Big ideas take time
by KrauzePrompted by Mike's recent comments about Michael Ruse's latest book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, I decided to read it. Having finished it, I can confirm that it is indeed very good. One of the things Ruse describes is how long it actually took from Darwin published Origin of the Species until evolution took off as a proper scientific research program.
In the chapter "Failure of a Professional Science", Ruse writes:
Evolutionary biology as a professional science was distinctly second-rate. It failed to be properly causal; its "laws" often failed to predict; and worst of all it was riddled with cultural values, especially related to notions of progress. Deservedly, evolution was pushed out of the universities. [p. 101]
It wasn't as if research required some sophisticated technology that didn't exist at the time. "A professional science could surely have been started which looked not only at issues in the wild but also studied variation in the laboratory, by, for example, breeding generations of organisms to the point where reproductive barriers between the earlier and later variations arose. Not all of these experiments would have worked, but something would have succeeded and taken the issue a step further." (P. 88) Henry Walter Bates had done some work on mimicry in insects, but went on to become a secretary for the Royal Geographic Society (ironically, with Darwin's help), and no one took up his work.
It wasn't until the 1930's, more than 60 years after Darwin had published Origin of the Species, that an actual theory of evolution was proposed, dubbed "the synthetic theory". The mathematicians Ronald A. Fisher and Sewall Wright did the work necessary to make the effects of natural selection quantifiable, the journal Evolution was founded, and empiricists like Bernard Kettlewell and Ernst Mayr could carry out their field work, studying evolution in the wild.
In Ruse's terminology, evolution only gradually arose from pseudoscience, through popular science, before finally becoming a professional science in the 1930's. You could say that evolution evolved. Similarly, intelligent design has passed from being expressed in creationist pamphlets as a flimsy support for apologetics, to being expressed in popular science books. ID critcs often inquire as to why intelligent design still isn't doing any research, "10 years after Behe published Darwin's Black Box". However, they should remember the lesson taught to us by Darwin's followers: Big ideas take time.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
So, what are the "laws" of evolutionary biology? I don't seem to remember learning about those in biology…
Comment by David — January 19, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
January 19th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Those ID supporters who want to push ID into the public school curricula should remember this as well and wait for it to earn the status of "professional science."
It must be frustrating for the few people who support ID on purely scientific grounds to see it being hijacked for religious and political purposes.
Comment by keiths — January 19, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
January 19th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
That is an interesting piece. I Like Michael Ruse. He seems to avoid all the name calling and stereo-typing and tries to get to the truth of the matter.
Comment by Plump-DJ — January 19, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
January 20th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Uh, how much time? I only got so many ticks of the clock left in me. Ya'll may talk about "time," I'm sure your still young. But I'm about ready to punch-out on the time clock of life and I'm getting a little impatient.
I really don't think I have the time to wait while you go through Ruse's "pseudohistorical" phases: "from pseudoscience, through popular science, before finally becoming a professional science."
Why not jump to the end? Maybe Ruse explained in his book why you can't do that?
Comment by Rock — January 20, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
January 20th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Hey Krauss, do you believe in teleological evolution? Is that why you consider yourself and ID evolutionist? If it is, then, that's awesome!
Comment by Benji — January 20, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
January 20th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Rock says Why not jump to the end? Maybe Ruse explained in his book why you can't do that?
Rock, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for ID to develop into a science if I were you. If you want to see a testable theory of intelligent design during your lifetime, you'll probably have to develop it yourself.
Comment by Aagcobb — January 20, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
January 20th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Hi Benji,
Yes, teleological evolution would be a good name for my position.
Comment by Krauze — January 20, 2006 @ 7:01 pm
January 20th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Hi Rock,
"Why not jump to the end? Maybe Ruse explained in his book why you can't do that?"
Ruse doesn't offer any rules as to how long sciences must take to "mature"; it's simply a descriptive account, chronicling the progress(!) of a particular science.
However, let me offer my own views about the possible causes of this long "maturation period". Darwin's critics used arguments concerning the evidential case for his proposal (fossils, the potency of natural selection, etc.) and the philosophical case (isn't science supposed to be a deduction from first principles? Are arguments like "if we assume X, Y will make more sense" proper science?). These were the objections Darwin's followers had to deal with, therefore these received the biggest attention. Maybe if a major argument against evolution had been that it didn't result in scientific research this would have materialized faster.
Now, the argument about scientific research is used against ID, so does that mean that ID will make the transition to "research program" faster. ID critics like Aagcobb will answer no, as they don't believe there is any research to be done with ID, making the demand for it irrelevant. However, as one who has actually tried applying ID, my perspective is that there is indeed interesting research to be done, and that it will mostly be a matter of getting enough smart people on to this fact.
So, assuming that there actually is something to ID, I think that we'll experience a shorter "lag time" from the Darwin of ID publishes his Origin of the Species until the "teleological synthesis" is formulated.
Comment by Krauze — January 20, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
January 20th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
But Krauze, there is rarely anyway of deciphering whether evolution took place, especially, most of all, in the fossil record? So, why do you still believe in it? I'm not trying to bother you in this regard, I just want to know where you are coming from. Why won't you just believe that a designer-as in the words of Richard Dawkins-has planted them?
Comment by Benji — January 20, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
January 20th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Rock:
You can't jump to the end if you don't know what the end is. Speaking for myself, I don't come to this issue with preconceived conclusions; I have long noted that there are data about the living world that cause me to genuinely suspect life was designed. The next step is to outline some type of open-ended, investigative approach that can be used to assess such suspicions (and their implications). After an investigation has been conducted, perhaps someone like me can begin to suggest what the end of the story may look like.
The problem is twofold. Many in the ID community are more interested in beginning with some end and finding ways to help school children reach it. And among the "enlightened" critics, running an investigation makes you part of an Evil Plot.
Comment by MikeGene — January 20, 2006 @ 10:06 pm
January 20th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Aagcobb:
It's important that we translate this, as such claims are usually embedded with hidden goalposts. Ask a critic was they want from a "testable theory of intelligent design," and the majority will come back with a) demonstrate that evolution is impossible or b) show me the designer. Anything less than this will not count as "a testable theory of intelligent design."
Comment by MikeGene — January 20, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
January 20th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Benji:
I hope Krauze doesn't mind me butting in, but I've been away and in need of a fix. There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution. What convinces me is not some earth-shattering example here or there, but the convergence of the data and the way so much of it falls into place under an evolutionary perspective.
I should also add something I mentioned before: considerations of intelligent design can very well be used to support an evolutionary interpretation over creationism.
Here's a good argument for evolution.
Comment by MikeGene — January 20, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
January 20th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Well, "a" doesn't work for me any way, since falsifying evolution wouldn't make ID true by default. Of course "b" works quite nicely. But there may be some other options. I have just never personally been able to think of any. I think I have asked that question here before, and didn't get an answer. What form would such a testable theory take? Just a rough outline is all I am looking for.
Comment by TP — January 20, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
January 21st, 2006 at 12:36 am
TP,
There is a time and place for everything. For now, consider what you have justed admitted – when you look out at the world, the only thing that would count for design is an observation of the designer. If there was some truth to intelligent design, why would someone like me supposed to be confident in your ability to detect this design?
Comment by MikeGene — January 21, 2006 @ 12:36 am
January 21st, 2006 at 8:35 am
MikeGene says Ask a critic was they want from a "testable theory of intelligent design," and the majority will come back with a) demonstrate that evolution is impossible or b) show me the designer. Anything less than this will not count as "a testable theory of intelligent design."
I would settle for something less, Mike. A theory which can reliably identify designed biological structures would be nice.
Comment by Aagcobb — January 21, 2006 @ 8:35 am
January 21st, 2006 at 9:10 am
Hi Aagcobb,
"A theory which can reliably identify designed biological structures would be nice."
Of course, what is "reliable" to one person might not be to another. Suppose we had a theory of design according to which the bacterial flagellum is designed. How could we be sure that this identification was "reliable" Put out a big sign on the White House lawn, saying, "If the designer of the bacterial flagellum can read this, give us a call"
Comment by Krauze — January 21, 2006 @ 9:10 am
January 21st, 2006 at 11:08 am
Aagcobb:
First, you are missing the whole point of Krauze's blog. Theories are typically something that emerge after a lengthy period of investigation. As Krauze notes, "evolution only gradually arose from pseudoscience, through popular science, before finally becoming a professional science in the 1930's." And even with this theory in hand, evolutionary biologists had to stumble upon surprises like endosymbiosis, LGT, and evo-devo, while also resisting neutral theory over the subsequent sixty years. So, do we really have a theory that reliably determines when a biological structure does indeed stem from non-teleological processes? Do we have a theory that has reliably determined that the Earth spawned Life?
The point here is that "big ideas take time," thus it doesn't make sense to expect a hypothesis of intelligent design to perform differently from hypotheses about evolution or the origin of life. One can either investigate life to assess the hypothesis of life's design or they can sit on the sidelines to a) wait for others to do this work or, b)look for ways to derail the investigation.
Second, you gave a more detailed answer on the ARN forum a few years back:
This leads me to wonder if this "theory" you have in mind must come up with something that could not have evolved.
Comment by MikeGene — January 21, 2006 @ 11:08 am
January 21st, 2006 at 12:37 pm
"My example, which was derided as "trivial" in another thread, would be the discovery of God's trademark in biological organisms, like "Yahweh" written into the genetic code. My example may be trivial, but it is the sort of thing, which if it were discovered, could only be explained by design and not evolution."
Just like the Bible codes!
Comment by macht — January 21, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
January 21st, 2006 at 12:50 pm
[...] hat would make intelligent design useful to science. Krauze at Telic Thoughts has written this post aimed directly at me and my objections. (Well, I certainly wasn't the reason he wrote it. I’ [...]
Pingback by Ocellated » A More Reasonable Discussion on Intelligent Design — January 21, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
January 21st, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Mike, I like your response but I think you need to be clearer on where you stand on the evo-creo-ID debate.
Comment by Benji — January 21, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
January 21st, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Hi Benji,
Mike would also fall under the label of "teleological evolutionist".
Comment by Krauze — January 21, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
January 21st, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I would fall under it, but I don't think the fossil record provides much evidence for darwinism. So, in some way or another, I would consider myself an ID creationist(Not to be confused with religious creationism). However, I'm open to teleological evolution, as I have been for quite a while.
Krauss:
I'm surprised that someone your caliber, especially as an agnostic, would subscribe to ID in some way or another. Keep being open-minded!
Comment by Benji — January 21, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
January 21st, 2006 at 9:11 pm
That was not remotely what I said. I said that certainly one thing that would convince me would be to produce the designer. I neither said nor implied that this is the only thing that might convince me. As you are an ID advocate, I thought you might at least have some rough ideas for some research proposals. That is what I am asking you for. Because if you can't produce some kind of testable theory, how are you ever going to know whether you are right or not? Again, the ID advocates need to be throwing research ideas out there. The 'time and place for everything' answer won't last forever.
TP
Comment by TP — January 21, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
January 21st, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Benji to Krauze:
Benjii,
I suspect this isn't what you intended, but your post basically says:
1. It's a surprise when a "person of caliber" accepts ID.
2. "Persons of caliber" are usually closed-minded.
3. The plausibility of ID depends on one's religious beliefs.
So ID supporters are low-caliber religious people, but at least they're open-minded. I'm sure they're flattered.
Comment by keiths — January 21, 2006 @ 9:34 pm
January 21st, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Krauze
Until you present such a theory any 'supposing' is pointless. Why should anyone assume that ID/C has the same merits as the ToE and is so in the same circumstances. Coming as I do from a strong Indic mode of inquiry – very non-Western – I find the assumption heroic that contingent variables are taken for granted.
Comment by kural1 — January 21, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
January 22nd, 2006 at 1:02 am
Kruaze says Of course, what is "reliable" to one person might not be to another. Suppose we had a theory of design according to which the bacterial flagellum is designed. How could we be sure that this identification was "reliable"? Put out a big sign on the White House lawn, saying, "If the designer of the bacterial flagellum can read this, give us a call"?
Well, if we could reliably detect design in biological structures, it should be possible to learn a great deal about biological organisms and the activities of the designer which simply aren't accessible through mainstream evolutionary theory. ID theory should then be able to make testable predictions about future observations which are more accurate than evolutionary theory alone. If you don't think thats possible, Krauze, I don't understand what appeal IDism has for you.
Comment by Aagcobb — January 22, 2006 @ 1:02 am
January 22nd, 2006 at 1:19 am
MikeGene says This leads me to wonder if this "theory" you have in mind must come up with something that could not have evolved.
I'm not an ID theorist, Mike, so I'm not sure why you would expect me to come up with some whole new idea on developing a theory of ID that even the leading lights of IDism, Dembski and Behe, have not done, since the concepts of the EF and IC are both based on demonstrating that something couldn't have evolved. But I'll take a shot at it anyway.
In recent years the one intelligent species we know about, homo sapiens sapiens, has started genetically engineering organisms. Perhaps a method of detecting design could be developed by examining organisms genetically engineered by humans and seeing if there are detectable characteristics common to them which might then be used to determine if a biological structure was engineered by a nonhuman intelligence in the past. Thus instead of saying "we know this is designed because it couldn't have evolved" you would say "we believe biological sturcture X was designed because it shares these common features with known genetically engineered organisms."
Comment by Aagcobb — January 22, 2006 @ 1:19 am
January 22nd, 2006 at 11:06 am
Hi Aagcobb,
"Well, if we could reliably detect design in biological structures, it should be possible to learn a great deal about biological organisms and the activities of the designer which simply aren't accessible through mainstream evolutionary theory."
So, a "reliable" design inference is one that gives us knowledge about the designer. And to be sure that the "knowledge" given to us is correct, we'd have to find the designer and check for ourselves, right?
Comment by Krauze — January 22, 2006 @ 11:06 am
January 22nd, 2006 at 11:42 am
Krauze says So, a "reliable" design inference is one that gives us knowledge about the designer. And to be sure that the "knowledge" given to us is correct, we'd have to find the designer and check for ourselves, right?
Not necessarily. If a theory of ID proves to be a useful tool for use by scientists in research, "proving" its "true" by actually detecting the designer would not be necessary to justify using ID theory in scientific research. The whole point of science is to acquire new knowledge. I would think one of the things that would be exciting about a useful ID theory would be using it to learn about the activities of the designer. If you know what was designed, genetic analysis of living organisms should give us an idea of within what timeframe the design occurred; we may even be able to develop some ideas about how to go about genetically engineering organisms by studying the work of the designer. Also if we know when the designer was designing, and what he was designing, it would give us an idea of where to look for artifacts that may have been left by the designer. If we have been able to discover the tools discarded by our ancestors across millions of years, its entirely possible that the designers' tools are laying around somewhere waiting to be discovered as well.
Comment by Aagcobb — January 22, 2006 @ 11:42 am
January 22nd, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Mike,
Can you produce theories to order?
Comment by kural1 — January 22, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"If a theory of ID proves to be a useful tool for use by scientists in research, "proving" its "true" by actually detecting the designer would not be necessary to justify using ID theory in scientific research."
Actually, this "ID as a useful tool" is exactly why I'm interested in it, with examples provided here. However, we should again remember that the criteria for regarding something as a "useful tool" varies from critic to critic.
And to not lose sight of the topic of this thread, we should ask how long it took before evolution became a "useful tool" in research.
Comment by Krauze — January 23, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
January 24th, 2006 at 9:09 am
TP,
You said that "a" doesn't work for you, "b" works quite nicely, and that you have never been able to think of anything else. That leaves you with "b" – show me the designer. Now, I wasn't talking about convincing you. I'm merely observing that way you approach the world – "when you look out at the world, the only thing that would count for design is an observation of the designer." Thus, if you were to tell me that there is no evidence for design (a claim that is universal among the critics of ID), it would simply (and only) mean you have never seen the designer.
Comment by MikeGene — January 24, 2006 @ 9:09 am
January 25th, 2006 at 1:01 am
Hi Jay,
Thanks for commenting on our site. I would like to request that you clarify something you wrote in your blog:
Are you saying that we should take down this blog until somebody hidden away develops an ID theory that is recognized by all as scientific?
Comment by MikeGene — January 25, 2006 @ 1:01 am
January 25th, 2006 at 3:01 am
No MikeGene, I wouldn't go that far. That language, a bit provacative sounding, was meant to say this…
Most of the public doesn't know much about science, especially science that's being debated and argued about. How many people have heard of string theory? How many people could tell you that humans had 46 chromosomes and chimps had 48, and that evolution predicts that extra information had to go somewhere? I could go on and on and on in terms of things the public isn't aware of.
But if I take Krause, (and other people, like those at Telic Thoughts) at their word that ID is trying to come up with something useful for science, then it causes me no end of frustration that the battle of ideas, if you will, has been taken to the public sphere. What should have happened instead is that this debate should be happening in scientific circles. We could call each other poopyheads till we're blue in the face, but instead, people who know little science and have a religious interest in the outcome, are now emotionally involved in ID.
I'm a Christian (we'll see how well that serves me in grad school). I think methodological naturalism has served us very, very well, scientifically. Until such time that someone shows me how design just blows away our understanding and offers strikingly better explanatory power (and predictive power) than our current theories (evolution being the main one I'm thinking of right now), I think it's proponents, if they really think there's something to ID, should be working to come up with something. In that way, basement = "below the radar" of the general public, like most of science.
I certainly don't mind people talking about things. (So no, I don't think your speech should be censored on this blog!) You've got to have thick skin though. If you really believe in an idea, accept the fact that people are going to be very resistive. If the data's really on your side, you should expect people to come around, even if takes a lot of time.
Me personally, I can't quite conceptualize how ID will ever offer anything. I tried to quibble with Krauze about this very thing… Where is ID going? What does it suspect, and what is it after to help confirm it's predictions? I would never want to say that this or that could never amount to anything. Who am I to predict the future. But, and I'll say this very bluntly, I certainly don't like what I've seen so far from ID. I find it to be empty, worthless. BUT, me feeling that way certainly doesn't stop someone from showing me why I'm wrong.
My own view is twofold. I consider our existance to purposeful. In some (probably unknowable) way I believe in a "designer" that's created the system to get results that he wants. But in so far as this has happened, I'm extremely agnostic that we can uncover these things scientifically. Thus, why talk about them? (scientifically that is!)
I'll say one thing about Telic Thoughts. I mostly disagree with what I read here, but the tone of the conversation alone is enough for me to want to extend a little courtesy in the way I address things.
Comment by Ocellated — January 25, 2006 @ 3:01 am
January 28th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Jay:
While I would agree that the battle should not be fought in any political arena, I see no problem with having a battle of ideas in the public arena. You do have your finger on a real problem "“ people becoming emotionally invested in ID. But those of us without such an emotional investment benefit greatly from debating and thinking out loud. I'll just bring up two quick points. Evolution itself became the topic of public debate before it was a science. In fact, the public debate component was probably very helpful in turning it into a science. Why? That takes us to my second point. Evolutionary biologist Francois Jacob offered some truly profound words: "To produce a valuable observation, one has first to have an idea of what to observe, a preconception of what is possible. Scientific advances often come from uncovering a hitherto unseen aspect of things as a result, not so much of using new instruments, but rather of looking at objects from a different angle. This look is necessarily guided by a certain idea of what this so-called reality might be. It always involves a certain conception about the unknown, that is, about what lies beyond that which one has logical or experimental reasons to believe." Where do you think this "certain conception," one that is beyond "logical or experimental reasons to believe," comes from?
You add:
I have no problem with resistance and criticism. Where critics (not you) cross the line is in the realm of character assassination, even to the point of trying to inflict harm in the real world.
Good questions.
That's fine. I find it intriguing and useful. However, I feel no obligation to show you that you are wrong.
Comment by MikeGene — January 28, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
[...] pm by nemo Telic Thoughts, debating Evolutionblog, compares ID to early Darwinism: Big Ideas Take Time. ID, thuswise, is going to suddenly take off, like Darwinism (finally) did. Prompted by Mi [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » Big Idea Take Time? — January 30, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
[...] Telic Thoughts: http://telicthoughts.com/?p=502 [...]
Pingback by Philosophers’ Carnival :: Philosophers’ Carnival XXV :: January :: 2006 — September 24, 2006 @ 7:00 pm