Behe: ID rescues Common Descent
by BilboOver at Behe's amazon.com blog, in the question and answer section, this question comes up:
In Edge of Evolution you indicate that some of the evidence supporting common ancestry is pretty persuasive. Yet a number of scientists have questioned some of the evidence for common ancestry. Do you think it is beyond the pale for them to do so? In your mind is it scientific to question common ancestry?
Behe's response is intriguing:
In my view it is certainly not "beyond the pale" for a scientist to question anything. Questioning and skepticism are healthy for science. I have no solutions to the difficult problems pointed to by scientists who are skeptical of universal common descent: ORFan genes, nonstandard genetic codes, different routes of embryogenesis by similar organisms, and so on. Nonetheless, as I see it, if, rather than Darwinian evolution, one is talking about "intelligently designed" descent, then those problems, while still there, seem much less insuperable. I certainly agree that random, unintelligent processes could not account for them, but an intelligent agent may have ways around apparent difficulties. [my emphasis] So in judging the likelihood of common descent, I discount problems that could be classified as "how did that get here?" Instead, I give much more weight to the "mistakes" or "useless features" arguments. If some peculiar feature is shared between two species which, as far as we can tell, has no particular function, and which in other contexts we would likely call a genetic accident, then I count that as rather strong evidence for common descent. So, if one looks at the data in the way that I do, then one can say simultaneously that: 1) CD is very well supported; 2) grand Darwinian claims are falsified; 3) ID is confirmed; 4) design extends very deeply into biology.
So objections that would most likely be raised by Young Earth Creationists against Common Descent are answered by Behe by Intelligent Design. As I said, intriguing. And perhaps a way of generating teleological hypotheses that could possibly be tested.
[Oh yeah. I still haven't figured out that link thingy. Could somebody help me out?]
July 5th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Here is what you embed into your text…
<a href="http://telicthoughts.com"... to here<a>
Here is what you get…
link to here
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 5, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
July 5th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
OK, TP, let's see if I can do this:
link to here
Um…it doesn't seem to work. I can't get the pointer to click onto it.
YES! YES! YES! It worked!!!
Comment by Bilbo — July 5, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
July 5th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
change
to
<a href=http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref=cm_blog_pdp_blog/102-8594431-0527313">this works</a>
this works
P.S. angryoldfatman is correct. The first example should have ended with /a
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 5, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
July 5th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
at the end.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 5, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
July 5th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Oops
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 5, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
July 5th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
The end tag needs a forward slash before the "a" is what I was trying to say.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 5, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
July 5th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Bilbo,
Behe seems to be making a classic gap argument. Running into trouble explaining something naturalistically? Invoke the Designer.
The problem is that anything can be explained that way, whether or not it really is the product of design.
Explain everything and you explain nothing.
Comment by keiths — July 5, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
July 5th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Keiths:
But the issue is whether the problem at hand lends itself to an intelligent solution or one that would simply result from blind forces of nature. If the former better fits the evidence then it would be stupid to insist on the latter. Gapping has nothing to do with this unless the gapping is auto resorting to a vague non-ID explanation when we come up against an unknown.
Comment by Bradford — July 5, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
July 5th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Depends on what is meant by "common ancestry". Monophylogenous or polyphylogenous? What degree of polyphylogeny? Do humans have a common ancestor? Sure. Do cucumbers have a common ancestor? Sure. How about humans and cucumbers? Yes, they have an imaginary common ancestor. If we include all the imaginary common ancestors (a la Haeckel), then monophylogenous common descent works just fine.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — July 5, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
July 5th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Keiths:
No one, including Behe claimed ID "explained everything".
The so-called "classical gaps" argument to which you refer is also a non-starter. The very concept of "gaps" in that context really means "something for which have yet to find a naturalistic explanation", which, of course, implies that all natural phenenomen must have a natural cause (read: undirected, unintelligent) cause. But what if, contra your comment above, the actual explanation doesn't fit that mold and a purposeful, intelligent cause is the actual case? As I've asked you before and now ask again: how do you know scientifically that the properties of the cosmos are such no apparent design can be actual design, even in principal? If you can provide a scientific answer to that question, then claims of "classical gaps" arguments are bluster as far as I can see.
Comment by DonaldM — July 5, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
July 5th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
If you're an atheist, use prophetic materialism.
Anything can be explained by prophetic materialism. Prophetic materialism is like a tube of caulking, a great gap-filler. Can fill the gap in your head too (i.e., mind.)
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — July 5, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
July 5th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
DonaldM:
It looks as if non-design is a definitional property of their arguments. It must be assumed. When there is no default option design looks eminently reasonable.
Comment by Bradford — July 5, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
July 5th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
You have a choice.
A. You can use a question begging set of definitions and rules for science that require design to be excluded, regardless of the evidence.
B. You can allow that real design is a real possibility, in which case one must distinguish between real design and apparent design.
If you want to defend option A, what would be the basis for essentially closing one's eyes regardless of any evidence?
If you take option B, you are correct that anything could be attributed to design. The consequence is that we can only legitimately infer design when we have reasons to believe (tentatively, as always) that unguided processes cannot do the job, i.e. there is a gap that we have not been able to make unguided processes cover.
This is exactly why Dembski's design filter first considers law and chance explanations before reaching a design inference. It is also the process Behe is using, i.e. observing the many things unguided processes can do as well as what they cannot do, in order to better define The Edge of Evolution.
Unless you want to try to defend permanently covering your eyes against the possibility of real design, Behe is doing exactly as one should do by looking at design possibilities when there are reasons to believe unguided processes cannot do the job.
Comment by eric — July 5, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
July 5th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Eric said…
And there is a Third Choice.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 5, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 8:34 am
That is not the only way. It's not even a way (though it might be sufficient to form a hypothesis).
We infer design by finding the causal link between the designer, the mechanism of manufacture and the artifact. We might look at Stonehenge and think it must be "designed". After all, it looks a lot like other lithic monuments that humans have made. So we look for and discover evidence of manufacture, from chisel marks to stone quarries. And evidence of the "designers" in the form of other artifacts directly associated with humans.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 8:34 am
July 6th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Bradford:
Of course, this isn't anything new. The default position of science as currently practiced is so-called methodological naturalism as you know. But since MN is virtually indistinguishable from full-blown philosophical naturalism, the result is the same: enforcement of MN on scientific practice MUST assume PN is the truth. Eliminate MN and design becomes a live possibility with tons of evidence to support it.
Comment by DonaldM — July 6, 2007 @ 8:40 am
July 6th, 2007 at 9:21 am
As designers are subjected to scientific investigation (there are entire fields of such study), then it clearly isn't an intrinsic assumption. However, the invocation of entities without empirical implications are scientifically extraneous, at best.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 9:21 am
July 6th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Zachriel wrote:
Are you in training to enter this year's Beg The Question In Naturalism's Favor As Blatantly As Possible In As Few Words As Possible Competition? If so, I'd say you've got a good chance of taking the Gold.
The question is: are there any non-human designers?
Zachriel proposes to answer it by implicitly defining 'designer' to mean 'human designer', and implicitly defining 'evidence of design' to mean 'evidence of design by humans'; from which definitions he then confidently derives the conclusion that there aren't any non-human designers.
Anyone else find this strategy risible, er, in the extreme?
It's like that other great marvel of 'bright' argumentation: if someone has a religious experience, it's due to just a certain type of human brain state, not to God. Why? Oh because 'religious experience' is defined as an experience due to that type of brain state, not to God.
Thus, there are no appearances of design nor of divine presence that can even be allowed to count as evidence of design nor of divine presence, by definitional fiat.
And to think that 'brights' accuse religious people of blind faith, fundamentalism, dogmatism, not being willing to go wherever the evidence leads, and harboring unfalsfiable ideas.
Hilarious, it really is.
Comment by stunney — July 6, 2007 @ 9:58 am
July 6th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Zachriel:
I'll just keep asking this question until someone provides a scientific answer. Zachriel, how has it been confirmed or established scientifically that non-material entities are incapable of interacting with the material cosmos in any manner that would produce empirical, detectable consequences, even in principle?
Where can I find these research studies in the peer reviewed science journals? Who did the studies? Under what conditions? How might they be falsified?
I eagerly await your citations. Thank you.
Comment by DonaldM — July 6, 2007 @ 10:12 am
July 6th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Stunney:
Yes, the brights really are DIM when it comes to this, aren't they? Dawkins is a Dim; Dennett is a Dim. Kinda rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it?
Comment by DonaldM — July 6, 2007 @ 10:15 am
July 6th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Does the presence of numerous, interdependant parts working together to yield a specific function carry no weight what-so-ever?
Mechanism of manufacture is the causal link you're looking for…. what need to infer design then? It should be readily apparent in those situations…. quite the mundane task then.
Comment by Doug — July 6, 2007 @ 10:21 am
July 6th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Of course not. That is also the advantage of a methodological definition of science. There is no such distinction. However, we do consider entities *without* empirical, detectable consequences as scientifically extraneous.
Sure. It might lead to a valid hypothesis. The Monsoons are a complex mechanism for pumping water over Asia. Storms are complex mechanisms for generating lightning to punish the wicked. The intricate dance of planets, they say, portend the rise and fall of Kings. But what specific and distinguishing predictions can you make?
Genesis 2:7: The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 11:30 am
July 6th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Zachriel, what is the significance of this response? Are you looking for empirical evidence related to a religious passage and if so why?
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2007 @ 11:59 am
July 6th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
It's at least some attempt at describing a mechanism.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Bradford: Zachriel, what is the significance of this response? Are you looking for empirical evidence related to a religious passage and if so why?
Is it really? How much can you tell about the mechanism I use to transmit this message. Did I type it myself or use the services of another who typed my spoken words? If I typed it am I a two finger typist or conventional? I've used the example of home building in the past since I became somewhat familiar with the details of the process through a good friend of mine who does it for a living. The point of intelligent input is the mechanism is usually one of choice rather than necessity. The end product cannot reveal the actual mechanism in such cases even if it can reveal intelligent input through the nature of the end product.
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
We can investigate the process. That's the point. There is a causal mechanism that connects the entity we know as "Bradford" with the message.
To elaborate, let's suppose "Bradford" is a disembodied entity. We can still investigate the source of the signal. Where does it enter the Internet? What causes the signal to appear at that point? What is the IP-address of Heaven?
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
I believe the point was that science allows for these multiple mechanistic choices. Here, you have an embarrassment of riches…
God, the Life Giver, continually breaths life into non-life via mysterious ways.
God, the Ultimate Engineer, created a universe so perfect it runs itself.
God, the Quantum Mechanic, uses non-deterministic, non-random quanglement.
And God is just one metaphysical Truth, there are many others, each with their own set a scientific hypotheses. And if your truism about Occam and metaphysics is correct, everything is equally "the Truth".
P.S. to Zachriel, please excuse me for stepping on your response, but I thought my examples might help inform the discussion.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 6, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Bradford: How much can you tell about the mechanism I use to transmit this message.
Depending on what it is you are investigating you could already have the answer. If ruling out a random cause, like a pet walking over a keyboard in favor of intelligent input, is the objective, then it is satisfied with the evidence you already have. You can investigate the actual physical mechanism but you are unlikely to ever obtain an answer.
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
But the relevant question is which choices, if any, are subject to empirical studies.
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
What specific and distinguishing predictions can I make from your sarcastic examples of 'numerous, interdependant parts working together to yield a specific function'?
The specificity of the functions that you mentioned are of a much different type than that of the intraflagellar transport system.
You're taking natural occurrences (storms, lightning, movement of planets) that are governed by physical laws (the source of which betrays the point you were intending) to which you ascribe (in jest) some arbitrary function (punishing the wicked).
How does this negate the inference to design when one is faced with a molecular mechanism that contains numerous, interdependant parts working together to yield a specific function?
This, like the 1st part of your response doesn't address my point.
You are saying that we can infer design when we:
The mechanism of manufacture is a causal link between the designer and the artifact. What other causal link could you be referring to? Photographs taken, a diary that was maintained, and a jar with a clear liquid labeled "Sweat From Brow"
Comment by Doug — July 6, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
That depends on the acceptance of NOMA. People who reject NOMA are, for all practicle purposes, declaring everything is subject to empirical studies, including whether or not
an Intelligent DesignerGod exists.Accepting NOMA, implies a recognition that science has a limited toolset. I think most people would agree science is limited to understanding things that can be understood (i.e. are deterministic).
To me, non-deterministic implies metaphysical and it would be foolish to attempt to subject such things to empirical studies.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 6, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Typically because we have experience with other such artifacts. When we examine a likely arrowhead, we compare it to our library of other such artifacts. When blogging, we already know that most bloggers are featherless bipeds.
Let me answer a different way. Whenever we make a scientific claim, there are implications of the claim. We can investigage these implications, and that is what we call science. If you want to say to yourself that it looks designed and that's good enough for me, then you are not working within the scientific paradigm.
"Bradford" doesn't type randomly. In fact, his messages are in English and are being communicated via an electronic medium. We already know a lot about the entity "Bradford". A bit more investigation will reveal his IP, geographic location, and that he purports to like Baseball and Chess.
In the vast majority of cases, random has nothing to do with determining if something is designed. The gods of the Monsoon pump water over South Asia quite non-randomly.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Franklin showed that "Storms are complex mechanisms for generating lightning" is due to static electricity in the atmosphere. His experiment with the kite was the best in foolhardy empirical research. Other investigators have shown that the Earth's atmosphere works as a giant heat engine.
But that is precisely the God of the Gaps argument that constitutes most ID reasoning. Just because we may be ignorant of the causes of lightning, doesn't allow us to reach a scientific conclusion that an angry Sky God hurls lightning. The physical laws which explain these phenomean only came after centuries of ignorance and fallacious reasoning.
It's not a valid inference, any more than claiming that the clockwork motions of the planets is a clock. It's a claim"”at best a hypothesis. Now, make the causal connection between the designer, the mechanism of manufacture and the artifact. What are the empirical implications? Turns out that planets orbit according to their mutual graviational attraction. But even today, no one knows if the Earth's orbit is stable over the long run.
I don't know. It's not my claim. If it is to have scientific validity, then that is what you need to provide. Sweeping declarations that you can't imagine how it could have evolved does not a scientific theory make.
Try looking at how science actually makes such determinations. Consider the Antikythera Mechanism. What can we conclude based on what we know?
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Zachriel:
Zachriel:
What, exactly, is the advantage of a methodological definition of science?
Which entities are without empirical, detectable consequences and how has that been established scientifically?
Comment by DonaldM — July 6, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Among other reasons, because it doesn't make a distinction between natural and supernatural phenomena. It also doesn't require any specific mindset or philosophical predisposition. As long as there are observable consequences, it is subject to scientific investigation.
Anything without empirical, detectable consequences is not subject to scientific investigation. Philosophy is outside of scientific investigation, though philosophy is informed by science. Subjective experience is still largely outside scientific investigation, though science is not completely mute on the subject.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Zachriel:
I beg to differ. First of all, there's really no such thing as a "methodological definition" of science. Rather, science (or at least many scientists and philosophers of science) promote the concept of methodological naturalism, which very much does make a distinction between natural and supernatural phenomenon. MN says, in effect, for the sake of 'doing science' we'll pretend that nature is a closed system of natural cause and effect, which is basically what full-blown philosophical naturalism is all about. So, far from not distinguishing between the natural and the super-natural, MN assumes PN, thus eliminating even the possibility that a supernatural cause or entity could act in such a way as to have empircally detectable consequences in the natural (i.e. material) realm.
That is the consequence of your so-called 'methodological definition' of science. It requires a very specific mind-set and philosophical predisposition, mainly in favor of PN, or something very much like it.
I sort of agree here, but this doesn't really answer the question I asked you. What I asked was what supernatural entities are without empirical consequences in the natural realm?
Comment by DonaldM — July 6, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Zachriel:
We also have experiences with "artifacts" like nucleic acids and can tell much about their properties and conditions in which they are generated.
Exactly. The fact that you are able to draw that conclusion has implications extending further than this example.
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Sure there is. I provided such a definition consistent with how scientists normally work, and consistent with many definitions provided in academia and in philosophy. That's why scientists can have such a wide variety of philosophical views, Jews, Christians, Muslims, New Agers, Buddhists nihilists, and still contribute to the process.
I have found that the distinction between natural and supernatural is not useful or well-defined. Hence, I have offered a leaner definition consistent with scientific practice.
My "so-called 'methodological definition' of science" That is incorrect. If you want to make that point, please don't conflate my definition with others you may have heard.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Yeah, they act like molecules. And they are generated through chemical processes everyday.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Chemical processes that are dependent on preexisting functional genomic systems. What chemical processes generate the encoding conventions and sequence specificity associated with function?
Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Hi Zachriel:
The inference becomes more pronounced the more we understand. The more knowledge we accrue regarding the nature of certain biological machines and mechanisms – the more likely it appears that NS working on RM is bankrupt in being that mechanism to yield such a biological artifact. Such as the case with the cilium. Initially the stumbling block to a blind and random search was nexin linkers, dynein motor and microtubules. But now, fundamental to the existence of the cilium itself, is the intraflagellar transport system.
Our understanding increases the plausibility of RM+NS decreases.
You are assuming that the existence of God (for our sake I'll be focusing on the Judeo-Christian notion of God) was invoked initially for explanatory purposes.
Ancient observer: "I wonder why the sky lights up with a flash which is then followed by a loud rumbling….hmmmm. I've got it! There's an entity, in my image, that transcends the natural order and he's the one who does it!! It all makes sense now."
How is this the same? You're comparing the functions of the two, not the source of the constituent parts. You've compared an arbitrary function that you superimposed over the movement of the planets to a very real function carried out by a molecular machine. I don't see your point.
This just brings us back to the initial point: are these the only criteria that will be accepted before design can be considered valid or even possible?
So, regardless of how impressive, intricate, specific and detailed the artifact is ..the inference of design must be withheld and the declaration that it came about randomly must be assumed.
How did you come to such a conclusion? Did the observation itself inform you of this? You are allowing only one hypothesis, regardless of the fact that you have never seen nature (no foresight and random) form such a machine. That pattern doesn't seem very warranted.
Comment by Doug — July 6, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Assuming you are referring to origin of the genetic code, then that is not known with any certainty at this time.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Use your "inference" to make a specific and distinguishing empirical prediction. All you're saying is that's its complicated. As there is only very scant evidence of the origin of the cilium, and whose history is largely lost in intervening eons of time, it's just a convenient Gap.
Whenever we make a scientific claim, there are implications of the claim. We can investigage these implications, and that is what we call science. If you want to say to yourself that it looks designed and that's good enough for you, then you are not working within the scientific paradigm.
Planetary orbits are impressive, intricate, specified and detailed.
You also may want to quit with the strawman "random". Almost nothing in nature is random, certainly not evolutionary adaptation.
Nope. Not at all. I am not disallowing any particular theory. But if you make a scientific claim, then you need to tell us what specific and distinguishing empirical predictions are implied.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
TP:
I'll agree with you strongly that there are postulations that don't enter the realm of science, thus constitute a NOMA of specified beliefs. Zach's example of Genesis 2:7 is not one of these, because "dust of the ground" is matter. It's all sorts of available matter from all the stellar death events that produced the abundance of elements from which 'mud' is made. The only thing arguable about this postulation (and its interpretations in light of science) is the God-attribution. Which is NOMA (science can't prove the negative, religion can't prove the positive).
But non-determinism needs to be examined in light of the type of mechanisms you've discovered – such as the quantum calculators in life that appear to be universally requisite to life. To whom, exactly, is the result non-determined?
IOW, in an extended EAM-ish model (that would account for quantum mechanisms), the results might not be so undetermined for the organism at all. It's just that science must take the ensemble, and an ensemble of what is not determined by outside agency can only be probablistic. Yet probability isn't precisely random either. Science does have a statistical manner of accounting for it, it just can't say anything about the individuals in which effects are manifest (or what's probable to them).
Empirical studies are conceivable. But this crosses a previously-drawn line science likes to ignore. As more and more empirical evidence accumulates from psi studies, it might someday be scientifically relevant to consider the subjective on the individual level. At which point things will not look so non-deterministic at all. IMHO.
Comment by Joy — July 6, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
TP writes:
I have to disagree. I reject NOMA because it is a self-refuting concept. Is NOMA a principle of science or theology? If science, then clearly science is dictating the boundaries to theology. Vice-versa if its a statement of theology. Either way, it violotes its own principle of non-overlap. Or perhaps NOMA is neither a principle of either science or theology — then from whence does it arise? Philosophy? Which philosophy would that be, and why does THAT philosophy get to dictate the limits to either science or religion.
No! NOMA just doesn't cut it as a principle of anything as far as I'm concerned.
Comment by DonaldM — July 6, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Zachriel:
Guessed I missed it. I've looked up thread, but don't find what you're referring to. Could you kindly re-post?
Thanks!
Comment by DonaldM — July 6, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Zachriel:
Like NOMA, I find the entire concept of God of the Gaps (GoG) untenable. As normally used, GoG seems to imply that 'gaps' are details to be filled in later by a 'naturalistic' explanation. The implication is that all 'gaps' in our understanding of observed phenomenon in nature can ultimately be explained with reference to natural causes only, at least in principle. If that isn't the implication of 'gaps' in the phrase God of the Gaps, then dismissing something as merely a GoG argument doesn't have much force, since God could indeed be the 'gap' filler. If the term 'gaps' in the phrase does, in fact, mean what I stated above, then we're back to sneaking philosophical naturalism in the back door of science. Either way, the dismissive phrase GoG doesn't fare too well and looks pretty anemic.
You may as well speak of a "Naturalism of the Gaps" and be done with it.
Comment by DonaldM — July 6, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Well, this discussion certainly went in a different direction than I imagined it would. I found the Behe quote intriguing, because Behe was defending the Darwinian theory of Common Descent against Young Earth Creationism, and he was using Intelligent Design as his weapon. Some might call that Irony. Am I the only one who sees it?
Comment by Bilbo — July 6, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Zechriel, "What is the IP-address of Heaven?"
Could be every quantum superposition.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 6, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
To address Keiths initial objection: Behe isn't proposing a "God-of-the-Gaps" argument. He's saying:
1) There is already good evidence that much of the natural history of life was intelligently designed.
2) There is good evidence for Common Descent.
3) However, there is also good evidence against Common Descent by Random Mutation.
4) But since I (Behe) already believe in ID, I am able to accept Common Descent, even though it wasn't by Random Mutation.
5) Therefore, I can reject the YEC objections to Common Descent.
Comment by Bilbo — July 6, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Bilbo:
I'm sorry, Bilbo. Active discussions do tend to crossover. I'm not that big a fan of common descent beyond the class limit. Heck I'm not that fond of it at OOL either, since I do like Woese's HGT Field hypothesis. Worse, I see some serious neglect of HGT further on in the process even though horizontal inheritance became predominant. What matters is what counts for real evolution, not just recombinant variation and occasional accidents, which account for disease way more often than they account for evolution.
So I'm not convinced that ID rescues common descent. In its strictest terms, of course. But then again, I haven't read the book so what do I know? §;o)
Comment by Joy — July 6, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Joy:
I'm not convinced, either. I don't even understand the problems with it that Behe refers to in the initial passage. Nevertheless, the fact that Behe would use ID to rescue Common Descent from those problems is, I think one must admit, intriguing. And I think that opens up the possibility for testable hypotheses: How would one overcome the problems mentioned by use of design? Does it match what we find in Nature?
Comment by Bilbo — July 6, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Bilbo:
I don't even know what the YEC objections are, so I don't know if I reject them like I reject the whole "random" misnomer on evolutionarily significant genomic alterations.
Perhaps this is a result of not having a brain that works just like everybody else's. There had to come a time in my young life where my "difference" didn't make me anathema to myself. Like when my father raged at me one night for not understanding a mathematical concept he'd been trying hard to impart, telling me I was just "stupid."
Of course it crushed my self-esteem. My older sister and younger brother both got it (or acted like they did) without hardly trying. I was completely asea, and wanted him to MAKE me understand! He couldn't, so it must have been my fault (and I already knew I was 'different').
Cried myself to sleep, then woke up with the sure understanding that I was NOT stupid! Maybe my mind had fed me self-reaffirming pablum all night – I don't recall. I do recall coming to the firm conclusion that he was sadly mistaken. I was every bit as smart as my siblings, I just required a different approach to abstracts than they did. My brother re-explained it to me the next day (because I threatened to beat him up if he didn't), as I knew he was synesthetic as well. Better at hiding it than I was. Then I confronted my father with it. He said he was sorry for calling me stupid, because I took it a step farther and confirmed something only barely tickling the corners of his mind at the time. An extrapolation that made perfect sense, if the original conception was understood in a certain way.
He was a noted scientist, engineer and inventor. Of course the most brilliant man I ever knew (because he was Daddy), against whom I've weighed all the other brilliant men and women I've known. I've known some. I learned a valuable lesson. Sometimes the brilliant are as wrong as the rest of us, and/or handicapped to take it further than their concretizations.
I'm not a YEC. I don't believe Genesis is a science textbook, nor that it needs to be. Anything in there can be made to coincide with human history as we know it, complete with the metaphors of creation. It makes perfect theological sense (as does everything else in the collection) because it makes perfect historical and sociological sense. It never had to be science in the first place.
Doesn't mean I don't think life is intelligently designed, though. I just seat the causal impetus interior more than exterior.
Comment by Joy — July 6, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Sorry about that. It was on another thread. I'll repeat the discussion here, but will attempt to address Bilbo's thread topic more directly in a later post.
A valid scientific methodology can be built on the mechanics of making a record of an observation (memory). From this we can derive objective patterns as the consistency of records across observers. We then add appropriate definitions of hypothesis, theory and parsimony and call this procedure "science".
The hypothesis is the amazing component of the process. The hypothesis can formed randomly, by happenstance, by deep-thought, through extensive familiarity with the evidence, a hunch, or even from the murmurings of Muses. But whatever the source of the hypothesis, it must lead to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
From this methodological vantage, you don't have to accept scientific conclusions. You can reject the reliability of records (e.g. Last Thursdayism), or reject the meaningfulness of observation (e.g. Solipsism). But when we say "Eppur si muove!", this remains a valid statement *within* the scientific paradigm. As does this statement:
NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Joy:
Why not? You are a bigger fan of beyond the order limit?
Comment by Raevmo — July 6, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
There is little reasonable doubt about Common Descent (as it applies to most taxa). I'm not sure a hypothesis has been proposed that can distinguish between common descent by mechanisms which are observed, and common descent via unseen and disembodied teleological mechanisms.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
God of the Gaps is an argument from ignorance; the Gap being filled with God or some other preferred metaphysics unless and until some other explanation is found.
But, the Gap is just an area of ignorance. A scientist might tentatively assume there is a material cause, but absent evidence, it remains just that"”a Gap. If you prefer, you can fill it with some other presupposition; but to call it science, you have to use the hypothesis to form predictions and make confirming observations.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Why are you so certain that there are no gaps? If a gap in material causes really does exist then would it still be an argument from ignorance? Or it is only an argument from ignorance because you assume that only material causes exist? So there really is no 'tentatively' assuming there is a material cause if there only are material causes – simply known material causes and unknown material causes.
Wouldn't confirming observations be the existence of other gaps? What if our understanding grew and a material cause seemed less and less plausible? This should serve as a confirming observation.
Comment by Doug — July 6, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Of course there are Gaps. There is far more not known than known.
It's a Gap of Ignorance until you fill it in with knowledge. You are more than welcome to fill it with whatever metaphysical paste you want. Just don't claim that yours is the only worthy brand of paste. To be considered science, that means specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but each discovery enlarges our knowledge of the universe. The more we know, the more we realize how much we still have to learn. The universe of a Bronze Age goat herder only reaches to the firmament. Cook sailed to Tahiti to fix the size of the Solar System.
No problem. Just propose an alternative explanation. However, if you want the imprimatur of science, then your explanation has to entail specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Zachriel wrote:
What specific and distinguishing empirical predictions does the hypothesis that unintelligent, unintentional, undesigned processes are responsible for biological species make that would not turn out true in the null case?
Anybody know?
Comment by stunney — July 6, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Actually, I would say that the primary and foundational YEC objections to Common Descent are theological more than scientific (though not disregarding they also raise scientific issues). So I don't think there is any likelihood that Behe's observations could put their concerns to rest.
To take one key example, many YEC would interpret the Bible to indicate that all death came as a consequence of man's disobedience. So any progression of descent through many generations of birth and death, leading up to mankind, would be unacceptable even if it depended on intelligent design.
(An aside: Others who are not necessarily YEC would understand the statements about death coming through sin to be in reference to its affect (not physical only) on Adam and Eve and their descendants.)
To tell the truth, when I didn't know who Allen_MacNeill was and he first started complaining about how Behe's approach to design implied a designer who worked through many generations of death, I thought at first that he might be a YEC.
Another aside: If we are nothing more than advanced animals from a long line of birth and death, it's a somewhat odd thing that we should find death not merely unwelcome but also a moral issue. It's interesting how often atheists will point to death as morally objectionable. It's almost as if we intuitively recognized our death as an aberration, as though it ought not to be so and we ought to expect something else.
Not a proof. Just musing.
Comment by eric — July 6, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
All your protestations are terminally undercut by one obvious observation.
I will safely guess that almost none of us have undertaken an investigation of how "Bradford" connects to these posts. Nevertheless, it is obvious beyond doubting that Bradford is an intelligent agent. We make the inference with complete assurance and without any of the extraneous steps you want to require.
How do we do it? Because we know with confidence that complex, coherent symbolic messages require intelligent agents. There is no other observed source.
You can go on protesting (and on and on), but don't expect that anyone will take seriously that one needs to find the designer before we can recognize a message as a message.
So if we found what most people would consider a spacecraft, a true scientist could not infer a designing intelligence until he found the aliens who designed it, or at least until he understood their causal relationship? And if that is not available, he would have to do what? Perhaps assume it is the result of natural processes?
There simply is no way you are going to succeed in making a convincing case out of claiming that we cannot infer design from a designed artifact itself even without access to the designer or the designer's methods. — though I am not going to hold my breath waiting for you to concede what is obvious to most people.
Comment by eric — July 6, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
eric wrote:
Hi eric,
Actually, that makes sense in Darwinian terms. Being death-averse keeps us alive longer, and therefore fitter in the Darwinian sense.
That's why the cow who wants to be eaten, in the second book of the Hitchhiker's Guide series, strikes us as so comical.
Comment by keiths — July 6, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
eric wrote:
eric, you might be interested in this series:
Some Introductory Thoughts on Animal Suffering
Animal Suffering and the Fall of Man (Part One)
Animal Suffering and the Fall of Man (Part Two)
Comment by stunney — July 6, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'm not questioning the fact that death is unwelcome or that we are death-averse. As you say, that is completely reasonable from an evolutionary perspective.
I am musing (not proving, mind you, just musing) about the interesting fact that there is this sense that it is morally objectionable, as though for some reason we ought to expect to not die. What in the history of life tells us that?
There can be plenty of reasons why someone should want to live, but none of them need be a reason why they should expect — not just factually, but even to expect morally — never to die.
Being averse to our own death is one thing. Thinking death itself ought not to be is quite another.
Comment by eric — July 6, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
eric wrote:
I think it's not surprising that we have an aversion to our own pain and extinction.
What is surprising is that we that we have any aversion to the pain and extinction of other species, and that we have less of an aversion to being causes of pain and extinction to members of our own species than other species seem to have to intra-species pain and extinction.
What is also surprising is that we can anticipate our death long in advance.
Also surprising is our capacity for experiencing moral value, our capacity for religious experience, our capacity to study history, our capacity to translate Finnish into Japanese, our capacity to grow wheat for export, our capacity to not believe our species merely lucked out to become so unique across so many different dimensions of experience. Et cetera.
For instance, we can imagine a mathematically talented species which knew nothing of morality or aesthetics. Or a very ethical species which was hopeless at math. Or a wonderfully artistic species which was also amoral. But we got all three?
Hmmm.
Comment by stunney — July 6, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
The Turing Test was posed by Professor Alan Turing in the 1950 paper "Computing machinery and intelligence" as a test for artificial (e.g. machine/computer) intelligence (A.I.). When could we say that a programmed computer has become intelligent?
The test works by having someone engage in conversation with a pair of unseen counterparts. One is a human and the other is the candidate A.I. If the tester cannot reliably tell which one is the actual human, the A.I. passes the test.
For our purposes, let's call this prospective A.I. the "Bradford" program.
A blog would be a very natural vehicle for running a Turing test. Instead of typing keys at a keyboard, the Bradford program could be running on a distributed network of servers without need of keyboard or monitors.
So, do we know the means by which the Bradford posts are generated? No, we do not.
Do we know that Bradford is a human. Strictly speaking, no we do not. For all we know, the Bradford posts we have been seeing might be from a successful A.I. program, rather than from a human.
What can we know having only these posts? We know that Bradford is intelligent. As Turing realized in 1950, we can infer intelligent agency from the messages themselves, without any access to the source or the means of production.
Note also that this test was proposed before we knew that life itself was built upon the essential foundation of symbolic messages. It is not an ad hoc invention of the I.D. movement. The fact that coherent, complex, semantically meaningful messages indicate intelligence was recognized long before its relevance to living cells was known.
Comment by eric — July 6, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Many materialist philosophers of mind think that each type of animal conscious state is a necessary concomitant of the relevant animal brain states. They think, in short, that it's logically impossible to have one without the other. Hence, on their view, necessarily (that is, in every possible world in which it exists), a rat-brained creature, say, caught in a rat-trap will experience, well, whatever it's like to be a rat caught in a rat-trap.
If this materialist thesis is true and generalizes to cover the whole animal kingdom, it suggests that it's impossible both to have animals exist and to ensure the avoidance of significant animal suffering and extinction.
But suppose the animal kingdom's existence is required for the existence of the human species, which is pre-destined to share in the Designer's glorious life. That is, suppose the materialist thesis about the necessary connection between the conscious states of physical creatures and their brain states is true, and suppose also that the existence of the species homo sapiens depends upon the engineering by evolutionary algorithms of the requisite brains, and suppose that evolution takes a long time because the raw materials require stars to make them, and that stars require a universe that's very big and lasts a long time. Then, why would it be surprising that intelligent design requires evolution by common descent with modification? I suspect that might be the type of question at the back of Behe's mind.
We're familiar with intelligent designers who are intent on a final product, who are very patient, and who harness the probabilities inherent in known physical properties to achieve their purpose. Why should a non-human designer be any different?
Comment by stunney — July 6, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Donald M wrote:
What is a material entity? Answers to this question tend to generate amusing paradoxes.
If a material entity is one that has empirically detectable consequences, and if God created the universe, and if the universe is empirically detectable, then God is a material entity.
And consider this. Zachriel wrote:
This would include all mind-independent material entities.
Comment by stunney — July 6, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Because we know of no other source of English language blogs but humans (or their proxies). And that is precisely how we make those determinations. We have extensive experience with humans, and the causal mechanisms by which they communicate messages. "Bradford" is one of a class; humans who blog.
We do it the same way that we recognize a pit of dried clay as a pottery shard. Because we have experience with pottery shards that we have already determined a causal connection to the designer. We can look at a pottery shard and determine the culture and time period it was made. (This is a typical methodology in archaeology to date other artifacts found in the same level as the pottery shards.)
If we made a tentative inference of design, it would probably be by similarity to human designed artifacts. An 18th century imagined extraterrestrial craft was a balloon. And yes, we would immediately use our tentative claim to devise additional tests to determine more about the designers. The scientific method is not an end-point, but a process of investigation.
You could try to provide an example. The fictional examples are based on human fantasy, so most people imagine a flying saucer made of something like aluminum, and a control panel with funny inscriptions that look like runic Chinese. In real-life science, we always compare purported artifacts to known examples, then attempt to identify characteristics of the artisan or art. That's how it's done. Try the Antikythera mechanism. What can we determine?
Well, we already know that people have repeatedly made erroneous conclusions about design by filling Gaps in human knowledge with some sort of designer. Angels pushing planets on crystal spheres. Demons causing disease. Faeiry Rings. An angry Sky God hurling lightning bolts.
Skepticism is the proper scientific stance. The answer to skepticism is scientific evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 5:03 am
Zachriel, the Question-Begging Maestro Illustrissimo, wrote:
Funny how you don't apply this to codes, O Majestically Rancid Nincompoop.
Comment by stunney — July 7, 2007 @ 5:03 am
July 7th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Zach:
This makes no sense, Zach. I see some superfluous information here, but I don't see error. Except perhaps an error of discrimination, violating the metaphysical boundary around scientific knowledge as a subset of all knowledge.
IOW, planets do appear to move, and a 'sphere' describes a circular motion. 'Crystal' might be synonymous with aether, or some substance in which the planet is embedded and/or through which it moves. Disease is 'bad', uncomfortable state and often takes the life of its victims. Certain fungi propagate in such a way as to produce clearly defined rings of fruit, as opposed to a more haphazard growing habit. When the sky is 'angry' – choked with dark clouds threatening wind and hail and hard rain – it often comes with damaging, fire-causing lightning and deafening thunder.
All of these things are observations of natural phenomena human beings have lots of experience with and have developed lots of beliefs about over the millennia. Each phenomenon is empirical. The superfluous add-ons to causation – angels, demons, fairies, gods – are there due to humanity's desire to understand the empirical conditions of their existence, as well as the causes for those conditions. Science wasn't around to claim otherwise when these causes were put forward by kings, clerics or elder folk when the children asked "who?" and "why?" And to this day science doesn't attempt to answer those questions outside seriously proscribed practice.
When the folk causes of phenomena offered nothing by which to understand and control them, more formal investigations were launched. It's only been 150 years since bacteria became known, viruses not so long ago as that. We've gained slight control over some agents (tiny 'demons' of disease), but they then work around our controls and disease still kills millions of humans and animals every year. Lightning still isn't understood very well, we can't control it or the wind and rain that comes with. And it still kills thousands of people and animals every year. We do understand that the fairy ring is circular because that's how the spores are cast, but wise folk still tell their children to avoid them – the fungi can be deadly. Still, humans and animals die every year from poisonous mushrooms and micotoxins. Science tells us this year there is no aether, then suggests the next that there must be, perhaps one day it will make up its collective mind. But the planets still orbit, crossing our night sky just as they always have. We don't know what gravity *is* or what causes it (because we cannot account for mass), so it might as well be principalities of the air. Science knows no different.
Whenever y'all start belittling humanity for not having modern science until modern science came along, do you even recognize that you belittle yourselves right along with the rest of us?
Skepticism isn't the stance, dismissing final causes is the stance, in favor of FAPP proximate causes. Science is intelligently designed to account for knowledge about things-in-themselves, with a hopeful eye to invention of controls and useful applications. It is circumscribed with a boundary between it and popular beliefs about the phenomena it tackles, as science is not charged to address beliefs. We have other, more ancient and familiar systems of formalizing knowledge about beliefs. The fact that science ignores final cause does not mean final causes do not exist, or that people do not feel a need to hold beliefs about final causes.
Comment by Joy — July 7, 2007 @ 9:07 am
July 7th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Surely, the sense is plain. And conflation certainly is an error. Let me respond broadly to your points.
The scientific method was developed over long stretches of time. We certainly don't expect Bronze Age goat herders to understand what we mean by science. However, in science, argumentum ad ignorantiam is fallacious. Such arguments are extraneous and without empirical consequent, so they are methodically cast off.
Skepticism IS the proper scientific stance. You can claim anything you want, but for it to be considered scientifically valid, it must lead to specific and distinguishing empirical consequences. A methodological approach to science does not preclude final causes, but science has not been particularly adept at understanding many areas of interest, nor is it universally applicable.
Comment by Zachriel — July 7, 2007 @ 11:00 am
July 7th, 2007 at 11:18 am
So the point of the angels, demons stuff is what? Noone believes in angels pushing planets on crystal spheres and if this is a reference to historic beliefs then Joy is right in that this is denigrating to humanity and more than a little arrogant.
Comment by Bradford — July 7, 2007 @ 11:18 am
July 7th, 2007 at 11:21 am
These are eroneous conclusions because they are not created through any scientific inference or experiment. Tell me, what experience do we have with angels, crystal spheres, demons, or angry sky gods, so that we can use them as causal explanations of phenomenon?
Furthermore, would you like to reply to stunney's last comment?
Comment by CJYman — July 7, 2007 @ 11:21 am
July 7th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
It's a typical example of God-of-the-Gaps, argument from ignorance, filling areas of human ignorance with agency.
I'm not sure why you would consider pointing to historical beliefs to be denigrating, but that is your assertion, not mine. As I said, we certainly don't expect Bronze Age goat herders to understand what we mean by science.
Precisely! They are not valid scientific inferences. It isn't enough to point at impressive, intricate, specific and detailed planetary movements and say that they are due to agency. If a claim is to have scientific validity, it has to lead to specific and distinguishing empirical consequences.
Sorry, but stunney is on my kill-file list. My newsreader no longer shows his comments.
*Plonk*
Comment by Zachriel — July 7, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
It's also an example of a strawman. Positions advocated at this blog are not the angels, demons stuff.
Comment by Bradford — July 7, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
If you have Behe's Edge of Evolution, you might want to look up Behe's treatment of what kind of Intelligent Designer would design malaria parasites. He mentions demons.
However, I don't have the book in front of me, so feel free to quote it to show how I am taking it out of context.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 7, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Exactly, and this is where the point re: codes and intelligence as a valid scientific inference which I usually bring to the table and which stunney continues to bring forward is extremely relevant.
Furthermore, appealing to angels and demons is major orders of magnitude off of appealing to intelligence, since science is beginning to understand intelligence, can model intelligence, understands that intelligence and information are intricately related — in fact necessary for each other as far as we can scientifically determine. Conversely, there is no scientific understanding of angels and demons, no scientific models of 'artificial' angels/angelicness or demons/demonicness, and so far no scientific 'inter-relatedness' between angels, crystal spheres, and planetary motion.
Because of that, I am extremely fed up with your irrelevant and nonsensical smoke and mirror obfuscations of ID with angels and crystal spheres.
Specificity, not merely complexity, is a sign of intelligence. Following this controversy for as long as you have, you should know this by now. Planetary movement is the result of complexity. Every example of a code (specificity) that we know the origins has its origination in an intelligence … and according to yourself:
To which stunney replies:
To which you respond:
Nevertheless, he just exposed that you should consider yourself an IDer if you were indeed CONSISTENT in your application of your brief interpretation of the scientific method.
I have been following (lurking around) your and stunney's exchanges for quite some time now and it is high time for you to actually respond to the connection between intelligence and codes in a manner which is consistent with your understanding of how science is accomplished.
It seems that "*plonk*" is your best rebuttal so far, since it fares better as a rebuttal than your angels and crystal spheres nonsense which you continue to regurgitate as if it were some sort of magic immunity talisman (or knock out argument) against the viral meme of ID theory!
Comment by CJYman — July 7, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Greetings TP,
Actually, I only remember Behe saying in his book that you could possibly hypothesis that the Intelligent Designer [of all life] was a Demon, or almost any other entity because of the little scientific information that we have in order to actually pin down who or what the Designer is other than an intelligence.
However, I do also remember Behe stating that it is possible that the malaria virus was not designed as a killer and that the necessary mutations to turn it into a killer may be within the edge of evolution.
(But alas, I too am quoting from memory and do not have the book in front of me at the moment.)
Comment by CJYman — July 7, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I provided those as historical examples of Gap arguments. I was drawn into this discussion by eric, and my first comment was in response to this assertion.
Eric introduced the Gap argument, saying this is the only way to infer design. This is not the only way. It's not even A way (though it might be sufficient to form a hypothesis).
That leaves two avenues of argument. 1) Gap arguments in science are inherently fallacious, and historical examples of attributing agency to complex phenomena become relevant. 2) And if we do hypothesize agency, it implies a causal link between the designer, the mechanism of manufacture and the artifact. Absent confirming evidence of this causal link, our hypothesis would be left unsupported and we should remain skeptical.
Comment by Zachriel — July 7, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Bradford:
TP:
CJYman
TP knows that already. His smear against Behe, out of context or not, doesn't rebut Bradford's statement and is just irrelevant poison in the well.
Comment by Pez — July 7, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Codes? Do you mean cryptanalysis? If so, then cryptanalysis is deep within the orthodox paradigm. We know that people make codes to safeguard and communicate secrets. We know that people try to break codes to steal secrets. As such, cryptography can be analyzed as a branch of game theory. "The enemy knows the system." Codes are usually understood by making and testing various assumptions about the encoder, the probable messages, and the mechanism of encoding.
Again, precisely the point. We refer to a library of knowledge to help us form tentative assumptions, which we then use to devise specific and distinguishing empirical tests.
Again, precisely the point. They were invoked to explain Gaps in human understanding of these phenomena. Whatever poetic value they have had, invoking agency to explain planetary motions is scientifically vacuous.
Planetary motions are not only complex, but specified. They certainly don't move about willy-nilly. For instance, they are confined to a narrow region of the sky called the Ecliptic. Until modern times, this was unexplained.
Previously, the planets were thought to be designed to control the destiny of humankind, and their movements gave clues to that destiny. But as you point out, "so far no scientific 'inter-relatedness' between angels, crystal spheres, and planetary motion."
Look at your statement carefully. The strength of your argument depends on the extent of human ignorance. Nevertheless, it still may be suitable for generating a hypothesis.
The question you want to ponder is whether or not the genetic code is intelligently designed. So, state it as a hypothesis, and then form specific and distinguishing predictions. If it is designed, then what is the causal link to the designer? How did the designer manufacture the coding device? Who is this designer? Is there more than one designer? Are they aliens or gods? What are they like? Is it really a "code" or are we confusing the analogy with the thing itself? What observations do we make?
Each answer will raise more questions. The scientific method is not an end-point, but a process of investigation.
Comment by Zachriel — July 7, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
You keep trying to spin this as me smearing Behe when I keep trying to give Behe the benefit of the doubt. First with a positive affirmation of a mechanistic model and now with his treatment of the obvious implications of what appears to be malicious design.
If you have the book in front of you, it would be easy to quote from it to show how Behe's reference to Demons wasn't suggested as a possibility.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 7, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Hi TP,
I do, and I can quote it (again) if you like.
First, why don't you try to show that what Behe said – regardless of your interpretation and the context – is in any way germane to what Bradford had stated.
Bradford said that nobody at this blog was advocating for angelic/demonic action to explain physical phenomena.
You reply that Behe "mentions demons" and that he refers to the fact that Demons have been referenced "as a possibility".
A possibility for whom? Behe? ID advocates on this blog? Is "mentioning" the same as "advocating"
So, are you relevant? The answer is the same for all of the above – "no".
What Behe said was that whatever your opinion about the designer (dope, demon or deity) there is one which he finds indefensible given the observed situation. That is the denial of design in nature because of squeamishness about the kind of designer who would have created such a system.
As Behe and CJYman said:
"Science can't answer questions like that."
What Behe does not do (and this is the point to which Bradford was responding) is make an argument from ignorance or advocate for demonic involvement in unexplained phenomena. And nobody on this blog has advocated for this as a scientific conclusion from the evidence.
The fact that Behe addresses what some might find to be implied by the inference to design (a malicious designer) is not the same as plugging demons or angels into "gaps" in our knowledge.
But again, you knew that.
Comment by Pez — July 7, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I give up. But I bet the YECs around here understand the point I've made, and are avoiding this topic of discussion. They're probably not very happy with Behe's answer.
Sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt whatever off-topic discussions the rest of you are having. Carry on.
Comment by Bilbo — July 7, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Bilbo:
Too bad you didn't get what you expected from this thread. But there is no point anyway in talking to YECs (are there any around here?) since they have given up reason a long time ago. Anybody who believes in a 6kY old earth, after having seen the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, deserves to be ignored and treated as a lunatic.
Comment by Raevmo — July 7, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Ah yes, that rational-minded response of an atheist.
I'm not a YEC but your attitude towards them is typical and yet still disgusting.
Comment by Doug — July 7, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I agree that YECs are unlikely to ever be happy with Behe's answers, as I mentioned above. Their theological issues preclude Behe's position.
But I also agree there is indeed irony in Behe's employing the potential of design to rescue the plausibility of common descent against its main difficulties.
That is where he and Paul Nelson take different perspectives. Paul is inclined to put more weight on the difficulties and inconsistencies than on the presence of the odd, apparently accidental and nonfunctional commonalities. Behe is willing to overlook the former in light of the possibilities that designed life could open up.
What I particularly appreciate is their ability to conduct themselves with mutual respect, despite basic differences in how they weigh conflicting evidence. That is highly commendable in both of them, regardless of which view comes closer to the truth in the end.
Comment by eric — July 7, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
keiths made a very important point that I would not want to be lost in the shuffle.
Yes, anything could potentially be explained by appealing to direct design, even if it might also be the result of an unguided process. If we then agree that this would be excessive, then besides explaining Everything by appealing to design, there are only two other possibilities.
A. Refuse to explain anything as designed. Decide to close eyes and cover ears to any such possibility. By definition of science, exclude telic possibilities from the start.
B. Recognize that real design is a real possibility, and determine how to define and recognize the edge between unguided processes and design.
As I said about option B, "we can only legitimately infer design when we have reasons to believe (tentatively, as always) that unguided processes cannot do the job, i.e. there is a gap that we have not been able to make unguided processes cover."
The bottom line is that, unless you take the "See no design, hear no design" posture, the only place we could possibly infer design reasonably and legitimately is within the gaps in the abilities of unguided processes. Any other location would involve suggesting design where an unguided process could provide a satisfactory explanation.
That is why it is entirely appropriate for Behe, Dembski, and others to consider the limitations of unguided processes as a prerequisite to a design inference.
At this point, Zachriel confuses gaps, supported by evidence, in the abilities of unguided processes with a mere gap in knowledge. (Of course, to anyone who is a true believer in unguided processes, every apparent gap in their ability is always only a gap in our knowledge. Too bad the "skepticism" that is supposedly the hallmark of science never seems to apply to the possible limitations of unguided processes.)
When I say "when we have reasons to believe (tentatively, as always) that unguided processes cannot do the job" I am talking about consistent evidence concerning the limitations of unguided processes, not about a mere gap in our knowledge where we know nothing.
There are two unreasonable extremes that can be ruled out.
1. "(tentatively, as always)" We never have absolute proof about what nature might do. We have tentative inferences based on a consistent pattern of data. Those who count themselves skeptics typically fall into the error of trying to require mathematical proof, but only for positions that run against their preferred faith.
2. Simply not knowing anything about what unguided processes can do does not qualify as "we have reasons to believe that unguided processes cannot do the job". Trying to claim that ID is not anything more than a gap-of-knowledge argument is a dodge that avoids dealing with the actual evidence that gives us the "reasons to believe that unguided processes cannot do the job".
Once we exclude unreasonable extremes, it becomes plain that the only location where a scientist could warrant a design inference is where we have reason to believe that unguided processes cannot do the job, i.e. in the gaps of their abilities. Any other location would be to appeal to design where an unguided solution might suffice.
Behe et al are fully vindicated in looking at the evidence concerning the gaps and limits of unguided processes.
Comment by eric — July 7, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
There is nothing at all wrong with wanting to learn as much as we can about any designed message or artifact. No complaints about that.
However, in the context of your other comments, the idea that learning about the designer is a prerequisite to recognizing and inferring design is unsupportable and beyond credibility. By that standard, if we received a message from outer space, we would be obligated to view it as a result of unguided natural processes, unless and until we knew who the designer was and how they produced the message. That would be self-evidently absurd.
If we see a turtle poised on a fence post, we infer that someone put him there, even if we have no knowledge of who did it, when, or how. We make this inference even if we have never seen anyone do such an act.
Why can we do this? Because we know something about the gaps and limitations in the turtle's ability to move. We know that it didn't get itself up there. We wouldn't make the same inference if we saw a bird or a squirrel perched on the same fence post.
Your insistence on skepticism would be more persuasive if it were not so asymmetrically applied only against design inferences and never against assuming that unguided processes can achieve whatever we see. If we have no idea how an unguided process could account for something (e.g. constructing the complex translation machinery that is a prerequisite for symbol processing), that is always only a gap in our knowledge — one that might or might not ever be filled in. What happened to skepticism? The lack of impartial consistency makes your insistence ring hollow.
Comment by eric — July 7, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
July 7th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Please, eric. Try to explore your own claims. Exercise some skepticism.
Wouldn't the medium reveal something about the mechanism of transmission? And wouldn't the message itself reveal something about the sender? And how would you know it even was a message?
Comment by Zachriel — July 7, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
lol
Of course I would like you to quote it. That is why I suggested it.
It is simple. You type Behe's exact words including those that occurred before and after the word "demon" (and, of course, the word "demon" itself). It is best if you include the whole paragraph when attempting to keep it in context.
The best part is that everyone can decide for themselves what Behe was saying.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 8, 2007 @ 12:36 am
July 8th, 2007 at 2:52 am
I said to TP:
TP does not hold up his end, but rather confirms that he wants to see the quote.
Behe, EoE:, page 237-239:
Repeat:
Yes, TP, Behe did mention demons. Again, how is this relevant to Bradford's point and how is Behe's assertion that science can't tell us whether or not the designer was a demon amount to advocating for demonic action as a scientific gap-filler? What did you add other than a potshot by saying that Behe references demons?
TP:
It's actually best if you read the entire book if you want to know if Behe is suggesting, no, advocating, the appeal to demons and angels to fill in the gaps of our knowledge about natural phenomena.
Comment by Pez — July 8, 2007 @ 2:52 am
July 8th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Behe is not advocating any particular view, and he states it within a historical context. But then he adds that the designer being "a demon" is an argument with "some merit", implying that there is evidence one way or the other.
Behe is quote-mining (as I pointed out on another thread). It's a private letter, not a formal argument. Darwin's thoughts are much more subtle than what Behe allows. And Behe misrepresents Darwin's conclusion.
Comment by Zachriel — July 8, 2007 @ 8:29 am
July 8th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Don't take blog comments too seriously, Doug. Offense was intended, but as spielerei.
Comment by Raevmo — July 8, 2007 @ 9:52 am
July 8th, 2007 at 10:18 am
eric:
Nah, tot really. Behe's malaria scenario has been pretty much disconfirmed (to paraphrase your vice-president) by now. Behe et al. are intelligent people who sadly have been brainwashed a little too long in their youth and are now desperately looking for evidence of their God. In vain. Or not of course. But the smart money is not on Behe. No offense intended this time.
Comment by Raevmo — July 8, 2007 @ 10:18 am
July 8th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Hi Pez,
Thank you for providing the quote. Now everyone can see what Behe did and did not say from themselves.
As I indicted, I was giving Behe the benefit of the doubt in suggesting possibilities ("Each argument has some merit."). I think this would be a positive thing for a scientist to do.
I think it would be a poor reflection on Behe to suggest the only thing he offers is negatitive attacks on Darwin and Darwinism. I agree with Zachriel, that Behe presents an unfair impression of Darwin's views. I am trying hard not to interpret that as Behe's intent. Unfortunately, now that I see the actual words again, it is difficult for me not to see it as Behe's intent.
Even if Darwin held the views Behe is suggesting, it makes no sense for Behe to bring it up unless Behe wanted to distract the reader from considering "…[e]ach argument [that] has some merit" as real possibilities.
As for looking at Behe's entire book on the whole, it should be obvious by now that I have read more than the last few pages. While I may not have read each and every word, I have gone through the entire book giving Behe the benefit of the doubt for his assumptions and looked for a positive proposal, hypothesis and/or model.
To borrow from Meatloaf, I was looking for a ruby in a mountain of rocks.
I found a couple of candidates, but you continue to argue that even these are rocks.
Oh well, I tried.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 8, 2007 @ 11:31 am
July 8th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Hi TP,
You're welcome.
Yes, indeed.
They can also read for themselves that you have avoided supporting your implication every time you had the chance and cannot show why mentioning Behe is in anyway an answer to Bradford's statement ("It's also an example of a strawman. Positions advocated at this blog are not the angels, demons stuff.").
Agreeing with others that Behe misrepresents Darwin's rationale and conclusion, while perhaps worth arguing about another day, is right now just you changing the subject. Whatever you think of Behe's intent in using Darwin as an example of someone holding the indefensible view, the question here is – so what?
That you did.
But your attempted smear is indefensible.
Comment by Pez — July 8, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
And this spin of yours is unsupported and unsupportable.
Be that as it may. Now that we have addressed what Behe has said, we can address the double negative of who is shield bashing whom.
Bradford wrote…
In an attempt to attack Zachriel's observation of the historical origins of the concepts of "angels" and "demons". They occured to fill in the gaps of human ignorance. Zachriel did not accuse anyone in this blog of specifically advocating angels and demons.
It was a strawman to say it was a strawman.
It was an attack to treat Zachriel was attacking (a counter-attack is an attack too).
I call this activity "shield bashing". It happens a lot around here.
Let me try to explain why I consider this ineffectual argumentation even if though it sounds good in the rhetorical arena. You see, I participated in formal debates in both high school and college. For those not familiar with formal debating, it consists of two sides with a pair of debaters whose arguments are witnessed by a debate judge. One side presents the affirmative arguments the other side presents negative arguments. The first affirmative debater speaks first and presents arguments for changing the status quo and then a proposal. The first negative gets up and explains why the status quo is better than what the affirmative is offering. The second affirmative gets up and explains why the first negative was wrong. It goes back and forth a couple more times (but new arguments aren't allowed to be brought up after the first two rounds).
The Judge then declares the winner.
The affirmative has the burden of proof. The first affirmative presents evidence of a NEED. He/she then presents a PROPOSAL. And then (this is important) presents how the proposal satisfies the need. We refer to it as PLAN_MEET_NEED arguments.
Most proposals hinge on PLAN_MEET_NEED arguments. If the affirmative presents perfect NEED arguments and a great PROPOSAL, the negative can still point out how the proposal doesn't meet the plan. Therefore, if the proposal is vague, the negative needs to force the affirmative to make it clear to the debate judge what the proposal is and what the proposal is not. All of this assumes the affirmative presented a proposal, because if they don't have a proposal they lose automatically.
With this in mind, here is how I am viewing the debate so far…
Behe, as the first affirmative, presented a long and detailed explanation of why the status quo NEEDs to be changed. For a PROPOSAL he suggests a "designer of life" whether being "…a dope, a demon, or a deity…" as having "…some merit." Followed up with a vague reference to The Truman Show .
I, as the first negative, questioned these statements.
Pez, as the second affirmative, has denied his partner has made any proposal at all.
It looks like this is going to be an easy one for the debate judge to decide.
One of the things I found interesting about debating is that you needed to be able to argue both sides. You could be on the affirmative one day and on the negative the next. Which meant that good NEED arguments got propagated quickly. The negative would remember good arguments and use them when he/she was on the affirmative in later debates.
Behe's NEED arguments work against the status quo for a lot of different proposals. If I understand correctly, Behe's arguments would provide support for Serial Endosymbiotic Theory (SET) and Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis (EAM). However, my current affirmative proposal is what I call a Third Choice that is an extension of the Penrose-Hameroff model. I am comfortable that this proposal is detailed enough for any unbiased debate judge to accept and that it satisfies any and all needs Behe has presented.
I have no desire to "smear" Behe. If his facts prove to be correct it strongly supports the proposal I have been championing.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 8, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Hi TP,
Let's not change subjects again just yet. While Behe's statement has been addressed, you have yet to address your own.
I said in first response:
And second…
And third…
And fourth…
So, on to your new change of subject:
Ok.
Did they really? Or are you making stuff up and begging the question?
So Bradford was wrong to call this a strawman? You maybe ought to have addressed that if it concerned you.
What does that have to do with your fallacious attempt via the EoE reference to show that Behe did advocate the "angel, demon stuff" to fill in gaps?
It does, huh?
So does spreading a lot of anti-ID (and even anti-religion) innuendo and, once busted, grinning and saying "I'd actually rather do science…".
What's the name for that activity?
False. What does your debate judge do when you make false statements?
Then you should stop doing it and just "do science".
Helping you to think for yourself.
Comment by Pez — July 8, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
If you are intending to point out that humans create blog software and blog sites, I will give you that for free, since it is completely irrelevant. The question is not about the blog site or the blog software, it is about whether we should infer that "Bradford" is an intelligent agent.
If you are intending to claim that you know in some established sense something about whether
a) Bradford is human, or
b) the mechanism of how he enters these posts, or
c) the manner in which the posts are constructed,
that is false.
You do not have access to verify with Bradford is human or an A.I. project, or whether he types in messages at a keyboard vs. generating them directly within the software system, or whether he composes using neurons or silicon based algorithms.
Is it necessary to know the nature of the designer or the means of design before we can properly infer intelligent agency? Or can that determination be made solely on the basis of the properties contained in the artifact itself (in this case the blog messages), by considering whether or not non-intelligent processes could have reasonably produced the effect?
I dare say that most humans would grant the latter. Do you?
I also you find your reasoning interesting for another reason. Consider the following.
While it is not true that only humans can post messages on blogs, it is true that we have a universally consistent experience that symbolic message creation and processing require intelligent agency. Furthermore, there are reasons in principle for expecting this to be true, since intelligent agents accomplish this using attributes of the mind that mindless matter does not have access to.
Is there a consistent and principled reason why we should be able to infer that "Bradford" is an intelligent agent (even without knowing who or what Bradford is or how the posts are created), while at the same time not be able to infer that intelligent agency is the best explanation presently available for the origin of the genetic code and the symbolic message processing of living organisms?
Comment by eric — July 8, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
eric:
Yes, there is such a consistent and principled reason. It's called Bayesian analysis. You might want to read Jaynes' "Probability theory: the logic of science" for a brilliant exposition of the important ideas. It's for free on the web, just Google it. It's fairly mathematical, but the first few chapters are not very technical and they are quite entertaining in addition to being very deep food for thought.
In Bayesian language: the prior probability that a "designer" is responsible for the genetic code is awfully small given that we have no evidence whatsoever of a designer being around at the time. Therefore the posterior probability is awfully small as well, unless the evidence is really really strong, which it isn't. On the other hand, the prior probability that Bradford is human is quite large, and so very little evidence is needed to be justifiably confident that he is.
I should add that theist might come to the stage with quite different prior probabilities than atheists, and this might lead them to conclude quite different things without being necessarily irrational. Go read that book, it's great. As a bonus, it contains a nice interpretation of Goedel's theorems.
Comment by Raevmo — July 8, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
We have no evidence whatsoever of a chemical process that generates cells on a lifeless planet. Therefore the posterior probability is awfully small as well, unless the evidence is really really strong, which it isn't.
Comment by Bradford — July 8, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I don't believe you have captured Behe's perspective. For one thing, if he was brainwashed in his youth, it was toward the view that the standard evolutionary story is true. That is the perspective he learned. He went into science from a position of theistic evolution (e.g. similar to Francis Collins) and simply accepted that God chose to accomplish His life creating goals through evolution. He was not expecting to find, and more importantly did not need to find any evidence for God in the scientific data for evolution.
He abandoned theistic evolution only because the data pointed toward design that could not be accounted for by Darwinian processes. If it turns out down the road that he was mistaken about that impression, he always has the option to return to his original perspective of theistic evolution. He has never needed intelligent design to be true for theological reasons in the way that atheists need unguided processes to be adequate.
Dawkins has famously indicated that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist." Behe on the other hand was intellectually and theologically satisfied with theistic evolution — until the data wouldn't fit.
I assume you mean not only the malaria evidence, but also the other evidence, e.g. from HIV, E. coli, etc. I'm not aware that all of that evidence has been disconfirmed. (You mean that malaria has undergone significant positive change due to Darwinian processes that Behe missed? That would be news! Please provide the details.)
So far Behe has not had much difficulty responding to the critical reviews, which are surprisingly empty once one strips away the spurious content that does not actually engage his arguments. For a mechanism that is supposed to invent all the wonders of the cell, Darwinian processes appear to be quite feeble when we watch them at work.
But this is all beside my actual point. Let's suppose for the moment that sooner or later the evidence weighs against Behe's position. In the post you quoted, I was not making the case that their conclusion had been proved. I was pointing out that they "are fully vindicated in looking at the evidence concerning the gaps and limits of unguided processes."
My point was and is that a sound inference to design needs to examine the limits and gaps on the abilities of unguided processes. I was talking about proper procedure, not whether Behe's specific conclusion has been established. Notice that the context I was addressing was the implied suggestion that they were doing something improper by considering the gaps of unguided processes, i.e. where we are "Running into trouble explaining something
naturalistically" by undirected, non-intelligent processes.So even if Behe's specific argument were to fall, my point would still stand. To make a design inference that is not overreaching, one should consider whether it is reasonable to expect that unguided processes could accomplish the same effect.
Comment by eric — July 8, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
The man doth protest too much. If it were so obvious that there could be no God why spend so much time and effort reassuring yourself?
Comment by Bradford — July 8, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
I agree with Bradford's comment.
If you think through your own point, the evidence one would expect to have of a designer's presence at that time would be artifacts that are designed. Life itself is the potential case in point that is being decided. To assume that life is not evidence for a designer is the fallacy of begging the question. That is precisely the question to be evaluated.
You also don't need to be a theist to realize the faultiness of assigning low probability to the presence of designers. It could be that we ourselves have already infected Mars with cells (though I expect we were careful not to). We are within reach of placing life on other planets and it is not unreasonable that we could design revised life forms as well at some point.
Even on a strictly natural scenario, we have no basis for excluding the possible presence of designers or of claiming we are the earliest intelligent life.
As I mentioned to you in another thread, mathematical models are only as good as their assumptions and may or may not reflect reality. Question begging assumptions can always push a model one way or the other.
What I am looking for is why we should accept that the content of the blog messages themselves should support an inference that "Bradford" is an intelligent agent, while that is apparently not permissible for the case of other symbolic messages and processing systems.
I see an unjustified double standard. If I am mistaken, where am I mistaken?
Comment by eric — July 8, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
And then preceeded to quote yourself four times before eventually quoting me to which you responded…
However this was a precursor to your real zinger that I, as an atheist, have a biased opinion that "angels" and "demons" aren't real but "…occurred to fill in the gaps of human ignorance."
Bingo, you got me. My biased opinions are biased.
Of course you aren't actually arguing that angels and demons are real, are you? I call this kind of activity "shield bashing". It happens a lot around here.
Let me know when you are ready to offer a proposal explaining why the words "angels" and "demons" are in our vocabulary. Then we can compare and contrast our opinions.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say Bradford was "wrong" for doing it. I just pointed out that he did it.
I did address it. Both to him and to you.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "advocate". You and Bradford did. My exact words were "If you have Behe's Edge of Evolution, you might want to look up Behe's treatment of what kind of Intelligent Designer would design malaria parasites. He mentions demons."
It is my opinion that in EoE, Behe mentions demons as one of multiple possibilities that have some merit.
It is amusing that you continue to argue against it. Like I said, my interpretation was giving Behe the benefit of the doubt. Your interpretation puts Behe in a worse light, IMO.
I don't know. I came up with "shield bashing". I guess you will have to make up your own.
I am championing an ID hypothesis. How is that being "anti-ID"
My stance against the activities of religious organization isn't innuendo, it is direct and up front. The same goes for my opinion of the leaders of the ID Movement.
I would rather do science, but I can do both. I argue science on the Third Choice thread and am debating you here. BTW, I am comfortable with how the debate judge will rule on this one. But that is just my biased opinion again.
The debate judge accepts them until the opposition says something more profound than shouting "false". For example, in this case a quick summary of what Behe actually proposed as a mechanistic model would be in order.
I said… "I have no desire to "smear" Behe." you responded with…
In addition to championing an ID hypothesis on the other thread, I actually was trying to "do science" here too. I was trying to look for Behe's scientific model but you keep arguing against it.
Oh well. But, as I have said before, I like to argue. Therefore, this has been entertaining to me. Thanks
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 8, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
eric:
I'm perfectly happy to concede that I might be wrong in this respect. But not so with the following:
Well, if you want to call it feeble, be my guest. We have observed Darwinian processes leading to speciation and all kinds of marvelous adaptations. Mathematical models have shown that mutation and natural selection can produce solutions to complex problems. I wouldn't call that feeble at all. I would call it amazing and beautiful. People without some minimal training in mathematics tend to underestimate the complexity that can be generated by simple rules.
Behe's book hasn't arrived yet at my place, so I can't comment on all his reasoning, but what I have seen so far doesn't bode too well for his arguments. His malaria example has been thoroughly demolished by now. Therefore his claim that Darwinian processes are feeble hasn't gained any credibility points in my book.
Comment by Raevmo — July 8, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Bradford:
It is not so obvious. And it is important, so it's worth some time and effort. Don't you agree?
Comment by Raevmo — July 8, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
As "Bradford" is communicating messages via a blog, it is highly relevant. This is the part you don't seem to understand. The message isn't disembodied. There is a causal link to the sender.
We have very reasonable knowledge that there is a human involved in "Bradford's" posts, and that the message is transmitted across the Internet by the usual means. And this is certainly something we could investigate (and is often investigated by law enforcement entities).
Not knowing everything doesn't mean not knowing anything. We may not know what color his computer is, but I would venture that "Bradford" is human, likes to watch baseball, and either he or his proxy connect to the Internet in the usual manner. We have substantial evidence of this, but again, science is a process. So, we now devise a test, such as tracing the IP. "Bradford" may try to hide. But that's okay: It is a human trait, after all. We can probably still determine that the signal is coming from a place of human habitation, and the mechanism of its transmission into the Internet.
Inference in science is merely one step of the process. You seem to think that "Bradford's" messages are disembodied abstractions. But they're not. There is a causal link to the sender. And we can investigate this causal link.
(Of course, there are disembodied messages on the Internet, made by zombies that cut and paste stolen information. These can be investigated also.)
What properties of the messages? Did you happen to notice they are written in a human language, and indicate an ability to hold complex rational discussions with other humans. I would suspect a human (or its proxy) wrote them, and that, I dare say, we could investigate the causal link to this human. Would you wager that a human is not involved in the creation and transmission of "Bradford's" messages?
Comment by Zachriel — July 8, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
I'm forced into bed now. Thanks for the discussions.
Comment by Raevmo — July 8, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
How are assumptions about embodied as opposed to disembodied relevant to assessments of intelligent causality. If they are relevant then why are you and others not objecting to attempts to make "scientific" declarations about immaterial souls?
Comment by Bradford — July 8, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Behe includes at least speciation within the reach of Darwinian evolution, so that does not in any way count against his position. He also gives examples of adaptations produced by Darwinian evolution. He has a whole chapter emphasizing what Darwinian processes can do.
Later on in the book you'll find (Figure 10.1, p. 218) that Behe places features and differences in orders, family, and genera are in a gray zone where matters are not as clear. It is at the level of class differences that Behe begins to see major features that he would tentatively consider beyond the reach of Darwinian evolution to create.
I would call that mathematics. I quite agree that mathematics, simple rules, etc. can do amazing and beautiful things, especially when this is not constrained by the limits of real world biology.
I do have an appreciation of mathematics and of software, which is why this is not persuasive to me.
If organisms were just bags of isolated, independent traits, undirected variations would have an easier time of it. But organisms are systems that include interdependencies and non-localized conventions.
Humans can design "genetic" algorithms to "produce solutions to complex problems" but it would be quite misleading to assume this models the real world difficulties of creating and changing a biological system.
Even amazing and beautiful mathematical models do not necessarily reflect reality. Nevertheless, it can seem quite amazing, especially to people who don't know or question what is going on under the covers. Even something as simple as a "game of life" can mystify with its changing shapes, as though those shapes represented biological realities. Yet, a fish shaped silhouette is not a fish.
Yes, you mentioned that earlier, but I still don't have news from you about the marvelous novelties that Darwinian processes were observed to produce in malaria under the selection pressure of drug treatments, etc.
Behe reports that the changes made by Darwinian processes in malaria, as well as humans, are predominantly damaging, not creative. They are the equivalent of blowing up your own bridge to foil the attack of an enemy. When the selective pressure is removed (e.g. the drug therapy is no longer used), the relatively defective strains of malaria are weeded out again.
To "demolish" Behe's review of the malaria evidence, one would need to show evolution's ability to do much more with malaria than blow up bridges to foil adversarial attacks. Otherwise, this does look quite feeble for a supposedly creative powerhouse process.
Comment by eric — July 8, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Hi TP,
Yes, I quoted my repeated request that you address your own statement. You are easily amused.
I'm saying that you don't know why 'angels' and 'demons' have entered into our vocabulary, and you are falsely attributing both the cause and the knowledge of the cause.
Fine, you are just a journalist noting that Bradford incorrectly referred to Zachriel's statement as a strawman as well as engaging in shield-bashing and attacking – but he was not 'wrong'.
But you say you addressed this. When was that?
I can't find it, except, of course, in your recent back-peddling this afternoon.
What I find is your statement about Behe and EoE
July 7, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
followed by your request for a quote,
July 7, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
followed by your confirmation and second request for a quote, including a lesson on how to provide context:
July 8, 2007 @ 12:36 am
followed by your opinion on the Darwin quote, etc.
July 8, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Yes, I know your exact words – I've quoted them a couple of times.
I didn't put the words in your mouth – that requires a quotation – I referred to your intent.
What I've asked is how your referring Bradford to EoE addressed the point he made about advocacy. How was it in any way relevant if it was not implying that Behe was advocating? How was it anything but an attempt to falsely link Behe to this particular gaps argument?
And his mentioning of demons has been covered. What does that have to do with Bradford's statement? Why do you ignore that Behe is listing various opinions and stating that science can't answer the question one way or another and that he is making no appeal whatsoever to demonic activity?
The debate judge engages in question-begging?
Why would he require a "mechanistic model" in lieu of the 'proposal' you said I am denying exists?
Does the debate judge also approve of your obfuscation and changing of terms as soon as you're busted? You didn't say anything about a "mechanistic model" but rather you said:
Of course this is plainly false, as we discussed just a few threads ago. Behe does have a proposal – it just doesn't boil down to your simplistic reading of his Truman Show metaphor or your poor reading of his use of the term 'demon'. That proposal, in case you've forgotten, is that some features of life are best explained by reference to purposeful design.
You have his model and, having read his book, ought to be much more familiar with it than you seem to be.
Or are you going to start playing games with the word "model" again?
In the previous thread you asked for a "realistic alternative" to Darwinism and then switched it for your version of whatever 'model' means at any given time. In this thread you start with 'proposal' and switch it for 'mechanistic model'.
Just as a little preemption, here's a bit from that last thread:
Comment by Pez — July 8, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Hi Pez,
Earlier you wrote…
I responded with…
"Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say Bradford was "wrong" for doing it. I just pointed out that he did it.
I did address it. Both to him and to you."
You then wrote…
P.S. excuse the mess up. I responded in the wrong thread.
Oh Well, I have mess this one up. I am responding to too many threads. I have addressed "shield bashing" with Bradford multiple time both recently and in the past. I have also addressed the particular incident here. If that doesn't make you happy, that's too bad,
P.P.S. I am responding to your other comments in a follow up.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 8, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
TP,
Is that supposed to be profoundly cryptic?
Is it hard for you to understand that when I asked why you didn't address it I meant before your back-peddling?
[edit]
Your edit of the above comment does nothing to answer the question.
I can't find where you addressed the point except in the very comment which caused me to ask the question.
When did you address the important strawman of a strawman to both Bradford and to me?
TP:
July 8, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Me:
Comment by Pez "” July 8, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
TP:
Comment by Thought Provoker "” July 8, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
When?
[edit after TP's second edit]
Yes, I know you flap about shield-bashing a lot, but where did you discuss this strawman of a strawman which is incorrect and yet not wrong?
When did you make that your point instead of the fallacious reference to Behe?
Comment by Pez — July 8, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Sure there is always a causal link to the sending cause. But the fact that it is a blog entry in no way requires that the blog post was sent be a human. Do you understand that software could also make blog entries, send emails, and more — without having a human pressing any post or send button? It doesn't even need a keyboard or a monitor.
Is there a cause? Of course. Does that tell us the source is human. No. Does the fact that this is a blog require a human sender? No. Must the composer and sender be embodied in a human body? Not at all.
The question is, does the inference to intelligence depend on knowing it is human? The Turing Test says "No, it does not. We can infer intelligence from the message content, regardless of whether the sender is human."
The transmission is not the question. A software program sending messages to the blog could easily use the internet to do so, or else it could be on site at the servers that host the blog so that it wouldn't need to send the blog posts across the internet to the blog software. Either way could work.
All of that is also irrelevant. From your standpoint, all of these possibilities are utterly indistinguishable. You have no way to know at the moment which was the case. You can make assumptions, but assumptions are not knowledge. Also, the fact that "we could investigate" is irrelevant because right now you don't know what the outcome of the investigation would be.
The question is about whether it is reasonable to infer intelligent agency from the content of the messages, even if have not obtained independent knowledge of the identity of the sender or the means of creation.
The Turing Test says, "Yes, you can make that inference, just from the content. It is justified even in a blind study such as this where we have not made independent investigations."
Other than the content of the messages themselves, what "substantial evidence" do you have for those claims about Bradford? The A.I. Bradford could also make statements about liking to watch baseball, etc. The whole point of the Turing Test is that the A.I. is trying to convince you that it is another human.
So, is your "substantial evidence" the fact that "Bradford" said so?
To start with, we couldn't do this from our own connections. Any "trace" we could try would bring us back to the blog servers, not to "Bradford".
Key Point:
More importantly, are you now claiming that we cannot reasonably infer that "Bradford" is an intelligent agent unless the blog site can catch one of his posts in the act and verify it goes to a human habitation? What if that could not be done?
To put it simply, most people would find that absurdly unnecessary.
Even in the face of the possibility of a non-human A.I., the Turing Test would agree with most people's normal assessment, i.e. that we can reasonably infer intelligent agency from the content of the messages themselves, regardless of whether "Bradford" is human or not.
How do we all do this — even though we don't bother with IP traces? We do this because we have uniform experience that facility with language directly implies intelligence.
That is exactly why the Turing Test was proposed as a test for artificial, non-human intelligence. It is a blind test with regard to knowing the source, and intentionally so. Nevertheless, it supports an inference to intelligent agency.
I would suspect that most people will easily infer from "Bradford's" use of language that "Bradford" is an intelligent agent without feeling any need at all to trace a causal link to verify humanity. That is the point of the Turing Test.
You have not yet established any believable plausibility to the idea that we cannot infer intelligence unless we can also trace a causal link back to the source. The absence of an IP trace is not going to stop anyone from seeing that "Bradford's" messages are from an intelligent agent, even if it were an A.I.
Comment by eric — July 8, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Hi Pez,
Ok, back to the formal debate…
The pertinent points of the second affirmative is…
The devil is in the details, but trying to leave out the details doesn't make the devil go away.
The 1973-1974 debate topic was… (yes, I am that old)
Resolved: That the federal government should guarantee a minimum annual income to each family unit.
link
There were several detailed proposals offered to fulfill this resolution. They included negative income tax handled by the IRS. Others offered a combination of food stamps and other government vouchers administrated by the states. Some enterprising people argued a minimum of one cent and not a penny more (both a minimum and maximum) as a check annually sent by the federal government to everybody. All of these proposals stated exactly how much was guaranteed and the MECHANISMS involved.
You are offering a proposal that is the equivalent of simply saying some unspecified amount of money will be distributed by some unspecified agency using unknown mechanisms.
If you wear a tight dress and the debate judge is male, you might get away with it. But I doubt it. Especially if you have hairy legs.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 8, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Obviously, as I already mentioned Internet zombies. And when examining a given sequence, this is one possibility we would want to consider.
You avoided answering the question, of course. Would you wager that a human is not involved in the creation and transmission of "Bradford's" messages?
But more importantly, you ignored the point about how the scientific method works. You want to "infer" and then consider the scientific job done. Sure we could posit a human, an alien, or a zombie. But then what specific and distinguishing predictions can we make? And what means of investigating the claims are available? That's what makes it science. Even your inference that a given sequence of letters is a message is based on your knowledge of how such sequences are made and why they are made and what kind of organism makes them. You have provided no examples, except the very conclusion you are attempting to support.
Comment by Zachriel — July 8, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Because if we say an embodied object was "designed", then there will be a causal link between the designer, the mechanism of manufacture and the artifact. In eric's example, we have a sequence and want to know if it is designed. As we know a lot about humans, we can probably recognize their imprint by the pattern they leave in the sequences"”just as a hunter recognizes a deer by examining tracks on the ground. Because there is a causal linkage between the deer and the tracks, the hunter will follow the tracks. And though we will leave "Bradford" in peace, we can surely track him the same way. But just as importantly, if it turns out the "Bradford" is a sophisticated computer simulation, this methodology will also help us make this determination.
Again, science is a process not a stopping point.
Sorry, I didn't know that "souls" were an issue on this thread. Yours is the first mention.
Comment by Zachriel — July 8, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Hi TP,
In 1983 the Thom Trojans were ahead of the Murray Marauders 42-12 mostly on the strength of their weak-side running game attributable to the athleticism of their pulling guard. On the last play of the game the Marauders scored and converted a touchdown making the final 42-19.
A decent ending for the underdogs, but they still lost the championship.
So what, you ask?
My point exactly.
I'd attempt to equate the proposal to something more appropriate in your example but there is absolutely nothing about the scenario that lends itself to our topic. The imperative of the proposed future acts equate in no way to the historical sciences.
A repair manual for my car details the MECHANISMS involved as well. And is just as relevant a comparison.
Behe's proposal is not a mechanistic model and it is mere question-begging to demand that it be one. His proposal includes just what is required of it and just what he believes can be inferred from the evidence. My denying that your incorrect ideas of his model are accurate is not the same as denying that he has a proposal – contra your false claim.
As for your renewed demand for a mechanism – you already provided that "God did it" qualifies as a 'model' (no mechanism) in your books, so you can't fall back on this version in order to eliminate "purposeful design" anyway (no, this is not an admission that they are the same thing – so please don't make me demonstrate that obvious fact as well).
So, is this the last hill you've decided to defend? Nothing about the relevance or intent behind your fallacious reference to Behe and demons? Nothing about your false claim that you had made and addressed an entirely different point?
Comment by Pez — July 8, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
And when we have experience with artificial intelligence capable of posting replies at the level of sophistication as "Bradford", then we will want to include that possibility in our investigation. We can include it now if you want. But no matter what, we know there is something sending the message and a medium of communication. Depending on the importance, such as during a criminal investigation (not you "Bradford"), this becomes important enough that this causal link will be explored in great detail. And as any investigator will tell you, the message often provides important information about the medium and the sender, whoever or whatever it is.
When someone says they have message with no conceivable source; and nothing about how the message was created or who created it or why it was created can be determined by examining the purported message; then we tend to be very skeptical.
Comment by Zachriel — July 8, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
You missed the point. "God did it" is a model because it DOES provide a mechanism. God is omnipotent. It is (almost) like saying the IRS can guarantee a minimum annual income to all family units.
As to the relevance. I have been explaining why I have been giving Behe the benefit of the doubt. He isn't going to convince people like me of anything until he provides details. I thought he was trying to provide some details. You, apparently, disagree.
P.S. In case it needs to be restated. Identifying "God" and/or "Demons" is a level of detail that could be considered a mechanism. The Truman Show would have been even more mechanistic detail. That would have been the beginnings of a model. This has been my point all along.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 8, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Hi TP,
And we are back where we came from on the previous thread.
You allow that 'omnipotence, God, and demons' are mechanisms but disallow intelligencel, agency, consciousness and mind.
This is an arbitrary distinction and there is nothing less model-like or less mechanistic about the latter as compared to the former.
As I asked repeatedly on that thread – why is your question (what is the model) not answered?
Comment by Pez — July 8, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
July 8th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Hi Pez,
Ok, let's go around the merry-go-round again. But this time I suggest we leave Behe out of it. You and I obviously disagree on what Behe said in his book.
Put together your proposal.
I will use the Third Choice as my proposal.
We can then do a compare and contrast to see which proposal is stronger.
Ok?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 8, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
July 9th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Oh good, now we're going to measure.
But, no, instead let's deal with the issues which I have chosen to raise and which you have chosen to defend against.
First, as per your latest comment: you've got the proposal/model, etc., and now admit as much by offering your little contest.
And Behe's model (mechanistic, according to your criteria) is evidenced without resorting to insults about the Truman Show and demon-of-the-gaps.
So let's do a quick inventory:
1) I did not deny that Behe made a proposal.
2) Behe has an ID proposal, which is also a model.
3) Although not necessary, the model is mechanistic by your standards.
4) Behe does not offer demonic activity as an explanation for any phenomena.
5) You did not address Bradford's statement as a strawman fallacy (incorrect, but not wrong), but rather …
6) You addressed it with an irrelevant reference to Behe in EoE.
7) As I said on the previous thread:
That about wraps it up, I think.
If we are going to go over your reading of Penrose you're going to have to lead my through it by answering my questions on it. I have no interest in reading your many paragraphs again (maybe I'll skim your conclusion?).
I'd go to your blog and debate your ideas there if that were my intent.
Comment by Pez — July 9, 2007 @ 12:25 am
July 9th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Hi Pez,
I am glad you are happy.
I do not see much has changed.
You started out solely focused on seeing what you wanted to see.
You have ended solely focused on seeing what you wanted to see.
We have had mention of Serial Endosymbiotic Theory (SET) and Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis (EAM) and, of course the Third Choice. We have even had an in depth analysis of seven various models for the universe by Paul Davies. All of these have more detail then what you leave Behe with.
Yet you think you just did Behe a favor.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 9, 2007 @ 1:00 am
July 9th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Hi TP,
I'm touched by your concern for my emotional state. You are very kind.
You're right, very little has changed. You've made a series of mistaken observations and comments, I've pointed them out, you've tried to justify them, and they are still false.
Behe needs (and can receive) no favours from me. Likewise, your inability to read him favours neither Behe nor yourself.
Comment by Pez — July 9, 2007 @ 1:13 am
July 9th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Pez, the point is that if it is a scientific model it makes empirical predictions that differ from those of competing models. I don't recall reading anything that fits those criteria in the book. Do you?
———–
Don't stop at mechanisms, Pez! The repair manual for your car details TROUBLESHOOTING procedures. Those procedures include PREDICTIONS. Your auto mechanic, whether or not she uses the manual, does real science every day. She empirically tests mechanistic models for what is wrong with cars, and does so by empirically testing hypotheses. Your auto mechanic does far more science than your physician!
Behe simply rejects science. In fact, in what he describes as the centerpiece example of his book, he avoids looking at the evidence relevant to the calculation of the probability he extrapolates to humans, preferring to fool his readers about the conclusions of others through quote-mining a review article. If you truly believe that you are right and the experts are wrong, you cite the evidence directly–you don't try and convince people that other experts agree with your assumptions/conclusions by selective quotation.
If it's not mechanistic and it doesn't make empirical predictions, it isn't science.
Science doesn't stop with inference. If Behe truly believes this, why does he avoid evidence in his centerpiece, choosing to quote-mine a review article instead?
Not all proposals are scientific models. There's nothing in Behe's book that resembles the scientific troubleshooting guide in your auto repair manual.
Of course, since auto mechanics is an application of science to designed objects, the auto troubleshooting guide is written in reverse order, because we already know the underlying mechanisms:
Auto: experimental results point to specific mechanisms that are broken
Biology: hypotheses about mechanisms predict specific experimental results
Comment by JAM — July 9, 2007 @ 2:07 am
July 9th, 2007 at 9:22 am
JAM,
You raise a lot of common objections about ID concerning science and its demarcation. In so doing you join such ID proponents as Mike Gene and David Heddle in saying that ID is not science.
You don't really say anything relevant to the exchange I am having with TP, however.
As I have outlined repeatedly, TP, as I am talking with him, has expressed the desire to see a) a proposal, b) a model, and c) a mechanistic model.
As TP requests, Behe fulfills his requirements.
TP accepts as proposals/models such things as God-did-it, Demonic involvement, The Matrix and The Truman Show.
As in your quote, TP also claims that those which he generously tried to attribute to Behe he considers 'scientific models'. This is the context in which we are discussing this.
I don't disagree with your assessment of the science an auto mechanic is doing, or the method you use to determine what is science, but these are not relevant to what TP and I are discussing – different strokes for different folks.
Some may choose to argue the validity of ID as science, or the validity of the demarcations, but that's not what TP and I are doing.
Comment by Pez — July 9, 2007 @ 9:22 am
July 9th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Hi Pez,
I thought JAM showed a pretty clear understanding of what I have been trying to say. The difference is that JAM is claiming Behe isn't doing science. I was attempting to give Behe the benefit of the doubt.
JAM said…
This is why I keep mentioning competing models like
"…Serial Endosymbiotic Theory (SET) and Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis (EAM) and, of course the Third Choice. We have even had an in depth analysis of seven various models for the universe by Paul Davies."
GodDidIt is just one of Paul Davies' models.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 9, 2007 @ 11:14 am
July 9th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Hi TP,
I think you are too late.
You are trying to rule evidence out of court as inadmissible that you've already stipulated to.
It may be interesting wrangling to argue over whether or not ID is science, but that ship has sailed here.
You've declared GodDidIt a mechanistic model on the arbitrary distinction that God is omnipotent.
You've allowed DemonsDidIt, It's-a-Matrix, and Ever-See-The Truman-Show? for no apparent reason at all.
You can't shut the door now on IntelligenceDidIt without special pleading.
Comment by Pez — July 9, 2007 @ 11:30 am
July 9th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Hi Pez,
Then I have been wasting my breath (no surprise).
I have been consistent in my attempts to look for a scientific model in Behe's book, from the beginning.
I have been trying to give Behe the benefit of the doubt.
I doubt Behe would agree with the characterization that he isn't a scientist.
At some point, we should let the debate judge decide.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 9, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
July 9th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Hi TP,
None whatsoever.
With whom is he supposed to be disagreeing in this statement of mock concern?
But since you continually get this wrong, I don't think you should be too eager to put this in the hands of your judge yet.
Just because you fail to properly identify Behe's model doesn't mean he doesn't have one. And it's not my problem that you have included as mechanistic models such things as God-and-Demons-Did-It and without any reason exclude Intelligent-Agent–Did-It.
So what does Behe have to say on the subject of whether or not he is a scientist?
Comment by Pez — July 9, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
July 9th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Hi Pez,
You are on the affirmative. The burden of proof is on your side.
It's past time to let the debate judge decide. You can't bring up new arguments after the first two rounds.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 9, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
July 9th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Hi TP,
That's so cute how you keep pretending this is a formal debate and you get to impose those rules.
A few questions:
1) What's my supposed affirmative here? That your reply to Bradford with a reference to EoE was irrelevant and inflammatory?
Yes, I affirm that, and I accept (and have met) my burden.
Or that you've accepted as proposals/models a category which cannot exclude ID?
Yes, I affirm that, and again, have met my burden.
2) What new subjects have I brought up?
You, in fact, are the one who wants to keep changing topics and escape your failure here.
I asked you about Behe and demons. You never supported your use of the reference but went off to chat about how Behe misrepresented Darwin.
You then claimed I was denying that Behe had a proposal (and tried another bait-and-switch with 'mechanistic model') and all I've done since then is obliterate your misapprehension of the facts.
3) Or am I suddenly on the affirmative because I asked you what Behe had to say on the subject of his being a scientist? I think you are on the affirmative on this one as you claimed that Behe would disagree with any characterization to the contrary.
And, as you can see, if this is the point you are talking about then you are the one violating your debate rules by introducing a new topic.
Don't worry, I don't really expect you to know what Behe has to say on the subject.
Comment by Pez — July 9, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
July 9th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Hi Pez,
Focus, Pez, focus.
The topic was Behe's book. That is Behe's latest affirmative proposal.
I have been consistently discussing Behe's proposed model since the beginning. This is why I have been comparing his SCIENTIFIC model with other models (Penrose's, Davies', etc) since the beginning.
Sure, you have tried to pull me into other issues you would like to argue about. Too bad.
I think that previous debate is over. However, if you would like to continue arguing with me, my offer to do a compare and contrast of your model to Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model is still open.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 9, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
July 9th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Hi TP,
Funny.
Sure, the topic of the thread is Behe's book. But the only thing you had to say about Behe was that he mentioned demons.
And now you claim that my questioning whether or not your use of Behe had anything to do with Bradford's statement is an example of my trying to pull you into other issues?
My response to your accusation that I was denying Behe made a proposal is a side issue?
(TP:Pez, as the second affirmative, has denied his partner has made any proposal at all.)
Right.
These are exactly the points that I responded to and the points that you tried to justify without success.
Along the way you also wanted to talk about Darwin's letter, 'shield-bashing' and a pseudo-history of the words 'demon' and 'angels'.
But I am the one who needs to focus.
As for your third way, I think your thread needs attending as there are some outstanding questions there that need to be addressed.
Comment by Pez — July 9, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
July 9th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
Thank you for pointing it out. I am comfortable with how that thread is going too.
RodgerRabbitt specifically asked for someone else to try and answer his/her question. I am honoring that request since I can understand how my style can rub people the wrong way.
Was there a particular question(s) you would me to answer about the Third Choice?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 9, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
July 9th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
An excerpt from section "Prediction and Testing" in Behe's The Edge of Evolution (p. 235, emphasis in the original):
Comment by eric — July 9, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
July 9th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Yes, I do. Please see the excerpt in my previous post, which presents two fundamentally different expectations of what we should expect when viewing the data. As Behe said:
These two models do indeed provide distinct and competing empirical predictions, i.e. "empirical predictions that differ from those of competing models". Behe expects and find similar results when looking at other examples where we can examine data on molecular changes due to random mutation and selection.
The results are consistent. There is some potential for change (which he expects and acknowledges) but it is severely limited, largely out of the reach of more slower reproducing organisms, and the predominant tendency is toward self-destructive remedies, i.e. blowing up your own bridges to foil the attack of the deadly enemy.
This is a starkly different picture than the powerfully creative story for random mutation and natural selection.
Comment by eric — July 9, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
July 9th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Even allowing for Behe's misunderstanding concerning the evolution of drug resistance in parasitic Plasmodia, you've been exposed to this subject long enough to know that evolutionary theory does not predict that every possible trait will evolve, or how long it might take to evolve. By misrepresenting what evolution would predict, Behe erects a strawman.
Comment by Zachriel — July 9, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
July 9th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Of course. The point of the exercise is to answer this question:
IOW, is it reasonable to infer (as most people will) that the "something" that created the messages is intelligent, whatever else may be true?
The message may or may not be telling the truth. In any case, whatever clues it may or may not hold, even a deceitful message is still a coherent symbolic message. Whether we could infer more, we would not infer less than the fact that it indicates an intelligent source, correct? Should a reasonable person deny the source is intelligent, whatever else it may be?
The point of the exercise is to question and/or establish whether the Turing Test's inference to an intelligent source is a legitimate, warranted inference based on the use of language.
"message
with no conceivable source" whose source has not been determined. As you said yourself, "no matter what, we know there is something sending the message". The existence of the message sufficiently indicates a source, even if the source is not identified."then we tend to be very skeptical" Skeptical of what exactly?
Skeptical that there is a message?
Skeptical that there is a source for the message?
Skeptical that the source of a meaningful, coherent, symbolic message is an intelligent source?
Exactly what should we be skeptical of and exactly why?
False accusation and a straw man. I've been clear enough that scientific investigation can go on to learn more — as much as we can.
The question at hand is whether the inference to intelligence is warranted based only on the use of language, or more specifically whether you yourself affirm the prima facia merit of such an inference, recognizing it has the usual tentative nature of any inference from the experience we have so far.
No, I observe that it is a message by the fact that the symbols are decodeable/translatable into a coherent meaning.
The identity of the source or consideration of their possible motives are irrelevant to establishing that it is a meaningful symbolic message.
Do you really mean to claim that if we could translate a non-trivial sequence of symbols such that produces a meaningful interpretation, that you would nevertheless deny it is a message if you couldn't identify the source or their true motives?
Good grief. We have collections of writings that have no translation at all, and whose writers are unknown, and the motives and origins lost in antiquity — and yet we still even then recognize them as writing and messages.
The prediction of interest at present is that coherent meaningful symbolic language implies the involvement of an intelligent source (whether directly or through intermediaries). Or conversely, that a completely unguided, undirected process will not create and produce coherent meaningful symbolic language in the absence of intelligence.
[Thus, the Turing Test corollary is this: if a machine/software achieves a level of language mastery that cannot be reliably distinguished from intelligent agent use of language, then this is an indication that the machine/software has achieved intelligence.]
1. Consistent positive observation: The fact that intelligent agents can produce and use language has been observed to the point of being beyond doubt.
2. Consistent absence of negative observation: We can also observe that there are no established contrary cases to the universal observation that language depends on intelligent agency.
3. Theoretical considerations favoring: We can consider in principle what enables intelligent agents to use symbols and symbolic agents, which point us to abilities of the mind such as imagination.
4. Theoretical considerations against the contrary hypothesis: We can consider in principle that non-intelligent, undirected processes do not have the attributes of imagination and mind and so do not have access to the methods of creating and using language that intelligent agents employ.
5. Search for testable counter-examples: Finally, we can continue the investigations into the possibility that there could be some other path by which an undirected, non-intelligent process could create and use symbolic language. So far, such attempts have been so barren that we cannot yet even devise a testable scenario whereby such processes could be reasonably expected to mindlessly build the necessary machinery for symbolic translation.
At present the evidence, both observational and theoretical, are entirely in support of the Turing Test and the link between symbolic language and intelligence.
Comment by eric — July 9, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
July 9th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
The problem is not that some particular trait was expected and did not appear. The problem, and it is a genuine problem, is that the most extensive observational data we have does not show evidence of any significant trait appearing beyond the minor changes that Behe acknowledges and affirms are within its reach.
This is exactly what his theoretical analysis would expect to find, based on his hypothesis.
Regarding "how long it might take to evolve", it is a very serious problem if evolution is going to maintain, based on reproduction and mutation rates, that the "how long" is longer, for example, than the number of mammals that have ever lived, which is what the malaria data would indicate.
Larger organisms especially do not have an unbounded number of chances. If we see nothing on the scale of the malarial studies, this is very bad news for grand claims about NeoDarwinian processes taking credit for the evolution of larger organisms and their very complex molecular machinery.
Comment by eric — July 9, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Really? Behe claims that binding sites are not within the reach of evolution.
How long does it take, in terms of observational data, to evolve a functional protein-protein binding site using only genetic variation that is random wrt fitness (of a type Behe doesn't include in his "theoretical analysis") and selection?
Will every organism that completes this evolutionary task arrive at the same solution?
What proportion of human organisms will fail?
What does Behe's hypothesis predict for this task?
"Theoretical analysis" just shows that you know that Behe's hypothesis doesn't make empirical predictions.
The malaria data don't indicate that at all. In fact, human mutation rates can be measured in human populations. Are those rates >10E-9 per nucleotide per cell division or a billion-fold lower, as Behe has fooled you into believing?
Eric, that's not an empirical prediction. Empirical predictions are not about how we view the data. That's the cowardly route. Empirical predictions describe the data in such a way that how we view the data is irrelevant.
Try this: I replace an essential protein for phage binding to its bacterial host with random sequence. Predict the mutation rate x number of replication events (i.e., the units cancel out to get a number of mutations) that will be required to evolve functional binding activity.
The beauty of real science is that these predictions have value even if you simply don't know the answer, and someone else does, although I predict that you have too much emotional investment in Behe's hypothesis (a recipe for bad science, btw) to muster the courage to make a prediction.
Comment by JAM — July 10, 2007 @ 1:18 am
July 10th, 2007 at 7:36 am
That's simply not true. Nor is that what the argument concerning parasitic Plasmodium reveals. Even granting that it requires two very rare simultaneous mutations, that doesn't make the example universally applicable. No one claims that evolution proceeds by multiple simultaneous, statistically impossible events. That makes it a strawman.
We know that mutations can be selected sequentially, and that the mathematics of sequential selection are additive not multiplicative. We know that recombination and other genetic processes add even more avenues of evolutionary change. We also can directly observe rates of evolution that are more than sufficient to account for the historical changes.
Comment by Zachriel — July 10, 2007 @ 7:36 am
July 10th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
That's true. When we held a huge apologetics conference at a mostly YEC church in 2006 [see: Why I'm paying $100 to hear Paul Nelson], many YECs refused to attend because of Michael Behe.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 10, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
July 10th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Not accurate. If you have a copy, see for example table 7.1 on page 143 and figure 7.4 on page 144. He explicitly points to one observed case of a protein-binding site generated by random mutation in humans, though none were observed in E. coli, HIV, or Malaria. The text to the figure reads in part:
So, he is not saying it doesn't happen. He is saying that it accounts for very few of the sites that are needed. The observed data where we can see random mutation at work is not anywhere near what one would need to account for what the cell requires. Not anywhere close.
We can see that there has been change. What we don't see is random mutation (filtered through selection) accomplishing those changes — at least not when we can really look at the molecular level at the mutations.
Zachriel, given all your emphasis on the importance of skepticism, are you know going to back off and call for faith rather than skepticism concerning the mechanisms of NeoDarwinian random mutation plus selection? (I'm not talking about denying evolution, or common descent. This is specifically about what mechanism is justified in claiming credit.)
About your objections concerning calculating probabilities, Behe doesn't insist it must always be simultaneous. Furthermore, that is secondary to the raw observed fact that — whatever the calculated odds — random mutation doen't do much at all when we can really watch it at work at the molecular level.
Comment by eric — July 10, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 3:19 am
I'm familiar with it, thanks, and my statement is accurate. Why do you think he only pointed to one? Why do you think my characterization of his position used the plural "sites" Besides, my question involves many more than one protein evolving functional, specific, observable binding.
The evolution of new protein-protein interactions have been observed with HIV in real time, and the evolution of many more can be inferred by contrast with its close relatives. Remember, Behe testified under oath that he gets his science from the New York Times instead of journals, so it's really not a good idea to take his word for what has/hasn't been observed.
It's clear that new sites can't be observed in Malaria, as malaria is a disease, not an organism. As for Plasmodium, Behe has no idea whether new sites have been evolved, as we don't know what most of the mutations past the first two do (neither is a change in protein-protein binding anyway). Or did I somehow miss that Behe actually did some research himself?
From what data? In this context, the term "kinds" is so vague as to be worthless. Are PDZ domains a "kind"
Why are protein-protein binding sites a good metric here, particularly since most of what appears to be specificity in interactions boils down to mere differences in affinity?
Quick, Eric, name 10 proteins that are soluble in water; IOW, proteins that don't bind with themselves promiscuously.
But my point is that Behe ignores most of the observational data, so your quoting him just makes you look gullible.
Well, then, if you are so confident that Behe is neither deluded nor dishonest about this, why did you run away from my highly relevant question?
That sounds superficially profound and thorough, but Behe doesn't come anywhere close to summarizing the observed data. My question relates to observations that all of us have made. So why run away from it, throwing up Behe-chaff to disguise your tactical retreat?
How long does it take, in terms of entirely observational data, to evolve a functional protein-protein binding site using only genetic variation that is random wrt fitness (of a type Behe doesn't include in his "theoretical analysis") and selection?
Then given your claims of familiarity with what we can/can't/do/don't see, there's no reason for you to dodge my question–unless you suspect that Behe is incompetent and/or deceiving you.
Comment by JAM — July 11, 2007 @ 3:19 am
July 11th, 2007 at 8:03 am
The strawman of naive "NeoDarwinism" has been modified many times since its inception in the middle of the 20th century. And we directly observe evolutionary change, and adaptation due to Natural Selection.
It's kind of hard to argue the mechanisms of evolutionary change when you wave away the clear evidence for Common Descent. And we directly observe evolutionary change on many scales, from genetic variations due to a variety of mechanisms, genetic and morphological changes in populations under selection in the lab and in the wild, and the effects of this evolutionary change over human history, as well as short and long geological periods. Your previous claim of "reduced morphological plasticity" is not supported and you have been provided many examples of recent evolutionary change. Finch evolution and speciation over very short geological times in the Galápagos Islands. Finch evolution directly observed over generations, including recent genetic data which shows which mutations are involved and how these relate to selection. Land mammals to whales over the last few tens of millions of years. Mouse evolution, including significant genomic changes, on recently populated islands.
Intelligent Design is like Intellectual Jelloâ„¢. If we point to the very significant data supporting Common Descent, then it wiggles over to Natural Selection. If we argue observed Natural Selection, then it slides to the Cambrian Explosion. If we discuss evidence concerning the Cambrian Explosion, it melts to events lost in the mists of time. Intelligent Design lurks in the shadows of human knowledge, and when we shine the light of facts on it, it retreats to another shadow.
Parasitic Plasmodium works as expected by the Theory of Evolution, and successful drug cocktails are being developed based firmly within this evolutionary paradigm. Granting Behe's incorrect understanding that Plasmodium requires two unique mutations (it probably involves several mutations!), that just means this particular adaptation is a rare event. So? That's why we have to consistently and persistently use combinations of drugs. If we use first one drug until it loses its effectiveness, then another, then the parasite will develop resistance sequentially. But if we consistently use a combination of drugs, then the parasite will be unlikely to acquire the multiple simultaneous mutations required. And again, so? That's what's expected! Not everything is evolvable. And in the case of parasitic Plasmodium, we still don't know exactly what we are dealing with.
Behe has erected a strawman by misrepresenting what evolution would predict.
Comment by Zachriel — July 11, 2007 @ 8:03 am
July 15th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
The significance of looking at cellular protein-protein binding sites is that there are about four orders of magnitude difference between the number of such binding sites present and the level of creative fruitfulness that random variation plus selection appear to operate on.
Sorry, I missed the post where you clearly explain — in words that even us gullible folk can understand — details about where we have observed at the molecular level the prolific production of specific new cellular protein-protein binding sites by nothing more than random variations plus selective pressures.
In the meantime, I am going to follow Zachriel's advice and practice the scientific virtue of skepticism with regard to the ability of undirected errors plus selection to find a sufficiently efficient, unbroken path through the universe of shape space. When slowly reproducing, large multicellular organisms are involved, that skepticism increases significantly.
Comment by eric — July 15, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
July 15th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
That's an odd excuse, given this is a thread about Behe and he accepts common descent.
1. It wasn't a claim of my own invention. Nor was it voiced by an ID advocate. I invited you to engage the claim made by evolutionist Kawano.
2. The claim did not exclude recent evolutionary change. The fact that you seem to see that as some kind of refutation calls into question whether you understood the claim. Else why point repeatedly to irrelevant facts that do not conflict with the claim?
I have added a longer response here.
I would expect someone to come forward with their strongest arguments, so it is always amazing to me when evolutionists make a big noise over finch beaks — as though doing so indicated strength rather than weakness.
Oscillating change in the average size of finch beaks due to varying environmental conditions is not something that even a young earth creationist would feel any need to question.
In fact, changing averages does not even require genetic change (as might be expected when the averages oscillate over the very short time span of the years of a study). It only requires changing the relative population sizes of smaller vs. larger beaks. Selection is quite capable of doing this, without doubt.
If this is an example of strong support, then the case must be in very sorry shape indeed.
NOTE: Selection is not in doubt. But as Allen MacNeill correctly observed in an excellent post, it is also not an engine of variation. It is an outcome that remains dependent on selecting from what other engines can actually create.
As an aside, your admission that "Not everything is evolvable." is quite interesting, given your denial of Kawano's claim of diminished morphological plasticity. Would you say that parasitic Plasmodium is less evolvable than other earlier eukaryotes? But I digress.
Some evolutionists have denied there is any real difference between the microevolutionary processes we see at work in parasitic Plasmodium drug resistance and the macroevolutionary changes that account for the cell's complexity, including on the order of 10^4 cellular protein-protein binding sites. Some evolutionists have objected strongly even to the use of "microevolution" vs. "macroevolution", as though evolutionary skeptics were inventing a meaningless distinction.
Those who hold to such an equality should find some difficulty in explaining how such a historically prolific and creative process now appears so comparatively blind and feeble. These are the same processes that supposedly engineered cells?
[Meanwhile, does JAM share that expectation, I wonder? He seems to be arguing not that Behe's expectations were unjustly high, but rather that Behe ignores evidence that these processes are actually quite capable and not feeble.]
If you want to abandon the NeoDarwinian sinking ship of equating micro and macro, and head perhaps to the evo-devo lifeboats, you are free to do so. You will have company. (Behe's The Edge of Evolution discusses this as well.)
From your own statement we see
1) Naive "NeoDarwinism" had its inception in the middle of the 20th century.
2) It has been modified many times since then. (Implicitly, it has needed to be modified many times since then.)
3) You consider it a strawman — evidently not because it never existed (since you acknowledge its inception) but apparently because those who know better no longer hold to the early naive versions of NeoDarwinism.
So, can I take it that you do acknowledge a micro/macro distinction, such that the processes providing drug resistance are not as capable as those building thousands of new proteins and cellular protein-protein binding sites?
Though you do expect such changes in the history of cells, you don't expect that whatever mechanisms that produced this should be operating in the case of imparting drug resistance, correct?
Perhaps you missed my post seeking clarification from you regarding exactly where you think skepticism is justified regarding symbolic messages. I'm very much looking forward to your answers.
Comment by eric — July 15, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Then it makes sense that we clearly establish your views on Common Descent before discussing the various mechanisms of that divergence.
*Speciation* of mainland finches on the geologically young Galápagos Islands is not an oscillation. And the direct observation of beak evolution is consistent with the Theory of Evolution. Have you even looked at Peter and Rosemary Grant's work?
After all this time commenting on these blogs, I still don't get why you have troubles with the fundamentals of evolutionary biology or evolutionary computation. Evolution can only explore the tiniest fraction of the available search space. (That's why the nested hierarchy is so crucial to understanding common descent.) Much of the story of life is the road not taken.
Evolution is not feeble, but persistent and ongoing. And its rate can be directly measured and shown to be sufficient to account for historical rates of change.
You still don't get it. The evolution of parasitic Plasmodium is much more complex than Behe claims. Nor does evolutionary theory claim that an organism must be able to develop an arbitrary trait in any arbitrary of time. Drug cocktails work because evolution is not omnipotent.
Evo-devo is making huge strides in understanding biological processes, including its evolutionary history.
Of course. As a robust theory, the Theory of Evolution has spawned numerous new areas of research, and is being constantly refined and extended.
Yes, it's a strawman to attack a decades old version of a theory and consider that sufficient to undermine the modern version.
Comment by Zachriel — July 17, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
When receiving a message in the English langugage, we usually assume it's a person who speaks English, his proxy, or a clever human-built machine designed to emulate an English-speaking person. This claim can be investigated.
Yes.
How do we know it's a message? Is it random gibberish? Shakespeare? You're positing a situation without any detail whatsoever. If we receive a message in English from a pulsar, we would normally check our equipment. This claim can be investigated.
Ah, so it is in a language. So now we suddenly have all sorts of information about the sender. And if we actually read the message, we can probably determine even more. This claim can be investigated.
So we have symbols that we can decode. Do you mean English?
You need to be specific. You have in mind a specific, but speak to the general case. Vague generalities can't usually be investigated.
So, it is in English. I would suspect a human who speaks English, his proxy, or a clever human-built machine designed to emulate an English-speaking person. This claim can be investigated.
Amazing how we can recognize phonograms and pictograms. It's almost as if we've seen such things before. This claim can be investigated.
That's not a valid prediction, eric. A prediction is look *here* and if our hypothesis is correct, you'll see *this*; if not, you'll see *that*.
Comment by Zachriel — July 17, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
I'm curious. Do you have a cite for "creative fruitfulness" "Creative fruitfulness" would seem to be rather hard to quantify.
In response to your claim, JAM asked you, "How long does it take, in terms of entirely observational data, to evolve a functional protein-protein binding site using only genetic variation that is random wrt fitness (of a type Behe doesn't include in his "theoretical analysis") and selection?"
Skepticism is not denial. You might try to look more skeptically at Behe's claims, such as which types of variation Behe omits from his analysis and then try to answer JAM's question above.
In humans and other slowly-reproducing, large, multicellular organisms, how long does it take to evolve a functional, specific binding site?
Comment by Zachriel — July 17, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
It is also consistent even with young earth creationism.
My point is unaffected and still stands. Finch evidence doesn't show anything that even a young earth creationist would feel a need to question. Behe is also explicit that speciation such as this is within the reach of undirected NeoDarwinian processes.
So, to fall back on this kind of evidence for support shows weakness rather than strength. Truly strong evidence for NeoDarwinian processes would indicate something that goes at least beyond what either Behe or young earth creationists would expect.
Since Behe does not wave away Common Descent, you are left without excuse regarding arguing the mechanisms of evolution in light of his case. To try to blame the difficulty away in this manner is a transparently empty dodge. Simply take Behe's acknowledgment of Common Descent as your common starting point and proceed from there to address the real issues, if you can.
The real reason it is hard to argue against Behe's case concerning mechanisms is that the hard data reveals at a molecular level the feeble nature of the blind watch
maker-breaker.1) It is quite blind, with feeble results. For example, the observed statistical result is that using any and all means and paths available, it only has a 1 in 10^20 chance of stumbling upon de novo resistance to chloroquine in the wild. (cf. Behe' Amazon blog and responses to Miller and Coyne)
2) It is predominantly a watch-breaker, not a watch maker. It gains comparative advantages most often by blowing up its own bridges to stop an enemy. When that foe's assault is removed the defective nature of the desperate measure is weeded out in preference to the unbroken design.
It is hard indeed to argue that this is the mechanism that accounts for 10,000 cellular protein-protein binding sites. This difficulty has nothing to do with questioning common descent, which Behe accepts.
But it is not a strawman to recognize that evolutionists are divided on whether the microevolutinary mechanisms we see at work now (producing drug resistance, leading to speciation, finch beak changes, etc.) are essentially synonymous with or fundamentally distinct from the macroevolutionary mechanisms that are needed to explain the major developments.
Behe makes a legitimate and worthwhile case to show that the microevolutionary processes we see at work do not reasonably account for the macroevolutionary changes in life's history.
In short, the microevolutionary blind watch-breaker revealed by the data is too feeble, inept, and destructive to explain the abundant fine machinery of the cell. Some evolutionists will resist this conclusion. Others already accept it and are eager to leave behind the equality between micro and macro.
Comment by eric — July 17, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Everything is consistent with Last Thursdayism, Last Tuesdayism, and any manner of omphalic claims; but the Theory of Evolution makes very specific predictions concerning empirical phenomena, including the geographic distribution of species. The Galápagos Islands are not all the same age. What would we predict based on this geological fact?
You made a specific claim, that the Galápagos Finches show only oscillatory evolution. This is inaccurate. They diverged from mainland species since the Galápagos Islands were formed. Biogeographical distribution is strongly supportive of common descent.
You keep saying that, but I have pointed you to a variety of scientific studies that show that observed evolution is more than sufficient to account for the historical evolutionary change. I can't make you read them.
That would be the odds of it actually becoming prevalent in the population due to a number of factors, including inconsistent use of medication. But not every trait is evolvable. The Theory of Evolution doesn't predict that drug resistance would occur at the same rate regardless of drug.
You do understand that people who really care about solving the problem of resistance development in disease organisms apply evolutionary biology to develop drug cocktails? Why do drug cocktails work, eric? And what would go wrong if they are used inconsistently? What would we predict based on the Theory of Evolution? What do we observe?
Except when it's not. Tool-wielding woodpecker finches are not a minor change. Whales are not a minor adaptation. Humans are not a minor variation. Why do Gallotia lizards in the Galápagos show a phylogenetic distribution from older to younger islands?
It's so important to you that Behe be right. But so what? Go ahead and continue to believe you won the argument. But because Behe's ideas are scientifically vacuous, they will never lead to cures for malaria, a disease that primarily kills children. And for people who care about such things, evolutionary biology is an essential tool in the fight.
Comment by Zachriel — July 17, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
July 19th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
We would predict nothing that would conflict with the micro-evolutionary expectations of either Behe or young earth creationists.
Everyone should be able to observe that you are dodging the issue. No one proposed "Last Thursdayism". The problem I raised was that finch evidence is weak — not because it is not supported but rather because it supports nothing more than uncontested micro-evolution.
So when evolutionists want to show the "strength" of evolution and point instead to finch evidence, that is a sign of weakness, not strength. If micro-evolution is the strongest evidence you have, then the case is truly weak.
No, you have mischaracterized my position. I state that the variation in average finch beak size oscillated, which is accurate. Although there are differences in the definition of species that complicate a claim of speciation, it has not been any part of my claim that speciation is excluded. Neither would this conflict even with young earth creationism. In other words, Yawn.
Behe raises issues about whether Darwinian processes are capable of macro-evolutionary changes. A response that says "Look at these micro-evolutionary results!" is a weak response, as it presents nothing that contradicts Behe's position.
Pointing to finches and lizards and common descent are weak responses.
In general, all of your arguments in support of common descent are ineffective, since Behe does not reject common descent. What you need to do (and have not done) is to show at a molecular level that Darwinian processes are responsible for the construction of the novel, complex machinery needed for macro-evolutionary changes.
Also, when someone is writing about the feeble and largely destructive nature of the observed molecular changes due to Darwinian processes, it is a non-sequitur to respond by pointing to the ability of woodpecker finches to wield tools, etc.
A more significant disconnect concerns dealing with disease:
We observe exactly what we should expect, if Behe is correct. Did you not notice that Behe discussed all of this and that identifying the limits of Darwinian processes is essential to understanding what could be effective against such agents?
The position that denies that Darwinian processes have an Edge, i.e. a limit, would be the show stopper. There is hope for success if and only if Behe is correct that Darwinian processes are limited and therefore could be stumped by the right obstacle.
I am persuaded that Behe is right in large measure by the inability or unwillingness of critics, such as yourself, to confront his position accurately.
It is obvious to anyone who understands Behe's position that he does believe that an accurate understanding of what Darwinian processes can and cannot do is essential to the fight against disease.
If his position were weak, it could be challenged on its own terms accurately. When you portray Behe as though he held a position contrary to the one he holds, that tells me that you aren't prepared to address his actual position (or else that you do not even understand his position).
Persistent and repeated false characterizations speak loudly in favor of the strength of Behe's actual position. His opponents prefer to fight the straw men.
Comment by eric — July 19, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
July 21st, 2007 at 9:09 am
Finch evolution is *real*, and measurable. And it forms a phylogenetic tree, a primary pattern predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
Handwaving. Constantly using the adjective "weak" is meaningless. It can be shown that observed rates of evolutionary change are sufficient to account for the observed morphological divergence over historical and geological time-scales.
It's amazing that we can even observe evolution in the wild over short time-scales. It's a tribute to the Grants' persistence and careful observations over decades in a very difficult environment that they were able to accomplish what they did. That's the difference between ID and science. Observation. And actually caring about the minutiae of finch beaks.
Galápagos Finches evolved from mainland varieties over millions of years through adaptive radiation"”and the process is ongoing. When I pointed this out, you again presented your gross misunderstanding of the Peter and Rosemary Grant's observations on Daphne Major.
The evidence is strongly counter to Young Earth Creationism. Evolution in the Galápagos took millions of years and we can date the islands geologically, biologically and genetically.
I note that you have again allowed the discussion to slip, and we must now return to establishing both the age of the Earth and the evidence for Common Descent. Something you repeatedly said we could dispense with.
Intellectual Jelloâ„¢.
Strawman. We expect smaller changes in shorter time-scales and larger changes in longer time-scales. In short time-scales, we see a variety of morphological changes as the environment changes, e.g. finch beak evolution supported by morphological and now genetic data. In longer time-scales, we see speciation and adaptive radiation, e.g. descent from mainland varieties, finch speciation and adaptation to fill various niches on the Galápagos often filled by other birds. In geologically significant time-scales, we see even more dramatic changes, such as theropods evolving into primitive birds. These amazing transformations are not consistent with Young Earth Creationism. They are consistent with and predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2007 @ 9:09 am
July 21st, 2007 at 2:09 pm
What part of these statements (if any) conflicts with what Behe is saying? If there is no conflict, then this evidence is indeed observably a weak response.
It is perfectly meaningful. When Behe claims X is true and you show evidence that X is true, that is hardly a refutation of Behe's position. In some respects, it would be generous to call it weak argument against Behe. More accurately, it is an affirmation of part of Behe's position.
You acknowledge that their study was over the short time-scale of decades. I have stated the true fact that over that short time span, average finch beak size oscillated according to environmental conditions. If you want to say I'm stating a falsehood, do so plainly. Otherwise, my statement stands.
No one, not even a young earth creationist, needs to question they were observing natural selection at work. Neither is speciation excluded, even on time scales a young earth creationist would accept.
This doesn't mean I'm arguing the earth is young. Since you seem to be confused on this point, I'll spell it out. I'm stating that the reality of natural selection and the potential for speciation are not controversial or persuasive. In short, Yawn. Even a young earth creationist would justifiably yawn concerning these points. A strong case needs more than uncontested observations.
When one repeatedly falls back on and emphasizes a weak response, that is an indication that one's case is weak.
They are also consistent with Behe's position. Have you yet shown any observations that are inconsistent with Behe's position?
Where Behe and the Grand Theory of Evolution part ways is on whether the data supports giving credit for those "amazing transformations" to non-teleological variations + natural selection. Does the data observing molecular change under the course of evolution indicate that those Darwinian processes could justifiably account for the creation of the necessary novel molecular machinery?
Behe points out that the evidence says No. It is not merely a matter of time in terms of years, as you implied. Behe correctly observes that the true measure is the number of generations and the available mutation rate. A decade of HIV change is not the same as for malaria, and that in turn is not the same as for large bodied organisms.
Those amazing transformations in large bodied organisms would have to be accomplished with far, far fewer opportunities for accidental change over a given period of time than for rapidly reproducing microbes or hyper-mutating viruses.
Despite this, what is required is amazing inventive construction of new molecular machinery, whereas in the most extensive data available, the observed tendency of molecular change by non-teleological variation is predominantly self-destructive.
Comment by eric — July 21, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
July 21st, 2007 at 2:59 pm
That does not yet answer my question. Without performing any further investigation, would it or would it not be reasonable, based on the messages themselves, to infer that the source that created the messages is intelligent, whatever else may be true?
On the contrary, I posited the very detailed situation of the "Bradford" messages as an example of the Turing Test.
Would it be fair and accurate for me to say that your "Yes" means you think it is reasonable to be skeptical that the "Bradford" messages are from an intelligent source (whatever else may be true), and that you would want to carry out an investigation (e.g. doing traces on the messages) before we could reasonably infer that the source was intelligent?
The Turing Test says an inference to intelligence is justified, even without knowing whether the source was a human or a computing machine. You appear to be arguing that we should be skeptical of such an inference until we can study the source. Applying that to the "Bradford" messages, we should be skeptical that "Bradford" is an intelligent agent until we can perform investigations to independently identify "Bradford".
Strictly speaking, "from a pulsar" only tells us "from a direction in line with a pulsar". In any case, the message could be a hoax or in some accidental way only appearing to come from a pulsar. Nevertheless, most reasonable people would still conclude that whether the message came from the pulsar or from Earth or from somewhere else in between, it still would have come from an intelligent source.
They would infer this even without the benefit of further investigation. They would make this inference because it is our universally consistent experience, supported with reasons in principle, that non-intelligent sources do not invent and use meaningful symbolic language.
Yet, you (apparently) argue for skepticism even that the source is intelligent. May I henceforward attribute such skepticism to you on this point?
There is no "suddenly" about it. Anyone can search for my "Turing" posts and see this.
Furthermore, though we may read what the message claims (e.g. Bradford likes baseball), I've pointed out we have no way to know from the messages themselves whether this is truthful vs. the false claim of a computing machine posing as a human.
Nevertheless, the truth or falsehood of the claims is irrelevant. What matters is the capacity to meaningfully use symbolic language. This is the central point of the Turing Test.
Comment by eric — July 21, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
July 21st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Evolution doesn't posit that every possible adaptation will occur or will occur in any particular amount of time. All Behe has done is find a particular adaptation that is relatively rare, mangles the explanation as to why it is rare, then concludes that all adaptations are out-of-reach of evolution. It is a fallacious conclusion, a Hasty Generalization.
I have pointed this out repeatedly, and you have repeatedly ignored the point.
That's the nature of the fallacy. Behe erects a strawman. It's easier for him that way, but it remains a fallacy. It does have the value of convincing those who want to be convinced. But it is intellectually sterile and leads to no new insights.
Behe's entire project is laughable. Do you really think geneticists don't know how to multiply the probability of two independent mutations? Why do drug cocktails work, eric? And what would go wrong if they are used inconsistently? What would we predict based on the Theory of Evolution? What do we observe?
Finches today on Daphne Major are a substantially different population than the population of decades ago. So your statement is false.
It was a fallacy of diversion. I pointed to "Finch evolution and speciation over very short geological times in the Galápagos Islands." You repeated your misunderstanding of the Grants' work on Finches which represents only the tiniest sliver of the history of Galápagos Finches. Have you even looked at Peter and Rosemary Grant's work? Do you really expect anyone to discard their expert opinion of Finch evolution, including their recent and strongly confirming genetic data, over your protestations?
Behe doesn't have a valid scientific position. It's a strawman. I can point to an infinitude of adaptations that are not available to evolution. I have pointed this out repeatedly, too.
Tool-wielding woodpecker finches are not a minor change. Whales are not a minor adaptation. Humans are not a minor variation. The phylogenetic distribution of Gallotia lizards in the Galápagos from older to younger islands is not negligible evidence.
All you do is wave your hands and pretend this is unimportant. But to biologists who do care about the facts, the shape of a finch's beak, the geological distribution of species, the succession of fossils, the way strata form, the strong correlation of otherwise unrelated traits, are evidence of a profound and important aspect of the natural world.
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
July 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
According to the dated definition of the scientific enterprise that you bring up time and time again, he certainly does.
Comment by Doug — July 21, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
July 21st, 2007 at 4:13 pm
When we read the message, we are making valid inferences about the sender far beyond a simplistic assertion of "intelligence". We immediately infer "Bradford" is a human (or its proxy) or a clever imitation of a human. We further infer that he accessed the Internet through the normal means. And that we can investigate the message in more detail if we choose. That's because there is a causal link between the message, the medium and the sender.
It's not that complicated and is a day-to-day occurrence in the forensic sciences. But because in normal life, much of this process is intuitive, you forget you've done it.
They would infer that it probably came from Earth, and then would investigate further to confirm this fact. Maybe it's the pigeons.
You still putting forth this odd view of science that we can reach conclusions and stop. That may work fine for someone who isn't all that inquisitive. But in science, we make tentative conjectures, infer specific empirical implications, then test these implications. From these results, we modify our hypothesis accordingly, then repeated the process in order to refine our knowledge. If you just reach a conclusion and stop, then you aren't doing science. But you might be doing ID.
The Turing Test assumes that the computer is designed to "imitate an adult human mind". So the test is actually to distinguish between a human mind and an imitation human mind.
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:38 pm
The test sees whether a distinction can be made. If the artificial participant has sufficient mastery of language such that the distinction cannot be made reliably, then it is considered to be intelligent. It is a test for artificial intelligence.
Nope. Straw man, and already dealt with here. Are you running out of responses that you need to repeat false ones?
The scientific issue is whether symbolic language facility requires intelligence.
The fact that this relationship is recognized formed the basis for the Turing Test, and for our own inferences from language to intelligence. If this relationship were ever overturned by new evidence, that could undermine the basis for the Turing Test.
As I point out in the same post I linked to, science can continue to test this relationship. Although science is never done, at present the relationship between language and intelligence is strongly supported and without any known counter examples. For example, no one expects that static caused by pigeons or any other source would yield meaningful symbolic messages.
If you mean to say we can infer "Bradford" accessed the TelicThoughts servers via the internet, that is an invalid inference. You have no knowledge that tells you how "Bradford" accessed those servers. If "Bradford" is an A.I., it wouldn't need to use the internet at all. (The fact that you use the internet to fetch the stored messages from the servers is, of course, irrelevant.)
In short, we don't know as much about the "causal link between the message, the medium and the sender" as you assume. You don't know the physical nature of the sender or the manner of construction of the message or the nature of the transmission.
Neverthess, it is still obvious to everyone without further investigation that there is an intelligent source. The messages provide sufficient evidence.
Since you reckon that the valid inferences extend "far beyond a simplistic assertion of "intelligence"", I will accept that as an acknowledgment that it is valid to at least make the inference from language to intelligence. Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for.
As most people would also acknowledge, it is the our universally consistent experience (with reasons in principle to support it) that symbolic language requires and therefore implies intelligence. Consequently, the inference is warranted, unless and until science turns up something that overturns the uniformly solid evidence for this relationship.
Hence, on that basis, intelligence is also reasonable as an inference for the symbolic language needed by biological life. Tentative, yes. Science still working, yes. But already a reasonable inference today. The established relationship stands until it is overturned.
Comment by eric — July 22, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
This is exactly contrary to Turing. He sidesteps the problem of defining intelligence by proposing a modification of a game of purposeful deception.
Again, this is false. The Turing Test does not test for some vague notion of "intelligence", but specifically for human-like intelligence.
I don't think you have read, or if you have read, understood Turing's article.
We know there is a causal link"”a fact that is used by forensic scientists everyday.
Comment by Zachriel — July 22, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:17 pm
I commented a bit about this earlier in this post. Behe has something to say as well.
I don't know if you've gotten your The Edge of Evolution yet, but when you do, don't miss the last section of the last appendix, i.e. section Computer Assumptions within Appendix D: The Cardsharp.
In it, Behe discusses how mathematical models of biology and evolution can easily be unrealistic.
In one evolutionary model, acquiring surplus instructions counted as "food" regardless of whether the instructions did anything or not. Though useless, they were treated as beneficial. Why?
This is an example of why I am not overly impressed by the ability to make a model that behaves in a manner that fulfills expectations. The question remains — is it realistic?
Comment by eric — July 22, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Eric:
I agree Eric. This is a good example of an inference based on matching the properties of a biological entity to a causal factor linked with the generation of systems having this property.
Comment by Bradford — July 22, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Avida isn't meant to be a realistic simulation of biology. Rather evolutionary algorithms are a mathematical
classand Avida is a member of thatclass.You really need to read the primary sources. Longer genomes take proportionally longer to replicate, so the SIZE_MERIT_METHOD, if proportional to genome length, simply makes all genomes take the same time to replicate. By adjusting this value, we can also experiment with the tendency of the genome to collect junk.
Comment by Zachriel — July 22, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:51 pm
You are STILL putting forth this odd view of science that we can reach conclusions and stop. Your job is done unless "science turns up something" that you are willing to consider. But that is not how science reaches its conclusions.
So you have a hypothesis. Now what specific and distinguishing empirical predictions can you make and test?
Examples: Halley predicted that a comet would reappear, naming the year and quadrant. Darwin predicted that a few million years ago there existed not-quite human apes, and that they probably orginated in Africa. Mendeleev predicted the existence of heretofore unknown chemcial elements and their properties. Einstein quantitatively predicted the curvature of starlight as it passes near the Sun.
Comment by Zachriel — July 22, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Zachriel:
Or a charicature of ID. We might, for example, explore, as have others have, the question of what would constitute a minimally functional genome? One could have an ID perspective on this or a standard approach. Either way experimental results providing the identity of an organism and the minimal number of genes by which it is able to reproduce, could be viewed as favorable to one of the two distinct perspectives and tentative.
Comment by Bradford — July 22, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
The fact that "there is a causal link" is a truism. It is always true. Therefore, that bare fact contributes nothing to the fact that we do infer intelligence.
There would be a causal link whether "Bradford" was human or not.
There would be a causal link whether "Bradford" used the internet or not.
There would be a causal link whether "Bradford" was an intelligent agent or not.
Nevertheless, without making any forensic investigation whatsoever and without needing to elaborate the nature of the causal link, people will readily infer that the messages come from some intelligent source. The truism that there was a causal link contributes nothing to this inference.
The truth of a fact that is true in any and every case cannot be used differentiate between the cases.
Nope. I'm observing that an inference to the best explanation is reasonably based on uniform observational evidence combined with consistent indications from considerations in principle. The point about "unless science turns up something" is to acknowledge that science continues — not stops — and that our inferences to the best explanation are tentative in nature.
Face it — you are the only one who keeps claiming that there is some kind of stop.
Comment by eric — July 23, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Now you got it! But note that many Intelligent Design advocates disavow this view.
Exactly wrong. Knowing there is a causal link, we can make specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
Now you got it! And we can use this knowledge to help determine "Bradford" identity by forming and testing hypotheses. In a legal investigation, we call this "forensic science".
You just admitted to abandoning science.
Forensics is a branch of science (having to do with legal investigations). You are saying that without making any scientific investigation, people may very well 'intuit' that "Bradford" is intelligent. We have a great deal of experience with messages written in English, and from this great store of knowledge, we would probably make a tentative claim that "Bradford" was a human or a human proxy (such as a computer). That's why forensic scientists keep vast libraries of crime cases. But forensics is a systematic and scientific approach to what people often do intuitively.
That's just ridiculous. Think about it again. You're saying that knowing there is a causal link between the sender, the medium and the message is irrelevant. But that's the whole point of forensics"”to trace the causation between the act and the perpetrator.
No. It's just how you wave your hands. If you were doing science, you would point to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
These do not qualify as testable hypotheses. Do you know why?
Comment by Zachriel — July 24, 2007 @ 7:45 am
July 15th, 2009 at 10:50 am
[...] points out that Behe thinks that endorsing common descent will help intelligent design here. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Einstein’s unfinished symphony [...]
Pingback by William Hasker on intelligent design « Bradley Monton’s Blog — July 15, 2009 @ 10:50 am