Demarcation, Credentials, and Science Education
by Steve PetermannOver at the Christian Science Monitor, philosopher Alexander George offers an interesting oped concerning the intelligent design debate and what should and should not be taught in science classes. While he agrees with the verdict in the Dover case that ID should not be taught in science classes, he does so for different reasons than those most often touted by intelligent design critics, that ID is not science.
The problem with this argument is that it requires making the case that intelligent design is not science. And the intelligibility of that task depends on the possibility of drawing a line between science and non-science. The prospects for this are dim. Twentieth-century philosophy of science is littered with the smoldering remains of attempts to do just that.
and
Let's abandon this struggle to demarcate and instead let's liberally apply the label "science" to any collection of assertions about the workings of the natural world. Fine, intelligent design is a science then - as is astrology, as is parapsychology.
Then having abandoned demarcation as a criterion for the content of science classes he offers another:
But what has a claim to being taught in the science classroom isn't all science, but rather the best science, the claims about reality that we have strongest reason to believe are true.
Although this may still seem a bit sketchy as a criterion, it sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? What I like about it is that it replaces the failed enlightenment strategy of searching for absolute algorithms (demarcation rules) instead with a reliance on discourse and judgement. In the place of an attempt to formulate and apply certain rules to make decisions, they will have to fall out from a much broader and looser process of exploring the history of science, philosophy of science, evaluating methodologies, weighing the evidence, and forming intuitions. Now obviously this seems quite a bit messier and less certain, but isn't it really the milieu of discourse and judgement within many communities of inquiry that ultimately determines what is to be considered good science from bad?
George's sentiments also seem to track well with what prominent philosopher of science Larry Laudan has to say in his book Beyond Positivism and Relativism: Theory, Method, and Evidence . He also comes down hard on the quest to formulate a demarcation scheme for science and pseudo-science:
Through certain vagaries of history, some of which I have alluded to here, we managed to conflate two quite distinct questions: What makes a belief well founded (or heuristically fertile?) And what makes a belief scientific? The first set of questions is philosophically interesting and possibly even tractable; the second question is both uninteresting, and judging by its checkered past, intractable. If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us. p.222
But Laudan still thinks there are important issues to be resolved:
In asserting that the problem of demarcation between science and nonscience is a pseudo-problem (at least as far as philosophy is concerned), I am manifestly not denying that there are crucial epistemic and methodological questions to be raised about knowledge claims, whether we classify them as scientific or not. p. 221.
and
What we need is to provide is a way of distinguishing reliable knowledge claims from unreliable ones. Once we can do that, it matters not a whit whether a reliable claim is scientific or not. The problem of characterizing the nature of empirical evidence is a major problem but it has nothing directly to do with the demarcation problem, while that latter problem is more an issue in the sociology of disciplines than it is a problem in epistemology. p. 24
So what does Laudan suggest to address this issue of beliefs and knowledge claims being well founded and reliable? He suggests focusing on "empirical and conceptual credentials."
Insofar as our concern is to protect ourselves and our fellows from the cardinal sin of believing what we wish were so rather than what there is substantial evidence for (and surely that is what most forms of 'quackery' come down to), then our focus should be squarely on the empirical and conceptual credentials for claims about our world. p. 222
Perhaps this could be, at least one, reasonable strategy for determining what George seeks in "the best science, the claims about reality that we have strongest reason to believe are true." If so what might Laudan's criterion have to say considering the teaching of intelligent design and Darwinian theory?
First, I would suggest that both ID and Darwinian theory have reasonably legitimate conceptual credentials. Both have been washed through considerable conceptual discourse and find prominent support among both scientists and philosophers. Both have metaphysical undergirdings that have been tested for systematic integrity. Also while some may disagree, I don't think that the conceptual credentials of either is the main issue in the debate. So what of the empirical credentials? This seems to be the main point of contention.
First, intelligent design. I believe that even prominent ID proponents will agree that intelligent design theory has not yet, to date, "made its bones" on the empirical side. The evidence to be weighed is certainly there, but its credentials are not yet well established. Keep in mind that the concept of credentials is also a complex one. From the dictionary, credentials: "That which entitles one to confidence, credit, or authority." This entitlement can come from many levels: from theoretical success, from communal support, from longevity, from the credentials of proponents, etc. For ID to be well credentialled first there must be adequate empirical evidence established and a convincing case made that it supports intelligent design theory. This means that the theory must "work" and many more people in the communities of inquiry become convinced of its empirical merit. There are certainly inroads in this area as more and more scientists come out in support of ID but only time will tell how far this goes.
Darwinism, at least on the surface, has the empirical credentials to be considered a "best" science. At least in the past, it has seemed to "work" in explaining the emergence of biotic reality. Most scientists and other thinkers find it convincing. It has many prominent advocates in fields of inquiry. At least to date, from this standpoint and its conceptual credentials, it would seem that based on Laudan's criterion, Darwinism meets the test to be considered best science and therefore should be taught. I have no problem with this. However, things get a bit more complicated with regard to both the conceptual and empirical credentials once the surface crust is penetrated. Credentials are a tentative thing. The history of science has shown how they come and go as scientific and philosophic explorations continue. Even if Darwinism has empirical credentials for microevolution, do those translate into credentials for macroevolution and all the complexity we see? It is no mystery that those credentials are being questioned more and more not only by ID proponents but also coming from critics of ID as well. As with ID, only time will tell if the credentials of Darwinism remain intact.
George asserts that demarcation should be abandoned and only the best science be taught. Sounds reasonable. However, perhaps it is equally important for science students to be taught what makes a particular science the best, well founded science and what it takes to overthrow it. After all, the brightest of students will not be attracted to science unless they feel they can move science forward and even perhaps supplant what exists today. Intelligent design is a nascent theory. Its full blooded credentials are yet to be realized. However, perhaps because of the cultural prominence it has taken on, it offers the student an interesting and cogent example to be explored. It offers a range of philosophical and empirical issues not normally found in science today. If demarcation is a mute issue, perhaps educational institutions would be well served to adopt a broader and more vital approach to the inquiry into the workings of our cosmos.
[HT to prosthesis for pointing to George's oped]
December 28th, 2005 at 3:53 am
The problem with ID is not a lack of empirical evidence. The problem with ID is a lack of definition. It is impossible to either prove or disprove ID, because it's central defining characteristic is a philosphical concept ("intelligence") and on top of that, it is unclear even whether the theory is universal or existential.
ID completely avoids defining intelligence, and yet there is no theory unless the reader supplies a definition.
For example, one can prove conclusively that there is evidence of intelligent interference in nature. Seedless grapes, engineered corn and certain Poodle variants are all evidence of an intelligent influence on species. Of course, the intelligence in question is Human, but ID does not specify whether the type of intelligence is germane. It is not science if you don't know when you've proven it.
On the other hand, ID might be trivially false. Assuming the existence of an Interfering Intelligence, does strict ID require that THAT Intelligence was created through intelligent intervention? Does ID demand an infinite regress of interfering intelligences (impossible in finite time), or is it sufficient that "at least one" intelligence interfered with one species at some point? ID doesn't say, and in fact if we take the weaker interpretation, ID can coexist quite comfortably with strict Darwinism.
ID isn't science, but that's not due to lack of evidence, or lack of quality on the part of it's proponents. The problem is that ID is insufficiently defined to even begin asking if it's true. ID isn't science yet.
Comment by WhirlingBlade — December 28, 2005 @ 3:53 am
December 28th, 2005 at 7:02 am
WB:
ID completely avoids defining intelligence, and yet there is no theory unless the reader supplies a definition.
Actually Dembski did that. It is called intelligent design to differentiate between optimal design on one side and apparent design on the other.
Intelligent Design is not optimal design
Intelligence is that which can create counterflow. Counterflow being that which nature could not or would not produce if left alone.
BTW science is not in the business of proving.
Also biology, physics, chemistry etc., are the sciences. ID is an inference based on the findings of those sciences.
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 7:02 am
December 28th, 2005 at 10:50 am
It's hard to know if ID is religion or not because, as WhirlingBlade states, the definition of ID is slippery. Here, people seem to define ID as a question: Is design possible ? If this is simply a question, then I would agree that it is science. And since we want to teach best science, it doesn't belong in the classroom because there are many questions out there that seem to have equal footing (ie, we don't know how gravity works, could that also be design ?), though it may be constitutional on a technicality.
BUT, school boards that want to push ID don't have the same definition as people here. They seem to define ID as: There is evidence for design. And that seems to be Religion. Right now there is simply no evidence for design.
I think George is half right. In the case of the school board, they were pushing religion. That was clearly demonstrated. And that is unconstitutional.
Whether any school board would even back up design as defined with razor precision as used here seems to be an open question.
Comment by blockheadster — December 28, 2005 @ 10:50 am
December 28th, 2005 at 11:28 am
Joe G:
It has always been my opinion that Dembski defined the effect of intelligence (on the scale between none, and perfect) rather than defining anything about the intelligence itself. Which, on the face of it, is reasonable, if he wanted to avoid getting bogged down in issues peripheral to his main thrust.
The problem, as I've stated, is that the meaning and truth of the ID proposition varies based on what the "intelligence" is. For example, if the intelligence can be Human, then ID is strictly true. Human intelligence has "counterflow", and we have designed species.
The fact that work continues on the proposition, after the very obvious fact of bioengineering, leads one to believe that ID is not satisfiable by the existence of Human intelligence. So there must be some sort of constraint on the nature of the intelligence acceptable.
As far as the business of proving, I agree. Science is about disproving things. My criticism isn't what ID can or can not prove, it's that it isn't sufficiently falsifiable, simply because the definitions aren't objective ("Counterflow" is a perfect example).
Comment by WhirlingBlade — December 28, 2005 @ 11:28 am
December 28th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Whirling:
Rather than think about ID and definitions in an abstract, pure, idealistic sense, I approach it more as a relativist. That is, just look around at what other people are doing and learn from them. Consider SETI "“ the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. How have they defined this thing they are searching for "“ intelligence? Consider Origin-of-Life researchers. Harvard University is about to spend millions trying to crack this nut. How do they define Life?
But the same applies to you. Consider what you write:
The conclusive evidence of "intelligent" interference can be viewed simply as "human" interference. Why not say, "the interference in question" instead of "the intelligence in question?" You speak of an "intelligence" in question without defining intelligence. For that matter, you don't even define "˜human.'
Extend these "problems" with ID to abiogenesis, already recognized by all as science in action. For example, one can prove conclusively that bacteria and eukaryotic cells came to exist on this planet. Of course, the cells in question are life forms that are Earth-based, but science does not specify whether the type of life is germane to the origin question. It is not science if you don't know when you've proven it.
Comment by MikeGene — December 28, 2005 @ 12:06 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Waaalll, Ithink this approach is long overdue. In my books, ID is science. Its just pretty unproductive science, and science which, in this cultural context, does lead to entanglement of church and state out of proportion to its demonstrated merit. I agree that the problem with ID isn't lack of evidence: it looks more to me like it is the lack of a well-defined research program.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 12:32 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Sorry: I forgot to add something. Not to be inflmmatory, but to be honest, I think the best term for ID is "fringe".
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
poikilotherm sez:
I agree that the problem with ID isn't lack of evidence: it looks more to me like it is the lack of a well-defined research program.
I would say the main problem with ID is the anti-IDists who spew their anti-ID hatred as if it were meaningful.
Perhaps if IDists didn't have to spend so much time correcting the misinformation we would have more time to develop a "well-defined research program". Or perhaps IDists do have a well-defined research program but you just don't know about it?
Common sense tells us the only way to truly understand something is by studying it by how it was really formed. IOW it wouldn't make any sense to study Stonehenge as a natural (ie non-artifact) object.
But anyway:
ID FAQ by Wm. Dembski
What research topics does a design-theoretic research program explore?
"¢ Methods of Design Detection. Methods of design detection are widely employed in various
special sciences (e.g., archeology, cryptography, and the Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence or SETI). Design theorists investigate the scope and validity of such methods.
"¢ Biological Information. What is the nature of biological information? How do function and fitness relate to it? What are the obstacles that face material mechanisms in attempting to generate biological information? What are the theoretical and empirical grounds for thinking
that intelligence is indispensable to the origin of biological information?
"¢ Evolvability. Evolutionary biology's preferred research strategy consists in taking distinct biological systems and finding similarities that might be the result of a common evolutionary
ancestor. Intelligent design, by contrast, focuses on a different strategy, namely, taking individual biological systems and perturbing them (both intelligently and randomly) to see how much the systems can evolve. Within this latter research strategy, limitations on evolvability by material mechanisms constitute indirect confirmation of design.
"¢ Evolutionary Computation. Organisms employ evolutionary computation to solve many of the tasks of living (cf. the immune system in vertebrates). But does this show that organisms originate through some form of evolutionary computation (as through a Darwinian
evolutionary process)? Are GPGAs (General Purpose Genetic Algorithms) like the immune system designed or the result of evolutionary computation? Need these be mutually exclusive? Evolutionary computation occurs in the behavioral repertoire of organisms but is
also used to account for the origination of certain features of organisms. Design theorists explore the relationship between these two types of evolutionary computation as well as any design intrinsic to them. One aspect of this research is writing and running computer
simulations that investigate the scope and limits of evolutionary computation. One such
simulation is the MESA program (Monotonic Evolutionary Simulation Algorithm) due to
Micah Sparacio, John Bracht, and William Dembski. It is available online at
http://www.iscid.org/mesa.
"¢ Technological Evolution (TRIZ). The only well-documented example we have of the evolution of complex multipart integrated functional systems (as we see in biology) is the technological evolution of human inventions. In the second half of the twentieth century,
Russian scientists and engineers studied hundreds of thousands of patents to determine how technologies evolve. They codified their findings in a theory to which they gave the acronym TRIZ, which in English translates to Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (see Semyon 3
Savransky, Engineering of Creativity: Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive
Problem Solving, CRC Publishers, 2000). The picture of technological evolution that emerges out of TRIZ parallels remarkably the history of life as we see it in the fossil record and includes the following:
(1) New technologies (cf. major groups like phyla and classes) emerge suddenly as solutions to inventive problems. Such solutions require major conceptual leaps (i.e., design). As soon as a useful new technology is developed, it is applied immediately and as widely as
possible (cf. convergent evolution).
(2) Existing technologies (cf. species and genera) can, by contrast, be modified by trial-anderror
tinkering (cf. Darwinian evolution), which amounts to solving routine problems
rather than inventive problems. (The distinction between routine and inventive problems
is central to TRIZ. In biology, irreducible complexity suggests one way of making the
analytic cut between these types of problems. Are there other ways?)
(3) Technologies approach ideality (cf. local optimization by means of natural selection) and
thereafter tend not change (cf. stasis).
(4) New technologies, by supplanting old technologies, can upset the ideality and stasis of
the old technologies, thus forcing them to evolve in new directions (requiring the solution
of new inventive problems, as in an arms race) or by driving them to extinction.
Mapping TRIZ onto biological evolution provides a especially promising avenue of designtheoretic
research.
"¢ Strong Irreducible Complexity of Molecular Machines and Metabolic Pathways. For
certain enzymes (which are themselves highly complicated molecular structures) and
metabolic pathways (i.e., systems of enzymes where one enzyme passes off its product to the
next, as in a production line), simplification leads not to different functions but to the
complete absence of all function. Systems with this feature exhibit a strengthened form of
irreducible complexity. Strong irreducible complexity, as it may be called, entails that no
Darwinian account can in principle be given for the emergence of such systems. Theodosius
Dobzhansky, one of the founders of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, once remarked that to talk
about prebiotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms"”the idea being that selection
could only select for things that are already functional. Research on strong irreducible
complexity finds and analyzes biological systems that cannot in principle be grist for natural
selection's mill. For this research, which is only now beginning, to be completely successful
would imply the unraveling of molecular Darwinism.
"¢ Natural and Artificial Biological Design (Bioterrorist Genetic Engineering). We are
on the cusp of a bioengineering revolution whose fallout is likely to include bioterrorism.
Thus we can expect to see bioterror forensics emerge as a practical scientific discipline. How
will such forensic experts distinguish the terrorists' biological designs from naturally
occurring biological designs?
"¢ Design of the Environment and Ecological Fine-Tuning. The idea that ecosystems are
fine-tuned to support a harmonious balance of plant and animal life is old. How does this
balance come about. Is it the result of blind Darwinian forces competing with one another and
leading to a stable equilibrium? Or is there design built into such ecosystems? Can such
ecosystems be improved through conscious design or is "monkeying" with such systems
invariably counterproductive? Design-theoretic research promises to become a significant
factor in scientific debates over the environment.
"¢ Steganographic Layering of Biological Information. Steganography belongs to the field
of digital data embedding technologies (DDET), which also include information hiding,
steganalysis, watermarking, embedded data extraction, and digital data forensics.
4
Steganography seeks efficient (high data rate) and robust (insensitive to common distortions)
algorithms that can embed a high volume of hidden message bits within a cover message
(typically imagery, video, or audio) without their presence being detected. Conversely,
steganalysis seeks statistical tests that will detect the presence of steganography in a cover
message. Key research question: To what degree do biological systems incorporate
steganography, and if so, is biosteganography demonstrably designed?
"¢ Cosmological Fine-Tuning and Anthropic Coincidences. Although this is a well worn
area of study, there are some new developments here. Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant
professor of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University, and Jay Richards, a senior
fellow with Seattle's Discovery Institute, have a forthcoming book titled The Privileged
Planet (along with a video based on the book) in which they make a case for planet earth as
intelligently designed not only for life but also for scientific discovery. In other words, they
argue that our world is designed to facilitate the scientific discovery of its own design.
Aspects of Gonzalez's work in this area have been featured on the cover story of the October
2001 Scientific American.
"¢ Astrobiology, SETI, and the Search for a General Biology. What might life on other
planets look like? Is it realistic to think that there is life, and even conscious life, on other
planets? What are the defining features that any material system must possess to be alive?
How simple can a material system be and still be alive (John von Neumann posed this
question over half a century ago in the context of cellular automata)? Insofar as such systems
display intelligent behavior, must that intelligence be derived entirely from its material
constitution or can it transcend yet nevertheless guide its behavior (cf. the mechanism vs.
vitalism debate)? Is there a testable way to decide this last question? How, if at all, does
quantum mechanics challenge a purely mechanistic conception of life? Design theorists are
starting to investigate these questions.
"¢ Consciousness, Free Will, and Mind-Brain Studies. Is conscious will an illusion"”we
think that we have acted freely and deliberately toward some end, but in fact our brain acted
on its own and then deceived us into thinking that we acted deliberately. This is the majority
position in the cognitive neuroscience community, and a recent book makes just that claim in
its title: The Illusion of Conscious Will by Harvard psychologist Daniel Wegner. But there is
now growing evidence that consciousness is not reducible to material processes of the brain
and that free will is in fact real. Jeffrey Schwartz at UCLA along with quantum physicist
Henry Stapp at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are two of the key researchers
presently providing experimental and theoretical support for the irreducibility of mind to
brain (see Schwartz's book The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of
Mental Force).
"¢ Autonomy vs. Guidance. Many scientists worry that intelligent design attempts to usurp
nature's autonomy. But that is not the case. Intelligent design is attempting to restore a proper
balance between nature's autonomy and teleologic guidance. Prior to the rise of modern
science all the emphasis was on teleologic guidance (typically in the form of divine design).
Now the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme, and all the emphasis is on nature's autonomy (an absolute autonomy that excludes design). Where is the point of balance that properly respects both, and in which design becomes empirically evident? The search for that balance-point underlies all design-theoretic research. It's not all design or all nature but a synergy of the two. Unpacking that synergy is the intelligent design research program in a nutshell.
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 4:06 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
Well, Joe G, I don't recall spewing anything. Is that really a very civil way to talk?
You cut and pasted a lot, and maybe some things have changed since the last time you posted that at NAIFG, but its so badly formatted that its hard to read through, so maybe you could help me out: where in all of that is the peer reviewed publication that specifically demonstrates ID in organisms?
That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. Just a movement of ID quabiology out of the fringe. I for one would welcome it.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 4:17 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
poikilotherm:
Well, Joe G, I don't recall spewing anything.
I don't recall saying that YOU did. Since you agree that ID is science I do not include you as an anti-IDist.
Now onto goal post moving:
First it was it looks more to me like it is the lack of a well-defined research program.
So I provided him with a list and a link. Now it morphs into:
where in all of that is the peer reviewed publication that specifically demonstrates ID in organisms?
Where is the peer-reviewed pub that specifically demonstrates the design observed in organisms is illusory?
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 4:25 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
Dembski called bio-mimetics a subdiscipline of intelligent design. He should ask the people working in that field if they would consider it a subfield of intelligent design.
Just because Dembski decided to define intelligent design as an umbrella for a bunch of fields that people are actively working on doesn't make it so. Plenty of people have been working on those problems for years without making reference to the book the Design Inference or any other work that Dembski has done.
I think Dembski deserves credit for asking "What is the signature of design ?". It is an interesting question. However, he has failed to figure out the answer to that question. Meanwhile, all those "subdisciplines" are moving along quite well.
For all practical purposes, Intelligent Design theory as practiced by Dembski has ALREADY concluded that nature is designed (independent of data). The convential definition of design is "The idea that nature IS too complex to have evolved".
I guess I'll ask this one more time:
Is Intelligent Design:
1) The question of whether nature was designed.
or
2) The conclusion that nature was designed.
That list by Dembski appears to be an attempt by him to simply ride the wake of other successful scientific pursuits.
Comment by blockheadster — December 28, 2005 @ 4:48 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Hmmm…I didn't see a well defined research program there. To me it looked like Dembski writing about stuff other people were doing that was peripheral to the question of whether or not ID was a useful scientific idea in evolutionary biology.
Sorry, if that's the best you can come up with (shrug) its going to remain fringe for a while. And please, can we leave all accusations of "spewing" out of this dialogue? Such rhetoric leads only to misunderstanding.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 4:58 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
poikilotherm:
I didn't see a well defined research program there.
Whatever dude.
But why the avoidance of this:
What is the peer-reviewed pub that specifically demonstrates the design observed in organisms is illusory?
I take it you can't come up with anything. So what does that make NDE?
As for "spewage" when it stops I will stop pointing it out. That's the way it works.
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 6:23 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
bh:
For all practical purposes, Intelligent Design theory as practiced by Dembski has ALREADY concluded that nature is designed (independent of data).
Nice unsubstantiated assertion. Is that the best you can do? (bh's sentence is spewage poik)
bh:
The convential definition of design is "The idea that nature IS too complex to have evolved".
That is the "conventional" definition used by those who don't know or understand ID. Evolved or not has nothing to do with it. This debate is all about the mechanism.
As for nature we already know and understand the origins of nature could not have come about via natural processes because natural processes only exist in nature.
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 6:28 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Joe G: it really is too bad you can't make the smallest effort to be polite. Your messages could be characterised in equally negative terms, and it just drags everything down. I would have thought ID was worthy of wiser and saner discussion than this business of "spewing".
But no, what you cut and pasted as a coherent rese4arch program based on ID isn't a coherent rersearch program. It does not explicitly use and develope ID in the biological sciences to demonstrate its value in evolution. It isn't "whatever", it is fundamental to the point.
Now, I didn't avoid your question: I overlooked it because I can'tr see its relevance. If ID cannot be used in some useful and coherent fashion to explore the evolution of apparent design in nature, the question is entirely moot. So far, you haven't demonstrated the coherent, useful application of ID in the production of a research program in evolutionary biology.
It goes back to the point you dismissed as "whatever". Not whatever at all.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 6:38 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
poikilotherm sez:
Now, I didn't avoid your question: I overlooked it because I can'tr see its relevance.
Whatever dude.
Have a nice day…
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 6:40 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
Would you classify the Dover school board as neither knowing or understanding ID then ? While you may have your own private definition, it is not the definition shared by people who want it taught in school.
Nonetheless, forget the Dover definition. Regarding your definition, is ID:
1) The question of whether there may be a designer.
or
2) The conclusion that there is a designer.
And I don't know why you call what I say spewage. I give Dembski some credit. But am I wrong to believe that Dembski has concluded the bacterial flagellum was designed ? As far as I can tell, his calculation in No Free Lunch seems to conclude that it was designed. (Though his calculations are in error).
Anyway, as I have said before here, I like ID101. I am just trying to get a definition of ID here. It seems like this is the most reasonable ID blog (though I am not a supporter of a teleological explanation of life).
Thanks.
Comment by blockheadster — December 28, 2005 @ 6:43 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
bh:
Would you classify the Dover school board as neither knowing or understanding ID then ?
I don't know them nor have I had any discussions with them on the topic of ID.
bh:
While you may have your own private definition, it is not the definition shared by people who want it taught in school.
I go by the definition of those who proposed ID- the modern version. Complexity is only part of it. Specification and information are equally relevant.
bh:
And I don't know why you call what I say spewage.
Because it is unsubstantiated, false and the only reason you would have posted something like that is utter hatred for ID and IDists.
If Dembski's calculations in "NFL" are wrong please point out the errors. Then please demonstrate that a population of bacteria sin flagella could evolve into a pop of bac con flagella. That would falsify his inference the bac flag was designed.
ID asks the question- Is the design we observe in nature real or illusory?
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 6:55 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
1) I have no hatred for IDists whatsoever ! This is crazy talk.
2) As far as I can tell, you define ID as this question: "Is the design we observe in nature real or illusory? ". Thus, ID is a question and not a conclusion that the design we observe in nature is real, in the sense, designed by a designer.
3) Dembski calculates the "probability of a flagellum" being too low in NFL incorrectly because he doesn't include anything we know about evolution. Drift, gene duplication, horizontal transfer, symbiosis, epistasis. He also doesn't condition on the bacterial precursor and the systems posessed by the precursor (or, the probability of those systems being in posession by the precursor).
4) The way the explanatory filter is established in Dembski's work puts the burden on design to prove itself through low probability. We have already established RM + NS as an important parameter in evolution. The burden is on you to prove the new parameter - design. Dembski has failed to do this. Seems to me you agree with this fact though, since you define ID as a question, not a conclusion anyway.
Comment by blockheadster — December 28, 2005 @ 7:15 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
bh:
1) I have no hatred for IDists whatsoever !
Then why would you post the following:
For all practical purposes, Intelligent Design theory as practiced by Dembski has ALREADY concluded that nature is designed (independent of data).
bh:
2) As far as I can tell, you define ID as this question: "Is the design we observe in nature real or illusory? "
That is what ID asks, not how it is defined.
bh:
Thus, ID is a question and not a conclusion that the design we observe in nature is real, in the sense, designed by a designer.
ID is an inference based on scientific research.
bh:
3) Dembski calculates the "probability of a flagellum" being too low in NFL incorrectly because he doesn't include anything we know about evolution. Drift, gene duplication, horizontal transfer, symbiosis, epistasis. He also doesn't condition on the bacterial precursor and the systems posessed by the precursor (or, the probability of those systems being in posession by the precursor).
We do know that NS can only select for what exists. Also none of what you speak of has been demonstrated to do what you think it can. Why is there isn't any peer-review pub on the evo of the bac flag?
bh:
4) The way the explanatory filter is established in Dembski's work puts the burden on design to prove itself through low probability.
Actually it is low prob plus specification. The third node asks does if have a low probability AND is it specified.
bh:
We have already established RM + NS as an important parameter in evolution.
Right. We established the "random" part due to our genetic ignorance and NS can only select what already exists.
Are you saying that design hasn't been established as a "parameter" in science? LoL!
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 7:54 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 10:11 am
@MikeGene:
Great point. Honestly. Howevever, I would point out that SETI has gone to some lengths to *attempt* to define what they consider an intelligent signal. For example, they expect a point source instead of a diffused one (I was a SETI@Home geek for a while =) ). I will agree that a *definitive* policy on intelligence is unnecessary, if not impossible. But the attempt, I think, is necessary.
Irreducible Complexity is ID's equivalent of the Point Source Transmission. The problem is again definitional. A point source is an objective definition, even though we may disagree that it indicates intelligence. IC is less objective, as it suffers from the problems of workable precursors, and emergent behaviors. On further reflection though, I can't accuse ID of not making the attempt. Thanks for bringing me around there.
I do see the point. Although I would argue that the definition of "human" is nearly axiomatic, in real terms, whereas the definition of "intelligence" is the subject of much ongoing research. It is much easier to separate objects into the classes of "human" and "non-human", than it is to separate them into "intelligent" and "non-intelligent".
Here's the rub. Assume that one approaches ID as a potential student, not an opponent. Even if we remove the requirement for definition of terms, "intelligence" will, in the reader's mind, necessarily assume a subjective meaning. This leads to multiple, subjective interpretations of an objective theory.
As a case in point, Dembski typically approaches ID as the science of design detection. This is in marked contrast to Sewell, who has posited that the four forces of nature are insufficent to account for the creation of computers or jet planes. I think it's obvious that Sewell is arguing for a specific sort of supernatural intelligence, where Dembski may not be. Yet these are both published mathematicians working in the same field.
If we can find substantive objections to Sewell's arguments, but not to Dembski's, does that weaken ID? Is Sewell even doing ID, or some offshoot?
Were I an IDist, my first priority would be to say "this is what ID is", so as not to suffer from the faults of near-ID or psuedo-ID propositions. I can tell you, from the outside looking in, it's difficult to decide who is doing ID, and who is not.
Comment by WhirlingBlade — December 29, 2005 @ 10:11 am
December 29th, 2005 at 10:50 am
@Joe G:
I find Dembski's work to be generally fascinating, and interesting to read. However, I do not believe his work on the bac flag is the smoking gun it is sometimes made out to be. For example, a snowflake is a highly-structured, nearly fractal, characteristically hexagonal lattice of ice. What is the probability that one snowflake will form from a cloud of water vapor?
If you simply look at the positions of the water molecules before and after, a snowflake is *wildly* improbable, and a blizzard defies belief. If you look at the chemistry, snowflakes are inevitable. Dembski approaches the bac flag from a purely probabalistic perspective, and while I can't find fault with the *math*, the conclusion is unsupported.
He ignores that fact that natural forces impose an a priori bias on probability, which is why a huge cloud of dust in space will *inevitably* contract into a ball, no matter how improbable the transformation would be in a gravity-free environment.
Comment by WhirlingBlade — December 29, 2005 @ 10:50 am
December 30th, 2005 at 10:07 am
WB:
However, I do not believe his work on the bac flag is the smoking gun it is sometimes made out to be.
Who makes it out to be a "smoking gun" All he did was give us the means by which to make a reasonable, sound and scientific inference.
WB:
For example, a snowflake is a highly-structured, nearly fractal, characteristically hexagonal lattice of ice. What is the probability that one snowflake will form from a cloud of water vapor?
If the conditions are coreect the odds are 1:1. I live in "snowflake" country. When the conditions are right, it snows. It snows because of necissity. If it rained when the conditions demonstrate it should be snowing then we would have something else to think about. And the same goes for snowing when it should be raining or raining or snowing when there isn't a cloud in the sky- all those would give us more to consider.
Also all you have to do to falsfy Dembski's math is to demonstrate the bacterial flagella could "evolve" from a population of bacteria that never had one. Also Dembski states that he takes into account natural forces acting on chance events. It doesn't help you any though. You still not only need the components, you need to get them together in one place and then get them properly configured.
CSI & specified complexity are basically the same thing. CSI can be understood as the convergence of physical information, for example the hardware of a computer and conceptual information, for example the software that allows the computer to perform a function, such as an operating system with application programs. In biology the physical information would be the components that make up an organism (arms, legs, body, head, internal organs and systems) as well as the organism itself. The conceptual information is what allows that organism to use its components and to be alive. After all a dead organism still has the same components. However it can no longer control them.
The bacterial flagellum- It is a physical part. The physical information is the specific arrangement of amino acid sequences required, as well as their configuration- the "propeller" filament is comprised of more than 20,000 subunits of the flagellin protein FLiC; The three ring proteins (Flgh, I, and F) are presnt in about 26 subunits each; The proximal rod requires 6 subunits, FliE 9 subunits, and FliP about 5 subunits; the distal rod consists of about 25 subunits; the hook (or U-joint) consists of about 130 subunits of FlgE . The conceptual information is that which allowed for its assembly, i.e. the assembly instructions, as well as for the operation, i.e. the speed and direction of rotation.
Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 10:07 am
December 30th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
poikilotherm writes:
It isn't at all clear what this means. The statement seems to suggest that if ID reached some undefined level of demonstrated merit (and it isn't at all clear what is meant by 'merit' or how it is to be demonstrated), then whatever entanglements it might create with respect to church and state could be overlooked. Or perhaps it means, that as long as a science has some definite usefulness, then who cares about the implications for church and state issues.
In any case, the implications for church state issues are interesting but irrelevant. I've said many times that the religious implications of ID (or Darwinism for that matter) are simply irrelevant to the implications for science.
Comment by DonaldM — December 30, 2005 @ 12:27 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Steve writes:
The issue as I see it, though, is that the anti-ID crowd absolutely must have a demarcation in place, or else they have no argument at all against ID being science. That has been the main weakness in their arguments all along. If they adopted the route suggested, then not only would they have to deal with the live possibility of ID being taught in science classrooms, but also the significant problems with evolutionary theory. The latter is something that the anti-ID crowd will simply not accept. In their mind, there are no significant problems with evolutionary theory…only details to be filled in later.
Comment by DonaldM — December 30, 2005 @ 12:32 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
DonaldM, look at it this way: say archaeologists did find unequivocal, unambiguous evidence that confirmed for every single scientist, famous and important religious miracle story X. Could you teach about it in public school science class? Of course, because although it would lead to some favoring of one religion approach over the other, its merit qua science would outweigh other considerations. Dubious and fringe stuff on the other hand, fergit it: its merit as science isn't enough to justify it being taught as science.
Recall the context of my post (science education, the Dover stuff).
Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 1:04 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
DonaldM,
Great posts, but you have to remember that logic and reasoning have no place in this debate.
However a new year is almost upon us and with the new year comes renewed hope that logic & reasoning will find their way back…
Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 1:12 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
poikilotherm sez:
say archaeologists did find unequivocal, unambiguous evidence that confirmed for every single scientist, famous and important religious miracle story X. Could you teach about it in public school science class? Of course, because although it would lead to some favoring of one religion approach over the other, its merit qua science would outweigh other considerations.
Nice story, and perhaps it may hold true in Canada, but here in the USA, not a "snowball's chance in a blast furnace". That is until the courts in the USA understand that science is all about reality without regard to any social-political consequence. Got any more snowballs?
Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 1:16 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Joe G
Hmmmm….its not clear tio me that you are correct. Say someone found unambiguous evidence of (oh, I don't know) a solar eclipse in the Mid East at aboutrthe date of Jesus' crucifixion.
Apply the Lemon test to its teaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Would teaching that solar eclipses have occured all over the place in the last 2000 years, and have been documented by various peoples in various ways have a legitimate secular purpose? Of course, if it was scientific consensus. Would it result in entanglement? No, if it was taught as factual science without recourse to its religious meaning. Would it have the PRIMARY effect of advancing or inhibiting religion? Not if, in class, it is taught as an illustration of solar eclipse recording, and other ancient solar eclipses were illustrated as well.
I mean, otherwise you could not teach anything about how people look at solar eclipses in ancient cultures.
Can you provide me with an incident that would illustrate your assertion?
Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 2:09 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
poikilotherm:
Say someone found unambiguous evidence of (oh, I don't know) a solar eclipse in the Mid East at aboutrthe date of Jesus' crucifixion.
It is not clear to me that what you just presented is representative of what you originally stated.
Actually it is very clear to me that it isn't. Why would you do something like that?
What religious miracle was confirmed by the solar eclipse? Or is the coincidence of the solar eclipse and the crusifiction supposed to be some sort of confirmed religious miracle? Either way you have some splainin' to do.
Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
On what grounds is it unclear to you?
Like what?
The darkening of the sun and the blood red moon, the rumbling and the ripping of the veil in the Temple are all coincident with the crucfxion, and for a long time were held to be portents of the Divine: miraculous.
I'm not sure what your confusion is. Surely you don't mean to say that things that were once held to be miraculous are always found, on investigation to be miraculous?
Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 2:48 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
poikilotherm originally stated:
say archaeologists did find unequivocal, unambiguous evidence that confirmed for every single scientist, famous and important religious miracle story X.
then switches to:
Say someone found unambiguous evidence of (oh, I don't know) a solar eclipse in the Mid East at aboutrthe date of Jesus' crucifixion.
to which he tries to justify with:
The darkening of the sun and the blood red moon, the rumbling and the ripping of the veil in the Temple are all coincident with the crucfxion, and for a long time were held to be portents of the Divine: miraculous.
How does that correspond to what yopu originally posted? What "miracle" was confirmed? That fact that some people of the time thought something was "miraculous" does not make it a confirmed miracle.
Ya see if a miracle was found to be indeed a miracle, as you original states, and it was indeed full of religious connections, as your original states, then it would be against the law in the USA to teach it in a science classroom.
However if an alleged miracle was discovered not to be a miracle at all and therefore didn't have any religious connections, that even should be allowed to be depicted in terms of the discovery. But that is a far cry, light years, from what you originally posted.
BTW your posting and antics may work at NAiG but they won't fly here.
Have a nice day.
Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 3:00 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Oh, I see why you are confused. That's cool.
OK: say they found a great big boat on top of Mount Ararat, and recovered DNA from associated remains with unerquivocal signtures of kangaroo, cassowaries, marmoset, lion, bear etc origin. Say they were able to carbon date the boat, and knowing the date, stated looking at sediments in (say) lake baikal, and found an anomaly that matched the same date. Ditto for ice cores in Greenland. Then they found anomalous deep sea sediments that matched and so on. Again, you could teach this as a spectacular example of how people recorded floods in the past, and compare it to other ancient flood records. Apply the same test.
The example s not really all that different: the flood might eventually be explained non-miraculously, just as the eclipse might be. I usedthe eclipse because its a nice example of how an apparent miracle can be explained, but it doesn't really matter: the flood is good too.
You seem I to imply that I said a miracle IS found to indeed be a miracle. No, what I saud is that the miracle story is confirmed. In the example I used, the religious miracle story is the darkening of the sun, and astronomers confirmed it. That is, it is an established historical event (the miracle stotry) as opposed to it is an established miracle (the supernatural event). It is not against the law to teach established historical events, even if they co-incide with religious ideas.
Does that make sense now?
Now, you vaguely accuse me (yet again) of "antics" and my stuff "working" elsewhere. Which antics are you referring to, and what do you mean 'work". I'm having perfectly civil interactions with others here. Seems to "work" OK.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 3:24 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
poikilotherm back peddles with:
You seem I to imply that I said a miracle IS found to indeed be a miracle. No, what I saud is that the miracle story is confirmed.
Confirmation of a miracle story that doesn't include confirmation of the miracle? Then WHAT was your original point?
You said say archaeologists did find unequivocal, unambiguous evidence that confirmed for every single scientist, famous and important religious miracle story X.
Religious and miracle- What was the miracle of the Flood? That it happened? That Noah survived? Are you saying it would be OK to teach John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" in a science classroom?
Would it only confirm a religious story if the Torah were treated as religious books as opposed to historical documentation?
Did finding Troy confirm the accounts of "The Illiad"
The bottom line is your point is about as clear as mud. That others aren't responding to you should indicate that perhaps it doesn't work OK .
Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 3:59 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
WhirlingBlade:
I'm not sure it's that easy to define "˜human' "“ witness the abortion debate. But that's a side-issue. More to the point is where you say, "Were I an IDist, my first priority would be to say "this is what ID is", so as not to suffer from the faults of near-ID or psuedo-ID propositions. I can tell you, from the outside looking in, it's difficult to decide who is doing ID, and who is not." It's a very good point. I would just point out that to say "this is what ID is" may take more than a few sentences. As we shall see.
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2005 @ 4:05 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
Its a confirmation of a miracle story that confirms the event, but not necessarily the miraculousness of it. Go back to DonaldM's post: he says in response to me
Does that help?
Right: the miracle story is confirmed. That the events that were called miraculous (the story) took place as described.
Well, in the Bible, the flood and the survival of the Ark is ascribed to the hand of G-d, so those are the miracles I'm alluding to. I don't recall discussing Woodmorappe's book at all. All I am saying is that what I describe could be taught in science class, if it were found.
Either way you treat Torah, it is still a religious story. If such things as I describe were found, then those would be scientific facts. You couldn't teach them as religion, but as science.
I don't know. It didn't confirm any of the stories about Apolo and Minerva in it. It confirmed the existence of troy. Finding awhat i describe would confirm a global flood and a boat based faunal rescue. It wouldn't confiorm the hand of G-d.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 4:30 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
poikiltherm opines:
Maybe. If anyone else complains, that will confirm your story.
If no one else responds to you that will confirm my story.
It appears you don't have a point at all- I mean if a once thought of miracle was tied to some religious event but then some time in the future the miracle was explained by science, ie it wasn't a miracle, of course there wouldn't be any issue with teaching it as it has no relevance whatsoever to any religion or religious doctrine. IOW that is very different from what you originally stated.
Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 5:21 pm
December 31st, 2005 at 10:37 am
Joe G writes:
It has always amazed me that those who hold science and scientific reasoning in such high regard, will quickley abandon all of it in order to defend their philosophy. Whether the new year brings logic and reasoning back to the discussion or not, I will continue to question bad reasoning when I see it.
Comment by DonaldM — December 31, 2005 @ 10:37 am
December 31st, 2005 at 10:41 am
poikilotherm:
Okay, but that doesn't really answer the question. You seem to have some sort of criterion in mind as to how we can determine when a scientific discovery has merit and when it doesn't. Based on your story example here, it appears the standard is when evidence is so overwhelming that no one could possibly deny it. Is that the standard you espouse? If so, you'd better be prepared to toss neo-Darwinism out of the science classroom. If it isn't, then please define the standers? Where is the line? How do we know when we've reached it? Majority vote?
Intuition? Please give me the details!
Comment by DonaldM — December 31, 2005 @ 10:41 am