Confirmation Bias and ID
by MikeGeneFor years, I have tried to help illuminate the important role that sociology and psychology play in the debate about origins. For example, if a critic of Intelligent Design hears "God" when "ID" is spoken, just what is that critic reacting to? The ID proposal? A proposal of divine intervention? A belief in God? Furthermore, what if the evidence for ID is subtle and not extraordinary?
Michael Shermer offers a synopsis of a very interesting study that helps us appreciate the significance of these considerations.
Shermer begins with a discussion of his Republican and Democrat friends:
I have close friends in both camps, in which I have observed the following: no matter the issue under discussion, both sides are equally convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position.
As one who has been participating in the ID debates on the Internet for years, I can make the same observation (without making any claim of close friendship) – Both the ID proponents and the ID critics seem to be "equally convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position." Shermer calls this "confirmation bias":
This surety is called the confirmation bias, whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence. Now a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study shows where in the brain the confirmation bias arises and how it is unconscious and driven by emotions.
You should read the entirety of Shermer's report to get a better handle on the brain research (or better yet, track down the actual research paper when it comes out). For example, the researcher explains:
"Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones," Westen said.
Shermer then explains that confirmation bias is not a problem in science:
In science we have built-in self-correcting machinery. Strict double-blind controls are required in experiments, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know the experimental conditions during the data-collection phase. Results are vetted at professional conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. Research must be replicated in other laboratories unaffiliated with the original researcher. Disconfirmatory evidence, as well as contradictory interpretations of the data, must be included in the paper. Colleagues are rewarded for being skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Yet Shermer, who often comes across as a cheer-leader for scientism, may be displaying confirmation bias here. His ideas about the practice of science seem awfully naïve and idealistic. More significant is that he provides no scientific evidence that the "built-in self-correcting machinery" does always buffer against confirmation bias. At the very least, there may be some issues that are difficult to test and so easily stray into emotion that the "self-correcting machinery" begins to short circuit. Perhaps the topic of Intelligent Design is just one of those issues.
What we do know is that many scientists get extremely emotional about the topic of ID. Furthermore, there are more and more editorials being written in scientific and academic publications that actually seek to arouse emotions by portraying ID as a threat to Science and American leadership, clearly developing a partisan-type mentality when it comes to the concept of ID. What would happen if we could submit such ID critics to a fMRI analysis while critiquing ID?
Shermer ends his report by noting, "Skepticism is the antidote for the confirmation bias." But what if the skepticism is selectively applied? Isn't that the very essence of confirmation bias?
As for myself, I have long tried to take this advice to heart, acknowledging that my own ID views could very well be wrong, while also admitting that my own views are too vague and weak to be labeled "science." I have tried to steer clear of the heavy-handed partisanship by acknowledging that my critics are not being irrational for denying my views, and even showing a willingness to publicly disagree with other ID proponents about significant issues. Over the years, I have found that only a very small number of critics can meet me at this place and show a similar form of reciprocation. For most critics, I am still stupid, dishonest, or deluded because I don't agree that ID is Dangerous Bunk.
Their confirmation bias is showing.
[Let me give a HT to Krauze for first noticing Shermer's report.]
July 9th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Another great post MG. Thank you.
Do you need a friend?
Indeed. Much of science does not proceed as he has described.
Just not in the classroom. And, if Kuhn is to be believed, the skepticism itself is operating from within the same paradigm. ID is a boon to science for that reason alone.
Comment by Mung — July 9, 2006 @ 9:28 am
July 9th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Only in Parapsychology and medical research do we see anything approaching this ideal.
Most science experiments are not conducted blind.
Comment by MatthewCromer — July 9, 2006 @ 10:20 am
July 9th, 2006 at 10:26 am
A giant step down the road towards an unabashed advocacy of metaphysical relativism, if you ask me.
Comment by Art — July 9, 2006 @ 10:26 am
July 9th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
"In science we have built-in self-correcting machinery."
Of course, for colleagues to be skeptical, they actually have to disagree with the hypothesis in question. But when it comes to hypotheses such as the ateleological origin of life, IDists are the only ones doubting it. Soo, did Shermer just make an argument for why science needs intelligent design?
Comment by Krauze — July 9, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I agree with Art. It seems to me that ID advocates, rather than moving towards productive scientific research, are increasingly embracing relativism.
Comment by Myrmecos — July 9, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
LOL
Q: What is likely to be the primary source or cause of "confirmation bias" when it comes to the subject of origins?
A: Religious belief.
Conclusion – atheists are the best suited to explore matters that relate to origins.
Soo, did Mike just make an argument for why theists should not be trusted when it comes to origins?
Comment by Art — July 9, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Two examples come to mind of confirmation bias in the history of mathematics, a field where one would expect absolute logic and dispassionate inquiry to save the day. By in large, this is true, but 2 major developments were nearly suppressed forever because of confirmaiton bias:
1. Pythagoras (of pythagorean theorm fame) supposedly had Hippasus executed for discovering the square root of 2 was irrational, it went against Pythagorean notions of numbers, and furthermore, one had no direct logical proof of irrationality, it was all through negative proof (much like ID's arguments)
2. Cantor in the 19th century pioneered transfinite mathematics through negative argumentation (again like ID's arguments). Since he was dealing with infinity, something not directly observed but inferred, the arguments by both sides were very subject to confirmation bias.
Math would not be where it is today without the above 2 developments.
There were vicious personal attacks from both sides of the issue. Kronecker (another famous mathematician) labeled Cantor a corrupter of youth. Cantor's pioneering ideas are now taught in elementary school (in the form of set theory), and thus are youth are now permanently corrupted.
Curiosly, the tribal behavior played out in these mathematical issues, and issues with hardly any direct religious significance.
Confirmation bias will happen especially where there is no direct evidence, and conclusions can only be arrived at through inference and not direct empircism.
What's the cure for confirmation bias? I'd say, keep hammering facts and logic. The side least eager for scrutiny and engagement of its theories probably feels that in order to keep faith, one must close their eyes to challenges.
I see that mentality in a lot of Bible Pounding YECs and a lot of militant anit-IDists.
I do not see confirmation bias as much in play with pseudo-IDers like Michael Denton and David Berlinski or IDers like Michael Behe or Scott Minnich, and imho, Mike Gene.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 9, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Art, your parody misrepresents my post. I didn't say anything about not trusting anyone. Why don't you re-read my post and try again?
Comment by Krauze — July 9, 2006 @ 1:47 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Hi Myrmecos,
"It seems to me that ID advocates, rather than moving towards productive scientific research, are increasingly embracing relativism."
Michael Shermer points to some new results with neuroimaging, and notes how people of different opinions will often pick and choose what evidence to pay attention to. Is this "relativism"
Comment by Krauze — July 9, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
It seems to me that the set of those who are "convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position" will be co-terminous (or very nearly) with the set of those who are convinced (or, at least, have convinced themselves that they are convinced) that "the evidence" "speaks for itself."
Comment by Ilion — July 9, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Art:
Wrong answer. The correct answer is "˜metaphysics' and there really are only two forms it can take "“ teleological or non-teleological.
As for "religious belief," we have a far greater range in diversity among the origin beliefs of religionists. Here, we have positions that range from Harold Morowitz to Simon Conway Morris to Francis Collins to Michael Behe and Bill Dembski to Hugh Ross to Duane Gish and Henry Morris. In contrast, I don't see the same level of diversity about such fundamental issues among the atheists.
In many ways, the different levels of diversity are reflective of teleology vs. non-teleology. The non-teleological perspective is rather monolithic, invested completely in the idea that natural law and chance explain the origin of life (for example). Teleologists add an extra dimension to this picture "“ mind "“ where differing placements of mind, views about the detectability of its involvement, and views about the frequency of its involvement, offer a wide variety of options which do not even have to be religious in nature. The higher range of diversity among teleologists suggests there is less need for confirmation bias and thus more freedom to break with the herd.
Comment by MikeGene — July 9, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
30 minut time limit:
It seems to me that the set of those who are "convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position" will be co-terminus (or very nearly) with the set of those who are convinced (or, at least, have convinced themselves that they are convinced) that "the evidence" "speaks for itself."
Yes, it is.
But, heck, we didn't need "science" to tell us this. This truth didn't become more true because a scientist proclaimed it; we've known it for thousands of years: people find/see what they are looking to find/see. It takes conscious and conscientious effort to find/see what one doesn't expect (or doesn't wish) to see.
That's one of the reasons that thousands of years ago our ancestors put a great deal of effort into discovering and elucidating the rules of reasoning. These rules give us an objective standard and set of criteria by which to evaluate the proposed reasons to have confidence in the truthfulness of a claim. These criteria are independent of and irrespective of the content and/or conclusion of any particular line of reasoning.
Getting back to the reference to the belief that "the evidence" "speaks for itself," part of I mean to get at is that this belief serves as a means to side-step the unyielding requirements of rational reasoning while preserving a pretence of having "followed the rules." It may also be that this belief in part serves as a psychological defence mechanism. If one must later, for whatever reason, realize or admit that one's inference was incorrect, well, the error was not in one's thinking, it was in the evidence: "The evidence spoke for itself, and it lied."
Rational reasoning is hard work and it's dangerous: it may show that we cannot rationally support our beliefs, it may even disconfirm or falsify our beliefs. Rational reasoning requires that we admit (really admit, not merely mouth the words pro forma) that we have a bias, that we *want* this or that assertion to be true. Rational reasoning requires that we realise that we may well overlook disconfirming evidence. Rational reasoning requires that we attempt to be objective about ourselves.
It's so much easier to let "the evidence" "speak for itself."
Comment by Ilion — July 9, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
There's one, and only one, kind of skepticism that can counteract confirmation bias: skepticism directed at one's own beliefs. Skepticism of everyone else's beliefs won't help at all, and may well hurt.
That said, has Shermer applied any skepticism to his belief that science is immune to confirmation bias, or is this something that he has accepted uncritically because it confirms his biases? Sure, that's a good ideal, but the same ideal applies in philosophy, theology, history, etc. Has he actually done any tests to see how well the reality has actually held up to the ideal over time?
Going further, has he stopped to apply any skepticism to the question of whether his reductionist materialsm is even compatible with the existence of truth in the first place, and the ability of humans to reason their way to it? Or rather, has he just assumed it, because he and his enlightened associates are all reductionists, and he finds the position so compelling, and so much the conventional wisdom in his circle, that it doesn't require skepticism?
Comment by Deuce — July 9, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
One of the mild amusements of this ongoing "debate" is supplied by statements such as these. The amusement, of course, derives from the ironic nature of the comments.
Comment by Ilion — July 9, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
July 10th, 2006 at 1:50 am
IlÃon-
Of course they are ironic. I can't speak for Art, but that's why I posted my comment. It's amusing to see people who should have no natural sympathies for relativism sliding towards relativistic arguments.
Comment by Myrmecos — July 10, 2006 @ 1:50 am
July 10th, 2006 at 4:30 am
I find it interesting – and ironic – to see a piece about confirmation bias on an ID blog. In my opinion the whole ID movement is based on an exercise in confirmation bias, "the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions" – the preconception in this case being that there is a designer out there somewhere.
It's not just the peer review process that tries to help scientists avoid confirmation bias, the scientific method itself is based on falsifiability – i.e. trying to disprove your hypotheses – specifically in order to compensate for the known human tendency towards confirmation bias.
Not that either of the above guarantees success in filtering out confirmation bias. They are at least a few steps in the right direction. The steps are there and available for any ID advocates to take, if they would like to.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 10, 2006 @ 4:30 am
July 10th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Denying that religious belief is a source of "confirmation bias" is a pretty ludicrous stance. It's a no-brainer – someone whose perceived existence is beholden to some creed is going to be quite prone to ignore, hide from, or misrepresent reality.
And thus many, many reasons to twist or "remove", by theological fiat, the outcomes of HTR. Or, as teleologists wish to do, legislate HTR out of existence altogether.
Utter rubbish. The "non-teleological perspective" has no emotional or theological investment in the studies of nature. Teleologists, OTOH, come to the table rife with pre-conceived notions, with prior commitments to creeds and cults that inevitably frame their approaches to inquiry. In other words, with a strong prejudicial inclination towards "confirmation bias".
On the one hand, Mike whines about the alleged sociological and psychological factors that may sway scientific opinion against "it looks that way to MikeGene". Then he turns around and tries to claim that factoring "mind" into the equation will minimize "confirmation bias". That's turning things completely on their heads. "Mind" is the source of "confirmation bias", as Mike himself has been trying to argue for years.
More Post Wedge World Bizarro-style thinking – black is white, correct is incorrect, right is wrong. Relativism run amok, to be sure.
Aside to Krauze – you just didn't get it. And I've no inclination to explain things. Sorry.
Comment by Art — July 10, 2006 @ 8:28 am
July 10th, 2006 at 11:20 am
The preconception is that there is design and that design can be discovered. Of course, even evolutionary theory accepts the existence of design. It just claims to have discovered a mechanism capable of generating design absent the involvement of any designer. We're still waiting for the demonstration.
So why do evolutionary biologists try to get around falsifiability?
Comment by Mung — July 10, 2006 @ 11:20 am
July 10th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Please excuse Michael, but there's neither an ounce nor a gram of sociology or psychology (except perhaps that it reveals self-psychology) in your post. Tip your hat to those respective fields of study and then continue along with your apparent naturalism. Is that all Telic Thoughts can expect about social sciences, trying to say they are relevant and then practical silence about *how* they are relevant?
Mike Gene himself seems to be an ironic cheerleader for scientism. "˜Design' to him is apparently a non-scientific or unscientific concept!
Then what, do tell, is your forthcoming book presented to be; using statistics, tables, charts and showcasing research "“ mere opinion?
Anthropology, psychology, sociology, philology "“ these all elude the attention of IDists. As scholaryly fields, they find little welcome, other than Wickert's Moral Darwinism, Campbell's communication rhetoric and the British sociologist called to trial in Dover. Doesn't it make onlookers curious as to why i+d theories pay such lip service to fields of study that actually (really do) focus on "˜intelligent agency'?!
How/why does a movement for cultural (and perhaps scientific) renewal avoid the very fields that study intelligent agency/causality, which is what they are trying to infer? It may be that most IDists simply have an axe to grind or chip on the shoulder regarding Charles Robert Darwin. Or rather, they too insist on scientism where "˜soft sciences' are deemed inferior and useless on the topic of "˜origins' and "˜processes' of life.
This statement is obviously untrue. Ever heard of theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists? All Jews, Christians and Muslims, in addition to most other religious worldviews consider "˜the' origin of life to be teleological. Isn't this obvious? Maybe you're speaking about the dys-teleology of evolutionary theories, whereby you should then try to establish how agnostic evolutionary-i+d views somehow rebalance the field toward teleological thinking.
This just isn't going to get it done, aside from Sal's good intentions. Mike Gene starts with mentioning psychology and sociology and Salvador Cordova soon chimes in with mathematics (though at least he admits that i+d's arguments are largely about negative proofs "“ might wanna then study apophatic theology instead of kataphatics). Sal's black and white scientism seems an odd pair with his concordist reasoning for i+d (ID).
Nevertheless, Mike once again touches on an important question (or questions). Is the "˜confirmation bias' that he mentions an individual or a social thing? Is it conditioned by one's psychological situation or by the social environment they live in? Exploring this would seem to go some distance to understanding why, for example, i+d-evolutionary teleologics started in the USA, instead of elsewhere.
Arago
Comment by g arago — July 10, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
July 10th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
You've got it backwards, Mung. ID theories accept the existence of evolution, not usually vice versa. Idists just won't often say *which evolution* since doing so would split the 'big tent' and its YEC support.
The ORGA/MECHA question is still live, and it doesn't seem that the i+d movement is a leading voice in how to understand the difference. Rather, obscuring the issue of whether or not organisms are merely collections of machines appears to be the common i+d view. (BTW, didn't we have this discussion already 'Are organisms machines?' at TT's several months ago?)
Have you forgotten the linguistic idea of a participle. 'To teach' implies a teacher. 'To build' implies a builder. 'To speak' implies a speaker. 'To hear' implies a hearer. 'To design' implies _ ________? It's not rocket (or computer) science! Let those who have ears use them.
Actually, the demonstration Mung mentions has already happened.
Didn't you hear the expression: if it works, its obsolete!? We're not waiting for it. It's waiting for us.
Comment by g arago — July 10, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
July 10th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Have any of you read von Mises? Many of these posts bring to mind the following, from Human Action:
Is there any doubt the materialist and theist alike categorize opposing views of OOL and OOS with the last sentence above?
Mises goes on to note:
Mises' epistemological insights have resonated with me since I first read them a decade ago. Human Action and Theory and History speak to this thread (The Challenge of Scientism in particular) and I recommend both to participants.
One last quote, from Theory and History, which relates prior posts:
Comment by todd — July 10, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
July 10th, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Art:
I agree. But then, I did not claim or imply that religious belief is not a source of confirmation bias. Obviously, it can be one powerful source. But you originally offered an answer that was much too restrictive and selective. The primary cause of confirmation bias concerning origin beliefs is metaphysics and metaphysics come in different flavors.
If this is true, why do so many with the non-teleological perspective react with such emotion to teleological claims, even to the point of equating teleologists with the "Forces of Darkness" and labeling them as "Liars!"? Anyone who has interacted with non-teleologists about "the studies of nature" knows from experience that the non-teleological perspective does not rid the person of biases and emotion. The non-teleological perspective does not mean you cease to be human and become a Vulcan.
But here you missed the whole argument. The "pre-conceived notions" that might come with a teleological perspective are many and varied, allowing tremendous flexibility and fluidity, where a pre-conceived teleological notion can be changed into another teleological position in light of perceptions about new data. They can range from the position of someone like Ken Miller to someone like Henry Morris (and perhaps beyond). That's an extraordinary range, encompassing no interventions to thousands of interventions. The non-teleologist, on the other hand, is stuck with one rigid position, one that insists that all of nature be explained by "natural law" and chance alone. If you come to the table with the pre-conceived notion that all of natural reality is ultimately explained by these two factors alone, you will actively seek out evidence that supports such a pre-conception because there is no place else to go.
Consider the OOL as an nice illustration. The notion that life was spawned by geochemical processes (law + chance) here on earth is not the output of "HTR." On the contrary, it is belief that is, at the least,historically linked to metaphysics and "HTR" may function largely to prop it up.
OOL research seems prone to confirmation bias:
If the objective is to look for way things "could have happened" and arguments that "support the possibility," this approach is ripe for confirmation bias. Maybe this contributes to the fact that the origin-of-life field is "at times tarnished by questionable data, contentious debates, or even outright quackery."
The point is that once you have the pre-conception that Earth processes spawned Life, it can be maintained indefinitely by exploring the world of "could have happened." What's more, there are built in metaphysical escape hatches. First, there is the Ever-Promissory note. One can appeal to hoped-for discoveries decades, or even centuries from now, maintaining that one day, we'll demonstrate that natural law and chance did indeed spawn some natural feature. In a way, the success of science itself leads to this form of confirmation bias. Second, there is the Lost-In-History explanation, where ultimately, we can appeal to the ancient nature of the event and all the lost information. We know that the Earth spawned Life, but we can hardly be expected to show it. Certainty about the non-teleological perspective on the OOL can be purchased with these two tactics alone, made to appear all the more "˜rational' with the continued search for things that could have possibly happened.
In contrast, the teleologist has the range of views concerning the OOL. If the Ever-Promissory note is ever cashed in, it will become clear that teleologists such as Ken Miller and Michael Denton were closer to the truth. The teleologist refines his/her position.
First, the human brain is wired to detect "whines" through tone of voice and facial expressions, not through words on a computer screen. Thus, the "Mike whines" editorial comment amounts to nothing more than "it looks that way to Art."
Second, we're not talking about alleged sociological and psychological factors nor are we talking about some MikeGene-centric issue. Perhaps I can use this point to bring focus back to the original argument.
I wrote:
No one in this thread has touched this observation and I don't see any reason to think it is off target. Instead of thinking in one dimension about this issue (i.e., some simplistic "religion vs science" notion), we can make things a little more realistic by going in two dimensions. On one dimension, we have tractability, as not all issues and problems are equally tractable. On another dimension, we have emotionality, as not all issues and problems elicit the same level of emotional response. Tractability connects to the outside world while emotionality obviously references the inside world. So what happens when one range of tractability (difficult to test/assess) overlaps with one range of emotion (likely to elicit strong emotional responses)? Are you sure the "self-correcting machinery" of science works? If you think so, is this because you have scientific evidence that shows it does? Or are you speaking from faith?
From here, I relayed some empirical observations that seem relevant to me (and again, no one touched this part of the blog, so there is no reason to think they are irrelevant):
We know about the emotional scientists thanks to the technology known as the Internet. Over the last decade or so, some of us have witnessed, first-hand, a type of peer review in process. Dozens upon dozens of scientists have made it clear they are scientists in order to speak with authority about these issues. But they also gave us a window into their thinking and review process. We have seen lots of emotion. And worse.
As for the editorials, they are matters of public record. Here, we can see scientists actually trying to frighten other scientists and encouraging them to become more political. Thus, the emotion we witness first-hand is actually be spread throughout the scientific community like a contagion. Of course, many in the ID Movement have fed these emotions, but it's not a blame issue here. It's an issue of the implications that follow. Cause-effect. For example, as even Art himself said:
So why are we supposed to ignore such facts about our human reality when science itself is an expression of human reality? Might it be confirmation bias, where those invested in idealistic pre-conceptions about the way science works, choose to ignore or downplay these facts for political or metaphysical reasons?
Comment by MikeGene — July 10, 2006 @ 11:55 pm
July 11th, 2006 at 12:35 am
Speaking for myself, I'd say our reaction has historical roots in how the folks on the creationism side of the aisle have tended to write long screeds blaming we scientists for Hitler, for being immoral Hedonists, for being tools of Satan, along with all the other venom and bile that the creationists have heaped on professional scientists over the years. That sort of treatment does not leave one with a favorable impression, and it is I would argue the main reason why theistic evolutionists like Miller are loathe to associate with ID.
Comment by Myrmecos — July 11, 2006 @ 12:35 am
July 11th, 2006 at 4:14 am
Mike Gene says:
And we all know why that is. It's plain to see in the Wedge Document. We know what the goals of the Discovery Institute – and all the ID advocates there – actually are. For religious reasons they are attacking science, and what's worse they have been targeting school classrooms. People get irate when other people try to teach their kids religion dressed up as science, especially as it's also against the law.
So far neither you nor anyone else has provided any kind of evidence that 'your version' of ID is any different to the rebranded creationism trotted out by the 'cdesign proponentsists' at the DI.
Actually the scientists will follow the evidence wherever it leads. Show us some evidence that your apparently undetectable designer is actually detectable and either exists or did exist. Show us some evidence of the tools the designer uses/used to produce his/her/it's/their designs. Without any evidence you have nothing to be taken seriously, only a confirmation bias towards design.
Where else is there to look? If it's not natural and not detectable how can we study it? What experiments can we perform to disprove our hypotheses? It what way is it amenable to scientific study?
Is there any evidence to support any of these views? Or is it all just wild speculation? You are of course free to believe whatever you like about the OOL, in the mean time the scientists will carry on generating hypotheses and testing them. What's wrong with that?
We will probably never know for sure exactly how the OOL happened, if you want certainty then you shouldn't be looking to science for it because science doesn't deal in the currency of certainty.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 11, 2006 @ 4:14 am
July 11th, 2006 at 6:52 am
Hi Myrmecos,
"It's amusing to see people who should have no natural sympathies for relativism sliding towards relativistic arguments."
You never answered my question: Is Shermer's article, on how people of different opinions pick and choose what evidence to pay attention to, relativistic?
Comment by Krauze — July 11, 2006 @ 6:52 am
July 11th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Myrmecos:
In other words, non-teleologists, like other human beings, can hold a grudge. So like I said to Art, "Of course, many in the ID Movement have fed these emotions, but it's not a blame issue here. It's an issue of the implications that follow. Cause-effect." Why it is that non-teleologists get so emotional about teleological claims is an interesting side-issue. What matters is that they DO get emotional about teleological claims. So what are the implications that might follow from this behavior?
Comment by MikeGene — July 11, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
July 11th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
OD:
Yes, the emotional responses are often tied to wedge-centrism. Yet why think that such emotional, wedge-centric perceptions will not come into play when it comes to assessing "the evidence?" Did non-teleologists figure out how not to be human?
Thus, my views will emotionally upset you and cause you to perceive my words and arguments through the wedge-centric perspective. You don;t have the ability to tease apart my views from the things that make you angry. This fact alone seriously undercuts your challenge:
Evidence is a function of the mind, as it is the mind, and its background beliefs and experiences, that convert raw data into "evidence." Is your mind ready to convert data into something that would serve the Wedge? Given that the Wedge upsets you so much, that does not seem likely.
Comment by MikeGene — July 11, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
July 11th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
OD:
This "leaked" wedge document argument is so lame, when Philip Johnson has published the wedge position quite openly Here.
Comment by bFast — July 11, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Mike Gene says:
Well, the wedge document is evidence. It was used as evidence in the Dover trial, to show the religious basis of ID. And I would guess that a scientists reaction to the output of some gene sequencing (one kind of evidence) and reading the wedge document (another kind of evidence) would be rather different. Do you agree?
As mentioned earlier in the thread, science tries to protect against confirmation bias by using the scientific method and by peer review. It's not infallible but it's definitely a step in the right direction. When reviewing scientific evidence the scientific community are doing their best to avoid bias.
When reviewing ridiculous cant like the wedge document it's not surprising that a strong reaction is caused – and not just for scientists but for lots of other poeple (including judges) too.
That's not the case at all. I am quite capable of judging evidence and/or a rational argument on it's merits alone. I have reviewed the arguments from the DI – IC, CSI and the EF – and I have found them seriously wanting. I've not seen any evidence from the DI at all. You haven't presented any evidence either, or any arguments that can be distinguished from those of Behe, Dembski et al.
I haven't seen any evidence that would do something like this. I haven't seen any evidence for intelligent design period (excluding human design).
On the other hand, I have seen plenty of evidence that ID is merely rebranded creationism, including the wedge document and the 'Pandas' rewrites.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 12, 2006 @ 8:44 am
July 12th, 2006 at 8:54 am
bFast:
Its not 'lame' when its placed in front of a Judge…
Comment by Odd Digit — July 12, 2006 @ 8:54 am
July 12th, 2006 at 9:21 am
More specifically, they get emotional about teleological claims that are advanced as being "science" in the absence of any hypothesis of ID with specific, measurable/verifiable consequences which would have one set of values if the ID hypothesis were true and a distinctly different set of values if ID were false, and in the presence of "supporting" arguments that more or less imply all non-teleological conclusions are driven by a morally-corrupt adherence to godless materialism. Purely subjective criteria like "I know design when I see it," when presented as "scientific" standards of evaluation, may also provoke emotional responses if repeatedly advanced despite corrections by people who understand science better than that.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 12, 2006 @ 9:21 am
July 12th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Hello Todd,
Yes, I've read Ludwig von Mises. His library at the website you link to is quite accessible. Actually, his insights do, it is agreed, seem quite relevant in several places to the discussions here at TT's and elsewhere in the creation, evolution and i+d, or science and religion/spirituality discourses generally speaking"¦even if von Mises was a "˜mere' economist-plus.
One ought to try telling that to Dembski or Johnson, who just don't seem willing (in reverse) to untangle their references to i+d when it comes to OOL or OOS versus when it could be transferred to human-made things. The mousetrapology fallacy of ID is revealed by von Mises quite correctly.
In "The Challenge of Scientism," in the first paragraph, von Mises notes "The field of the sciences of human action is the orbit of purpose and of conscious aiming at ends; it is teleological." This is the reason I asked above why TT's and/or the IDM don't put more effort into including "˜sciences of human action' or "˜social sciences' in their musings. Dembski's biology-first approach is more than a bit ironical. It seems more like Darwin-fixation, i.e. personal dissent to me! To give him credit, MG doesn't seem so fixated on Darwin, Dembski or Johnson. Behe, however, is another Genean story.
BTW, I wonder if anyone out there could suggest a first usage of the word "˜scientism' other than von Mises's use in 1957. It seems to apply regularly and aptly today with many persons/sides on themes related to the above discourses. Has it been discussed in a feature thread at TT's?
This is an example of circular reasoning, whereby logic is applied to tools, their structure and order. It reminds of how some people argue that things are the way they are simply because "˜they evolved' that way. It doesn't help in the explanation of actual thing-transformation. Did they come to be (acquired) only physically, or also socially, culturally, politically, psychologically, spiritually, etc.? Reduction to physiologism or biologism don't seem feasible after Behe's or Wolfram's IC arguments.
Perhaps there are also places that von Mises, like Dembski and Behe, did not go in his studies. And these places are thus best left for others to carry on where someone else left off.
Arago
p.s. as for the last quote from "Theory and History," perhaps von Mises confuses positivism with other isms. When he says, "The experimental methods of the natural sciences are the only appropriate methods for any kind of investigation," he actually goes against the founder of positive philosophy, August Comte, who felt that a "˜science of society,' that is of reorganizing society for improvement was indeed possible. Comte did reject psychology, but then again, as a field of scholarly/scientific study, psychology was rather un(der)developed in Comte's time.
Also, this von Mises quotation seems relevant for recent TT's discussions:
And this, especially for Mike Gene's quest for depersonalizing (non-scientific) objectivity:
Comment by g arago — July 12, 2006 @ 10:48 am
July 12th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Mike writes that no one has answered his post:
Indeed, there are some elements of truth likely found therein. When topics related to i+d begin to short circuit, straying into emotion appears to increase, especially for such things that are difficult to test.
For example, I still find it hard to distinguish *which* intelligent design, ID, i+d, Intelligent Design, intelligent Design, Intelligent design, is continually spoken about by a commentator, scientist or religious person. Is it IC-centric, specification-centric, pattern-recognition-centric, wedge-centric, etc.? For example, Mike says i+d is not a theory, it is not 'science.' Salvador otoh believes it's both.
Let me verify this dilemma by alerting readers to a comment made recently by Louise Freeman, Psychology Dept:
"As I recall from the Francis Collins talk I attended last fall () he distinguished between 'intelligent design' as a religious belief (which is presumably held by anyone who believes God is the Creator) and 'Intelligent Design' the 'scientific theory' which claims that this design is detectable empirically."
Does Mike Gene believe that "˜design' is a "˜scientific theory' that is "˜detectable empirically?' If so, does it include non-human-made "˜design' or just human-made "˜design' that can be detected by detectives? How could one confirm it either way without being design-centric or intelligence-centric?
G. Arago
Comment by g arago — July 12, 2006 @ 10:54 am
July 12th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
OD:
What, no lame evidence has ever been placed in front of a judge? Oh, you're rich!
Philip Johnson's wedge position is clear — and public. He asserts that the accepance, or lack of it, of the theory of evolution has sociological implications. To deny this is narrow.
That a number of the players at DI have a clear religious perspective is also clear. Dembski, for instance, is currently an instructor at a theological college, and he writes treatises attempting to unify Biblical interpretation with ID. Others at DI, however, are clearly not religiously motivated. Behe, for instance, is a Catholic. As such, his religious perspective does not move him to avoid an evolutionary position whatsoever.
As I get to know the ID community on this and other forums, I find that the ID position is a very poor filter of a person's theological position. I find protestant Christians, sure. I also find Catholics — despite the Catholic view that "'evolutionary theories' are more than just speculation." I find people with all manner of very personal, and often wierd theological positions as well. The agnostic community of IDers is significant. Consider DaveScott, the most active moderator over at Uncommon Descent (UD). His position is clearly agnostic. I have even found some athiests, despite the obvious challenges of being both athiest and ID.
I remember recently chatting on the UD forum recently with a Ph.D. who did his thesis on ATP synthase. Once he was done, his science had forced him to abanond his athiestic position, to move to an agnostic position.
Despite the decision of a recent judge, despite the "leaked" wedge document — now available at amazon as a complete book, it is clear to me that ID does not promote any particular religious view. It does, however, make it less "respecable" to be a scientist and an athiest, and conversely more respectable to be a scientist and a theist. It also makes it more respectable to suggest that there is a higher moral code than the survival of the fittest.
Comment by bFast — July 12, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Could someone clear this up for me. Was there actually some internal memo about the dreaded "wedge" that was leaked and then P. Johnson's book was released because, oh well, the cats out of the bag anyway?
Comment by samohth — July 12, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
bFast:
Well, I don't know much about Dave Scott, and there are many points of interpretation which present issues for me with Dembski and Behe's particulars (but they've got good stuff from which to extrapolate). I do appreciate that you've recognized the diversity of backgrounds and positions represented in the broad "community" of ID supporters. Thank you.
All any of us can do is try to express – in writing, in English – how we see things. That's never an easy project, but if you see things differently from what some 'outside' wannabe authority would impose upon you, learning how to express such things is required. We're all learning to not "just say no," but to say "no, because…".
Not a one of us is in possession of Absolute Truth on these issues. What I like a lot is that there is represented here on Telic Thoughts a significant swath of opinion and knowledge and open minds, as opposed to the monolithic metaphysics of Evangelical Atheism. We already know their issues are theological, as they make no secret of it. Ours don't have to be.
I'll take whatever gods/God/Designers A-Z care to give me as clues to their existence. I'm not invested theologically, though I'm certainly not agnostic. Life looks to me to be intelligently designed. I could write that off to divine interference (and at OOL there may be no alternative), but I don't. Whenever a theological assertion is made in these debates (pro or con), I call to mind Reinhold Niebuhr's immortal words:
It is unwise for a Christian to claim too much knowledge of the furniture of heaven or the temperature of hell."
Comment by Joy — July 12, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Let me also add, I am in that "the Bible is the inspired Word of God" camp myself. As such let me say that ID theory and "Bible-believing" Christianity are a very uncomfortable fit even if you interpret the Genesis 1 days as long. The greatest issues, as I see them, are: the issue of evil, the issue of death preceeding Adam's sin, the whole flood thing (I have found no evidence that man's population was reduced to 7 within the last 10,000 years), and the suggestion that the ancients lived a very long time.
I personally reconcile this conflict by acknowledging the conflict, and by recognizing that a Big Bang cosmology and an ID created life is in less conflict than the steady state theory and the theory of evolution are. Ie, we don't have a good match between science and my faith yet, but we're at least moving in the right direction.
Alas, if ID is not a good fit with Christian theology, it becomes difficult to suggest that the cart of theology is before the horse of scientific discovery. This accusation can easily be made of the YEC community, but not of the ID community. This ID thing is hardly the product of Christians trying to squeeze science into their little mould.
Further, Joy, I personally am very pleased that ID is a big tent position. Its much more likely to be effective that way.
Comment by bFast — July 12, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
bFast,
I generally (80%) believe in a young creation. But ID, imho, is a more comfortable fit that you may think, that is because, unlike YEC theology, ID does not claim to be infallible. It is willing to make assumptions for the sake of argument, and willing to admit it is wrong. It's been my experience, that because of this quality, it has a better chance of drawing people to the truth and helping them stay there.
Paul Nelson, myself, many other pro-ID are quite comfortable making statements about a Cambrian explosion that may not have happened hundreds of millions of years ago. We offer in the context of "for the sake of argument".
Anti-IDists strike me as hardliners. They equate their weakly supported ideas to the theory of gravity. I don't recall a single ID proponent being quite so emphatic.
Finally, ID is the proper context to affirm 2 verses in the Bible Romans 1:20 and John 10:38 (if you can't believe the words, you can believe the works). The Bible, IMHO, suggest even fallen and misguided men, ought to be able to recognize design with a very basic approach to truth decoupled from theology or even Christian pre-conceptions.
IMHO, God promises that the world will, independent of even the sacred texts He gave us, affirm His existence. If theologians censor every idea that's contrary to their pre-conceptions, they are circumventing the self-correcting scientific process which will actually allow the truthfullness of God's promies to show forth as we study nature.
For science to succeed, it must be allowed to occasionally make mistakes and self-correct itself without having to be subject to theological censorship. And it should be given that freedom for the very fact it does not claim to be infallible, but that it trusts that nature is architected to help the scientific method eventually arrive at truth. Theology-free science can be found trustworthy in the eyes of Chrisitans, and some respects more so than theology-infested science (like, well….I'll hold my tongue).
Think about it, all things equal, which arguments carry more weight for people like us regarding evolution, especially when we are doubting:
1. An agnostic like Michael Denton harshly critizing evoluton
2. A theologian with no scientific training arguing from theology
For me personally, an agnostic who has little stake in promoting religion but who is critical of evolutionary theory is more convincing to me than a theologian. And #1 is consistent with what we would expect if nature is as the Bible says, namely, design is self-evident.
So for me, with some exceptions like this post, I side with Phil Johnson rather than Ken Ham.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 12, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Which is not actually a logical/rational mode of thought; it's another variant of evaluating the argument according the the circumstance of the arguer rather than by the content of the argument.
Comment by Ilion — July 12, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
The first time I heard Intelligent Design, even as a Christian, I thought along the lines of "creationism in tuxedo". Behe's book made sense to me and made me re-think ID. Oddly, ID has made me more empathetic with YECers than previously. I probably would still go a few rounds with those who take, say, Naoh's Ark as something other than metaphor. At the beginning of Lent my brand of xtianity reads Genesis and I was reminded of the simple beauty of it and I thought after all it does get the order of things roughly right from a big bang perspective. For a long time now theology has had to change to accomodate science. If Intelligence is a cause, not an effect, I wonder how it would change science and us if we believed that? Go Wedge!
Comment by samohth — July 12, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Thank you for pointing out, my argument was not a logical/rational mode of thought, it was more of what one would do when one wishes to form a tentative conclusion when one has limited data. Being overly rigorous in ones quest for truth can lead to rigor mortis, imho.
When I read Denton 4 years ago, I found it more trustworthy than say (gasp) a lot of things at AiG. I did not have time to track down every citation in Denton's work. As 4 years have passed since I read Denton, I have found AiG to be fast and loose with the scholarship. Lot's of confirmation bias in their writing!
I regret to say it, but I've come to have a high distrust of theology-infested origins "science". I have found that the scholarship is often horrible and will embarrass one in debate.
ID's theology-free science is much better.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 12, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
I'm guilty of this irrational thinking also but it is hard to know how much your own logic is swayed by your own philosophical and religious beliefs. Is my affinity to ID based on logic or wishful thinking? Don't you think it helps somehow that there are some who don't share those beliefs yet come to similar conclusions?
Comment by samohth — July 12, 2006 @ 11:05 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Samohth:
Very well put. I do find it comforting that people with significantly different theological perspectives than my own come to the conclusion that the science is better explained by ID. If it were not so, I would find it reasonable to conclude that the ID position is driven by theology rather than by evidence. I find it particularly intriguing when a Ph.D. abandons athiesm because he was forced to by his Ph.D. thesis as was exemplified on the UD website.
Comment by bFast — July 12, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
July 13th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
This is my first time commenting at Telic thoughts. So, let me introduce myself . I am a true life designer. I design heavey construction machinery for a living, something that requires that I think rigorously not only about how something functions and is utilized but also how in the world are we going to manufacture this thing. No doubt it is my aptitude as a designer that attracted me to ID, which I think raises some interesting questions & ideas.
However, I would not describe myself as an ID advocate. I think as a scientific theory ID over reaches. I think ID's value(and it does have some real value)is from a metaphysical (philosophical/theological) perspective.
However, what amazes me after following the argument on line for several years is some of the utter hostility and contempt towards anything that even suggests a designing intelligence of any kind. These self described defenders of science seem tireless in their efforts to banish ID from the face of the earth. Why is this? Maybe one of these critics could enlighten me? Fair minded criticism is good… shrill hysteria and conspiracy theories strike me as totally irrational. Are you saying new idea's in science are dangerous? I don't understand that kind of thinking. IMO that is exactly the kind of thinking that is driven by some kind of confirmation bias.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 13, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
July 13th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Hello, John. Welcome to Telic Thoughts. You said:
You would find in the history of science that human nature is impossible to separate from the endeavor. This means that individuals will naturally harbor certain loyalties toward mentors and teachers (and their points of view), and that upon gaining recognition in any field, individual scientists will protect their "turf" from encroachment by the young bucks out to make their own names and fortunes. It has always been thus, and some of the turf wars of the past couple of hundred years have been outrageously nasty, deadly to more than one brilliant individual, career-destroying and ridiculously extended beyond all reason and evidence that the reigning "orthodoxy" is flat-out wrong.
It is a penchant of human nature to invest faith in the views, beliefs and pronouncements of some authority figure, particularly those authorities who take the time to notice an acolyte. This penchant works in all realms of collective human endeavor, including religion, politics and science. People tend to assert knowledge they do not actually have, but take as 'given' because one of their heroes says it is so. Science is intelligently designed by human beings to be provisional at all times – there is no such thing as 'Absolute Truth' in any of it. The moment someone asserts their hypothetical guesswork or provisional theory is absolute is the moment you can safely walk away from the empty boast.
If there is design in life biology will eventually get around to it – primarily because a design paradigm would provide a seriously missing element [predictability] that would make it far more useful than Neodarwinism. The measure of science's power is its usefulness. When science's provisional positions become useless they are properly relegated to the dumpster of history.
At the present time Neodarwinism – developed in the 1930s – is being challenged by new evidence incoming from fields where new technologies of observation and manipulation are being deployed. Evolution is no longer considered a simple matter of random mutation sifted by natural selection. There's a lot of funding (money) and power (authority) at stake for the 'old guard', and they will defend their faith investments in the old paradigm as if their very lives depended on it. They will lose in the end, but most True Believers will probably die off before it's over.
It is not a sure bet that any design-like paradigm will take Neodarwinism's place, but design is an up-and-coming contender. If it ever does become dominant, it'll be as provisional and subject to falsification as Neodarwinism was before it.
Comment by Joy — July 13, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
July 13th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Joy is right to some extent: the turf wars fought within science can indeed be brutal and unreasonable. However, they rarely reach the level of outright vitriol (from both sides) that is so frequently inspired by the evolution wars. Clearly the debate over evolutionary theory touches something deeper than most standard scientific debates.
I think the reason is this: in science, both sides share a common language and mode of thinking that allows them to communicate on a reasonably level playing field. There is a set of core assumptions, rarely spoken but almost universally accdepted amongst scientists – things like the assumption that the universe follows logical rules, is amenable to empirical analysis, and so on. However, many of these core values are not shared by a large proportion of anti-evolutionists (by which I mean creationists and the more hardcore ID proponents). Creationists in particular usually believe that the literal truth of their Bible is to be trusted over the empirical evidence, which is anathema to a scientific worldview. When core assumptions are not shared, discussion proves difficult, and the resulting frustration spills over into outright hostility. This hostility can then extend to "off-target" attacks on individuals that appear to be using the same arguments as anti-evolutionists (such as moderate IDists like Mike Gene, who tend not to be anti-evolution per se). It's classic tribal thinking – us vs them.
Another thing to remember is that many of those who argue on the pro-evolution side are not scientists, and indeed often have a fairly poor grounding in the actual science of evolution. These individuals are arguing based on almost pure metaphysics – they have the same deep-seated cognitive commitment to their ideas as the creationists do. It's not surprising that the clash between these individuals and the equally unyielding creationist tribe is characterised by irrationality, hyperbole and character attacks.
It's important to separate this tribal warfare from the actual science underlying evolutionary theory, which is deeper and more sophisticated than the simplistic and outdated models enthusiastically propounded by most self-proclaimed defenders of evolution. Modern evolutionary theory has come into its own over the last decade, and is now being applied with considerable success to the waves of genomic data emerging from labs all over the world. Science certainly hasn't ruled out certain versions of ID – the front-loaded evolution advocated by individuals here at Telic Thoughts is still consistent with the evidence, for instance – but the main tenets of evolutionary theory, particularly common descent, are looking more vastly more solid now than they were a decade ago.
Comment by Mesk — July 13, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
July 13th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
And here, if we wish to understand, we see exactly why there exists
"… the level of outright vitriol (from both sides) that is so frequently inspired by the evolution wars.
Comment by Ilion — July 13, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
July 13th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Mesk:
Hi, Mesk. I certainly agree with you that the level of vitriol in this debate is extraordinarily high, but it's not particularly surprising. The subject is origins, and the competitors are, quite simply, Lowly Origins versus Great Origins. With one side overanxious to claim absolute status, and the other trying to hang on to thousands of years' worth of absolute status.
This turf war is different from most, because it's playing in public TO the public. The gratuitous and unnecessary "unguided, purposeless" qualifiers are a direct challenge to the dominant worldview of humanity [Great Origins]. Neodarwinism is often touted purely as a tool for evangelization of a metaphysical belief system seeking to eradicate religious beliefs (per Dawkins, Wilson, Myers, etc., etc., etc.). It was thus 100% predictable that strong reaction would be generated among the millions of people in this country whose traditional faith informs and guides their lives, and who feel no particular reverence for science, its egotistical practitioners, or its provisional theories.
I realize it's frustrating to many scientists that despite a semester's worth of biology in the 9th or 10th grade, most people who can pass a test on the pablum they're taught choose not to believe in it. That's human nature. Scientists can learn to live with reality and its frustrating inhabitants if they try. Or not. No skin off anyone else's teeth.
Comment by Joy — July 13, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
July 14th, 2006 at 12:33 am
I'm sorry, Ilion – are you capable of adding anything substantive to the discussion, or will we just continue to be treated to your cryptic sniping? I mean, you could actually explain what you think is wrong with my comment, or would that be too much effort for you?
Comment by Mesk — July 14, 2006 @ 12:33 am
July 14th, 2006 at 6:48 am
Hello John_a_designer. You say:
There are many reasons why scientists – and many other reasonable people too – get a bit irate when ID or any other form of creationism is mentioned.
There is a long history of attacks on science in general (and often evolution in particular) from strongly religious people who seem to think that science is a threat to their way of life. There have been a number of court cases which have tried and failed to establish that creationism or 'creation science' or ID is science and so should be taught in classrooms, or tried and failed to show that 'evolution is religion' or 'evolution is only a theory'. People get annoyed when other people try to indoctrinate their kids with religious nonsense in science class. It happens to be illegal too.
There have been numerous attacks on the character and reputation of scientists, often unfounded and verging on libellous. There have been comparisons drawn between scientists and the Nazis and the Soviets. There are all kinds of uninformed opinion spouted all over the internet, which often represents extreme misunderstandings of the actual science. This is also extremely frustrating for scientists who are already pretty unhappy about a very poor level of general science education.
There is also a trend of (completely unfounded) triumphalism that does the rounds on many creationist and ID sites, "evolution is on it's last legs" etc etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. The theory of evolution is in rude health, thousands of advances are being made every year, and all the latest evidence – particularly the genetic evidence – is merely confirming the known evolutionary mechanisms over and over again. The ID movement on the other hand is yet to publish any meaningful research whatsoever.
All of this adds up to quite a backlog of reasons why the pro-science community is running out of patience…
As for conspiracy theories – there is nothing 'theoretical' about the Wedge Document. It states quite clearly the goal of the DI – of overturning science and replacing it with religion and teaching that to our kids instead.
There is of course nothing wrong whatsoever with new ideas in science. Science thrives on new ideas. They do however have to be testable and falsifiable, so we can devise new experiments to find some evidence to actually help to confirm or falsify the idea. I personally can't generate any predictions or testable experiments from 'an unknown designer did it using unknown means at an unknown time for unknown reasons', so the 'theory' of ID is not scientifically useful to me.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 14, 2006 @ 6:48 am
July 14th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Mesk, are *you* capable of adding anything substantive to any of the discussions? Or will you just increasingly trot out the shopworn (and false, and self-serving) stereotypes that serve as "thought" for so many 'modern evolutionary theorists?' Because, to be quite blunt, that's the thing I've been noticing about your posts of late.
.
Is there *really* such a great mystery here? Do you *really* need it to be spelled out for you? What I mean is, you're so bright (especially compared to all us'n Ignernt Creationists), you're so reasonable (especially in comparison to those of us who so unreasonably decline to believe something that isn't even about the truth), you're so straight-forward (especially in comparison to my cryptic sniping). Surely, with all these advantages, you ought to be able to comprehend the content of your own post.
.
You know, it's all well and fine to position oneself as being against "outright vitriol," but the pose looks rather hollow when coupled with comments such as these:
LOL.
.
But, of course, this is not quite the truth. In fact, "scientists" (or, perhaps I should say "biologists," of whom I understand there is a long-standing question whether they are scientists in the first place) increasingly disdain logic; they increasingly assert that "biology is too messy" to be constrained by mere logic.
.
You know, the thing about using logic is that you can't pick and choose; you can't invoke logic when doing so gets you to the answer you want and disregard it when that's what it takes to get the answer you want. I realize that statement will seem overly harsh to many "scientists," but there you have it.
.
On top of which, the very concept that the universe is a logical place came from "creationists." You folk didn't invent the concept, and you certainly don't own it.
And just what would be this "empirical evidence?" As most of you here realize, by "empirical evidence" you mean "theory-laden interpretation(s) of some evidence."
.
And just what is this "scientific worldview" you speak so highly of? There is, in fact, no such thing: 'science' is not a worldview, 'science' cannot give you a worldview. 'Science' is a tool; 'science' may (sometimes) be said to be a method or methodology [though, it should be recognized that there is no such thing as "the" scientific method]; 'science' may (sometimes) be said to be the aggregate of knowledge learned via scientific methods.
.
Worldviews are metaphysics/philosophy/religion.
.
'Science' is not truth and is not about truth. Who can differentiate a scientific statement which just happens to be true from one which just happens to be false? And how? This stupor mundi certainly can't use 'science' to differentiate; 'science' generated both statements in the first place.
.
So, 'creationists' trust that the statements they believe to be true are literally true.
.
On the other hand, "scientists" apparenty believe that 'creationists' are intellectually flawed for declining to believe the truth of statements which they (the "scientists") know for a fact were generated by a methodology which cannot be used to differentiate true statements from false statements, and which statements with regularity contradict prior statements of that methodology.
.
Oh, yeah! That mindset will really work at dampening the "outright vitriol!"
.
This is a fine example of tribal thinking … along with a not too subtle attempt at using a "wedge strategy."
.
The entire paragraph starting with "I think the reason is this:" was bilge.
.
.
Now that we've disposed (let us hope) the bilge, let's examine some more of the fine reasoning on display:
By "pro-evolution," Mesk surely means 'pro-modern evolutionary theory.' But hey! 'Modern evolutionary theorists' do always seem to have such a difficult time differentiating their own statements about "evolution" from "evolution" (whatever they happen mean by that term when they do manage to use it to mean something other than "statements about "evolution"" — there's a reiterative statement for ya')
.
So, these Defenders of Science aren't "scientists." So what? The problem isn't that they're not scientists, the problem is that they mistakenly believe that "Science" = "Truth." They are indeed arguing (to misuse the word) metaphysics, but that's not the problem. The problem is that they refuse to see what they're doing. The problem is that they (as does Mesk) think "Science" is superior to metaphysics; they typically believe that "Science" gives truer truth than any other field of knowledge possibly can.
.
The problem is that they are irrational. Defenders of Science typically "define" rationality according to the conclusions reached rather than the process used. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of the truth of the matter.
So, "the actual science of evolution" is apparently too diffucult for the Defenders of Science to understand? Man! I'd have sworn that I'm always being told that it's nothing but my own willful ignorance that prevents me understanding (and thereby believing the truth of) "the actual science of evolution." All this time and whodda thunk?
Is this supposed to be meaningful? I mean, really! "Deeper and more sophisticated?" Come on! That's emotive language; that's the sort of language one uses when speaking of meaning; that's the sort of language one uses to make one's philosophical opinions sound more profound than they really are.
.
Why is it "important to separate this tribal warfare from the actual science underlying evolutionary theory?" Is there something *true* about this constantly-asserted "actual science" or this claimed-to-exist "evolutionary theory?" Are we supposed to *care* about these things?
.
And what if we don't care about these things? What if we don't believe these things are true? What if we don't believe it's worth a minute of our lives wasted trying to (somehow!) figure out just which parts are true and which are not? What if we just don't give a damn about the alleged importance of these things?
.
Will gravity stop working? Maybe the earth will turn flat? Or, is it that biology will stop working if some of us decline to get on the bandwagon? (Yet, it does seem that "biology" is having a hard time of it among those who are on the bandwagon).
.
"… the simplistic and outdated models enthusiastically propounded by most self-proclaimed defenders of evolution.?"
You know, I could *swear* I've been saying this all along. Yet, somehow, I'm "ignorant" and "willfully ignorant." And "wicked."
Only just now? I could *swear* I was being taught 'modern evolutionary theory' (no doubt simplistic and outdated, even then) 40 years ago.
.
But, how do we know that "Modern evolutionary theory has come into its own over the last decade?" Is it now *true* in some way. I mean, is it now somehow "truer" than it was before? And how do we know that? This is supposedly 'science,' is it not? Did "science" come to equal "truth" sometime in the past decade?
Only just now? And why should we believe you folk now?
.
It seems to me that if "the main tenets of evolutionary theory" are "looking more vastly more solid now than they were a decade ago" that can only mean that a decade ago they were "looking more vastly [less] solid [then] than they [are now]." Sur-praize, sur-praize, sur-praize! And yet, we ignorant and wicked "creationists" were wicked and ignorant even then. Even before.
==============
Now, as is the custom, Mesk has used a lot of words to attribute "truthiness" to 'modern evolutionary theory' without actually literally asserting that it is true — you're supposed to do that in the privacy of your own mind. After all, you surely don't want to be like those intellectually inferior "creationists" who prefer to believe that "their Bible" is true rather than believing in the "truthiness" of 'modern evolutionary theory.'
Tell us, Mesk, is 'modern evolutionary theory' true? I don't mean "truthy," I mean *true* This is a simple yes-or-no type question, no tricks at all.
Oops! I take that back, the follow-up question is a bit tricky. If the answer is 'yes,' then how do you know it's true? Do you have a basis more rational (or, at minimum, as rational) as the "creationists" do for believing "their Bible" is true?
If the answer is not 'yes,' then why do you care that those terrible, ignorant, wicked "creationists" decline to believe it's true?
Comment by Ilion — July 14, 2006 @ 9:17 am
July 14th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
This raises an important point. If 'design is self-evident' then what is ID (what I prefer to call i+d, since it refers to a theory and not a fact) actually contributing to science or our collective or individual knowledge? Is it busy pointing out what is self-evident? The design-in-biology stream (i.e. the IDM) is markedly different (linguistically, for starters) from design-in-human-made-things, which is what John_A_Designer *actually does* (presumably) for a living.
Let's take an example:
John, would you say, in your opinion, that the construction machinery that you design, in any way 'evolves' into existence? That is, are there any 'evolutionary processes' involved in their coming into being (or having become)?
If not, you would be living proof of a field where 'things that don't evolve' can be discussed without using evolutionary language.
On the other hand, whether or not a person *must* choose the metaphor/concept of *design* to express their views, is another matter entirely. 'Design' to a sociologist, psychologist, or anthropologist, for example, is sheer nonsense or simply retrograde.
Regards,
Arago
Comment by g arago — July 14, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 2:27 am
Ilion,
Thanks for your response – I now have something I can use to figure out where you're coming from.
I'm going to focus on the areas where the discussion may potentially be constructive, and set aside the areas in which I think little progress can be made. Feel free to disagree with my choices.
This doesn't prevent science from being used to differentiate true from false. Hypotheses are tested by using them to make predictions, and then testing those predictions against reality. With caveats, the closer the predictions align with reality, the closer the hypothesis is to being true.
There are no guarantees or certainties; science is not Truth, it's a system for gradually, clumsily uncovering the best possible approximation to reality.
I didn't call you intellectually flawed, Ilion. I said that creationists tend to have different priorities when it comes to examining evidence in order to build statements about reality. And the fact that scientific truth is provisional is an advantage, IMO. Being certain about what is true means you are inflexible when faced with evidence that challenges your beliefs.
Yes, I do, and I don't apologise for it – it's a useful shorthand.
Yes, that's true – I do believe that science, while still imperfect and subjective, is a better arbiter of truth than any other system developed by humans. I can defend this belief to some extent by pointing to the track record of science in uncovering useful facts about the way the universe operates, but it's not a perfect argument. I think it's a better argument than can be made for any other system for uncovering truth (e.g. revealed religion), but I'm not going to try to convince you of this.
I don't recall ever using any of those terms to describe you, Ilion, but if I ever did I strongly doubt it was because you pointed out that most pro-evolutionists don't actually understand evolutionary theory.
It's not that it is "truer" (since "true" is an either/or concept), but rather that it appears to be converging on something closer to the truth "“ in other words, the predictions of MET are fitting more and more precisely with observed reality. This suggests that the underlying model is probably a good representation of the way biology works.
Sure, the evidence supporting MET was weaker a decade ago than it is now. This doesn't mean that most creationist criticisms of MET a decade ago weren't laughably off-base (although I wouldn't call them "wicked"). Or perhaps you can explain the logic indicating otherwise?
Sure. My answer is no.
For the record, I'll point out again that I don't believe most creationists are terrible or wicked; I do think most are rather ignorant of evolutionary biology, but only in the same sense that I am ignorant of Christian theology.
And I don't care if creationists don't accept evolutionary biology "“ seriously. Evolutionary biology is not relevant to most people in their everyday lives; a creationist plumber is just as good at her job as a plumber who accepts evolutionary theory. I think evolution should be taught in schools because it's the best currently available scientific explanation of biological diversity, and I think creationism shouldn't be taught in science class because it isn't science. But if parents wish to teach their children that humans were created by God less than ten thousand years ago, fine. Most of the arguments that widespread belief in creationism undermines scientific progress are wildly exaggerated, IMO.
I don't proselytise for evolution on these forums or anywhere else (although I used to, many years ago). I'm here to learn, not preach. I present my beliefs and arguments so that people like you can criticise them. By uncovering the logical weaknesses in my beliefs, I hope to eventually converge on a more accurate picture of reality.
Comment by Mesk — July 15, 2006 @ 2:27 am
July 15th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
OD :
While I am sure you are sincere in your belief about yourself, there is no evidence that you have this capability. On the contrary, since you have made it clear that The Wedge greatly upsets you, and you cannot see a difference between me and the Wedge, logic dictates that my views upset you. And there is evidence that indicates you are indeed upset by my views.
Given that your brain processes ID claims in an emotional manner, I don't consider your perceptions all that meaningful.
Sure. That's your confirmation bias.
Comment by MikeGene — July 15, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
However to be fair, I note here
For the record I'm for creationists and IDers being schooled in evolutionary theory. I take pride in them knowing it better than the average scientist.
And one thing as far as confirmation bias, people assume that since I'm a creationist that I don't want evolution taught in public schools or anywhere, or that I might have supported the nonsense by the Dover school board.
I sense lot's of confirmation bias based on stereotypes being directed at me and the creationist who are also IDers.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 15, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Mike, Yes, I see the difference between you and the Wedge. You are not living and working in Seattle (or so it seems), in the offices with walls of wood that are Discovery Institute. It should be obvious, however, that you are indeed supporting *some* of the goals of the Wedge document, just by speaking as you speak, in favour of some kind of hunch hypothesis (it appears to be so it therefore *ontologically* is), which just happens to make use of concepts coined by members of the DI.
Sal, you are a wonderful example of paradox! Teach evolution, just don't *believe* in it. Is that the approach? But the big question made for your position is: *which evolution*? You want evolution taught in schools, just like you want gravity and uncertainty principle and equilibrium theory taught. Good science; good theology. But nowhere yet have I seen you say *which evolution*. Is it just Darwinian or neo-Darwinian versions of evolution that you reject? Somewhere I read you saying that 'technology evolves'! Is it true?
It seems that both Salvador's and Mike's confirmation biases correspond on exactly this issue.
Arago
Comment by g arago — July 15, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
G arago:
No, g arago, that is obvious to you. And of course it is. You are the one who comes to the table seeking to conform the world to your wedge-centric stereotypes and labels. For a social scientist, you have a rather impoverished view of human reality (propped up by reliance on the Wedge Conspiracy as an intellectual crutch).
But thank you for supporting the observation that many critics, and you, do hear "Wedge" when MikeGene speaks. Given that the Wedge upsets them so, it is definitely something of relevance as they pronounce judgment upon me.
Comment by MikeGene — July 15, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
g arago:
Oh, good greeblies, Greg! You can't police provisional theory in science with a ridiculous "guilt by association" fallacy extrapolated beyond all possible relevance. What in the world would be the point?
I think there's a distinct possibility that the major evolutionary mechanisms are not RM-NS, but something way more self-organized, adaptationally directed, and 'intelligently' organized (depending on the definition of 'intelligence'). There's lots of evidence on file and incoming that suggests the very same thing. It's not that Neodarwinism is under challenge from Creationists that makes it so marginal and superfluous to the useful practice of biology, medicine and bioengineering. It's that it's so marginal and superfluous per the applicable job description of science FOR practical (applicational) purposes. It's been that way for a good while so change is overdue. Physics has been there for even longer, so I'm not surprised or upset by the prospect of change. Only the emotionally and/or metaphysically invested care.
That I strongly suspect that non-darwinian (and non-neodarwinian) mechanisms play a supervenient role in evolution doesn't make me a religious fundamentalist, a "Wedgie," a Creationist or even a heretic. It just means that enough significant (to evolution) non-darwinian mechanisms are now known to convince me that there's way more going on. I've wagered exactly NONE of my metaphysical investments on the outcome, I'm just cheering the opposition because RM-NS isn't very useful. And because I am appalled by the gutter level of debate on the subject – in public! And because I've seen some evil, evil things done in order to protect scientific turf that should never have been protected in the first place.
I care no more for Creationists' metaphysical beliefs than I care for PZ Myers' metaphysical beliefs. What I do know is that Creationists have as much right to their metaphysical beliefs as PZ does, and they're all on some ideological crusade they'll never be able to justify to me. I'd relegate the lot of them to some corner of Antarctica to fight it out amongst themselves if they prove themselves unable to share the world with the rest of us…
But that's not my life's goal. I don't care what PZ believes, but I'll ridicule him when he comes across like the wannabe mind-tyrant he is. I don't care what the Rushdooneys' or the DI believe either, but I'll keep 'em from shredding the Constitution wherever I can. It's always about power. No one has power we aren't willing to give to them, and I'm notoriously difficult to convince. Unlike them, I'm not seeking the power to impose my metaphysical beliefs. That's a significant difference you don't seem to appreciate sometimes.
Why is that?
Comment by Joy — July 15, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Isn't this thread about confirmation bias and not about the Wedge? Then let's stay on-topic!
No, I don't hear "˜Wedge' when you write/speak. Actually, I rarely think of it. And in fact, when it comes to ID (what I prefer to call i+d) Mike Gene is in my view a rather small player, completely separate/isolated from the DI and the IDM. Sorry if this bursts your bubble. Science, philosophy and theology all live on without Mike Gene's front-loaded ID-Evolutionary hunch.
Honestly, Mike. I really think you should go to Church, Synagogue or Mosque tomorrow. Then you'd hear a (hopefully eloquent) Pastor speaking for real about the Designer that you don't want to accept exists!
Are you suggesting you support *none* of the goals of the Wedge document?
To fork me into a 'wedge-centric' camp is quite insulting (and obviously untrue). After three years of discussion you should know better!
Please deal instead with the comparison to Sal's *which evolution* dilemma and your similar confirmation biases and we'll be getting somewhere. Notice that neither you nor Joy addressed the calculated second half of my post that contrasted your biases with those of YEC-ID-Evolutionist Salvador Cordova?
Arago
Comment by g arago — July 15, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Good greeblies, Joy! Huuugge over-reaction! I am not "˜policing' any provisional theory "“ what kind of absurd statement is that!? Do you actually live in a police state? Please don't forget that not all posters on e-boards reside in the USA, where, yes, opposing evolution often brings with it the labels you so strongly reject.
Which non-darwinian mechanisms are you referring to?
Have you no metaphysical investments then and would you ever wager them if you do? It's a rather weak reason, imo, to base your (skeptical) cheering of ID (i+d) entirely on a negative presupposition. Like you, I oppose RM-NS in the realms of science which I engage (they are not really relevant there) "“ that doesn't mean I *must* or even *should* cheer for i+d (it is not relevant there either).
No, it's not always about power "“ that is delusional, even paranoia! But yes, you have shown you are notoriously difficult to convince, except, of course, in the case of supporting underdog i+d.
You may not "˜seek (the) power to impose your metaphysical beliefs/investments on others,' but I would guess you nonetheless feel justified in holding your beliefs/investments and consider them to be true. They may not be true, as with my beliefs. But if you don't hold them then you would be simply unknowing and unbelieving, which sets both you and I apart from agnostic pseudo-Idists. Darwin need not be invoked here.
If you didn't think your words had value then you wouldn't blow hot (and bothered) air on e-discussion boards. It is rather ironic that you use words to try to prove to me that words have no value; that you are trying to convince/influence no one. "˜Impose power' thus seems a crude understatement.
Please Joy, take off the clown's make-up for a moment and see that real-world science is indeed changing, as you acknowledge it. If it has passed you by, then don't just be a cynic and criticise Darwinism as a spectator. There are many elements of that view which are still held by reputable, level-headed, non-conspiratorial persons, who if you met them you would likely respect. The "˜design revolution' is apparently not-so-revolutionary (except perhaps in America) after all.
'Not with a bang but a whimper' (1925)
Comment by g arago — July 15, 2006 @ 8:58 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
G arago:
Of course it's on topic. Wedge-centrism is a great example of confirmation bias, where wedge-centric conspiracy theorists pick and choose data to reinforce their conspiracy theories. It has even gotten to the point where some scientists think they see a conspiracy in a mainstream science text book! BTW, the critic can't hide behind the self-correcting machinery of science here because no one scientifically studies "The Wedge."
Really? The first one to bring up the Wedge was Odd Digit, who finds himself hearing "The Wedge" when I speak. You then butt in, writing:
According to you, the difference between me and the Wedge is……..that I don't live and work in Seattle ("so it seems"). That's nice. But it is supposedly obvious that I support some of the Wedge goals (although you never spell out the obvious goals I support) because of the way I speak. That's classic Wedge-centrism, g arago.
Well, I thought I did know better, but I guess I did not. If you adopt a wedge-centric position, why be insulted when I notice it?
Comment by MikeGene — July 15, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
'Everything evolves' is also a great example of confirmation bias. The question *which evolution?* remains a good test of whether one confirms that things that don't evolve actually do exist. I don't expect you to answer it – it is rather obvious that you differ from most IDists on this.
Please excuse the confusion from brevity of language – you're not in Seattle, i.e. not a DI fellow, not in the IDM, etc. You could not be a wedgie like Salvador. The Wedge is a small constellation in a much larger galaxy of discourse about ID, Evolution and Creation, origins, processes, etc. The social-political, cultural-renewal project of one Seattle institute aside. Heaven forbid if I ever centralize it!
Mike wrote to OD:
Your views don't upset me Mike. In fact, your recent questions about science and theology make me wonder if you might some day have a breakthrough and admit, yes, the designer just might be divine. Through a cloud of unknowing (agnos), sometimes a person is surprised at what they find on the other side.
Comment by g arago — July 15, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
July 17th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
odd digit:
Thankyou for responding to my post. I'm still trying to figure out how anger, hostility, belittling and berating helps the anti-ID side. Like I said in my original post I'm not an ID advocate, indeed I have some criticisms I'll share in future posts. By and large good arguments are not driven by anger or emotion but by good sound reasoning. I would like to hear good reasoning from the critics of ID which is based on the good objective evidence, something there seems to be a lack of in just about everything that I read on line (and that goes for both sides). If reason is really on your side you should be able to make a convincing and persuasive case with reason alone. Why is it that I can't find anyone from your side who knows how to tone down the rhetoric? I'm sincerely interested in some open and honest discussions.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 17, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
July 18th, 2006 at 4:41 am
JOHN_A_DESIGNER:
There are plenty of places on the web where you can discuss science openly and honestly. The pro-ID blogs are not the best place to look.
One of the reasons why rhetoric is used against ID is because – in the opinion of many in the pro-science brigade – rhetoric is all that the ID movement actually has. They don't appear to have any evidence or anything resembling a research program. The scientists on the other hand have loads of evidence and a vast global research program. It's just that every time the scientists point to the evidence for – say – evolution, the anti-science crowd do their best to try and sweep it under the carpet. It's quite hard to do that given that their carpet ends up at the top of a mountain. It does seem to require a certain mind set to be able to wilfully ignore that amount of evidence.
If you are interested in the evidence for evolution, there is a really good multi-page article at talkorigins. If you are a newcomer to evolutionary biology then I strongy recommend the introduction to evolution piece. The index of creationist claims (including those for ID) is also a good read.
The ID 'evidence' amounts to blind assertions that things are 'irreducibly complex' (a bogus concept in it's entirity as far as I'm concerned… nothing in biology has ever been shown to actually be 'irreducibly complex', its just Behe's opinion), and that evolution is somehow not capable of generating that kind of complexity, usually a statistical argument based on misunderstandings and/or oversimplifications of the evolutionary processes.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 18, 2006 @ 4:41 am
July 18th, 2006 at 11:51 am
OD:
That a majority of citizens do not believe-in the simplistic pablum they're taught for a semester in high school is readily understandable. It's simplistic pablum that doesn't make much sense and is of no practical use to them. It's not the fault of 15 and 16 year olds that what they are taught is simplistic pablum.
The subject of origins is 'important' in most people's worldview. The materialist/atheist worldview attached to the subject of evolution by Evangelical Atheists is not the least bit appealing to most people. Thus the pablum-peddlers get all huffy and claim the details are so complex that only those in their little club are capable of understanding it.
Thus is dumbed-down pablum asserted to be some sort of Absolute Truth that trumps all other beliefs about origins – purely on the basis of the pablum-peddlers' claimed authority. Most people just aren't buying it.
Comment by Joy — July 18, 2006 @ 11:51 am
July 18th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
OD:
To the contrary, not a single example of IC in Darwin's Black Box has been shown to be reducibly complex. It's not an opinion, if you remove a core component from many systems in Biology, that system's function will fail.
Comment by Guts — July 18, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
July 19th, 2006 at 5:19 am
Guts says:
This is a bizarre claim. Let's look at Behe's three main examples of so-called 'IC' shall we.
1. The blood clotting cascade. The hageman factor was found not to be necessary for blood clotting to proceed. Therefore the blood clotting cascade is not irreducibly complex.
2. The immune system. The complement system is not irreducibly complex, Urochordates have a functional complement system, yet they lack a component of the cascade.
3. The bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential. Many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins.
So, in fact, all three of Behe's main examples of so-called 'irreducible complexity' have all been shown to be reducible. Like I said, Behe has failed (comprehensively) to demonstrate irreducible complexity in biology.
Even if they were 'irreducibly complex', irreducible complexity is not a barrier to evolution, so as far as I can see serves no useful purpose whatsoever – i.e. it's a bogus concept.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 19, 2006 @ 5:19 am
July 19th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
OD:
Non Sequitur. First, you'll see that Behe never said Hageman factor was part of the IC system. As for the components he did say were part of the IC system, they can all be found to be essential in clotting cascade. So it is IC.
OD:
Of course there may be redundant parts to a system, but for most systems there's always an "IC core". Behe stated:
Activation of C3 is an important, and common, step in all three of the complment cascades (and Behe explains why), and C4 is essential in the classical and lectin pathways. The activation through the classical pathway requires C1q, the alternative pathway requires C3b, properdin, and serum factors B and D; and the lectin pathway requires binding carbohyrdate residues on the surface of the bacteria similar to C1q.
If C1, C4, or C2 are missing there is a risk of developing SLE. When C3 is depleted because there is uncontroled activation of the alternative pathway the organism is susceptible to infections. Since C1NH controls C1r and C1s, uncontrolled cleavage of C2 and C4 results. The thing to focus on here are the switches, in order to delineate the ICness for this system.
OD:
Thats because they don't have an outer cell membrane, so they don't need it. No one , to my knowledge, most importantly Behe, has ever said that the rings were part of the IC system. Again, some systems have redundant parts, that doesn't mean the function can be reduced to a single component.
OD:
Why did you mention L ring (FliH) again in the list inside your parenthesis? LOL talk about bizarre. Either you didn't know or you realized you were running out of redundant proteins.
Actually FliD is essential:
"A fliD-deficient mutant becomes non-motile because it lacks flagellar filaments and leaks flagellin monomer out into the medium."
Ikeda T, Oosawa K, Hotani H. 1996. Self-assembly of the filament capping protein, FliD, of bacterial flagella into an annular structure. J Mol Biol 259(4):679-86. (Note: You can see why if you take a look at this animation found here http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/fla...)
According to the study you are referring to, FlgJ may be needed for hook formation.
OD:
Actually, the parts that make up the IC system for bacterial flagella is as Behe stated, the motor, the base, the drive shaft, and the filament. All the proteins that are probably required for these parts to work are found in all eubacterial flagella according to a Tigr survey. Thus it is IC. Experiments can be done to confirm this prediction that flows directly from ID logic.
OD:
Given your (ever growing list of) mistakes I'd say you have failed to comprehend IC. And to be quite frank, it doesn't look like you've given this issue too much attention, you just rely on standard talking points from TO. It's what makes this conversation relevant to this thread.
"We mock what we don't understand"
OD:
You'd think the opposite from the peer reviewed papers it has generated. By the way, he listed a lot more examples for IC than this. Not sure where you got the idea that there were only 3 or that those were his "main" examples. You forgot (or you never bothered to read the book so you didn't know) the eukaryotic flagellum, SRP-mediated protein transport, antibody diversity, and more.
Comment by Guts — July 19, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
July 19th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Odd Digit,
Have you read Behe's book?
Comment by chunkdz — July 19, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
July 20th, 2006 at 5:08 am
Guts says:
Is the Hegamann factor one of the proteins in the blood clotting cascade? I believe it is.
So when Behe says:…
". . . none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a clot. Yet in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails." (Darwins Black Box)
…he is not talking about Hagemann factor? Whatever…
If you want to selectively exclude a few bits and bobs from the cascade, what you're left with are 5 proteases, 4 of which are homologous. And homologs have a very well known evolutionary pathway.
So, I guess if you could say that, if we ignore a great chunk of the mechanisms of evolutionary biology (i.e. gene duplication, recombination and specialization) then what we have is an IC system. If you don't ignore well known mechanisms of evolutionary biology then we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for the evolution of the blood clotting cascade – i.e. the problem is 'reducible'.
Guts quotes Behe (emphasis added):
And then says (emphasis added):
So 'risk of developing SLE' = non-functional? And 'susceptible to infection' = non-functional? Or do you perhaps mean 'functioning less well'? You know, a 'risk' of something happening doesn't sound like 100% lack of function to me. Neither does a 'susceptibility'. IC? Doesn't sound like it, does it?
Additionally, Behe's credibility on the immune system was flushed straight down the toilet during the Dover trial when he dismissed 58 peer-reviewed publications and a stack of books about the evolution of the immune system as not 'good enough' evidence for evolution of the immune system. Spot the quack.
Guts says:
Maybe in some bacteria, not in others. From here:
Finally, even in the canonical E. coli flagellum the adaptor proteins FlgK and FlgL are added without any capping structure (Macnab, 2003), leading Macnab (2003) to argue that "capping structures are perhaps best viewed as a means of increasing efficiency of addition rather than as an absolute requirement."
And the reference: Macnab, R. M., 2003. How bacteria assemble flagella. Annu Rev Microbiol. 57, 77-100.
Guts says:
And take away the motor and flagellum and you have a functioning secretory system. So it's not IC. Or does changing function not count? Is evolution somehow 'not allowed' to change the function of groups of proteins?
Go on then.
I understand it just fine thanks. You don't appear to have found any mistakes. You seem to be making quite a few though.
You can carry trying to 'prove' that various systems are IC if you want (you haven't managed it yet). It's a bit of a waste of effort as it still doesn't affect the argument that IC is not a barrier to evolution. Which you haven't addressed by the way. Please feel free to.
As Behe himself is quoted as saying (quote from the trial transcript):
Relevence of IC to anything? It's supposed to be a negative argument against evolution, yet it doesn't even address the problems facing evolution. Even if something is 'irreducibly complex' it's only a barrier to evolution if you ignore a load of the known mechanisms of evolution. And even if something was shown to be 'impossible' for all the known mechanisms of evolution, that still wouldn't be evidence for design, it would only be evidence against the known mechanisms of evolution.
Relevence of IC to anything? I still can't see any, sorry.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 20, 2006 @ 5:08 am
July 20th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
OD:
Is the Hegamann factor one of the proteins in the blood clotting cascade? I believe it is.
So when Behe says:"¦
". . . none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a clot. Yet in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails." (Darwins Black Box)
"¦he is not talking about Hagemann factor?
No. You would see why if you hadn't taken this quote from Ken Miller's essay and had actually read the book. You know what he says before the dot dot dot there OD?
This is consistent with his Dover testimony. As he explains in his book and in the Dover testimony, he wasn't talking about Hageman factor because there wasn't too much information about what to say is essential and what it isn't. The "components" he was referring to was fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin and they are actually essential in the clotting cascade.
OD:
If you want to selectively exclude a few bits and bobs from the cascade, what you're left with are 5 proteases, 4 of which are homologous. And homologs have a very well known evolutionary pathway.
A "well known evolutionary pathway" is one in which you can count the mutations and describe the functions of the intermediates. Homologs are just inferences to evolutionary pathways. Also, Behe wasn't saying that only those components are needed, you need them activated, so you need a pathway to active them. In the haemostatic process, the extrinsic pathway would be the major pathway in the coagulation system. I believe the intrinsic coagulation system initiated by the contact system would be more important as a host defense system working extravascular tissue space against microbial pathogens than as the haemostatic mechanism. In the whale, the intrinsic coagulation mechanism would have the disadvantage, as it causes disseminated intravascular coagulation syndrome. This advantage would be so high that this species lost this system. But I don't think you can have neither.
OD:
So, I guess if you could say that, if we ignore a great chunk of the mechanisms of evolutionary biology (i.e. gene duplication, recombination and specialization) then what we have is an IC system. If you don't ignore well known mechanisms of evolutionary biology then we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for the evolution of the blood clotting cascade – i.e. the problem is 'reducible'.
This is based on a basic misunderstanding of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity means if you remove a component from the system , the system stops functioning. Not that gene duplication, etc., doesn't exist. If you can reduce the function of the system to one component then it's not irreducibly complex. Whether "gene duplication" happens in the biotic world has nothing to do with whether these systems are irreducible. There are evolutionary pathways to irreducibly complex systems and some may in fact involve gene duplication, but that hasn't been shown, and Behe and Dembski would argue, have argued, that for complex systems these pathways aren't very probable. I know one particular IC system for which the gene duplication hypothesis was shown to be wrong.
OD:
So 'risk of developing SLE' = non-functional? And 'susceptible to infection' = non-functional? Or do you perhaps mean 'functioning less well'?
No I don't mean functioning "less well", not sure why you would think so.
You know, a 'risk' of something happening doesn't sound like 100% lack of function to me. Neither does a 'susceptibility'. IC? Doesn't sound like it, does it?
Yes, if the complement system doesn't work you run the risk of encountering some bacteria that wants to eat you alive. Tagging microbes is one of the functions of the complement cascsade.
OD:
Additionally, Behe's credibility on the immune system was flushed straight down the toilet during the Dover trial when he dismissed 58 peer-reviewed publications and a stack of books about the evolution of the immune system as not 'good enough' evidence for evolution of the immune system. Spot the quack.
This is not a "credibility" issue. That was just a court room stunt, what they should have done is taken one or a few peer reviewed papers and thoroughly explain it, showing how it shows that the immune system evolved and we're just figuring out minute details, then they should have given Behe the chance to respond. That still hasn't been done. Regardless, most likely Behe said that because most ID theorists don't really put much hope on homology settling the issue (and most anti-IDists put too much). For example, there are those who think the whole idea of horizontal gene transfer to multicelular eukaryotes is unproven. Science must deal with falsifiable hypotheses. Thus, the null hypothesis, they argue should always be the hypothesis of no effect; in this case, no HGT–>eukaryotes. Only if the data are extremely unlikely under the null hypothesis should we (tentatively) reject the null and accept an alternative. We have no idea wha the origin of transposons are. Presumably, like viruses, transposons evolved from the genes of cellular organisms.
Sequence homology is certainly good evidence in support of the HGT–> eukaryote hypothesis, but even if there were a known transposon with sequence homology to RAG (and I think there is) , an alternative hypothesis might be that the transposon arose through escape of a RAG gene rather than vice versa. Not to mention that, if the hypothesis is correct, it is most likely that RAG2 has emerged later after recruitment of the Transib transposase as a protein that was not encoded by the ancestral Transib. The whole story sounds non-Darwinian anyway. I havn't read any of the 58 papers so I'm not sure how reliable Matzke and charlie d./andrea b. are nowadays (in the past I've found them to be completely uncredible and ignorant) but perhaps I'll take a look in the not too distant future.
OD:
Maybe in some bacteria, not in others. From here:
Finally, even in the canonical E. coli flagellum the adaptor proteins FlgK and FlgL are added without any capping structure (Macnab, 2003), leading Macnab (2003) to argue that "capping structures are perhaps best viewed as a means of increasing efficiency of addition rather than as an absolute requirement."
That doensn't show anything like "in some bacteria, not in others". One can argue that capping structures are not essential based on the junction proteins, but you stated that there was experimental evidence that FliD is only helpful and not required. However, experiments have shown otherwise, and not only in Salmonella:
A good thing to do here is to reference an experiment that shows a motile FliD-deficient mutant. Then you would have demonstrated that it is only helpful and not essential.
OD:
And take away the motor and flagellum and you have a functioning secretory system. So it's not IC. Or does changing function not count? Is evolution somehow 'not allowed' to change the function of groups of proteins?
Yes evolution is allowed to change functions, but Behe already discussed that. So not sure why you would say it's not IC. If you want to stick to the actual definition of IC (words mean things) then no changing function doesn't count, because the parts of the system are now contributing to a different function. And yes, the secretory system is also IC.
OD:
Go on then.
You can count the FliD experiments and Gene's experiments as the first ones.
OD:
You can carry trying to 'prove' that various systems are IC if you want (you haven't managed it yet).
Alright so show me a eubacterial flagellum functioning without the filament, or the motor, or the stator. Or perhaps a t3ss without LcrD.
Can't find one? Do you know why?
OD:
It's a bit of a waste of effort as it still doesn't affect the argument that IC is not a barrier to evolution. Which you haven't addressed by the way. Please feel free to.
It depends, have to take it on a case by case basis. Mere assertion doesn't demonstrate that it isn't. It isn't a logical barrier, you can make any shit up you want, but when we know enough about structures, it may turn out to be.
OD:
As Behe himself is quoted as saying (quote from the trial transcript):
Thats a chopped up quote from something Behe wrote in an article. The judge ommitted a lot of stuff there, namely what exactly this "defect" was (one of the many "mysterious" things about this judge). Behe's discussed this in his response:
Actually this is quite relevant so I'm glad you brought it up. There are many ways that one can misinterpret and misrepresent IC, you showed one way, ignore the definition and start harping about redundant parts. Another way is to come up with insane analogies about mousetraps and watches. The real problem here is how it effects evolutionary scenarios, and it does effect them as shown by Ussery's paper.
Thats the defect in IC, people try to find loopholes and say "it's not IC because it came from a 500 part system that had a different function!" yeah you may strip away a lot of complexity but thats not how one demonstrates that Darwinian mechanisms work unless you're talking teleology.
OD:
Relevence of IC to anything? It's supposed to be a negative argument against evolution, yet it doesn't even address the problems facing evolution.
It addresses how much chance causation is involved in a proposed evolutionary scenario. For example, for the flagellum, you are forced , because of IC, to use a co-option scenario. Unfortunately, the t3ss more likely evolved from the flagellum or evolved from a common ancestor of flagella, it was never a precursor. The latter leaves open the possibility that the ancestor was more complex, in fact, that would make a lot of sense, it's something that IC (and ID) predicts.
But you can propose a simpler precursor to flagella but again you're forced to invoke co-option because of IC. And you have to show function along each intermediary step or your're going to introduce too much pure chance in the scenario. And improbable scenarios get thrown out in science. Difficulty in proposing blind evolution scenarios coupled with the mechanical nature of many IC systems = Design Inference. Thats the way I understand Behe et. al.
OD:
And even if something was shown to be 'impossible' for all the known mechanisms of evolution, that still wouldn't be evidence for design, it would only be evidence against the known mechanisms of evolution.
Well you're a "true believer", and as one you think ID is false no matter what, so I'm not surprised. But you're not going to be objective about the data, and you're going to continue to make a lot of mistakes that way because you have blind spots, trust me I speak from experience. Anyway, sorry for the long winded response, was mostly thinking out loud.
Comment by Guts — July 20, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
July 20th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Guts:
Gee. Since the flagellum is not IC, why is it that the removal of only one gene product results in the complete loss of the filament and motility?
Comment by MikeGene — July 20, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
July 21st, 2006 at 4:25 am
Guts says:
I think we're getting to the guts of it (excuse the pun!). You see, if you're allowed to change function then IC is no barrier to evolution. About the only useful thing it might do is give you a flag to start looking for homologies. But scientists were already doing that just fine before the concept of IC came along. I hadn't even heard of IC 18 months ago, yet I had already heard of gene duplication and homologous genes. Strange that.
Now I think that the problem is more of a PR one. By making the statements Behe does about IC he is clearly stating that IC is some kind of barrier to evolution. In his definition he excludes a change of function. So he excludes an extremely well known evolutionary mechanism. So once again, it doesn't seem to me to be a useful concept when attempting to criticise evolution.
Hey, it was Paley and Behe respectively who started the 'insane' (and extremely weak) analogies about watches and mousetraps.
The defect in IC is that it's not relevent to evolutionary biology.
Irrelevent unless you can also demonstrate how much design causation is involved in a proposed evolutionary scenario. In the absence of a designer, that would appear to be nil.
I don't think predictions work retrospectively.
As I said earlier, scientists were quite happily 'invoking' co-option – and demonstrating it – long before IC came along.
And how much is 'too much'? Exactly? And how you do factor in natural selection, which is – by definition – chance altering?
Difficulty in imagining evolution scenarios coupled with the mechanical nature of many IC systems = Argument from Incredulity.
A 'true believer'. Funny. Actually I don't 'believe' I merely follow the evidence and the best explanations for that evidence. And I would be perfectly happy to entertain design scenarios if you could demonstrate the existence of a designer. You can't have design without a designer, the very concept requires one.
As you say, science will tend to favour theories of higher probabilities, and dismiss theories where the probability is too low. The current probability of an apparently non-existent designer having desinged anything (let alone a bacterial flagellum) is nil. The probability of blind chance processes having produced a bacterial flagellum is higher than that. And evolution is not a blind chance process.
If you happen to believe in God, and that God (for some bizarre reason) decided to give bacteria flagella, then you could assign a probability to your design hypothesis. Indeed, I have seen it said by another ID proponent that the probability of God having designed the bacterial flagellum is 1. Do you agree with this probability assessment?
Comment by Odd Digit — July 21, 2006 @ 4:25 am
July 21st, 2006 at 7:10 am
"A 'true believer'. Funny. Actually I don't 'believe' I merely follow the evidence and the best explanations for that evidence. And I would be perfectly happy to entertain design scenarios if you could demonstrate the existence of a designer. You can't have design without a designer, the very concept requires one. "
LOL
Comment by Ilion — July 21, 2006 @ 7:10 am
July 21st, 2006 at 10:41 am
If one wanted to refute Behe, one would think it wise for one to read Behe.
Has talkorigins become the 'Cliff's Notes' for all the ND'ers who waited until the last minute to do their book reports?
Comment by chunkdz — July 21, 2006 @ 10:41 am
July 21st, 2006 at 1:40 pm
I've read most of Behe's published work on ID, yes. Including large tracts of Darwin's Black Box, which I'm glad to say I never wasted my money on (a borrowed copy only). I'm aware that he appears to be using a different definition of the word 'irreducible' to everyone else. Maybe he should have called it 'functional irreducible complexity' rather than just 'irreducible complexity'.
I could just as easily ask the same of you chunkdz – if you want to try to refute evolution you should really find out something about it first.
Now, are you going to add anything of substance of the discussion or not? (my money is on 'not').
Comment by Odd Digit — July 21, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
July 21st, 2006 at 2:54 pm
OD:
I think we're getting to the guts of it (excuse the pun!).
Actually you snipped the "guts of it". Your latest response is all philosophy, no science.
OD:
You see, if you're allowed to change function then IC is no barrier to evolution. About the only useful thing it might do is give you a flag to start looking for homologies. But scientists were already doing that just fine before the concept of IC came along. I hadn't even heard of IC 18 months ago, yet I had already heard of gene duplication and homologous genes. Strange that.
But like I said, just because gene duplication exists, and homologous structures exist, doesn't mean that there are no IC structures. You can invoke change of function but for very complex IC systems, you'd have to invoke it multiple times, and all by chance.
OD
Now I think that the problem is more of a PR one. By making the statements Behe does about IC he is clearly stating that IC is some kind of barrier to evolution. In his definition he excludes a change of function. So he excludes an extremely well known evolutionary mechanism. So once again, it doesn't seem to me to be a useful concept when attempting to criticise evolution.
Actually he doesn't exclude change of function, the definition says nothing about change function. Simply that the "system" has a number of parts that are essential to it's basic "function". You can plug in "system" and "function" as anything as long as you can demonstrate it. He also says on page 40 that "indirect pathways" are possible. Now OD, thats page 40 of Behe's book, you should just admit that you havn't read any of it, or are you telling us that you read only up to page 39? This is umpteenth mistake I caught with regard to Behe's book, and your still claiming you read it?
OD:
Hey, it was Paley and Behe respectively who started the 'insane' (and extremely weak) analogies about watches and mousetraps.
Naah, those were sane and quite logical. Pennock's analogies are just crazy. I saw Pennock debate Behe and Dembski in person, everyone beside me laughed at him, mostly because he would stare at Dembski with this obvious indignation, like he wanted to kill him. It was hilarious.
OD:
The defect in IC is that it's not relevent to evolutionary biology.
It is relevant to biology, which is why in a paper written by an evolutionary biologist (more than one actually) the concept was able to rule out two of four evolutionary pathways.
OD:
Irrelevent unless you can also demonstrate how much design causation is involved in a proposed evolutionary scenario. In the absence of a designer, that would appear to be nil.
Actually, the more chance causation you invoke in your evolutionary scenario, the more improbable your scenario becomes. And improbable scenarios that are thought to have happened are usually attributed to intelligent designers.
OD:
I don't think predictions work retrospectively.
Well first, there is nothing retrospective about the prediction I described, since we dont' know what features the ancestor most likely had. Second, you are wrong to say that predictions don't work retrospectively. For example, Einstein's Relativity Theory got support from the fact that it correctly implied the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, though that information was known long before Einstein formulated the theory.
OD:
As I said earlier, scientists were quite happily 'invoking' co-option – and demonstrating it – long before IC came along.
But thats irrelevant. The important thing is that out of the many possible trajectories evolution can take, IC forces the non-teleologist to only consider co-option as to it's origin.
OD:
And how much is 'too much'? Exactly? And how you do factor in natural selection, which is – by definition – chance altering?
I suppose thats where Dembski comes in as to how much is too much. Surely 10^-150 is too much. As for natural selection, thats the problem, once there's a function there's something for natural selection to do, of course then you'd have to rely on drift or other random events to just take the function away from selection and change it to something completely different each time. Thats what makes it so unlikely.
OD:
Difficulty in imagining evolution scenarios coupled with the mechanical nature of many IC systems = Argument from Incredulity.
But argument from incredulity has value in science, homology itself is based on it.
OD:
A 'true believer'. Funny. Actually I don't 'believe' I merely follow the evidence and the best explanations for that evidence. And I would be perfectly happy to entertain design scenarios if you could demonstrate the existence of a designer. You can't have design without a designer, the very concept requires one.
I can show you many designers , go inside a technology building and look around. Also, you can admit then yes, that the flagellum is IC? If you truly follow the evidence where it leads, then admit this in front of everyone , lets hear it. If you're just a true beleiver, then you will ignore this request or try to rationalize your denial with nonsense.
OD:
As you say, science will tend to favour theories of higher probabilities, and dismiss theories where the probability is too low. The current probability of an apparently non-existent designer having desinged anything (let alone a bacterial flagellum) is nil. The probability of blind chance processes having produced a bacterial flagellum is higher than that. And evolution is not a blind chance process.
The designer is a hypothetical causer, much like common ancestors are, we don't have any designers or common ancestors in the lab so your complaint there cuts both ways.
OD:
If you happen to believe in God, and that God (for some bizarre reason) decided to give bacteria flagella, then you could assign a probability to your design hypothesis. Indeed, I have seen it said by another ID proponent that the probability of God having designed the bacterial flagellum is 1. Do you agree with this probability assessment?
The probability that a being would design something, I have no idea how one would asign that. It's a weird question like, whats the probability that I'll give this website a new banner (and God knows it needs one). How in the world do assign such a probability? I'm not a regularity or a natural process so there's no way to do it. I can act completely unpredictably. Still there are predictable effects of intelligent design that can be studied. As I've said before, I can envision arguments among design theorists to the effect of (the designer probably didn't do it that way because of X Y Z). As to what are the probabilities that someone was around for the job? There are no laws or processes that would tell us there could not possibly be anyone around for the design. There are two sides that says intelligent life is improbable in the universe, another side says it's not only probable, it's inevitable. The former would certainly lead someone to consider the designer to be someone outside our universe, which by definition would be supernatural, although Lisa Randall would probably beg to differ. Regardless, a designer can select steps that natural selection would not, we would never expect natural selection to act so unpredictably so as to select something that is functionless, in fact, this is what irreducible complexity is all about.
Comment by Guts — July 21, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
July 21st, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Odd Digit,
Sorry if my post sounded too snipey. I was trying to make a point about confirmational bias, albeit using your posts as the example.
You see, most of your references in this thread come from talkorigins. Even your Behe references come from what others have said about Behe, and then posted at talkorigins. I happen to think that there is a great risk of missing context when you refute something based on someone else's refutation. This is exactly what happened when you relied on Miller's reaction rather than thoroughly developing your own refutation.
I just felt that this was a good example of confirmational bias in action. What better way to justify one's own preconceived idea than to reference a likeminded colleague's opinion? Context is already compromised for you, so you don't feel the sting of conscience of doing it firsthand.
Comment by chunkdz — July 21, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:19 pm
I like what Francis Beckwith has to say, over at Right Reason
"I am forced to reject Shermer's thesis, for it confirms everything I had thought about myself.
"
Comment by Ben Z — July 22, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
July 25th, 2006 at 4:40 am
My first version of this reply didn't make it through moderation apparently. Let's try again:
Guts,
My whole point is that IC is irrelevent to science. Not much point in talking about the details of the science if the basic IC premise is rubbish.
So what if I have to invoke it multiple times? It's not like we have any big time contstraints after all – billions of years is plenty. And they are not 'all by chance'. There is plenty of regularity in the chemistry of protein interactions. There is also lots of regularity in gene duplications. And once we have a selectable function, natural selection will kick in.
Where did I say that Behe said that indirect pathways are not possible? Nowhere. I have been concentrating on the probability argument in particular because I am well aware that Behe believes the indirect pathways are 'extremely improbable' not impossible. Why else would I be invoking a probablity argument? Because Behe does. You are attacking an argument I haven't made. If you intention is to give the impression that I don't know what I'm talking about, you are failing utterly, and making yourself look a bit silly in the process (in my opinion).
Who by? Behe? 'Usually?' If you want make a likelihood argument you do it like this:
A biological system has complex features A, B, C.
1. The likelihood of this system with these features being produced blindly by evolution is X.
2. The likelihood of this system with these features being produced by an intelligent designer is Y.
You can then compare the two likelihoods and decide which is more likely. It's still not a particularly persuasive argument, because even if one of the hypotheses is a lot more likely than the other, it's still not impossible that the less likely hypothesis is the actual cause. There would have to be a massive difference to give you any degree of confidence.
Now there are two issues here. Behe believes that the likelihood of 1 above when applied to the bacterial flagellum (just for example) is extremely low. But in doing so he once again ignores known mechanisms of evolution.
The second issue is that it is extremely difficult to calculate a likelihood in the example of the bacterial flagellum, as there appears to be no candidate for the designer.
You recognise the difficulties here yourself:
I have no idea either. In the absence of a candidate for a designer (and even Behe admits that design requires a designer) then the only probability I can be assign is zero. When we have a candidate for a designer then we maybe have somewhere we can start. Will that likelihood be greater than the one we can try to calculate for evolution producing the bacterial flagellum? Who knows at this stage.
A complex biological system might force a scientist to invoke co-option as a part of the explanation for it's evolution. You are falling into the same trap as I've seen other ID advocates do in the past and assuming that only one explanation is required. Of course it isn't. In between co-option events there are a lot of point mutations and natural selection going on as always. There may also be some drift and horizontal transfer. All of these things together go to form the full explanation for the evolution of said complex system, not co-option alone.
Don't get me started on Dembski. His major problem is of course that all his stuff is based on Behe's, and Behe's IC is irrelevent to evolution. He then compounds that by producing some of the worst 'logical' arguments (e.g. the explanatory filter) that I have ever seen.
Utter rubbish. An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy based on an absence of evidence. Homology in evolution is based on the evidence for homology, not the lack of evidence for it. And there is masses of evidence for homology.
I said:
And you replied:
This is truly bizarre, on many levels. What do you think I'm doing, denying somehow the existence of designers, period? Where did I say that? If you had being paying attention you might have spotted I said this earlier in this very discussion:
I have already acknowledged that humans are capable of design. Reading comprehension is not your forte, is it?
I am of course talking about entertaining design scenarios in the context of this thread, in the context of IC, and in the context of the complex biological system we have been discussing, such as the flagellum, the immune system and the blood clotting cascade.
Let's look at your quote again:
So, you're asking me to acknowledge that a flagellum is IC because human designers exist? Are humans therefore your candidates for the designer of the flagellum? Are you trying to say that humans were around when the flagellum was 'designed'? I can hardly credit that this is in fact your argument.
Well, if we use Behe's misuse of the word 'irreducible' (to include the function) then using the four parts he mentions of the flagellum it is in fact 'irreducibly complex' according to Behe's definition of the term, i.e. remove any of those four parts and it no longer functions as a flagellum.
That's not however my understanding of the word irreducible. If we use the dictionary definition rather than Behe's then the problem of the bacterial flagellum is not 'irreducible' at all. The bacterial flagellum can be broken down to simpler functioning parts, they are not 'flagella' though.
As I'm pretty certain evolution doesn't give a rat's ass about Behe's redefinition of commonly known words so I still can't see any barriers being erected.
(emphasis added) You've never heard of fossils then?
You have also avoided answering a direct question I have asked you. Let's try again:
So let's have a quick review:
- you're arguing against points I haven't made (strawmen)
- you're plainly either not reading or not understanding my comments
- you appear to be arguing that because humans can do design the flagellum must be IC (one of the most bizarre arguments I have yet seen)
- you are not answering direct questions
To quote, well, you actually – you're not really any good at this are you Guts?
Comment by Odd Digit — July 25, 2006 @ 4:40 am
July 25th, 2006 at 4:51 am
OD:
My whole point is that IC is irrelevent to science. Not much point in talking about the details of the science if the basic IC premise is rubbish.
I can demonstrate the basic IC premise by referencing a scientific experiment. The devil is in the scientific details.
OD:
So what if I have to invoke it multiple times? It's not like we have any big time contstraints after all – billions of years is plenty.
You have to demonstrate that "billions of years is plenty", not just assert it.
OD:
And they are not 'all by chance'. There is plenty of regularity in the chemistry of protein interactions. There is also lots of regularity in gene duplications.
What regularity are you referring to? I know of some chemical regularities, but they don't do much to break down the probabilities.
OD:
And once we have a selectable function, natural selection will kick in.
Only to have it "kicked out" when you invoke co-option again.
OD:
Where did I say that Behe said that indirect pathways are not possible?
Actually you said that Behe never mentioned change of function. Co-option itself is an indirect pathway. You also keep bring up "barrier", even in this response. If indirect pathways are possible why do you keep saying that Behe never talked about change of function and and keep bringing up "barriers"
OD:
Who by? Behe? 'Usually?'
And by most normal people.
OD:
If you want make a likelihood argument you do it like this:
A biological system has complex features A, B, C.
1. The likelihood of this system with these features being produced blindly by evolution is X.
2. The likelihood of this system with these features being produced by an intelligent designer is Y.
You can then compare the two likelihoods and decide which is more likely. It's still not a particularly persuasive argument, because even if one of the hypotheses is a lot more likely than the other, it's still not impossible that the less likely hypothesis is the actual cause. There would have to be a massive difference to give you any degree of confidence.
You don't have to do a liklihood argument for intelligent designers because the probability that designers can design is 1. The whole reason IMO is that we are forward looking entities. The probability that natural processes can accomplish such tasks is much much harder, thats why when improbable things happen , it's usually attributed to intelligent designers.
OD:
I have no idea either. In the absence of a candidate for a designer (and even Behe admits that design requires a designer) then the only probability I can be assign is zero. When we have a candidate for a designer then we maybe have somewhere we can start.
Uhh, design requires a designer thats only logical, lol. But it doesn't require that you demonstrate his/her existence independantly. You can simply propose that a designer existed and was around for the job, then you study the effects as if the existence of the designer was axiomatic.
OD:
In between co-option events there are a lot of point mutations and natural selection going on as always. There may also be some drift and horizontal transfer. All of these things together go to form the full explanation for the evolution of said complex system, not co-option alone.
Whether you propose other random events within the co-option event is irrelevant to my point, that your scenario starts with a different function is what IC forces.
OD:
Don't get me started on Dembski. His major problem is of course that all his stuff is based on Behe's, and Behe's IC is irrelevent to evolution. He then compounds that by producing some of the worst 'logical' arguments (e.g. the explanatory filter) that I have ever seen.
LOL OD, you are still claiming that IC is irrelevant to evolution. If IC is irrelevant to evolution then why are there peer reviewed papers now in existence that take it into account when discussing evolution? As to Dembski, something tells me you are as unfamiliar with Dembski's claims as you are with Behe's.
OD:
Utter rubbish. An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy based on an absence of evidence. Homology in evolution is based on the evidence for homology, not the lack of evidence for it. And there is masses of evidence for homology.
Actually, the basis for sequence homology, for example, is a "percent similarity". If you have a particularly long sequence and you compare that to another that is 80% similar, you say that they are homologous, because the similarity is too improbable to have arisen by chance, argument from incredulity. Surely a simplistic derivation. But just when is an argument from improbability not a logical flaw?
OD:
So, you're asking me to acknowledge that a flagellum is IC because human designers exist?
OD, don't have a heart attack. You asked me to demonstrate the existence of designers, this is an easy task and it's a logical question. It would be ridiculous to ask me to demonstrate the existence of the designer of the flagellum, that would make ID a fact, not a hypothesis. It's like saying in order for me to entertain the origin of bacteria and archae from a compartmentless ancestor I would first need to demonstrate the compartmentless ancestor. It's silly.
OD:
Well, if we use Behe's misuse of the word 'irreducible' (to include the function)
Uhh that wasn't a misuse of the word, function was included in the defintion of the term "irreducible complexity".
OD:
then using the four parts he mentions of the flagellum it is in fact 'irreducibly complex' according to Behe's definition of the term, i.e. remove any of those four parts and it no longer functions as a flagellum.
Thanks for admitting that. You're still flailing but at least you finally got it out, which is more than I can say for a lot of anti-IDists. The bacterial flagellum is IC.
OD:
That's not however my understanding of the word irreducible. If we use the dictionary definition rather than Behe's then the problem of the bacterial flagellum is not 'irreducible' at all. The bacterial flagellum can be broken down to simpler functioning parts, they are not 'flagella' though.
The fact that they are "not flagella" is what makes "the flagella" irreducible. Once you break it down, it's no longer flagella.
OD:
You've never heard of fossils then?
Yeah I've heard of fossils. Whats your point?
OD:
Indeed, I have seen it said by another ID proponent that the probability of God having designed the bacterial flagellum is 1. Do you agree with this probability assessment?
See my previous response. Bleh, what a waste of time.
OD:
To quote, well, you actually – you're not really any good at this are you Guts?
At first you said the flagellum was not IC, now you admitted it is. Not to toot my own horn (which I abhor), but I'd say, thats not too shabby.
Comment by Guts — July 25, 2006 @ 4:51 am
July 25th, 2006 at 5:39 am
Guts:
I'm not asking what the probability is that designer can do design. I'm asking what the likelihood is that a designer designed the bacterial flagellum, in order to compare that likelihood with the likelihood that the flagellum evolved.
So, who is your candidate for the designer of the bacterial flagellum?
Why is it ridiculous? I'm looking for a plausible candidate, that's all. Do you even have a plausible candidate? As you yourself say:
Of course it is. So without a single candidate for a designer of a bacterial flagellum, how can we infer design? Simple answer – we can't. The probability of design when there is no designer present is zero, because design requires a designer.
In order to make a design inference you first need a candidate for a designer. That's all I'm asking for.
You appear to be confused. Maybe it's because Behe uses arguments from incredulity and probablity arguments – they are not the same thing.
As attempts at justification for his argument from incredulity ("I can't believe evolution can do that") Behe then tries to use an improbability argument ("it's just too improbable"). The only way he even gets close is to omit known mechanisms of evolution. There's a whole session about it during the trial transcripts.
Homology is based on a probability analysis, not an argument from incredulity.
From the Merriam Webster dictionary:
Main Entry: ir·re·duc·ible
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'dü-s&-b&l, -'dyü-
Function: adjective
1 : impossible to transform into or restore to a desired or simpler condition ; specifically : incapable of being factored into polynomials of lower degree with coefficients in some given field (as the rational numbers) or integral domain (as the integers)
2 : impossible to make less or smaller
No mention of function in there at all. Wrong again. Does Behe misuse 'irreducible' to include function? Yes he does.
The point is that yes – we do have common ancestors of animals in a lab. They are called fossils. So in your point where you say:
You are wrong yet again.
Why? Your previous response was baloney. Do you think God designed the bacterial flagellum? It's a yes or no question.
I agree. There's no arguing with someone who's already made up their mind that something is designed. You are living proof of 'confirmation bias' indeed.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 25, 2006 @ 5:39 am
July 25th, 2006 at 5:59 am
Yet more snipping. Bleh.
OD:
I'm not asking what the probability is that designer can do design. I'm asking what the likelihood is that a designer designed the bacterial flagellum, in order to compare that likelihood with the likelihood that the flagellum evolved.
I'm saying that trying to assign probabilities that designers would design something is just dumb. We're just concerned with can at this point, we take motivations as axiomatic.
OD:
So, who is your candidate for the designer of the bacterial flagellum?
The designer of flagellum would have to be human-like, but with advanced intelligence. What kind of designers do I think fit this description? God for one, the God of the many holy books out there, alien creatures for another, someone from another of the many supposedly parallel universes out there if you want to get crazy.
OD:
Of course it is. So without a single candidate for a designer of a bacterial flagellum, how can we infer design? Simple answer – we can't. The probability of design when there is no designer present is zero, because design requires a designer.
But you ignored my response here. Are you saying in order to entertain a compartmentless ancestor for bacteria and archae I have to show you the compartmentless ancestor of bacteria and archae? Or can I take it as axiomatic in order to conduct research for my hypothesis?
OD:
Commonly in an Argument from Personal Incredulity or Argument from Ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of her or his choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of opinion which begin: "It is hard to see how"¦," "I cannot understand how"¦," or "it is obvious that"¦" (if "obvious" is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view).
Yeah but I'm drawing parallels to other arguments that derive from improbability which is why people like Behe say that kind of stuff. "It's hard to see anything but common ancestry can make a sequence 80% similar to this other sequence)", in other words. Just when does this type of reasoning become a logical necessity rather than a flaw? Or is there ambiguity at play?
OD:
Homology is based on a probability analysis, not an argument from incredulity.
Whats the difference?
OD:
No mention of function in there at all. Wrong again. Does Behe misuse 'irreducible' to include function? Yes he does.
You ignored my response here as well. I said that his use of the term irreducible complexity includes function. But the flagellum is irreducible even according to that definition. Try to break it down and it is no longer a flagellum.
OD:
You are wrong yet again [about common ancestors in the lab].
We don't have the common ancestor of archae and bacteria in the lab, or even of most lineages, do I have to let you touch them in order for you to entertain evolution scenarious with them as the "causers" of the many features we find in the biotic world?
OD:
Why? Your previous response was baloney. Do you think God designed the bacterial flagellum? It's a yes or no question.
Do you think I really feel I should kowtow to your insults and demands?
OD:
I agree. There's no arguing with someone who's already made up their mind that something is designed. You are living proof of 'confirmation bias' indeed.
I'm not for your information convinced of anything. I just have a good BS detector.
Comment by Guts — July 25, 2006 @ 5:59 am
July 25th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Guts,
Who's talking about motivations? I'm talking about the likelihood of an unknown and apparently undetectable designer designing a bacterial flagellum. What is the likelihood of that? You need to demonstrate that it's considerably higher than the likelihood of said flagellum arising via evolution. You keep running around this topic and trying to conflate the issue. Why don't you try and come up with a figure instead?
God or aliens.
I need a new BS detector, my old one just exploded. Come back when you actually have some evidence for the existence of either, OK?
I ignored your response because it's irrelevent to the question of design.
If we look at your response:
No, the two things are not alike at all. We have heaps of evidence for common ancestry. It's all around us. Therefore entertaining any hypothesis for a common ancestor of bacteria and archaea is supported by extrapolation from the vast amounts of existing evidence of common ancestry.
Entertaining design hypotheses is a completely different kettle of fish, because there is no evidence – none whatsoever – to indicate the presence of an intelligent designer on the planet billions of years ago. Demonstating the existence of your designer is fundamental to your design argument. Without it, you don't have an argument, all you have in an argument from incredulity, 'gosh it sure looks designed to me'. Well, gosh, it sure looks like the sun moves through the sky from where I'm sitting.
You don't know the difference between an argument from incredulity and a probability analysis? So you don't really know what either is? I suggest you go and look them up.
Irreducible = impossible to make less or smaller. Is it possible to make the flagellum less or smaller? Sure it is. A TTSS is a very good example. As a bonus it even has a selectable function.
So what? It's still reducible. Anything with parts is reducible to it's parts. If the parts also have independent functions of their own then all the better.
Already answered above. Extrapolation from evidence is something that scientists do, you know. It's hard to extrapolate from a complete absence of evidence.
I'm doing you the courtesy of replying to your questions, including your IC one. Why are you being so evasive about this one? All I'm asking is if you think God designed the flagellum. In the absence of an answer – and your evasiveness on this topic – I will simply draw my own conclusions.
I don't think it's working. Maybe you need a new one.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 25, 2006 @ 9:48 am
July 25th, 2006 at 10:09 am
OD:
What data would you count as evidence for "the presence of an intelligent designer on the planet billions of years ago?"
No, it would only be fundamental if someone wanted to convince OD.
Here we can see the communication impasse. We begin from the same starting point "“ "no evidence – none whatsoever – to indicate the presence of an intelligent designer on the planet billions of years ago." From there, we part company. OD opts for throwing in the towel as he holds any design inference hostage to this designer-centric approach (which, BTW, is entangled with a Wedge-centric approach). The other approach is to roll up your sleeves and probe patiently and tentatively. OD seems to be troubled by this alternative approach, as evidenced by his heroic efforts to get everyone here to think as he does.
Comment by MikeGene — July 25, 2006 @ 10:09 am
July 25th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Mike says:
I'm glad we're agreed on this part at least.
Well we do part company, yes. OD actually starts with another approach altogether. OD starts with the vast amount of evidence already piled up for evolution and common descent and decides that this might just actually be a fruitful line of investigation.
There is nothing 'designer centric' about my approach to design that is not dictated by the nature of design itself. Can you have design without a designer? No. Is design itself 'designer centric'. Yes. What are the only known reliable design 'inferences'? Those that deal with a known category of designers, i.e. human beings.
So you keep saying Mike, although your persistence with IC gives lie to that statement. It doesn't take much probing to discover that evolution is perfectly capable of generating Behe's so-called IC structures. You can see my arguments in a review of one of your papers on my blog. Please do feel free to respond.
And alas this 'patient, tentative probing' is not what most of the ID advocates are actually doing, is it? And it is the approach of the majority of ID advocates that troubles me.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 25, 2006 @ 11:27 am
July 25th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
OD:
But the vast amount of evidence for evolution and common descent is not evidence for abiogenesis. And what is intriguing to me as that the accumulating evidence makes it more and more plausible that evolution was shaped by design.
Are you saying that if something is designed, then this entails that we will always have the ability to detect and describe the designer(s)? As I asked you, what data would you count as evidence for "the presence of an intelligent designer on the planet billions of years ago?"
You first need to understand a position before you can effectively critique it. And you don't seem to understand that I acknowledge "evolution is perfectly capable of generating Behe's so-called IC structures." My "persistence with IC" stems from the fact that I find it a useful criterion that brings focus in an attempt to assess a design inference. It will become more clear in The Matrix.
I am not the Ambassador of All ID Advocates. My approach is to recognize the immense difficulties in inferring design without the luxury of information about the designer. But that is simply what makes the whole topic more fun and challenging.
Comment by MikeGene — July 25, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
July 25th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
OD:
Who's talking about motivations? I'm talking about the likelihood of an unknown and apparently undetectable designer designing a bacterial flagellum. What is the likelihood of that? You need to demonstrate that it's considerably higher than the likelihood of said flagellum arising via evolution. You keep running around this topic and trying to conflate the issue. Why don't you try and come up with a figure instead?
You are so confused, when you say "I'm talking about hte likelihood of an unknown apparently undetectable designer designing a bacterial flagellum" are you talking about can or would?
OD:
God or aliens. I need a new BS detector, my old one just exploded. Come back when you actually have some evidence for the existence of either, OK?
Alright, when you have evidence for the common ancestor of bacteria and archae, your argument will actually be normal.
OD:
No, the two things are not alike at all. We have heaps of evidence for common ancestry. It's all around us. Therefore entertaining any hypothesis for a common ancestor of bacteria and archaea is supported by extrapolation from the vast amounts of existing evidence of common ancestry.
We may have "heaps of evidence for common ancestry", but no common ancestor. We also have "heaps of evidence for design" but no designer. The two things are equivalent. If you hadn't ignored my response, you would've realized this.
OD:
Entertaining design hypotheses is a completely different kettle of fish, because there is no evidence – none whatsoever – to indicate the presence of an intelligent designer on the planet billions of years ago. Demonstating the existence of your designer is fundamental to your design argument. Without it, you don't have an argument, all you have in an argument from incredulity, 'gosh it sure looks designed to me'. Well, gosh, it sure looks like the sun moves through the sky from where I'm sitting.
Demonstrating the existence of the common ancestor is fundamental to your evolution argument. Without it, you don't have an argument, all you have is an argument from incredulity, 'gosh they sure look similar to me'.
OD:
You don't know the difference between an argument from incredulity and a probability analysis? So you don't really know what either is? I suggest you go and look them up.
So, you're not going to answer my question?
OD:
Irreducible = impossible to make less or smaller. Is it possible to make the flagellum less or smaller? Sure it is. A TTSS is a very good example. As a bonus it even has a selectable function.
But thats not a flagellum. It is impossible to make the flagellum less or smaller. It's irreducible.
OD:
So what? It's still reducible. Anything with parts is reducible to it's parts. If the parts also have independent functions of their own then all the better.
Yeah you can strip just about anything with discrete parts. But thats precisely why you're definition of irreducible is useless, and why IC is relevant. Even in your sentence here, you couldn't help but talk about function.
OD:
Already answered above. Extrapolation from evidence is something that scientists do, you know. It's hard to extrapolate from a complete absence of evidence.
Extrapolation from evidence is also precisely what IDists do as well (and most happen to be scientists). I'm not sure what your point is anymore OD.
OD:
I'm doing you the courtesy of replying to your questions, including your IC one. Why are you being so evasive about this one? All I'm asking is if you think God designed the flagellum. In the absence of an answer – and your evasiveness on this topic – I will simply draw my own conclusions.
LOL OD, if someone goes to your blog, spams tyour threads , snips most of their original arguments to talk about philosophical mumbo jumbo, ignores most of your counter arguments with "blah blah blah", but then they have the gall to start saying your arguments are "baloney", how would you feel if that person suddenly wanted to talk about God with you (obviously because, to add insult to injury, they think you have a hidden agenda)? You would give them the bird. My thoughts about whether God exists are private and you're the last person I will talk about it with.
OD:
I don't think it's working. Maybe you need a new one.
Alright OD, would you like me to start listing your mistakes in this thread? Because it's getting pretty damn long. You keep pretending like you've made none and they are pretty clear and blatant.
Comment by Guts — July 25, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
July 25th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Guts says:
In English not your first language or something? I am talking about neither can or would, I am talking about do, or more appropriately, having done.
Go on then. Let's see your heaps of evidence for design. Take as long as you like, list it all.
Demonstrating common ancestry is fundamental to our evolution argument. We have already done that many times over.
Demonstrating a plausible designer (imaginary beings and non-existant space aliens don't cut it I'm afraid) is fundamental to your design argument. You have singularly failed to do that.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. You have a different understanding of the word 'irreducible' than I do. Fine.
I'm getting fed up with the rest of your arguments, you do not know the difference of a probability argument based on similarities between two pieces of evidence, and an argument from incredulity which has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Message received, loud and clear.
Please go ahead and demonstrate your evidence for design. You have heaps apparently. I can hardly wait.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 25, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
July 25th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
OD:
In English not your first language or something? I am talking about neither can or would, I am talking about do, or more appropriately, having done.
"In English not your first language" if you're going to criticize my English at least try to do it in correct English. Also, saying "I am talking about neither can or would, I am talking about do" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. "Do" entails can and would.
OD:
Go on then. Let's see your heaps of evidence for design. Take as long as you like, list it all.
Life itself is evidence for design. As an example, I think many of the molecular machines found in the biotic world look like they were designed by intelligent agents, because they are so similar to the machines we make.
OD:
Demonstrating a plausible designer (imaginary beings and non-existant space aliens don't cut it I'm afraid) is fundamental to your design argument. You have singularly failed to do that.
Demonstrating a plausible ancestor (imaginary and non-existant compartmentless organisms don't cut it I'm afraid) is funadamental to your evolution argument. You have singularly failed to do that.
Now, obviously, this is ridiculous. You don't need to show independant evidence of your designer or ancestor in order to draw tests for your hypothesis.
OD:
I'm getting fed up with the rest of your arguments, you do not know the difference of a probability argument based on similarities between two pieces of evidence, and an argument from incredulity which has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
No, there is no difference, both are probability arguments.
OD:
Please go ahead and demonstrate your evidence for design. You have heaps apparently. I can hardly wait.
Did you know the person who coined the phrase "argument from incredulity" also thinks that life looks designed?
Comment by Guts — July 25, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
July 25th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Guts:
Is that it? That's all you've got? An analogy?
It looks similar to a human built machine, apart from an enormous difference in scale, a totally different kind of power source, a completely different kind of component, the fact that it is part of a organism that reproduces and that fact that is grown rather than constructed.
Like the Judge said in his excellent summary: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails."
The Judge goes on:
That some analogy you've got going there. Really.
As that is apparently all the 'evidence' you have, I believe I'm done with this discussion. When ID actually comes up with some evidence of design maybe we can continue.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 25, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
July 25th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
OD:
It looks similar to a human built machine, apart from an enormous difference in scale, a totally different kind of power source, a completely different kind of component, the fact that it is part of a organism that reproduces and that fact that is grown rather than constructed.
Actually they are not "grown", molecular machines are constructed in factories in the cell, much like machines we make. Once the field of nanotechnology matures there will be no difference.
Judge:
Unlike biological systems, human artifacts do not live and reproduce over time.
Flagella don't reproduce either. And , perhas more importantly, reproduction itself is faciliated by complex machines.
They are non-replicable, they do not undergo genetic recombination, and they are not driven by natural selection.
The machines that are responsible for some genetic recombination mechanisms also look designed.
With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer he/she/it/they, has never been seen.
Evolution itself may be that mechanism.
In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life.
Uhh yeah, if we did, then ID would be a fact, and not a hypothesis.
It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that
biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex
appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed.This inference to design based upon the appearance of a "purposeful arrangement of parts" is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system.
This is utterly false, I can experimentally demonstrate the many intricate similarities with man-made machines, such as the fact that it has been shown that DNA-mediated redox activation of repair proteins occur upon DNA binding. Bringing up that we don't know who made them is just plain stupid.
Although both Professors Behe and Minnich assert that there is a quantitative aspect to the inference, on cross-examination they admitted that there is no quantitative criteria for determining the degree of complexity or number of parts that bespeak design, rather than a natural process.
Maybe during that part of the testimony he was listening to anti-ID podcasts instead of Behe and Minnich.
Comment by Guts — July 25, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
July 25th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Looks like a good place to close this thread.
Comment by MikeGene — July 25, 2006 @ 3:38 pm