life, the more it supports the appearance of telic design in its complexity, its functions and its adaptability. This is why we are constantly told that we must ignore the appearance of telic design and instead profess faith in molecular accidents sifted by incremental reproductive superiority over ~600 million years.
The theory of evolution is incapable of generating anything other than a lot of words humans use to communicate and/or argue with each other. It cannot poof life into existence from raw matter or any mixture of chemicals. It cannot produce a multi-level coding system of biomolecules used to control construction of a life form, it cannot correct errors, proofread, translate or construct functional biomolecules that perform the activities of life. And it cannot evolve a single-celled microbe into a T-rex or a human being.
Comment by Joy — November 16, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
How could you depict ID arguments this way when both Behe (the popularizer of IC) and Mike Gene (TT's popularizer of FL) both affirm evolution and yet both find evidence for ID in the evolutionary process itself. Unlike your simplistic thought process summary, front loading would explain a cooption pathway in telic terms and without the thoughtlessness implied by well, if it isn't x it must be y. Z is the telic evolutionary option.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Yes, of course.
That would eliminate salts being dissolved by a flowing river, then. So we have discovered at least one thing which is a natural, spontaneous process. I'm sure we can discover others that meet the same definition.
Yes, but the question concerned the meanings of those utterances.
The meanings of words should be clearly understood by all parties to a conversation, whether scientific or not. When someone asks for clarification, it is usual among those desiring communication to be helpful in that regard.
Is that your idea of a "clear, scientifically useful definition"?
When using the word "natural", you may want to make clear whether you mean the antithesis of supernatural or artificial. Science is quite capable of studying artifice.
That humans can create electrical discharges is not the issue. The question concerned lightning associated with weather patterns. But you knew that.
So, we return to science. Well, at least we agree that salt dissolving in a flowing river is a natural, spontaneous process. Yet, the movement of water in a river has the same basic physical explanation as turbulence in the atmosphere causing lightning. While the former is natural and spontaneous, while the latter you claim to have scientific justification for claiming otherwise.
Empty or lacking (scientific) content. Scientifically vacuous means not having specific and distinguishing empirical predictions entailed in the hypothesis.
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Other than empirical predictions in everything from geology to genetics.
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
That's what happens when you coopt words. The Pixie's use of the word "evolution" presumably refers to the processes described in the Theory of Evolution. The usual ID claim is that the mechanisms of the Theory of Evolution cannot produce an IC system. This is false.
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
fmm
Sorry, I have no idea how this is relevant to what I said or to Raevmo's original comment (though personally I do not think there is any evidence either way).
Really? Where exactly do they disagree about the process of evolution?
You need to read my comment in context; I was specifically talking about evolution as defined by Zach (and quoted in my post).
Number 2, in the geneal sense of a Designer existing outside the natural world; scientifically we cannot tell.
How would you improve science? What changes do you recommend to the scientific method would help our search for the truth?
The thing about science is that it has a methodology that eliminates crackpot ideas like astrology. I am interested to see if you new improved scientific method is up to that. I am betting the answer is no (or more likely, you will not have any solid proposals at all).
Bradford
Well, yes, Behe's IC argument is a little confused, is it not? If a structure is IC, then it cannot evolve. Only Behe thinks actually it did evolve? Sorry, my thought processes are just too simplistic to get around that kind of doublethink. Is Behe arguing for front-loading? First I heard of it, but really I do not know what specific theory he advocates if any.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 16, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Zach:
In my view Supernatural and artificial are synonyms both mean ,not reducible to the laws on nature. Although an artifice may be subject to Natural Laws it is not reducible to such.
The same goes for God he will not (by choice) violate his own laws but is not reducible to them as we discussed else where.
Ditto for other supernatural things like human Consciousness it can not violate natural laws but can’t be fully described by them either. Is Science capable of studying these kinds of things?
Lighting is always associated with weather patterns. This holds for the designed as well as "natural" kind. Can science tell the difference with out direct contact with the aforementioned designer?
Depends, Was the salt placed in contact with the river by design? Was the river's flow manipulated so that it contacted the salt? There are lots of things you must answer before you can rule out design. Have you done this?
Exactly and like the river dissolving salt lightning might also be the result of design. In both cases much research would have to be done to rule it out.
Is science capable of doing this kind of research?
Since when did I claim to have scientific justification for any thing?
I know that lighting can be the result of design because I read an article documenting this design
So when you say vacuous what you mean is
Not empirically testable as far as you know.
If you would use that sort terminology we may have no disagreement other than semantics.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 16, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Zach:
The very same "predictions" ensue from a theoretic holding that life evolves primarily through telic design. Fossils preserved in sedimentary rocks will display that era's primary forms, reflective of that era's ecology and life's adaptations to best exploit it. And there is nothing unique in genetics that obviates the superfluous idea that all genetic change is randomly caused and random in effect (i.e., "random wrt fitness").
You keep arguing against a straw man version of big-c Creationism that denies evolution occurs. That is not ID, nor is it telic design as represented here on TT. Yes, many of our participants do believe God is the 'final cause' of life and its evolution, but that's superfluous to the idea of telic design.
Science learns something new every day. What it's learning includes an emerging picture of adaptive evolution that looks less and less random, more and more self-organized and directional. And before you fall back on the tired old Darwinian whine that evolution has no "end product," I'll remind you that you and I are both end products of evolution. Evolution is not life, it's an idea about how life's forms change and adapt to new conditions over longer periods of time than any individual life exists. Life is just clay to the process of evolution. It's a whole lot more meaningful than that to those of us who live.
Comment by Joy — November 16, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Hey Pixie:
I happen to believe that God shows his wrath against sin in all kinds of ways including natural disasters I know of now scientific reason to think otherwise. Do you ? Raevmo called this idea nonsence I just wan't to know on what basis he made that determination.
As far as I know nothing but they sound as if they do. That's the point
This is not Zach’s view as shown above. I actually have no beef with this view as far as it goes. I would argue that my candidate for designer is present in the natural world in the Incarnation so can be the subject of scientific inquiry
I would, like Newton and all early scientists not exclude something as extraneous if it was the best explanation for a phenomenon for no other reason than it was “outside the natural world”
I would subject astrology to the same testing as any other idea if it produced a better explanation for a phenomena so be it.
If it did not then we could file it away as crack pot.
The scientific method newton used is not good at eliminating ideas out of hand before they are studied but it is pretty good at finding the truth.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 16, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Bradford:
Is that so? According to Wikipedia
What makes you think Thor wasn't really held responsible for thunder and lightning? He wasn't some comic book super hero. As pointed out, even now there are plenty of Christians (fmm seems to be one of them, but I might be wrong) who believe that God uses hurricanes to get even with, say, fags and Negroes. It seems a bit of a stretch to deny that Thor was attributed similar powers.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the old Germanic people had spiritual hallucinations in which they had personal communication with Thor, like you seem to believe you had with Jesus.
Comment by Raevmo — November 16, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
fmm:
You seem to know an awful lot about God. How do you know he doesn't (voluntarily) violate his own laws?
Do you believe that Katrina is an example of that?
I also have no scientific reason to exclude the possibility that Satan makes me type these words. Yet I feel confident enough to declare this nonsense.
I think the onus is on you to support your extraordinary claim. That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Comment by Raevmo — November 16, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
He was but that does not mean ancient people conform to your stereotypes any more than theists do to your present day stereotyping. It doesn't matter how many times I repeat this because you are determined only to hear what you wish to hear. It does not matter that there is a scientific explanation for lightening. I still attribute the causal origin for that and all else to God. That's why the God in the gaps nonsense is absurd.
I don't think that accurately states fmm's position.
There is a distinction to be made between an attribution of capability and a metaphorical depiction of it.
That's the value of Beckwith's insight. I need not be guided by your assertions of what constitutes reality.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Zachriel:
ID is not a monolithic unit. There are diverse views among IDists. Pixie stated what was his understanding. My response was meant to show his understanding does not encompass everyone and that includes two prominent IDists.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Can you point to anything that is not supernatural or designed?
You said that whether salt dissolving in water is a natural, spontaneous process "depends on whether or not there is a person doing the dissolving". As we know of many examples that do not involve people, then we have met your requirement. (By the way, according to how everyone else uses the terminology, salt spontaneously dissolves in water even if a person dumps the salt into the water. To maintain your position, you are unnecessarily mangling the language.)
I have already answered this repeatedly. Science is more than capable of investigating empirically well-defined claims of design.
I understand your basic point is that some things are outside of the ability of science to determine. There could be a designer that is undetectable by the means of science. I have no problem with that position. However, I do have a problem when you distort scientific findings and even normal everyday language by saying that science can't reasonably scientifically determine that lightning is a natural and spontaneous phenomena associated with weather or that a rock slide is natural and spontaneous as opposed to purposeful.
The scientific method is a process of testing hypotheses, clearly stated assumptions with specific and distinguishing empirical implications. If a claim doesn't entail empirical predictions—at least in principle—then it is scientifically vacuous. That doesn't mean the claim is meaningless. I have stated this many times before.
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Raevmo
Because any being who would find it necessary to break his own laws is not God by definition and because he has said so.
Not being a prophet I have no way of knowing God’s reasons for allowing any individual event to happen. But being a good Calvinist I have confidence that nothing happens with out his permission
On what do base this confidence? Could you be mistaken?
Oh I've got plenty of evidence for my "extraordinary claim". I'd be happy to share it with you but I'm not sure this is the place for discussion of Biblical inerrancy.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 16, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
1) So "telic evolution" makes the same predictions, but includes an extra, extraneous entity.
2) Previously you said the theory of evolution is incapable of generating anything other than a lot of words. Now, you say it makes the same predictions as "telic evolution".
3) Previously you said the mechanisms posited in the Theory of Evolution cannot produce the biological structures we observe. Now, you say it makes the same predictions as "telic evolution".
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Bradford:
What stereotypes are those?
No, it's not absurd. There is a clear historic trend that scientific explanations replace religious explanations. You admit (to your credit) that evolution has occurred and you are forced to fill gaps ever more distant in time. Is your faith not strong enough that you so desperately seek "objective" evidence?
Comment by Raevmo — November 16, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
What religious explanations are those? I supplied the explanation that attributes ultimate causality to God. There are not a great many scientific specifics in the Bible. The discovery of specific scientific data can hardly invalidate a general narrative whose primary theme is a moral one. Fine tuning is not a gap. Neither is the anthropic principle. Neither is mind/brain duality even if you believe otherwise. Neither is front loading. You can argue chemical causality for OOL as I can symbolism. The gap stuff is an ill-conceived concept inaccurately applied to theistic positions.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Zach:
I can think of lots of things that are not supernatural that river and salt for example both are reducible to natural laws.
I can’t point you to anything that is not designed but some things can more easily be identified as designed that others.
My whole garden is designed but the tiller looks more designed than the section I let go fallow this year
I’m not sure who this “everyone else” is but Webster agrees with me
I made no such claim. I only asked if you could tell the difference between natural and designed lightning with out prior knowledge of the designer. Well can you?
I live in an area where rockslides are often the result of design. To say that they are natural and spontaneous with out evidence is a bad idea in my neck of the woods.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 16, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
One more thing Raevmo. The reason I cite data favoring an ID position is because I believe it. I believe God is capable of choosing among an infinite variety of pathways to attain an end. I also believe he can leave behind fingerprints of his creation. Faith is a belief in what is unseen. That is an accurate description of my views vis a vis God.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
fmm:
What's your definition of God then? When and where did he say this?
So the victims of Katrina had it coming?
Of course I could be mistaken. I just consider it very unlikely that Satan makes me type these words. Unlikely enough not to worry about it too much.
I guess it's not, although I find it quite fascinating that people believe in the inerrancy of the blible. It might please you to learn that I'm having a go at N.T. Wright's tome on the resurrection, as you suggested.
Comment by Raevmo — November 16, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Bradford:
You know what I mean. The weather, disease, you name it, it was explained by divine intervention, possession by demons, etc. Until the actual mechanisms were discovered.
You use your religion to postulate the answers because science hasn't come up with a satisfactory answer yet. But you will probably abandon those answers once science does, and then you'll be forced to find even smaller gaps.
I believe you do.
Comment by Raevmo — November 16, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Raevmo:
What answers can science come up with to explain the narrow range of values associated with nature's constants or factors associated with the anthropic principle? It's not even the business of science to try and explain away such things so as to make materialists feel better. But there is another option you have neglected to point out. If a thousand years from now researchers are still striving to explain how biochemical building blocks formed the systems observed in cells it will be evident to most that it is faith in materialism that needs to be explained.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Turns out that at least some lightning is natural also.
If, in the entire library of human knowledge, you can't find anything that is not designed, then it is an empirically vacuous distinction.
In science, you need a testable hypothesis entailed in the claim.
You certainly do try very hard to avoid the point. Yes, some rock slides are designed. Would you agree that some rock slides are natural and spontaneous? Can we make this distinction?
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Zach:
No, this is NOT what I said. There is no extra, extraneous entity. There is the entity which exists. It never ceases to amaze me how you guys can manage to leave life out of these questions about life. Maybe it's a forest-trees thing.
Previously you implied that the "Theory of Evolution" (your capitals, though whether that's the old standby RM-NS or something else just as blindly formulaic is not explained) is capable "of generating the complexity and diversity we observe in life." When I mentioned that your theory doesn't generate anything but words, you defended by asserting that those words "predict" everything from the geologic column to genetics. So I responded that the existence of fossils in the rocks can as easily be "predicted" by a theory of evolution by telic design, and that the existence of genomes coding for the forms and functions of life is also "predicted" by a theory of evolution by telic design.
Of course, the truth is that these aren't predictions at all, but post-dictions, ad hoc explanations for what we observe to be fact. Rocks and fossils are a brute fact, so are genomes. But you already know this, you're just playing some dumb game today as if you just discovered Telic Thoughts this morning. I'm not buying that either.
Now, where in the world did I say that? I just posted my first comment to this thread this afternoon (here), and neither that comment nor any comment I have posted since claims that the mechanisms of your "Theory of Evolution" cannot produce the biological structures we observe. I said your THEORY can't produce a damned thing but talk-talk and write-write. When you are sloppy with your assertions, don't complain when their sloppiness is pointed out to you. Consider it an educational opportunity.
Comment by Joy — November 16, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Bradford:
I think you know some of the answers that science has come up with so far.
Who said it is?
Materialism is not well defined.
Comment by Raevmo — November 16, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
fmm
Perhaps we should check back at what people actually said:
Now Raevmo has labelled the idea that God causes bad weather as "nonsense", and Bradford seems to have labelled it as "garbage". Perhaps you should question what Bradford meant? I must admit I do not know, as he seems to now be saying that actually the Norse people did actually believe Thor was responsible for thunder; whether they also thought he was a mythological metaphor or Bradford has now abandonded that claim I really have no idea.
For myself, I am interested in how theists (indeed, people in general) have an apparent leaning to attributing that which they do understand to the supernatural. Bradford makes the claim that that does not happen, by invoking stereotypes – I assume he thinks we have a single stereotype for theists that covers modern day Christians and vikings and pretty much everyone else as well.
Anyway, my point is that the labelling of this view as "garbage" or "rubbish" is incidental to the issue I was trying to explore, and really you need to take that up with Bradford and Raevmo.
Er, what? Are you saying that they sound as though they disagree, but actually if you look at the details, they agree on every one? Then that supports what I said.
But Zach's view is consistent with Denton's, which includes a designer and, say, Dawkins, which does not. So Zach's view is neutral on the subject of a design (though it does eliminate some designer scenarios).
I must admit, I am with Beckwith on this one.
If your explanation goes "outside the natural world", but you can still apply the scientfic method to it (draw predictions from it and test those predictions), then it is science. We just move the boundary of the natiral world to include it.
If you have some experiments in mind I would seriously advise you to perform them. If you need funding, enquire at the Templeton foundation. You will revolutionise science, you will prove the existence of God (I think most atheists are atheists only because of a lack of proof). Providing some sort of scientific evidence for God would be one of the most important accomplishments of the human race. I mean this sincerely and seriously.
Bradford
Yes, can you explain what that distinction is. As fas as I know, the Norse people actually believed Thor created thunder. I am not getting the metaphor bit, wich seems to imply they did not think he did, it was just a poetic phrase.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 16, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Weird. I post a reply and suddenly the whole page looks rather different…
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 16, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Don't worry, Pix. It got changed accidentally, Guts can probably fix.
Comment by Joy — November 16, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
It's not that complicated. Theists do attribute causality to God but that does not mean they buy into comic book like portrayals of causality taking the form of God looking like a man and literally flinging a thunderbolt or arranging to have angels push planets. Those frequently alluded to metaphors are meant to belittle and it looks as if those promoting this type of imagary have succeeded in getting the troops to think it really reflects theistic thinking.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
See how atheists reason. They post a message and it causes a transformation of the blogsite. Bring on Thor. LOL.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
It's the Katrina effect. Telic Thoughts has been downgraded as punishment for hosting the critical comments of ateleologists. ROTFL.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
We're back. Pixie, there is a scientific explanation for all this.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
It's just one of those random accidental mutations that strike with no warning, and the web page devolves into a prehistoric version of itself, losing in one fell swoop the entirety of accumulated complex form and function it took years to evolve. It's a wonder humans don't give birth to lemurs a lot more often than to humans!
Our critics might try to tell us that random accidents sifted over time got us all that accumulated complex form and function in the first place, but I'd suspect Guts (our intelligent designer) would argue against that effectively.
Comment by Joy — November 16, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I went to the link Bradford provided to Beckwith's blog to see if I could grok his problem with ID. In the comments, he provided an endorsement he wrote for Ed Feser's new book, The Last Superstition. It reads…
I think his problem is that if science could come up with a mathematical quantification of a supernatural being, 1. the being would not qualify as supernatural, and 2. the attempt presupposes that science's false claim on 'true' knowledge is correct. If one of you gets a different impression of what Beckwith is trying to say and I am wrong, please let me know.
But, presuming I have a fair understanding of why Beckwith doesn't advocate that evolution proceeds by intelligent design, I'd have to take issue with his either-or dichotomy.
First, I do agree with him that any god worth the title who actually transcends physical manifestation could not be quantified by any of our clever maths or revealed by our finest microscopes or telescopes. Thus capturing God in a bottle is not and never was my reason for believing that evolution occurs by means of telic design and not by means of happy accidents.
Second, I have never considered science's always provisional corner of the knowledge market to be representative of all the knowledge that's fit to know. How either science or society could fall for this ridiculous notion has long been a mystery to me. Probably just giving in to the temptation of not thinking for one's self, an underlying fear of the world, life, and experience. There's a lot of that going around (especially since we live in "interesting times"), but those of us who don't live our lives in fear tend to think it's quite dumb. There are more things in heaven and earth… Willy got it. What's wrong with today's popular pundits?
If ID is honestly all about pushing Christianity and battling Atheism, there would be no reason for someone like me to think the idea has serious merit. Yet… yet I believe the idea does have serious merit. I think life displays ample evidence of telic design, and that the accidental genomic damage NDS claims to be the engine is mostly damage – it causes disease and susceptibility to diseases, when it's not producing genuine monsters. I honestly think that the biological sciences will – in fact, must – eventually come to the conclusion that life plays a significant role in generating the creative, adaptive solutions to its own selective pressures over generational time. Because that's what life does. As new knowledge comes in, the conclusion becomes more and more foregone. They're already talking openly about burying Charlie's mouldy corpse in the graveyard of history. A development that should have occurred a hundred years ago.
Deal is, life as intelligent designer of life is not anti-naturalistic. Nor does it rely upon the intervention of any supernatural being (OOL not considered). Christianity is not 'proven' or 'established' by the knowledge that life designs itself. Nor does the knowledge 'prove' or 'establish' that there are no deities, so atheists will have to find a different crutch too.
The dueling metaphysicians can all vacate the field, and I predict that life will still prove to be the product of telic design. Science rids itself of the odious corruption of metaphysics that threatens it more seriously than fundamentalist Christians ever did, and religion can get back to being honest to and about itself. Seems apropos to me.
Comment by Joy — November 16, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Bradford
If that is the case, who should you be concerned with Zach's definition of evolution? Theistic evolutions wold accept it for exactly the reason you opffer here.
With regards to the Norse people, can you offer anythinmg to support your claim that they did not believe Thor was "literally flinging a thunderbolt".
Joy
I think I largely I agree with your post (even while I dusagree with you about whether life was designed), with just one exception (and that might only be my readng of it):
I think that Beckwith does indeed believe evolution proceeds with intelligent design, but he wants to distance himself from the intelligent design movement, and its claims to scientfic evidence for that intelligent design.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 17, 2008 @ 7:04 am
November 17th, 2008 at 8:23 am
hey Raevmo
A good rule of thumb definition would be the greatest being that can be conceived of.
Many times and places for starters take a look at
Psalms 119:89-19, Psalm 148:3-6, Isaiah 46 9-11
We all have it coming. The doctrine is called original sin and it’s a fundamental tenet of Christianity.
Not much of a mystery here if Christ rose from the dead he has both the power and motivation to insure his message to us is not corrupted
Cool,
I wish we could get together over a glass of iced tea and discuss it. Let me know what you think or if you have questions or issues as you progress.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 17, 2008 @ 8:23 am
November 17th, 2008 at 9:06 am
An extraneous entity can exist. If the
Theory of Evolutionmakes the same empirical predictions as theTheory of Evolution plus Your Teddy Bear, thenYour Teddy Bearis an extraneous entity as far as the scientific theory goes (though I'm sureYour Teddy Bearis not extraneous in other ways).I think life is in the Theory of Evolution somewhere.
Well, then we agree that the Theory of Evolution generates more than just words. It generates empirical predictions. Where is this "theory of evolution by telic design" written down?
That is incorrect, of course. The prefixes refer to the observations. So predicting a novel fossil is a prediction. But in any case, many predictions are made in evolutionary biology, e.g. in the making of flu vaccine.
But I think I see where you're coming from …
Evolution as a solver of problems is not a new concept. When we ask for a definition of ID, it nearly always involves a distinct entity known indistinctly as the Designer. What makes this concept more than just metaphysical woo (not that I have anything against metaphysical woo)? Can you show that life has significant foresight rather than just being a tinkerer as the pattern of divergence and extinction tends to indicate?
Comment by Zachriel — November 17, 2008 @ 9:06 am
November 17th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Joy,
I don’t think Beckwith’s problem with ID is metaphysical but epistemological. He is against the Enlightenment view that man starting from his own rationality alone can ever come up with a sufficient epistemology. I believe he is fighting (and rightly so) against the notion of many in the ID movement that ID will lead people to a Christian world view. He obviously has a Christian world view which he wants to present but realizes that man’s rationality alone is not sufficient to achieve this. The Christian world view is based on the concept that a rational God has spoken into the space-time continuum and has given man truth (although not exhaustive truth) about himself and history. I believe Beckwith is fighting for the Christian concept that, for a sufficient epistemology, we need not only man’s rationality (i.e. science) but also a certain amount of spoken truth from a rational God.
Comment by 0112358 — November 17, 2008 @ 10:22 am
November 17th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Exactly. Beckwith is contending that empiricism is a too narrow perspective and his concern is for IDists (primarily theistic IDists) who allow their thinking to be molded exclusively by an empirical lens. It's not that Beckwith does not perceive design. He does. His message is aimed primarily at those who share his worldview.
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2008 @ 11:51 am
November 17th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
0112358:
I think the epistemological issue *is* metaphysical at root. Otherwise Beckwith, who readily says he doesn't support ID as a scientific explanation for how life got from there to here, would not have aligned himself with the 'Movement' in the first place. For its metaphysical battle against science's materialistic corruption.
I consider science adequate to outline its own epistemology, define the extent and limits on the kind of knowledge it seeks. I'm just not convinced that telic design in life and evolution is outside that epistemology – in fact, I think it's not.
His other issue appears to be frustration with the inadequacy of ID to 'prove' the existence of God, and the stubborn insistence by too many IDers that this is exactly what ID can do. Since I've never expected ANY investigative paradigm or theoretic in science to 'prove' the existence or non-existence of gods/God, that's not a problem for me.
There also a sort of sideways issue with Scientism, and the fact that Evangelical Atheists have been mischaracterizing biology in their attempt to sell their religion to people who don't know any better than to believe science has an exclusive corner on the knowledge market. I'm not too concerned about that, as most people who live for awhile in the real world learn soon enough that science doesn't offer all the knowledge there is, and is in reality bereft of whole ranges of knowledge, and completely devoid of wisdom.
The epistemological fight (who gets to misuse science to sneakily sell their religion to conscripted school kids) is one that science has been slow to confront. Oh, they do a good enough job of keeping the gates locked against religious ID ('The Wedge'), but hardly ever take their own evangelists to task. Scientism is every bit as ridiculous a belief system as Scientology, maybe even dumber. Those who espouse it display their lack of wisdom for all to see.
Comment by Joy — November 17, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Zachriel,
LOL! So Zach's new and improved scientific method goes:
1.) Observation
2.) Hypothesis
3.) Prediction
4.) Testing
5.) Crop off extraneous entities.
Let's call it the "Scientismic Method"
Let's call this "Zach's Article of Faith".
Excellent post, Bradford.
Comment by chunkdz — November 17, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Some people are motivated to oppose ID because of its conclusions, just as many people are motivated to support ID because of them. But ID's problems have nothing to do with what it proposes; the scientific method is an approach to knowledge that eliminates such personal motives. ID simply fails to follow the mechanics of the scientific method.
The dispute is caused a misunderstanding of science. By confusing science with scientists or "The Sciences", some people come to believe that scientists make up the rules they follow and could support the ID theory "if only they wanted to."
But the scientific method is no more controlled by scientists than mathematics is controlled by mathematicians. The method starts with a hypothesis, an explanation so clearly defined that everyone must agree to what it means. It continues with experimentation or other observations to confirm or deny the hypothesis. The procedure and the results are carefully documented in a way that allows anyone to analyze and repeat them.
This leads to a body of knowledge that is undeniable once everyone agrees the questions are clear and the observations are confirmed.
Then the final step is to take all the experimental results and use them to form a theory that we can apply to other cases which are similar but have not been studied themselves. Unlike the other steps, theories are continually questioned and adjusted as results produced by the first two steps overturn the original assumptions about the applicability of the theory beyond the previous results.
None of this has anything to do with teleology and, in fact, the approach easily defeats the kinds of prejudice against a telic explanation that the blog entry assumes.
ID fails at the very first step of the scientific method: it cannot generate a clear question. It is dependent on terms such as "intelligent" and "design", terms which are ambiguous and metaphorical except when applied to human behavior. To give an extremely relevant example, the terms have no definition which rules out evolution, itself, as biologists describe it, being intelligent and doing design.
ID supporters can only deny this by claiming that intelligence cannot be a property of natural forces despite the fact that, so far as we've been able to determine, human intelligence itself is nothing but the result of natural forces.
Beckwith is correct: in trying to invoke the scientific method, ID confirms the materialist position that the scientific method is the correct approach. But then since ID fails in that approach, it undermines the anti-materialist position. This is not some side issue of "engaging critics on their own terms", but fundamental to ID theory.
The real question is whether the materialistic approach — which, all ID arguments aside, is the scientific method — is the appropriate one for answering all human questions. What science can and cannot determine is a very interesting issue with very deep implications, but it really has nothing to do with ID's failed attempt to do science.
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
BS alert.
BTW, could you whip me up an agreed upon definition of "the" scientific method? Preferably from some philosophers of science, thanks.
Comment by Jean — November 17, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Good point. Occam's razor has a philosophical underpinning as well. Joy accurately pointed out that epistemology has a metaphysical root. So at the root of all these discussions lies an alignment with a particular metaphysical outlook. The DI deserves an apology from all the pretenders.
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Provan,
This is "the real question"??
What on Earth would lead anyone to believe that a method that is necessarily tentative, arbitrarily limited, and quite often wrong in it's conclusions is "the appropriate one for answering all human questions"?
Comment by chunkdz — November 17, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
One form of ID, the Front Loading Hypothesis, that says life was front loaded to have certain characteristics. One prediction it makes is that genetic evidence will turn up in early genomes that have no other function than a future function. This is obviously a prediction outside of a MET-only model. MET and MET + Designer do not always make the same predictions.
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 17, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
.
There is prediction and there is explanatory power. ToE is not needed in the first, and is sheer speculation in the second.
One does not need ToE to make a prediction about novel fossils. I can simply say something generated the fossils, various kinds in a particular temporal order (conclusion), I expect to find more (prediction.) The ToE has no demonstrable predictive power above that with regards to the fossils (hard evidence.) So for that, I can cut out the extraneous ToE. No more ToE or teddy bears required.
As for explanatory power, random variation and natural selection is offered in the form of MET. But nobody saw random variation and natural selection working to produce the fossils. Nobody sees a mechanism like that working today. All we see today are very small variations leading to very small changes that amount to nothing like novel organ types, cell types, tissue types, and body plans. Saying that the "variation rates are sufficient" is vacuous if you cannot specify what kinds of variations are required to make a particular object. (E.g, how many and what kind of variations are required to turn a bladder into a lung?) Hand-waving aside, nobody can demonstrate how far such empirically verified variation and selection can scale, if it is the right kind of variation that would lead to the fossils we have discovered. Assumptions explain nothing.
But I admit, I am an ignoramus on the subject.
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 17, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
What I said was, "so far as we've been able to determine, human intelligence itself is nothing but the result of natural forces."
I just gave it.
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Sorry for confusing you. What I meant was, "The real question Beckwith is interested in…."
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Only scientific conclusions, "theories" if you will, are tentative, and they are tentitive for the very specific reason that they are drawn from the current body of knowledge, so must be reevaluated as additional information is available. Are you suggesting the appropriate method for answering all human questions is one that cannot be adjusted when additional information proves one of its assumptions false? What on Earth leads you to believe that?
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Double BS alert. Seems to me the only answer to that question is "we don't know". There is no answer to the "hard problem", Don. Though I am sure you'd like to pretend otherwise.
Me:
DP:
You didn't give me anything. You gave YOUR definition which you proclaim is THE agreed upon definition. I call bullshit. In fact, anyone who proclaims there is a single method and all of science abides by it is full of sh*t. Some might even say there is no scientific method.
So again, give me the agreed upon definition by philosophy of science. Since you make it sound easy, this should be a piece of cake.
Comment by Jean — November 17, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
This is a very good observation, and it is key to the issue. The scientific method is specifically pinned to the epistemological position that only what can be demonstrated is acceptable, hence its demand for a clear statement of procedure so that anyone questioning any observation can repeat the observation for themselves. While other epistemological positions are interesting and can be defending, they can have no claim on the scientific method because it's logical unpinnings are specifically materialistic.
Science itself is materialistic, so accepting science as the groundwork for defeating materialism is misguided. I believe this is Beckwith's point, based on the blog entry, anyway. That doesn't make science inherently good or bad, but it does mean it's not useful for arriving at answers that cannot be empirically verified.
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
This is a very good point. Nothing like that has showed up, of course, and if it did, we'd need to take a very careful look at how "no other function than a future fuction" was actually demonstrated to insure we all agree with that label. But once everyone was generally satisfied, that would, in fact, but a huge step towards showing some unknown force at work, possibly even one we might end up calling "a designer" or "intelligent".
As far as I know, no one's even come up with a scientific hypothesis that might reveal such a function. I'm really sure that no observation has confirmed it. Scientifically, what should we conclude from that?
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
How do you figure that the answer to the question, "Have we been able to determine whether human intelligence itself is anything but the result of natural forces?", is "we don't know"?
Naturally you will deny any definition since your position is that there is no such definition.
Only someone that doesn't understand the scientific method would say that.
Again, I did do it, and it was easy. I could go look up some other definition somewhere, but what would be the point: we both know you'd just say, "Well, that's his definition, but I deny it is universally accepted." And you'd continue to do that even after I brought every single practicing scientist in front of you and had them all agree that my definition is sound: you'd just say, "Well, that's those dang scientists' definition, but that doesn't make it right."
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
That would certainly not be my position.
The Theory of Evolution would definitely not predict some complex structure with "no other function than a future function". This would indicate some sort of foresight not posited to be found in orthodox evolutionary mechanisms, and could go a long way to substantiating an ID claim.
You're pointing to the Theory of Common Descent, one of the fundamental concepts in the Theory of Evolution. We don't need the entirety of the Theory of Evolution to accept the Theory of Common Descent, and we could conceive of other theories that might explain Common Descent (but may not explain the tinkering pattern of divergence and extinction).
We can directly observe both natural variation and selection acting on many scales in the world today, and evidence consistent with this pattern in the past.
If the Theory of Evolution is correct, we don't expect to observe large changes over short time scales. Nor does continued evolution depend on "novel organ types, cell types, tissue types, and body plans". What we expect to see is a series of intermediate structures. But we are not surprised that the evidence for very ancient transitions are poorly represented.
I wrote a longer reply, but then deleted it. On the one hand, you say ID predicts Common Descent, including the predictable existence of transitionals; on the other hand, you seem to imply that transitionals don't exist.
Comment by Zachriel — November 17, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
There is a larger point Beckwith was pointing to. What can be demonstrated does not necessariliy provide us with a clear indicator of reality. There can be all sorts of reasons for this.
If science is necessarily materialistic then its conclusions are biased particularly with respect to phenomenon whose materialistic assumptions are problematic at best. Mind/brain duality comes to mind as does the assessment of intelligent input in advance of an identified source. Beckwith would argue that a materialist perspective blinds one to certain logical options.
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Zach,
Me neither.
But your assertion…
…troubles me. You are a professional scientist, yet you continually seem to come up with wacky interpretations of the scientific method. And this latest one really takes the cake. What gives?
Comment by chunkdz — November 17, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I wouldn't mind discussing these things with Beckwith, and I suspect we'd find plenty of common ground. But this is unrelated to Beckwith's relation to ID.
Absolutely. Science is extraordinarily biased towards empirically verifiable events. That's exactly why we all agree to use it to build safe bridges. But, at the same time, that's what makes science unsuitable for metaphysical and religious considerations.
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
If science is necessarily materialistic then its conclusions are biased particularly with respect to phenomenon whose materialistic assumptions are problematic at best. Mind/brain duality comes to mind as does the assessment of intelligent input in advance of an identified source. Beckwith would argue that a materialist perspective blinds one to certain logical options.
Science has a metaphysical component. If it is based in materialism, that's its metaphysical component. The origin of the genetic code cannot be explained by referencing chemical pathways to it. There is symbolism in the code which one can interpret as an indicator of abstract thought. Symbols are abstract and systems built with them are known to be products of intellgent design. You can maintain that unknown chemical events produced somthing that has the earmarks of design. A mindless process that mimicks that which a mind would devise to resolve a problem. It's necessitated by materialism. It's a metaphysical explanation in lieu of empirically verifiable events showing an actual chemical pathway to a code. Beckwith, and I would view the code as a product of design. It's a rational inference not contradicted by empirically verifiable events. But you are entitled to your metaphysical alternative view and the delusion that your belief is empirically grounded.
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Zach:
So your concept of “science” can not determine if a particular Lighting strike is designed until I come up with a testable hypothesis.
I can make that determination easily with only a little effort at searching for clues and computing the odds
Your method is not very good at answering the every day questions is it?
Don
Man what is your “science” good for anyway if it can not even make a defininte conclusion on such a simple question.
If that all you got it's clear to me that science needs an overhall
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 17, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 4:03 am
What about that answer isn't definitive?
The scientific method can no more be overhauled than arithmetic.
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2008 @ 4:03 am
November 18th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Well put! Inferences are made all the time from real empirical science. I feel that ID is not truely empirical in nature but that the inferences being drawn are helping to form a more rational view of world. We should emphasize that we are drawing inferences and not attempting to prove the existence of a Designer in the empirical sense. Of course, this would be much easier to do if our materialist friends would also conceed that they too are merely drawing inferences from empirical science. Oh well, maybe if we lead they will follow.
Comment by 0112358 — November 18, 2008 @ 7:32 am
November 18th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Don
The “so far as we've been able to determine” part
“So far as we’ve been able to determine” abiogenesis is not possible and my brain is the center of the universe.
That what US intelligence said about Iraq’s chemicial weapons.
Those kinds of conclusions are not definitive bydefinition .
On what authority do you make that statement? Just claiming something does not make it so
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 18, 2008 @ 8:20 am
November 18th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
The principle of parsimony is a centuries-old aspect of the scientific method. This follows directly from the definition, simply, the process of proposing hypotheses and testing their empirical implications. If a claim has no empirical implications, then it is vacuous. If we have a
Theory Athat makes a certain set of predictions, and aTheory A+Bthat makes the same set of predictions, thenBis extraneous.Kornbelt888 mentioned the Front Loading Hypothesis, and he provided a distinguishing prediction. It might be difficult to demonstrate his claim, but it is a valid attempt at drawing the required distinction.
Comment by Zachriel — November 18, 2008 @ 8:43 am
November 18th, 2008 at 8:46 am
duplicate
Comment by Zachriel — November 18, 2008 @ 8:46 am
November 18th, 2008 at 8:46 am
We could directly observe the process.
Yes, collecting evidence is a component of the scientific method. I have no idea what odds you're talking about. What are the odds that a thundering Sky God hurls lightning bolts? Having observed a bolt of lightning, please show your arithmetic.
Comment by Zachriel — November 18, 2008 @ 8:46 am
November 18th, 2008 at 9:31 am
That is incorrect. Abiogenesis has not been scientifically demonstrated to be impossible. That is quite different from saying there is no complete theory of abiogenesis.
Comment by Zachriel — November 18, 2008 @ 9:31 am
November 18th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Zach,
Actually, parsimony was around long before the scientific method. But the scientific method will test any hypothesis that makes a prediction. Even Richard Dawkins admits that God is a testable hypothesis.
It is expedience that crops off extraneous entities in science.
It is materialism that crops off the supernatural.
The scientific method only crops off that which it has tested and falsified. Once again, you are diluting the scientific method with your metaphysics.
Comment by chunkdz — November 18, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
The scientific method ignores those claims that don't entail specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
It has nothing to do with metaphysics. Science is methodological. Claims that have no empirically distingishable effects are scientifically vacuous.
Comment by Zachriel — November 18, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Let me give an analogy. We have a formula, F=ma + zero*U. Now, U can be the count of herds of invisible pink unicorns on the far side of the Moon. It can be the number of pennies in Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket. By Jove, it can be the sum power of all the gods on Mount Olympus. But the second half of the expression is irrelevant. The result is still F=ma and U is an extraneous entity, a distinction without a difference.
Comment by Zachriel — November 18, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Bradford,
The scientific method doesn't have a metaphysical component any more than mathematics or, for that matter, a hammer. A decision to use the scientific method does involve a metaphysical decision, so I agree with you that science does have a metaphysical component. But the metaphysical considerations are the same ones we use when deciding to eat, so they hardly need any justification.
You are mistaken in thinking that the scientific method is somehow unable to deal with symbolism or codes or abstract thought or intellgent design. The only problem here is that you cannot define them clearly enough. You see symbols in the genetic code; I do not. There is no working definition for symbols that doesn't reference their human source, so your application of it to the genetic code is just a matter of opinion. Having opinions is fine, but it you want to do science, you have to present a way to resolve our difference of opinion.
I'm completely open to your scientific arguments; I am neutral and hold no "alternative view". But you have none. You say you see symbols, but I see no arguments that meet scientific criteria. You say a code can only be created by intelligence, but we find codes in chemical processes. You say "product of design", but you can't say why the result of chemical processes should not be considered design.
Now if we can agree that ID is not scientific but, instead, is based on a metaphysical view that is open to question, we'd have no disagreement. That appears to be Beckwith's position.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you differ from Beckwith in that you are saying that this pesty metaphysical bias of science is a bug in science that should be fixed. That bug allows me to reject your arguments by simply denying I see symbols, and you don't like that. I do like that, because it allows me to recognize that your opinions might be wrong, so I should not risk depending on them.
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
You should probably quote Dawkins directly, but if a God Hypothesis leads to specific empirical consequences that distinguish it from the null case, then it would be testable. Many naïve conceptions of the gods have already been reasonably falsified. Others don't meet the required definition of a testable hypothesis.
Comment by Zachriel — November 18, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Better watch yourself here: Dawkins does agree that God is a testable scientific hypothesis, but only in the course of showing how's it's been tested and failed.
And thank goodness for that. I'd hate to have to have a debate about whether spirits can hold up bridges everytime a bridge design was being considered.
Well, it also crops off proposals that are poorly defined.
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
We know a lot about human intelligence and have studied it extensively. You cannot compare my added precision to how a charlatan might use the phrase to cover up an area of ignorance.
Why don't you suggest a way that the scientific method could change such that we'd still call it the scientific method? Maybe some of your misconceptions about the scientific method can be cleared by discussing your proposal.
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The codon AUG, when translated, will produce methionine within a peptide chain. The three nucleotides referenced not only have identity they also must appear in correct sequential order to indicate the outcome cited. If the order is scrambled to UAG the effect will be to terminate translation. The termination process incidently entails more than the mentioned codon. The point is codons are not amino acids. Neither are they process commands. When you declare you do not see symbols in the genetic code you are showing your own lack of perception.
Comment by Bradford — November 18, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Zach:
So now you are adding other ways to determine if a particular bolt of lightning is designed other than
It appears your “science” is not only weak but also hard to pin down
We Aren’t talking about a mythical thunder god but a very real designer (the US Military)
First I’d need to know the particular circumstances of this lighting strike. After that It’s just a matter of determining the odds of such an event being natural.
Human intelligence has not been scientifically shown to be the product of natural causes either that’s what we mean by “as far as we know”
Don
The same goes for the universe and Abiogenesis and Iraqi chemical weapons
“As far as we know” is not added precision but added ambiguity
I actually have no problem with the scientific method. I have a problem with your “science”
and your dogmatic statements that are not based on any authority but yourself
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 18, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
The only definition of symbol I am aware of relates to humans, and there are no humans here. That's why I see nothing I would call a symbol. If you have another definition that I cannot deny applies here, please put it on the table so we are both looking for the same thing. At the moment, our disagreement appears to stem from differing definitions of "symbol", not by some fault in my abilities to perceive.
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
This is a classic indicator of metaphysical bias. First a dictionary for the definition of symbol:
Nothing above about the necessity of humans. Fits the codon- amino acid/process commands relationships. What you are doing is inserting your own personal interpretation into this.
Comment by Bradford — November 18, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Oh, so God doesn't control lightning?
You can't seem to provide the arithmetic even for your own hypothetical.
Not knowing whether abiogenesis is possible is not the same as "So far as we’ve been able to determine abiogenesis is not possible". The latter statement indicates that we *have* determined that abiogenesis is impossible within the limitations of our methodology.
Comment by Zachriel — November 18, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
But it doesn't go for locating the center of the universe in relation to your head or the possibility of abiogenesis.
How do you figure that observing the limitations of a conclusion adds ambiguity? Do you want me to say it's beyond question even when I know it is not?
So you don't like me telling you the scientific method isn't open to modification, but you agree that it isn't? OK.
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
A codon represents an amino acid or a processing command. That is it's function.
Comment by Bradford — November 18, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
OK, I'll bite: The only definition of "represents" I am aware of relates to humans, and there are no humans here.
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
p.s. By now, you're probably thinking, "Gee, this don provan is really annoying. He demands that everything be spelled out for him."
But what you should be thinking is, "Gee, this scientific method is really harder than I thought. It demands that everything be spelled out for everyone."
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Here's a definition:
To stand for is a good description of what codons do. They stand for corresponding amino acids in peptide chains. They are information storage devices.
Comment by Bradford — November 18, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
You don't even understand you're going in circles?
(*sigh*) The only definition of "to stand for" I am aware of relates to humans…
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Zach:
You and I have a disagreement on that score but we can agree that the US military controls at least some lightning strikes. can your "science" tell which ones
Exactly
So you agree with me that this statement by don
incorrectly indicates we have been able to determine human intelligence itself is nothing but the result of natural forces.
Don
We’ve done exactly as much research on disproving that my head is the center of the universe as we have in disproving human intelligence is the result of natural forces.
We’ve done even more research trying to disprove the contention that abiogenesis is impossible. And “as far as we know” the contention is true
How do you figure that observing the limitations of a conclusion adds ambiguity?
Zach has proved my point for me he obviously reads a different meaning from your addition than I do thats what ambiguity means.
No I want you to admint that your “science” is incredibly weak in that it can’t even say something as basic as the origin of Human intelligence is beyond question.
While an uneducated Fundi like me can answer the question with certainty
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 18, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Let's not play games. You're the one who wrote:
So I furnish a definition containing the phrase "To indicate or communicate by signs or symbols." It does not restrict communication to humans. If we were to discover extra-terrestrial intelligence the definition could correctly be ascribed to them.
You're short sightedness is not my problem or the problem of anyone else for that matter.
Comment by Bradford — November 18, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
This is utterly false. We're done here.
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
There are no space aliens in the genome, either. You're supposed to be showing me why I should see symbols or representation or communications when looking at codons. Splitting hairs about whether it's humans or space aliens that I have to see associated with the codons does not help you.
Yes, it is your problem. If you claim to be doing science, you really do need to have a good answer when someone says, "No, I don't see what you're describing." Of course, if I were simply denying it without explaining, you could claim I was being obtuse. But I've explain every single time what exactly it is I'm not seeing that makes me think your proposed label is inaccurate.
And it's no coincidence that what I'm not seeing is exactly what you want to claim is there but cannot justify other than by forcing me to accept an inappropriate term.
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Don
Sorry to hear that but I understand why you would feel that way
Since apparently Don finds supporting his position to be too difficult I wonder if anyone else could tell me just how would someone go about "scientifically" disproving that human intelligence is the result of natural forces?
And list the relevant papers that document this earth shattering ID research.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 18, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
dp:
That's a stupid comment. You have been objecting to the use of the word symbols because only humans can be associated with it in your view yet when I cite an example of a non-human source as able to utilize symbols you come up with the above non-sequitur. If you're trolling it's time to exit the stage.
I've repeatedly done so and repeatedly supplied definitions which do not include your personal restriction to humans.
That's not a reasonable summary of what I have written.
Comment by Bradford — November 18, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
I agree. MET and MET + Designer do not always make the same predictions.
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 18, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
The predictions of Common Descent are no better then the more parsimonious theory that "something put the apparent 'progression' of objects in the rocks, and given our experience, we should expect that every new find fits into the 'progression' without too radical of 'variation.' (Inductive assessment.) The fossil evidence itself does not tell us the nature of the thing or mechanism that laid it all down in the rocks. It does not necessitate that one object was related by ancestry to any other object. (For all we know, each 'variant' could be a brand new creation put here by an alien. Or some other mechanism entirely unimaginable.) The point is, Common Descent doesn't help us make better predictions about what we will find in the future, over simply saying "something put the fossils there in such a 'progression'." Therefore Common Descent is scientifically superfluous. Only a prior commitment to an ancestry based mechanism would necessitate such a theory. (I personally have nothing against CD. And I think it's probably true. But not because of any scientific necessity.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 18, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
In pointing out that codons are symbols for amino acids or a stop indicator the useage of the word symbol is consistent with standard definitions found in dictionaries of the English language. Enough said.
Comment by Bradford — November 18, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
"Many scales?" How about novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans? I have yet to see any variation scale to that level. If you have any examples, please post. My car can get me across the street, across the state, and all the way to New York City, but can it get me to England? I wouldn't want to try. To the moon? Don't bet on it. The mechanism is insufficient.
There are configurations of chess pieces on the board that are impossible given the standard initial starting configuration. If I arrange the pieces in such an impossible configuration, merely saying the configuration is "consistent with patterns in the past" tells me nothing about whether there is a logical path from a standard initial starting position to the configuration in question. In other words it tells me nothing about whether you're bullshitting or not. For that I need to understand the precise rules of the game and then calculate precisely. Statistics are of no use here. Not if you want to convince skeptics.
To actually know if something scales or not, you have to fully understand the mechanism in order to make the assessment in theory, and then you have to test it to see if the theory was wrong. Engineers like me seem to readily see and accept this. Something tells me, Zachriel, you're not an engineer.
To say that variation rates are consistent with novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans tells me nothing. What does "consistent" mean if you don't know what kind of variations in what order is require to generate them?
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 18, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
If the ToE is false we might not expect it either.
We also might not be surprised if the evidence for ancient transitions are "poorly represented" because they never existed in the first place.
ID may be compatible with CD. And 'true' transitions may or may exist. There is no contradiction with anything I've written.
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 18, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
November 19th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Bradford and Don Proven
I am watching your debate with interest, and I wondered if I could intervene on whether a symbol requires an intelligent entity or not. You seem to be quibbling over whether it should include aliens, which seems (to me at least) to be irrelevant. The real question is whether something can be a symbol if it represents something to a non-intelligent system. I am guessing that Bradford would say yes, based on this:
And just recently:
Bradford, in your example of a codon, you say that AUG is a symbol based on how it is used in the biochemistry of the cell, which (I assume) you do not think of as an intelligent entity itself. On the other hand, I think Don Proven would say no, AUG is not a symbol because it is not communicating a message to an intelligent agent; it does not repesent something for an intelligent agent. This disagreement over definitions is the root of your argument, I think.
Looking back at Bradford's comment that triggered the discussion:
Bradford makes two separate claims here. The first is that "The origin of the genetic code cannot be explained by referencing chemical pathways to it; a definite (if unsupported) claim that does not mention symbols. The second part is the much weaker (and entirely reasonable) claim that symbols can be indicators of thought, but there is no claim that symbols necessarily imply design (afterall, Bradford has no problem with symbols that represent something to biochemical systems in the cell). The way Bradford has written it, it could come across that he is claming that the fact that symbolism sometimes indicates design implies that the genetic code must necessarily be designed, and I think this has caused some of the confusion.
Bradford, with regards to your claim: The origin of the genetic code cannot be explained by referencing chemical pathways to it. Are you claiming that we currently do not know (i.e., basically the usual argument from ignorance) or that we can never know? If the latter, can you support the claim?
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 19, 2008 @ 7:11 am
November 19th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Of course.
The statement is correct. It indicates that we have determined, within the limitations of our methodology, that human intelligence is solely the result of natural forces. Our methodology may be limited and give incorrect results, but it is a correct statement of what is known. We know much about intelligence, and what we have scientifically determined so far indicates only natural forces. Compare to your incorrect statement,
This statement indicates that we have determined, within the limitations of our methodology, that abiogenesis is impossible. This has not been determined, and incorrectly states what is known at this time.
You apparently do not understand what is entailed in demonstrating abiogenesis is impossible.
All scientific findings are considered tentative and subject to revision in the light of new evidence.
Are you parodizing your own position?
Comment by Zachriel — November 19, 2008 @ 8:36 am
November 19th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Preview is not working.
As opposed to what might be considered plausible.
Comment by Zachriel — November 19, 2008 @ 8:38 am
November 19th, 2008 at 8:43 am
The usual. By scientifically demonstrating that other forces exist, then tracing the links of causation back to whatever it is you claim is responsible.
Yes, please someone anyone list the earth shattering ID research!
Comment by Zachriel — November 19, 2008 @ 8:43 am
November 19th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Yes, I'm quite aware that the nested hierarchy is a pattern, and we can assume the pattern exists and make predictions based on this assumption. That's why we call it the Theory of Common Descent. Because we infer common descent from this and other evidence.
Not as a logical consequence, but as a scientific determination, Common Descent is strongly supported by a variety of evidence. The nested hierarchy is pervasive in extant and extinct life, morphology and genomics. Looking at transitionals, such as equines, it is quite evident that they are related by descent. So saying you don't accept this evidence is mere handwaving.
We can observe the process in the natural world today, such as observed in the nested hierarchy of mtDNA. The direct observation of retroviruses and the nested hierarchy of endogenous retroviruses are very strong evidence. Phylogenetic reconstruction of protein families is another.
You think it's true, but not because of the scientific evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — November 19, 2008 @ 8:56 am
November 19th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Do you consider a fish and a mammal to be different body plans? Because we have strong evidence of the evolution of mammals from aquatic vertebrates. We even have the predicted transitional.
The Theory of Evolution predicts transitions. Fortunately, we have a great deal of evidence in many different linages to support evolutionary theory.
Comment by Zachriel — November 19, 2008 @ 9:05 am
November 19th, 2008 at 9:23 am
An additional point. The fossil record does inform us about a great deal of life's history. Organisms are modifications of predecessor organisms. Complex structures are adaptive. Adaptations appear to be modifications of predecessor adaptations. Furthermore, we have a striking pattern of divergence and extinction, exactly what would be expected of a tinkering pattern.
Comment by Zachriel — November 19, 2008 @ 9:23 am
November 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am
The discussion you reference never got to that point. It stalled on the definition of symbol.
Inaccurate. I was told that the only sources of symbols were humans and therefore symbols would not be an appropriate term for codons. I used the example of alternative intelligent life to show that the useage of the term symbol would be entirely appropriate to reference a symbol sourced from them. The point being that this would be proof of a non-human source thereby validating the proper useage of symbol in the initial comment where it had been employed. The mention of aliens had nothing to do anything other than this. My mention of the word symbol is justified by its English language definition. The insistence that symbol imply a human source is completely unjustified and serves only to sidetrack an otherwise fruitful discussion.
The color codes of a traffic light represent commands to intellligent humans. They are described as mere functions by referencing the traffic light in isolation. A light does not need the capacity to understand a code. We would be foolish though to infer from that that this means a causal trail did not involve an intelligent source. An intelligent source cannot be ruled out because the entity is biological unless you wish to assert rules over rationality.
Comment by Bradford — November 19, 2008 @ 10:55 am
November 19th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Bradford
I am guessing that Don Proven meant humans to encompass all intelligent entities, afterall, nobody is claiming that the codons are symbols for aliens are they?So I think you actually both agree that symbol is not limited top humans. Hence, I was saying that the important question is whether it is restricted to only intelligent entities.
You spend a lot of words without actually answering the question! We all know that symbols can mean something to intelligent agents. We all know it would be stupid to infer no intelligent agents involved if there are symbols. The question is whether an intelligent agent is required. Is it possible to have a working system of symbols in which no intelligent agent is involved (other than, perhaps, setting the system up in the first place)?
You say it is, and at the end of the day it just comes down to how you use the word. I am not going to tell you you are wrong, as long as we all know that that uis what you mean, then hopefuly we can move on.
By the way, somehow this slipped you by: Bradford, with regards to your claim: The origin of the genetic code cannot be explained by referencing chemical pathways to it. Are you claiming that we currently do not know (i.e., basically the usual argument from ignorance) or that we can never know? If the latter, can you support the claim? I feel this is where the fruitful discussion lies.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 19, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
November 19th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I'm not assuming that at all. The implications related to different forms of intelligent agents are enormous and diverse. But if human was not what is meant then why not be precise about it?
My computer?
For an empirical discipline they have the same practical effect. If empirical results do not document a claim of chemical pathways to a cell there is no way to know if it is because the concept is not viable or because it is but the way has not yet been found.
Comment by Bradford — November 19, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
November 19th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
They do not have the same practical effect.
This statement indicate that no amount of searching will ever find a "chemical pathway". Notice that the practical effect of this statement is that looking will be futile.
This statement just indicates the current state of ignorance. The practical effect of this statement does not say anything about whether such a search will successful.
You were asked to say which statement you were actually making.
Comment by Zachriel — November 19, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
November 19th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Bradford
I have to confess, I do agree with you that an intelligent agent is not required for symbolism. My aim was to to clarify your position.
For our discussion, they mean two quite different things, as Zach as eloquently put. Or is your purpose to conflate the two?
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 19, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
November 19th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
A non-existent pathway and an unknown pathway are different but how can one distinguish between the two unless the unknown becomes known?
Comment by Bradford — November 19, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 6:11 am
Bradford
I guess that answers the question. What you are saying is that we can never make the claim that something is unknowable, as we cannot determine between currently unknown and intrisically unknowable. Thanks for the clarification, and I agree. So what do we make of your earlier claim now:
Let us break it down:
Okay, so we can not currently explain the genetic code like that, but perhaps we will one day. Can we conclude anything from that? Sure, we need to do more research. Does this help ID at all? No.
This says that symbols can indicate intelligence, but not necessarily. Fair enough. Can we conclude anything from that? No. Does this help ID at all? No.
The "earmarks of design", eh? But I thought symbols did not imply intelligence, only that intelligent could be the cause. What gives?
How about we respin that to expose your own metaphysical bias: You can maintain that an unknown designer created somthing that has the earmarks of chemical events. A design that mimicks that which a mindless process would happen upon to resolve a problem. What you are clearly trying to do is claim the default position, so as to avoid havng to actually support your claim.
It is a working hypothesis that scientists are working to substantiate. Can you say the same of your metaphysical explanation? I do not think so.
Beckwith would agree with me that that view cannot be supported with science. That was his point.
So is the chemical pathways from a mindles process hypothesis. You need to do better than that!
Are you sure that is not true of yourself, Bradford?
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 20, 2008 @ 6:11 am
November 20th, 2008 at 7:31 am
I suppose you're either not interested in the results of research or have the preordained view that research into possible chemical pathways necessarily produces evidence favorable to mainstream views. If it does it is not science. If it is impossible to produce evidence for an alternative competing paradigm the research also rests on questionable scientific grounds. Or perhaps the science rests on questionable metaphysical grounds. Which is it?
There is symbolism in the code which one can interpret as an indicator of abstract thought. Symbols are abstract and systems built with them are known to be products of intellgent design.
One can conclude that the linkage is a rational interpretation, not contradicted by empirical evidence.
You can maintain that unknown chemical events produced somthing that has the earmarks of design. A mindless process that mimicks that which a mind would devise to resolve a problem. It's necessitated by materialism.
In every case of symbolism of this type found outside biology the source can be traced to intelligence. That's more than a could be. It's a view supported by experience.
That's the pot calling the kettle black. Your side has enjoyed the default position since the 19th century and has little supporting evidence to show for it despite decades of funded research. The genetic code does not have earmarks of a chemical process. Real biochemical pathways have specificity and proven outcomes. Enzymes are linked to identifiable substrates and proteins and RNA can be mapped with amino acids and nucleotides specifiable by identity and sequential order. Intermediates in pathways can be designated and step by step breakdowns of reactions are possible. There is nothing like that corresponding to origin pathways to a cell.
It's a metaphysical explanation in lieu of empirically verifiable events showing an actual chemical pathway to a code.
As Beckwith explained this is a matter of epistemology. When Schroedinger hypothesized that a coding system would be found within cells he was predicting design. One can dispute this on metaphysical grounds which only reinforces Beckwith's point.
Beckwith, and I would view the code as a product of design.
Beckwith would agree with me that the negation of the above is not supported by science. That's my point.
But you are entitled to your metaphysical alternative view and the delusion that your belief is empirically grounded.
There is a distinction to be made between empirically grounded and supported by data. I do not claim an empirical case for life's origin. If you do then by all means demonstrate that view by producing empirical evidence showing life arises from metabolites.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 7:31 am
November 20th, 2008 at 8:57 am
We make the unknown known by collecting evidence. The statement "the origin of the genetic code cannot {not possibly} be explained by referencing chemical pathways to it" means that no possible evidence will lead to an explanation by referencing chemical pathways. And this strong claim then becomes your responsibility to support.
You need to admit that the "practical effects" of the two positions are very different. The first claims that no evidence will lead to such an explanation, the other just says that none is available at this time and further research may or may not lead to such an explanation.
Huh? He specifically stated that further research is required. This returns to your conflation above. The "practical effects" of the two positions are very different.
In at least one case of a 'symbolic code', the origin is unclear. You might propose it as a hypothesis, but that is just the start of the process of substantiating your claim. Otherwise, you are just assuming your conclusion.
The genetic code is a mid-20th century discovery.
The Theory of Evolution has been a profoundly successful scientific theory, and a great deal of progress has been made in genetics. I'm quite sure our readers are aware of this.
Schrödinger: In Darwin's theory, you just have to substitute 'mutations' for his 'slight accidental variations' (just as quantum theory substitutes 'quantum jump' for 'continuous transfer of energy'). In all other respects little change was necessary in Darwin's theory …
Comment by Zachriel — November 20, 2008 @ 8:57 am
November 20th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Bradford
What? Where do you get that idea from?
How would we ever know if it was impossible? Remember you said: "A non-existent pathway and an unknown pathway are different but how can one distinguish between the two unless the unknown becomes known?".
Science goes with the hypothesis that is best supported by the evidence. Certainly that limits science to areas where evidence can be collected.
Well in fact you cannot conclude it is "not contradicted by empirical evidence" just from that, but in the greater context you can.
So great. You have a hypothesis. The evidence, use of symbols, is consistent with your hypothesis, but is also consistent with other hypotheses, including the prevailing one. Your hypothesis is not contradicted by empirical evidence, but neither is the prevailing one. So what insights has a consideration of symbols given us? Has it led us any further twoards one hypothesis? No. Has it helped ID? No.
So what was the point then, exactly?
In every case of symbolism of this type found outside biology the source can be traced to mankind. Should we conclude that mankind will travel back in time and design DNA?
Of course not. That is not the conclusion you want, so you cherry pick the attribute that supports your desitred conclusion. You want an intelligent designer, therefore symbolism should be traced to intelligent. ID science is so much fun.
Oh, rubbish, Bradford! Biology has come on leaps and bounds, built on the theory of evolution. There is a huge amount of literature that supports it. The reason it has had so much funding is that it is so successful.
And this is not the default position, it is a position that Darwin proposed and supported with evidence against the prevailing theory of his day. It is a position that has continued to be upheld in mainstream science because of the abundance of scientific evidence to support it.
What are you talking about now? DNA is a chemical. Is is made by combining other chemicals. I really cannot think why you might imagine this is not a chemical process.
That is right, we do not know. That does not mean it did not happen. It does not mean we can never know how.
It is a best guess that scientists are working to improve and support. Can ID say the same? Of course not.
If your point is merely that science cannot disprove a designer, then I agree. I had no idea your point was as trivial as that.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 20, 2008 @ 11:19 am
November 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
That's one interpretation. Another is that the origin of the genetic code cannot be explained by referencing chemical pathways. Simply put this makes no presumptions about what the future holds.
The origin of life was a 19th century conundrum. It was viewed as a chemical problem before and after the code discovery. Little has changed.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
A dumbing down respnse. It is not any property of humans. It's not human hair or skin color or thousands of other properties that leads to symbolism. It is the unique human capacity to reason. Some of that is called for now. Induction. If a human capacity for reason produces symbolism any other entity, similarly endowed in this respect, should have the capacity for the same and entities not so endowed would not be expected to display this capacity.
Darwin supported a theory that was built around gradual changes sifted by natural selection. Subsequent to Darwin the genetic basis for change was discovered. Neither the origin of DNA nor the genetic code by which it functions were explained by a selection process. There has not even been a process evident. The ateleology aspect of Darwin's theory centered around natural selection acting on random events. The heart of ateleolgy is destroyed in a discussion centered around the origin of DNA and life. It's back to the drawing boards for those deluded into thinking ateleology is scientifically supported.
The genetic code does not have earmarks of a chemical process.
It is common to express codes through chemicals. The argument that chemical expression equates to chemical causality has also been defeated.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Why do you repeat the same ambiguous language? Apparently now you're only saying that we don't know the origin of the genetic code at this point, it may or may not have an explanation in "chemical pathways".
Comment by Zachriel — November 20, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
When you assert a God in the gaps charge you are making a trivial accusation unless the one you are accusing explicitly states that the absence of knowledge is proof of God- something I've never observed. A gap can be filled at a subsequent point with evidence not favoring the position you anticipate. That only further highlights the triviality of gap accusations.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Bradford:
That is just silly nonsense. Symbolism doesn't require a "unique human capacity to reason". Many animals (and even plants) use symbols and codes to communicate. For example, high-ranking female paper wasps have facial patterns with more black patches than lower-ranking females. They use these signals to avoid costly escalated fights. Thus facial patterns symbolize fighting ability. Evolutionary models of animal communication predict that such correlations between quality and signal evolve, without requiring any human-like reasoning.
Comment by Raevmo — November 20, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Raevmo:
My argument has consistently been that the symbolism of the code enabled replication, biological function and a capacity to adapt to the environment. It's teleology at point of origin enabling what subsequently occurs. You then point to the subsequent occurences- insect symbolism etc.- and contend that they evolved without the benefit of intelligent input; in effect ignoring my origins argument completely. Would the symbolism employed by insects have been possible without a genetic code?
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Bradford, you are obfuscating. You said that symbolism requires human reasoning ability. I pointed out that symbolism has evolved many times without requiring such reasoning ability. Why would such an ability then be required for the evolution of the genetic code? You have absolutely no evidence for this.
Comment by Raevmo — November 20, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Raevmo wrote:
Actually, most paperwasp (Polistes) species do not have those facial markings at all or they do not seem to convey any individual or social meaning. In Polistes fuscatus, the black face marks seem to be more an individual recognition signal, not primarily related to social status.
Comment by Guts — November 20, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
From Tibbetts & Dale (2004), Nature 432:
.
Comment by Raevmo — November 20, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Yes it is correct for Polistes dominulus, but most do not.
Comment by Guts — November 20, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Guts:
That's right. It would be interesting to know the reason for this. I'm no expert on Polistes species, but perhaps P. dominulus tend to found new nests more often with multiple females (that then fight for dominance), compared to other species with single founding females. Or other species have different communication systems. Anyway, my point was that symbolism doesn't require human-like reasoning, and P. dominulus illustrates this.
Comment by Raevmo — November 20, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
You're citing phenomenon that are enabled by the genetic code and then using them to argue that this is evidence that the genetic code itself evolved without the benefit of intelligent input. Yet you cannot even cite an atelic pathway that would produce a code. Evolutionary outcomes are fruit of the poison tree arguments. If the genetic code is a result of a telic process then all subsequent evolutionary events would be secondary effects of a telic proccess. That's why I focus on origin issues. It is the key to all biological inferences.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
That argument is contingent on assuming an unknown process that generates the genetic code was non-telic. That's a wishful thinking assumption.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Here's another example of faulty logic akin to using the genetic code to argue that its effects are evidence favoring the evolution of the code itself. A compoter algorithm generates result x. Result x is then used as evidence that computer software enabling the algorithm was the consequence of an atelic cause.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Bradford:
So now you're saying that anything that evolved after the origin of the genetic code required intelligent input because you think (without evidence) the origin of the genetic code required it. You're just assuming your conclusion. Your main argument that symbolism requires human-like reasoning still falls flat on its face.
I have cited how codes other than the genetic code can evolve atelicly. There are also specific atelic hypotheses about the origin of the genetic code. How do you think the genetic code originated? Please be more specific than just saying the designer did it.
Comment by Raevmo — November 20, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
.
I cited non-biological examples of codes- each the consequence of intelligence. Where is your evidence that chemistry mimicks intelligence?
I'm using if then logical links. It is your side which assumes an atelic process and has for years. Worse yet you claim empirical support for this without being able to produce the goods.
In support of that you introduce effects of the code as evidence for it. Would you argue that the computer booting process is evidence for an ateleological electronic effect proving that operating software was the consequence of a non-telic and unknown electronic process?
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Where are your non-biological examples?
Yeah, I've seen them. Not very comprehensive.
I think a global perspective was used to link canonical amino acids to encoding codons and their translation mechanisms. The concept of biological function, mediated through proteins and regulatory mechanisms, was in mind. I suspect that's why 20 were chosen out of more than 700 naturally occuring amino acids. A very high level of intelligence would be needed for this.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Bradford:
Again you are assuming your conclusion. You cite examples of codes devised by humans. Why does it follow that chemistry must mimic intelligence? You're not making much sense here.
No, you're not using if then logical links. You are generalizing (using sloppy induction) that codes devised by humans (who are intelligent) somehow implies that all codes originate from intelligence. The evidence indicates that intelligence is not required for the evolution of codes.
Your own argument that everything in evolution is a secondary effect of an intelligent designed genetic code is hardly different from the very stupid (but common in ID circles) argument that computer simulations of evolutionary processes cannot be used as arguments for atelic processes because the computer programs were designed by intelligent beings.
Comment by Raevmo — November 20, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Bradford:
What do you mean by a "global perspective"?
Whose mind?
Why? That's just an assertion. Why not an intermediate level of intelligence? Why not a low level of intelligence?
Comment by Raevmo — November 20, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I'm making arguments in favor of an alternative to the default chemical causation argument. These are open questions. That's scary to dedicated materialists.
False. You argue the cause of the code is non-telic. I argue telic. You then put forth the argument that if you assume a non-telic genetic code process then evolution subsequently producing codes via the genetic code, would be evidence that the original genetic code evolved. That's a non-sequitur. Might as well argue that algorithmic results prove algorithmic programs poofed themselves into existence through electronic pathways.
Go argue with someone making that argument.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
A global perspective would have larger concepts in mind when designing specifics- the blueprint idea. The suspected level of intelligence could be confirmed or debunked through a study of all amino acids, not just the canonical 20.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Other than an argument from analogy, can you point to any scientific evidence to support this claim? What specific empirical consequences follow from the hypothesis?
Comment by Zachriel — November 20, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
After our last exchange in which chemical affinity was cited as a causal source for the genetic code it was pointed out to me that the discussions were focused on the amino acids connected with the code and that there is a much larger reservior of amino acids occurring naturally and relevant to pre-cellular scenarios. If chemical affinity for the AAs in question counts for evidence of a chemical pathway and in opposition to telic configuration then chemical affinity involving non-canonical amino acids or the lack of affinity within the canonical would be evidence against chemical determism. There must be some freedom from determinism where options, not based on chemistry, are chosen. Any data de-linking chemical determinism from code formation would favor association by convention.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
In an historical reconstruction, that may not be correct. The first amino acids may have had chemical affinities, but later additions not.
Similarly, an evolutionary origin may not be deterministic, but like the rest of evolution, contingent on the historical details. I'm just not sure you can support your claim without proposing a particular historical hypothesis, then testing it.
Comment by Zachriel — November 20, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Or there might be greater chemical affinity between codons and amino acids not used by proteins but found on prebiotic earth. If affinity data can count in favor of chemical causality but not against it then of what value is it?
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
It's not some sort of zero-sum game between telic and atelic theories. Affinity is not support for "chemical causality", but for a specific hypothesis. Lack of affinity would call into question that one hypothesis—not every possible hypothesis. By contrast, it is this striking lack of specificity that renders ID impotent and irrelevant.
We have evidence indicating that the origin of the genetic code was a process, not a single event. Such a process may involve multiple mechanisms and multiple contingencies. A single test will not reveal the entirety of such a history. Also, we know that the genetic code is not arbitrary, but grouped by physical properties of the associated amino acids.
Comment by Zachriel — November 20, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
If a hypothesis entailed specified non-canonical amino acids and mathcing codons shown to have a stronger affinity between them than exists among canonical amino acids and their corresponding codons would that call into question the belief that the genetic code is grouped by physical properties of the associated amino acids? No. Of course not. One would simply hyppothesize that the strong affinity did not result in the inclusion of these amino acids within the code because…
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
The genetic code is not arbitrary.
Taylor and Coates, The code within the codons, Biosystems 1989: each of the three codon bases has a general correlation with a different, predictable amino acid property, depending on position within the codon.
Stereochemical affinity has little utility to modern assignments, but this correlation is predicted as an historical vestige. Your scenario could indicate that the non-canonical amino acids were never used because they didn't provide a benefit, or superseded by a more efficient process. But determining that would require data.
Comment by Zachriel — November 20, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
November 21st, 2008 at 12:31 am
There is a wealth of evidence that the genetic code is not just a "frozen accident" or arbitrary. The simplest example of this is the high degeneracy at the third position, and the much lower degeneracy on the first two. This is highly unlikely to occur by random chance. Why this pattern exists is really a mystery, but a number of hypotheses have been proposed. In particular I think that the genetic code is an information-preserving scheme (technically, "an error-correcting code").
Thus, to understand why the genetic code has the structure it has we must turn to information theory. It is remarkable that information theory which is used in building of digital devices like cell phones, satellites and DVDs is also the key to understanding how complex life got going. In both cases, you want to make sure that information is not lost in transmission or damaged while in storage.
The correlation between properties of the amino acids and the nucleotides that code for them is exactly how the genetic code preserves information. I believe that whatever doesn't kill you, makes you….stranger, lol sorry still on a dark knight kick, I believe that when in the early organisms a mutation had a high probability of occurring, the genetic code evolved so as to make the two codons connected by the mutation more similar, namely, to make them code for chemically related amino acids. This made sure that the information stored in the genome was not seriously damaged. This is the reason why the third codon position is often very degenerate – it was (and is) highly likely to experience a mutation.
Comment by Guts — November 21, 2008 @ 12:31 am
November 21st, 2008 at 8:41 am
The genetic code appears to be partially optimized for minimization of translation error, but there appear to be other, neutral factors involved, including the historical contingency of its root origin and how additions to the code occurred over time.
Novozhilov, Wolf and Koonin, Evolution of the genetic code: partial optimization of a random code for robustness to translation error in a rugged fitness landscape, 2007.
Wu, Bagby and Van Den Elsen, Evolution of the genetic triplet code via two types of doublet codons, Journal of molecular evolution 2005.
Brooks et al., Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2002.
Comment by Zachriel — November 21, 2008 @ 8:41 am
November 21st, 2008 at 11:25 am
There are many hypotheses as to the code's development, but none of it is established. It has been suggested that Error Minimization has not been directly selected for (unlike other workers in the field), but has arisen neutrally as a result of the process of code expansion. All sorts of correlations have been described in the literature – however, it is unclear if these have arisen by chance. What is clear is that the property of Error Minimization is highly unlikely to have arisen by chance, and that the correlation tends to be high when the probability of point mutation is low, and vice versa . The code is not random and workers in the field would say that it was probably shaped by different constraints.
Comment by Guts — November 21, 2008 @ 11:25 am
November 21st, 2008 at 11:32 am
Raevmo wrote:
No, both P. dominulus and P. fuscatus start nests in groups.
Comment by Guts — November 21, 2008 @ 11:32 am
November 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Guts:
Thanks for the info. Any idea how P. fuscatus settle their disputes (if any) over dominance?
Comment by Raevmo — November 21, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
November 21st, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Agreed.
Comment by Zachriel — November 21, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
November 24th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Actually no I'd have to look it up.
Comment by Guts — November 24, 2008 @ 12:31 am