Did Linux Evolve? Was it Intelligently Designed?
by BradfordKernel Evolution has some amusing comments about both evolution and intelligent design. The statement that "Linux is evolution, not intelligent design" struck me as comical but then I thought about the belief by some that the first human alphabet was the product of evolution, not intelligent design. So maybe some don't see the claim as comical at all but rather as another example of teleologists seeing design where none exists. Here's a quote:
"To quote you a number of years ago: 'Linux is evolution, not intelligent design'," noted Greg KH, quoting Linux creator Linus Torvalds. Linus expanded on the statement, "evolution often does odd (and 'suboptimal') things exactly because it does incremental changes that DO NOT BREAK at any point." He continued, "in other words, exactly *because* evolution requires 'bisectability' (any non-viable point in between is a dead end by definition) and does things incrementally, it doesn't do big flips." When alternative examples in evolution were pointed out, Linus suggested that the kernel was much simpler than a mammal and more similar to bacteria:
Setting the biological analogies aside does the claim that Linux evolved resonate with TT's resident critics?
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:38 am
It looks like he understands evolution better than most evolutionists. Most if not all theories about evolution completely ignore the basic premise that non-viable points cannot exist in evolution. Gradualism and functional continuity determine evolution's path, apparently just like Linux has evolved.
Comment by AdR — February 22, 2008 @ 4:38 am
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:10 am
Hi AdR. Welcome back. It is also fair to say that that Linux is intelligently designed is it not? The two terms (evolution and intelligent design) are not mutually exclusive although some behave as if they are.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2008 @ 8:10 am
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 am
First time poster, been watching this space for a year or two now.
This is another example of how the word "evolved" has supplanted "developed" as an idiom, leading to a dual meaning for "evolved" and causing confusion. No one modified (at least to my knowledge) any part of Linux by randomly mutatiing parts of the code, or duplicating a part and then randomly mutating the duplicate until a new function popped out. We programmers may make programs modular, but the modules always have links to other modules (data, communication channels, etc). Everything is intelligently designed. But the "development" of an overall project/product can take days to decades.
So I'm afraid that compariing what programmers do to what evolution does is simply absurd and patently false.
Comment by snelldl — February 22, 2008 @ 8:15 am
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:06 am
Bradford,
I believe that eventually we will discover that we cannot make a fundamental difference between Linux and Life. The design principles that were used to create Linux the way it is now, are indistinguishable from those in evolution. Both can be translated into an abstract set of communicating modules that communicate by precisely defined interfaces. So at the design level there are no differences.
If we look at their evolution, we see that both are guided and constrained by the requirement for functional continuity. In Linux and other computer systems we call this legacy software and we wrap old functions in more modern one. Backward compatiblity is also in this class. With this knowledge we can reverse engineer Linux. I think that we can do the same with evolution.
The main difference may be the driving force, while with Linux it is clearly an external and intelligent agent. If we stop programming if will never change. Now, with Life that may be different and it will probably change with usage. So it must have either an internal drive, which I would compare to the ultimate self-evolving software, or an external driving force.
I would go for the internal drive, but it does really boggle the mind how to start and how to keep going. We also have to define the goals of evolution, is it an internal drive to more complexity, or does it only react when challenged by an environmental (fitness) challenge.
Comment by AdR — February 22, 2008 @ 9:06 am
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:15 am
snelldl, In my response to bradford I tried to show the similarities between software and evolution.
Think about legacy systems in IT. The reason they were never changed was not that we don't have something better (e.g. a complete OO system), but simply because the existing functions cannot be replaced. The same may hold for Life: the genetic code can never be changed for instance. In biology we talk about conserved genes, which represent conserved functions. The problem with evolutionists os that they think in physical entities (proteins, second messengers), but not in engineering terms, the functional modueles they represent or the abstract interface.
Development and evolution are tightly linked. Functions are developed by the a series of incremental steps in subsequent life cycles (i.e. evolution). Evolution by development.
Comment by AdR — February 22, 2008 @ 9:15 am
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
AdR dude:
You just circled your logic - evolution by development - development by evolution - evolution=development - evolution=evolution.
Comment by snelldl — February 22, 2008 @ 10:19 am
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:56 am
The developmental life cycle is part of the bigger system of evolution. Changes in development over time is what we call evolution.
People do use evolution and development almost as synonyms: the development of the flagellum (over time), or the evolution of the flagellum.
Comment by AdR — February 22, 2008 @ 10:56 am
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
Ore of the differences between Linux and the alphabet is that Linux has a specific, designated start and has been around for a couple of decades. In terms of timeline, that puts us at the stage of heiroglyphics, with mabe one or two used occasionally as an acrophone. It's not really comparable to the hundreds of years for the alphabet, or for languages to diverge. So, you could say Linux has evolutionary aspects in its design, but I would not call it a product of evolution.
Comment by One Brow — February 22, 2008 @ 11:41 am
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 am
Most of the reading I've done on the topic emphasizes that, while there may be some non-viable subsytems, organism viability is one of the chief drivers of evolution.
Comment by One Brow — February 22, 2008 @ 11:42 am
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 am
True enough although I think snelldl is onto something.
I agree that evolved has supplanted developed in many instances and that randomly generated possibilities which are part of biological scenarios lack a counterpart in the design of programs. It seems as if some see a process in biological evolution that they inductively impute as applicable to non-biological endeavors. The difficulty is that while there may be parallels there are usually strong departures from evolutionary biology as well. In the end I think a broad philosophical change in outlook affecting how we see the world influences the supplanting of the word developed. Since developed is less commital as a process analogy it is the preferred word in my view for non-biological processes. An author of course is always free to specify analogies in a following text but a reader's focus is less narrowed by the word developed than the word evolved. In some passages the distinction may not be noteworthy but you have raised a valid point.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2008 @ 11:54 am
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
OB:
This presumes heiroglyphics is a causal component in the development of the first alphabet. One could make a parallel argument that the alphabet is a causal component in the development of Linux. To be more accurate though one would be better advised to make a distinction between a tool useful in development and a flash of insight leading to an invention.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Oh man, another one of these threads?
Raises a good point though. And I agree that snelldl is onto something. I'd add that it seems to be that some now think design must be near-instantaneous with a clear end product. Therefore, anything done over time, gradually, or in an open-ended way must not be designed.
Comment by nullasalus — February 22, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Bradford:
I wonder if you've considered the possibility that the extension of the language of evolution to human-centered and human-designed collective phenomena/artifacts might be purposeful. Following ScienceDaily for a few days will highlight what's going on quite well…
Human Culture Subject to Natural Selection, Study Shows -
No Easy Answers in Evolution of Human Language -
Interestingly, Ken Miller presented at that same AAAS meeting…
There is 'Design' In Nature, Biologist Argues -
[emphasis mine] Well, there you have it. There's an effort to "fight" ID by usurping the language of design and confusing it thoroughly with the biological language of evolution. That explains quite a bit about the sort of silly arguments we've been seeing around here lately.
Comment by Joy — February 22, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Joy:
Oh the irony.:mrgreen:
Yes it does. "To fight back, scientists need to reclaim the language of 'design' and the sense of purpose and value inherent in a scientific understanding of nature,"- it looks like TT critics have their marching orders.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
There is design evident in the strategy Joy identified. The historian Paul Johnson wrote that redefining words was a common strategy of 20th century tyrants and used as a means of control. Looks like the strategy persists into the 21st century.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Someone must have forgotten to put me on copy because I never got the memo.
This is appropriate because I am a critic of the ID Movement not of a blog that struggles to "provide a small voice that that helps rectify" the situation of concepts being drowned out by political advocacy.
For a while, ID Movement leaders made a habit of pointing out multiple scientific papers that used the word "design" in describing evolutionary processes. This is nothing new. Mike Gene long ago talked about the compatibilty between searching for design and mainstream evolution. The main theme of Mike's book, The Design Matrix, is about how both the rabbit and duck views are valid.
So why the negative reaction?
Is it so important for you to have blood on your shield from all your bashing?
Few ID opponents were suggesting that there is absolutely no design (especially with a lack of definition of the term). The catch phrase "Intelligent Design" was a smooth marketing tactic on the ID Movement's part. It sounds reasonable and positive. But the suspicion was, and continues to be, is this about making scientific arguments in support of "design", or is it really about arguing for the existance of a DESIGNER (aka creator, aka God)?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 22, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Bradford:
Well, TP is correct in one thing (despite his entirely predictable shield-bashing). Biologists have been making liberal use of design terminology for awhile now, and those analogies get more and more synonym-like as time and knowledge advance. It has become very difficult to maintain the Darwinian 'orthodox' dogmas of randomness on the causation end since the acceptance of neutral theory, a better grasp of constraints, and the strong evidence of front-loaded genetic "toolkits" that were present long before life forms were big enough to see with the naked eye (including eyes).
It was just interesting to me to see that the most recent AAAS conference was all about design terminology and how to "reclaim" (when it's really a new claim) the language from people who have always believed it's designed. A mere issue of framing, which despite all the hateful ad-hom back and forth between the experts and the EA contingent from Seed, is apparently an argument PZ and the gang have soundly LOST. Smarter and less confrontational heads have won the day.
I just wonder how they figure that describing evolution with design terminology - and including all examples of human intelligent design in the database of things "evolved" - salvages their Darwinian Dogma by any stretch of the imagination. Are they collectively admitting defeat to the forces of ID without actually admitting it up front and honestly? Trying to turn defeat into a NewSpeak victory? Where's George Orwell when you need him to interpret?
Comment by Joy — February 22, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Joy:
That was just one among dozens of sessions at the meeting. And AFAIK only one speaker made a case for "reclaim". No need to blow it all out of proportions.
Comment by Raevmo — February 22, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I think the resemblence is a little to strong to argue coincidence, at any stage of the transition, but to go as far as "causal" seems rather odd. Perhaps "fundamental" would be better.
If one were making a causal component argument at all.
Especially when we have evidence for the flash of insight, as we do for Linux. There is no evidence of such insight for the development of the alphabet, apparently, at least none presented on this message board.
Comment by One Brow — February 22, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Who are these "some" Not any of the posters participating, anyhow.
Comment by One Brow — February 22, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
It's traditional. The word "evolve" existed long before there was a theory of biological change. The theory may have brought the word to greater prominence, but it has always meant any kind of gradual changing. For example, the first definition in the American Heritage dictionary includes the notion of evolving by design.
Comment by One Brow — February 22, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Bradford,
Absolutely. Though Miller's strategy (I'd love to really know what motivates the guy) seems destined for failure. It's just a reworking of Dawkin's blind watchmaker tact, which flopped. 'Sure, everything is designed! By nature! Which isn't a designer!' Which stirs responses of 'Whoever designed nature is brilliant' and 'Shouldn't we be suspicious of all this wonderful complexity just happening?' And it only gets worse as technology progresses.
Really, he'd be better off calling for a ceasefire - argue that ruling out a design/Designer(s) working through or behind nature is a dead end, accept the general design paradigm as an essentially valid framework (or as valid as its 'there is no designer' opposite), and focus on addressing specific claims. I know it will break some hearts to realize that biological sciences will no longer be rallied to exclusively support their philosophical and social views, but thems the breaks.
OB,
Who said I was referring to posters? Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Comment by nullasalus — February 22, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Nobody. That's why I wanted to know about whom you were talking.
Meaning?
Comment by One Brow — February 22, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
The evolution of language is an example of evolution as a haphazard random appearing process coexisting with intelligent design. Furthermore, it is not only analogous to evolution it really is evolution.
Consider the way the English "language" has been cobbled together over the last thousand years. I don't have the time and space to describe how different words and terms have been co-opted from other related languages (Latin, French or Greek, for example) From a global (or top down) perspective it appears that the development of English is completely unguided without a plan, purpose or goal. It could even be argued what designer would ever design such a language? Yet, on the other hand, we know for a fact that individual words and terms and phrase are intelligently and intentionally invented or modified.
Consider the term "blog" which didn't even exist a decade ago. Acording to Wikipedia:
Blog has further evolved into the terms blogger and blogging. People may coin a new word or term but that doesn't guarantee that it will catch on. How does a term get incorporated into the language? That appears to be something of a Darwinian process. It's the environment (in the case of language a social cultural environment) that decides which words are accepted and which words become extinct. It certainly is not a directed or planned process. I don't know of any other way to describe it but to refer to it as a very real example of natural selection.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 22, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Where is the connection between pictures and ABCs? A picture of a woman and w-o-m-a-n are entirely distinct ideas.
To be more accurate though one would be better advised to make a distinction between a tool useful in development and a flash of insight leading to an invention.
Of course there is the alternative zombie paradigm where intelligent humans began mapping sounds to symbols without either awareness of what they were doing or purpose. Make your choice.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Linux didn't evolve.
Nor was it designed.
It was created!
""¦. Linux creator Linus Torvalds"¦"
We even know who the Creator is!
Linus Torvalds!
Comment by Rock — February 22, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
So Rock you're a creationist.:shock: I've heard about those kind of people.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Raevmo:
You're right. I didn't attend, only know what's been released over the last couple of weeks about the material. I linked to three characterizing human cultural developments and artifacts in Neodarwinian terms, we see more of it over the past few weeks here in the arguments on this blog. As far as I can tell from the promo at AAAS's site, it was "all about" politics, what political policies should be, and how to make that happen. With lots of side sessions on particular findings in particular fields.
The "proportion" of what the public sees - and I are the public - is what the public is supposed to see. I automatically presume that's designed, whether the design is particularly "intelligent" is always debatable. This argument isn't new for Miller, it's newer for the rank and file. Maybe that's why it was Miller who was chosen to give that particular presentation to participants. I also presume by design.
Comment by Joy — February 22, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:21 pm
So what's "Linux"
Comment by Bilbo — February 22, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
A thought just occurred… I have been confidently predicting for more than five years now that science itself will, given the incoming evidence and new technologies to "look harder," come to accept a non-specific version of ID as descriptive of life and evolution, but philosophically vague about designer(s). Something, I predicted all along, that would look a lot like EAM with front-loaded details.
It occurs that perhaps biology is already there. That it has now become so obvious hardly anyone's arguing except the Culture Warriors, and they'll be arguing until they die no matter what. Perhaps design analogy has already moved into the realm of design synonym - the description is fully apt - so there's no place left to go with it except forward. Just start applying Darwinian terminology to human designed developments/artifacts and the application of design terminology to natural developments/artifacts won't be noticed so much. Evolution still 'wins' because it's embraced design!
That design proponents have been contra Ken Miller's TE pablum for all these years will be quickly forgotten if the terminology both ways gets polluted enough that there's no longer any difference. Kinda like transgenes and man-made transuranics gone wild. Eventually it all gets labeled "natural" and then it's not an issue anymore.
Comment by Joy — February 22, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Bilbo:
What's Linux?
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
The connection is in the use of acrophones for unknown words before they are used for common words.
We have no evidence that there was any individual flash between the two.
Sorry, but I usually refuse to choose in false dilemmas.
Comment by One Brow — February 22, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Of course there is the alternative zombie paradigm where intelligent humans began mapping sounds to symbols without either awareness of what they were doing or purpose. Make your choice.
Come down off that high horsey. Humans mapped sounds to symbols at some point. Either they did it with the awareness of its impact on writing or they did not. Insightful genius or zombie.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I'm obviously not nearly as smart/educated as you folks, but what my simple mind sees is an elephant in the room that no one is talking about. You're talking about how language evolves and the definition of "evolve" and how the word has been co-opted, and everything but the elephant.
What is the elephant? To my simple mind:
Linux is a complex system. And I know that it did not "just happen". It required lots and lots and lots of intelligent effort.
Biology is a complex system that looks in many ways like a computer operating system (and the machine on which that OS runs, and the factory required to replicate that machine, and the machinery required to gather production materials and dispose of waste and generate the power to run the plant and .. and .. and ..). It only makes sense to me to assume (yes, it is an assumption, but it's based on observation of a similar system) that the biological system also required lots and lots and lots of intelligent effort. To assume the other view, that it did not require intelligent input, is to ask me to accept a view for which I have no evidence and which actually contradicts the evidence I see in the other similar system.
But like I say, I'm pretty simple.
Comment by kenter — February 22, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 am
Oh, and btw; Debian Rocks!
Comment by kenter — February 23, 2008 @ 4:45 am
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 am
BUMP(Albeit quite different from biological evolution.)
I think JOHN_A_DESIGNER has stated it quite clearly. We have local acts of creativity, and a global pattern which is largely uncorrelated with (random with respect to) these local interactions.
It can also be shown that these same sorts of evolutionary patterns can be generated by preferential attachment whether the attachments are due to intelligent or non-intelligent mechanisms. The key is limited correlation between local and global domains, constraints on the degree of attachment (such as by proximity), and global pressure (people everywhere like to talk with their neighbors).
Comment by Zachriel — February 23, 2008 @ 11:48 am
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Since I regard both options as untrue, picking either one would be a lie. If my refusal to lie to you strikes you as "high horsey", so be it.
They did it witn an awareness of its immediate impact on their particular composition, but apparently not with an awareness of its impact on writing in general.
None of the above.
Comment by One Brow — February 23, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Zachriel:
So do you accept the idea that evolution, even Darwinian type, evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive?
How successful is science in analyzing global patterns, especially when the patterns span millions indeed billions of years and a universe with a radius of 15-20 billion light years. My thinking is that the physical sciences are quite limited in analyzing something so mind boggingly immense. Scientists like Newton and Einstein were not only staggered by the immensity of the universe but also very humbled. They described themselves as merely small children trying to understand it all.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 23, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Humans mapped sounds to symbols at some point. Either they did it with the awareness of its impact on writing or they did not.
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Darwin himself posited intelligence as a mechanism of evolution. Not only is intelligence an adaptation, but intelligence can directly affect the genetic content of the next generation. The process is called sexual selection. (But when a bird picks a mate, it is without regard to the long-term evolutionary trend.)
Intelligent Design claims that there is a *global design* that can be detected empirically. There is no evidence to support this claim.
Comment by Zachriel — February 23, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
That's a restricted view of intelligent design and an unwarrented conclusion. Global design is reductionist in nature. Mike has shown that there are no theoretical barriers to biases in local effects that can be designed for a specified global outcome. In addition, downward causation is a paradigm that obviates the need for global explanations.
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I've been saying that for a couple of weeks now, so why should it have been difficult?
Comment by One Brow — February 23, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Yes, done for immediate needs in a specific cultural milieu. That was clear from comments in the previous thread. Just as a bird may choose a mate with a beautiful song without intending to cause the population to diversify.
"”
Cultural Inheritance of Song and Its Role in the Evolution of Darwin's Finches, B. Rosemary Grant, Peter R. Grant, Evolution, 1996
As nineteenth century biologists were aware of 'intelligent design' in the sense of intelligence and intelligent decisions affecting reproductive success, then that sort of 'intelligent design' is a vacuous claim.
The evolutionary pattern depends on a general lack of correlation between the local and global domains. When design is imposed on the global domain, even if effected by local changes, it should leave evidence in this pattern. Otherwise, again, the claim is vacuous.
Comment by Zachriel — February 23, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Zachriel: Zachriiel: Bradford: So they mapped sounds to symbols for the purpose of satisfying their own writing needs. That wasn't so difficult.
It was actually clear in the blog entry that preceeded the comments. I highlighted a very specific form of writing entailing the mapping of sounds to symbols.
Bradford: That's a restricted view of intelligent design and an unwarrented conclusion.
This is irrelevant to the claims mentioned.
Right. The Design Matrix mentioned both general approaches and some specific phenomenon that could be fruitful
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
So they mapped sounds to symbols for the purpose of satisfying their own writing needs. That wasn't so difficult.
I said it in the blog entry itself. I wasn't attempting to describe the broader gamut of linguistics when I mentioned alphabets. If I wanted to do that I would have worded the example differently.
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Please define Intelligent Design in a non-vacuous manner. (You might want to be sure to distinguish it from a peacock's tail being 'designed' by the choices of generations of peahens.)
Comment by Zachriel — February 23, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
What's going on within cells is strong evidence to me of the design of cells, and to a lesser extent the variety and kind of life that exists at the macro scale. Not absolute proof, but strong evidence. There may never be absolute proof, but design is the best explanation so far, IMO.
The fact that bacteria have survived with such a robust conservation of the internal cellular systems is strong evidence to me as an engineer that the system was designed. It is practical nonsense to assert that a-telic forces and systems got off the ground and continued to exist without such a robust design from the onset. Sheer madness.
I guess you need to speak for yourself.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Here's one answer:
If we take intelligent design to be an effect, then we can define it as an effect that requires a mind. If we take intelligent design to be causal, then we can define it as the process of producing an effect that requires a mind. Since the common denominator in both uses is an effect that requires a mind, I will define intelligent design as follows:
Intelligent Design: an effect that requires a mind.
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Hi Bradford,
Is that YOUR definition?
That appears to rule out design by committee.
It basically sounds like…
"Intelligent Design: an effect that requires a Designer."
(and, yes, the capitalization was intentional).
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 23, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
There is no controversy then. Darwin posited sexual selection in 1868. The "mind" is the eye of the beholder. The "effect" is the apple of her eye, the frequency of traits in a population. The peacock's tail.
To justify a scientific basis for your intuition, take the assumption of agency involvement in the design of cells and "life that exists at the macro scale", and use that assumption to generate testable predictions that are specific and distinguishing.
Comment by Zachriel — February 23, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Zechriel: "To justify a scientific basis for your intuition, take the assumption of agency involvement in the design of cells and "life that exists at the macro scale", and use that assumption to generate testable predictions that are specific and distinguishing."
Why? If we found an alien machine on Mars, testable predictions of the nature you require to prove its intelligent engineering would be just as implausible. The fact is, we have found sophisticated machines on earth, not made by man, and their existence is just as implausible without foresight involved.
"Science" has limits. But humans can reason beyond them. (This would be a good thread.) Obviously your particular implied philosophy is that things that appear designed should be assumed not to be until proven otherwise according to some intuitive level of confidence. I take the opposite position. One should assume things that have the hallmark of foresight to be a product of foresight, until proven otherwise. The difference is philosophical, and not scientific, given that science itself rests on philosophy. The cast of mind of the person determines the philosophy.
The old duck and rabbit thing, as MikeGene would say.
FWIW, I'm not in favor of teaching ID, per se, in schools as "science." (Neither am I in favor of teaching naturalistic views of OOL as "science" for for the same reasons.) But I am in favor of laying the evidence of the internals of cells out for the kids to see. Let the chips fall where they may.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Because your personal intuition or credulity are not scientific evidence.
If something that was purportedly an alien machine was found, it would certainly be subjected to scientific study.
That is quite true. And you can believe anything you want. But the ID Movement insists upon scientific credibility.
Assume what you want. But to have scientific validity, you have to propose specific and distinguishing hypotheses.
Comment by Zachriel — February 23, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
So what? This is Telic Thoughts. Not Scientific Thoughts. If you don't like what I write, skip on by.
Sure it would. But could you be sure the machine was designed if there were not "signatures" left by a designer? If so, by what means?
Ditto.
I think they are wrong-headed. They should be attacking the limited philosophical basis of blind-watchmaker "science" and not play within its limited rules.
I'm not interesting in limiting myself to "scientific validity" as you define it. Why would any sane person do that?
But I am curious about one thing with regards to your philosophy: what precise ratio of correct predictions versus failed predictions does it take for you to have confidence in a hypothesis?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
You made a claim of evidence. Then you asked me why testing is required to justify a scientific claim.
By comparison to known artifacts. By determining the purported purpose of the device. By finding a causal link to the purported the designer. You know. The usual.
So do I.
Because science is by far the most effective methodology for learning about the natural world.
Generally, the more specific and more distinguishing the hypothesis, the more ways of testing the hypothesis, the stronger our scientific confidence. But not bothering to propose a testable hypothesis certainly implies little scientific confidence.
Comment by Zachriel — February 23, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I made a claim of evidence, but I didn't say anything about "scientific claims", and neither did you in the statement I was responding to:
"Empirical" evidence and "scientific" evidence are necessarily not the same thing, if by "science" you mean the method based on your particular philosophy. There is certainly plenty of empirical evidence that supports a design for the innards of cells.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Let's get specific, let's say it was a machine that mined rocks, crushed them, and put the dirt into a bin, and used sunlight to power it, with wires, motors, cables, conveyors. And let's say it stood alone with no other evidence or artifacts. No markings, no writing. Would you assume that something made it? I would guess you would. Would you assume it was made by a system that had foresight? Of course, it's all academic up to this point. What if it became a life or death situation where someone who claimed he could prove one way or another whether the thing was product of foresight, and put a gun to your head and demanded you take a stand? And if you guessed wrong, you're dead. What would you choose?
At very least, your reply will help to illuminate your personal philosophy.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Whether that is true of not, science has limits. If, in fact, the first cell on earth was designed, science cannot tell us that. At best, it can only weigh in on what is possible, not what actually what happened with regards to OOL. So far it is woefully weak, and probably always will be. If someone did design the first cell, science can never tell us. Science is not about truth. Science is about a certain method that yields varying levels of confidence for certain kinds of hypotheses. It is a tool, and only a tool. It is a tool of man and not its master.
At any rate, the difference between you and I is simply this: intuitional bias. You are biased again design and I am biased in its favor, with respect to the first self-replicating cell. We may have our reasons, but in the end, the bottom of that chain of reason is intuition.
Sidebar: the kind of "science" that has been the cause of so many great thing for mankind has been the empirical sort, the kind where contingencies have no truck, not the historical sort, loaded with contigencies. The kind of science you have in mind should really be given a different name, so as not to confuse it with the real empirical kind.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
That's correct. I volunteered how you could take your intuition and determine if it is scientifically justified.
The scientific method is, well, a methodology, not a philosophy.
Let's see. Something that is just like a human machine, but found on Mars. Hmm.
Comment by Zachriel — February 23, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
We'll never know what stars are made of either. How could we?
Yes, I agree. Eppur si muove.
Not at all. Show me the scientific evidence, and I am quite convincible. But not only don't you have such evidence, you don't think you even need to produce it.
Science is as science does. Historical sciences can be tricky to untangle, but they still require well-formed hypotheses and testing.
Just to illustrate your point, a historical scientist might predict that whales with hind limbs will be buried in rocks in the middle of the Egyptian desert. Of course, that sort of thing is just silly. The "evidence" is that whales swim in water. We know from experience and common sense that you won't find whales in rocks in the middle of the desert.
Comment by Zachriel — February 23, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
What's funny is your bias is showing quite brightly in that statement and either you don't realize or you're being difficult, or maybe you're missing my point.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Zechriel: "Let's see. Something that is just like a human machine, but found on Mars. Hmm."
Right. Something "like" a human machine. On what basis would you infer design or not without any other evidence?
Zechriel: "The scientific method is, well, a methodology, not a philosophy."
It's a methodology based on philosophy.
Zechriel: "That's correct. I volunteered how you could take your intuition and determine if it is scientifically justified."
You keep trying to make me play by your rules. Go back and read what I already wrote.
Now in case you missed my main point, the essential difference betwixt us is that when you see the hallmarks of engineering foresight, such as a cell exhibits internally, your bias of "method" tells you to assume that it is not designed. My bias tells me to assume it is. My bias tells me, when a thing has hallmarks of foresight, better to assume that it is designed.
Who is right in the case of OOL and the internals of cells?
So far, there is no "right" that all parties can agree on. But I'm not primarily interested in getting all parties to agree. When I encounter a person such as yourself (who I presume) understands the essence of engineering principles and information theory who can't already see that cells exhibit foresight, there's not much I can say, except to expose your bias for other curious onlookers. And I think there are more of my types in the world than your types. I'm interested in getting the evidence to them.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Hi Zachriel and Kornbelt888,
I don't know if this will help or hurt your conversation, but let me throw it out provocatively…
In the other thread we have been talking about the acceptance of the existence of Black Holes before direct experimental proof was discovered.
This situation is the opposite of finding a machine on Mars.
In the case of Black Holes, the explanation existed but the tangible evidence did not. In the machine-on-Mars case, we have tangible evidence but no explanation.
I suggest both of you would probably agree that tangible evidence and a logical explanation would justify a conclusion (at least until something better comes along).
First question, do you feel tangible evidence is a requirement, or would a strong logical explanation be good enough (e.g. Black Holes)?
Second question, would tangible evidence and a dubious explanation be good enough or is "We don't know" the proper scientific position to take in these situations?
Third question. What qualifies as a logical, non-dubious explanation?
Excuse me while I stand back and watch now.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 23, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
kornbelt888:
Curious onlookers like me wonder how an amateur like you can "see" foresight while the vast majority of scientists who actually study cells for many years don't see it that way (or they are being very secretive about it). Just "seeing" things and claiming understanding of "the essence of engineering principles and information theory" (what is that essence anyway?) sounds a bit hollow to this curious onlooker.
Comment by Raevmo — February 23, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
When Mike Gene puts forth an idea, explains it and calls it front loading the one word that springs to my mind is foresight. Does it matter that he and others do not constitute a majority?
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Bradford:
They don't? Do you agree with kornbelt's assessment that if you can't "see" foresight, then you're biased?
Comment by Raevmo — February 23, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Raevmo, everyone is biased. Some however are unaware of their biased condition.
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Thought Provoker,
Jump right on in. Firstly, let me say that I'm not anti-science, any more than I would be anti-medicine, or anti-mathematics, in case anyone has that impression. Science is a useful tool when used within its limitations. One thing I oppose is philosophical speculation masquerading as anything other than what it is, and calling itself "science." There's nothing wrong with speculation. But let's call a spade a spade. Secondly, I assert that either philosophical naturalism is false or else human inference is merely a handy illusion. And let's face it, in practice, "methological" naturalism is a linguistic ruse. There's no reason to be "methodologically" naturalistic unless you are philosophically naturalistic. Either your philosophy allows for designing intelligence of which we are contingent, or it doesn't. Keeping the very idea of intelligence out of the "methodology" is arbitrary unless one's philosophy asserts there is no such intelligence.
Good enough for what? Are you asking me if tangible evidence of a designer of microbiological systems is required? My philosophical bias says it's already right there in plain view based on the perponderance of evidence. But I assume that's not what you're asking. No. I don't think we need direct evidence of a designer to infer design when the preponderance of evidence indicates such.
If we're talking science aka methodological naturalism, the agnostic position would be the proper one. If we're talking meta-science, or philosophical bias, the answer depends on the individual. As I stated previously, the opposing views of "this thing bears the hallmarks of engineering foresight" and "there is no evidence this thing was designed" are not within the domain of science itself. One of them is a philosophical presumption for science, the methodology of naturalism.
Everyone has their own threshold for such things, but the less contingencies the better.
At any rate, assessing the landscape of the innards of, say, a cell against (intelligent) human engineering principles is not an explanation, scientific or otherwise. Intuiting that a thing is designed based on a "consilence of clues" is not an explanation. Rather it is a conclusion of a preponderance of evidence. It's of the same nature that makes district attorneys file charges, and juries conclude guilty or not guilty.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
The opinions regarding a design inference of the "vast majority of scientists" is quite irrelevant to me personally. More of them probably don't even think about such issues. And the ones that do have come through a formidable ideology molding process. What you're saying is like saying the "vast majority of Biblical scholars do not agree with you" on some point of doctrine. But when we find out the "vast majority of Biblical scholars" are Roman Catholics, indoctrinated along very specific lines, then I'm not surprised that they would disagree with me about some point of theology.
I really couldn't give a rat's ass what the "majority of scientists" think about the design inference.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I didn't say that only those who can't see foresight are biased. I said everyone is biased, including myself. (And anyone who can't see their own bias is doubly blind, IMO.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
"Raevmo: Curious onlookers like me wonder how an amateur like you…"
Is that suppose to be an argument?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
kornbelt:
No. That is a quote-mined part of an argument.
Is claiming understanding of the "essence of engineering principles and information theory" an argument?
Comment by Raevmo — February 23, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Part of one. It's a specific qualification. Do you think the consensus is right? They might be and they might not be. But merely pointing to a consensus is not an argument. Why is the consensus right? I'm interested in specific arguments and evidence, not what "the consensus thinks."
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Hi Kornbelt,
Your reaction to my set of questions was interesting. I was asking them of Zachriel just as much as I was asking them of you. I will withhold further comments until Zachriel has a chance to respond.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 23, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
You are more than welcome to marshall other types of arguments. But your position seems to just be handwaving. Scientists make predictions of new empirical phenomena, while what you call "strong evidence to me" does not constitute a convincing argument.
If you saw a tractor in a field, why would you infer design? Because you have seen tractors before. All you have done is transport a tractor to Mars. Further investigation will undoubtedly lead to other evidence.
Scientific methodology is a-philosophical. You can be Christian, Muslim, atheist, or nihilist. You can still apply the scientific method. You can even believe the world was created Last Thursday. It doesn't matter.
I am more than willing to entertain other possibilities. But what you call "strong evidence to me" does not constitute a convincing argument.
Comment by Zachriel — February 23, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
A well-constructed scientific hypothesis will make predictions and guide research. Just because theory allows for black holes is not enough to reach any firm conclusion that they do exist. However, theories of star collapse in conjunction with theory led to the predictions of black holes and specific, distinguishing properties. Further research has largely confirmed these predictions.
I'm not sure what you mean. Evidence always trumps theory (though they are not always so easy to disentangle), and "We don't know" is always a valid response when we don't know.
In science, a good theory can generate testable hypotheses and guide new research. A great theory, such as Darwin's Theory of Evolution, unifies observations from disparate fields, and spawns entire new disciplines. (For comparision, Intelligent Design is scientifically sterile.)
Good. We're in agreement. For a claim to have the imprimatur of science requires that it be verified by the scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat.
That's evidently false as many scientists are not philosophical naturalists but still produce quality science.
I know of no scientist who keeps intelligence out of scientific methodology. As scientists are usually very intelligent and use that intelligence in their work, your comment doesn't even make sense.
Perhaps you mean proposing hypotheses concerning the actions of intelligent agents. This is just false as scientists are more than capable of studying intelligent agents, such as humans.
Comment by Zachriel — February 23, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I don't expect it to. I'm not interesting in converting you.
If you encountered my specified machine on Mars you would infer it was of earth origin, even if it wasn't?
That's a bizarre statement. Christianity, Islam, atheism and nihilist are theologically diverse, but most of their practitioners share common philosophical views: the universe operates by regular laws, that time flows in one direction, that effects have causes, that human reason is not merely illusory but is capable of apprehending "truth" (i.e, valid inferences), etc. These views do not depend on science, rather science depends on them. They are philosophical positions. And methodological materialism adds another one: a designer is not necessary. MM cannot demonstrate that premise. MM simply assumes it.
But why? One might rejoin that "methodological materialism has led to all the wonderful advances in medicine, technology." But has it? No. One can be methodologically neutral and come to the same conclusions of medicine, electronics, etc. (Except for perhaps origin-of-universe.) The only "science" that seems to depend on the a-telic premise are life sciences based on the blind-watchmaker hypothesis, which has hardly led to any fabulous advances for humanity. (Of course, it was theists were ones who largely responsible for the revolution in understanding of nature. They believed in the law because they assumed a Lawgiver.)
Understood. If it could be demonstrated that a-telic natural process could produce DNA and the self-replicating intra-cellular machinery of life with its robustness features, I would certainly be willing to entertain that.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I was talking about intelligent agency in the creation of life, not human intelligence.
So you have no problem with an intelligent agency designing the first lifeform on earth? If not, do you assume that a-telic natural process alone were responsible? Or are you agnostic on the question?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 23, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
One would hypothesize it had a similar cause as other tractors. That doesn't necessarily mean an Earth origin. A close study of the details would be suggested.
Not at all. One doesn't have to hold a particular view to utilize a methodology. You don't have to like cake to follow a recipe.
You think so? Some people believe in miracles.
Observe some aspect of the world. Form a tentative hypothesis about those observations. Make a new prediction, specific and distinguishing, entailed in the hypothesis. Test the prediction. Adjust the hypothe