Favorite passages from The Design Matrix
by BilboI'm almost done reading The Design Matrix for the second time. I'll probably read it a third time. I thought I would just post some of the passages that I especially enjoy. Feel free to comment on them, or post your own favorite passages from Mike's book.
It is my belief that there are people in the world like me — people who are tired of the heated debates, name-calling, innuendo, and political fights. Such people might find themselves in the middle ground and would rather focus on the hypotheses, the arguments, and the evidence. We might not be completely convinced that life was designed, yet we find the hypothesis to be tremendously intriguing. Rather than belaboring the concern as to whether the study of Intelligent Design should be labeled science, metaphysics, or religion, it is my belief that there are people who would rather just ponder the issues that are raised by design and evolution.
(Introduction, p.xi)
And another one:
The success of Darwin's theory has nothing to do with proving design is impossible. The success stems from the manner in which Darwin's theory has been successfully used to guide research and generate insights into biology. Such research and insights have, in turn, generated much circumstantial evidence that supports the Darwinian thesis.
What if Darwin had formulated his argument differently? Imagine that instead of looking for facts that support the possibility of gradual transitions, Darwin had attempted to argue that design was impossible. Imagine further that he took this approach as a defensive posture in response to someone's challenge that if it could be proven impossible that life's features were designed, we would have to abandon the conclusion of design. Darwin would have been in the position of attempting to prove that a claim is not true, rather than trying to explain what was true. His attempts to prove that design was impossible may have become significant in the realm of philosophy, but I doubt they would have formed a scientific hypothesis that developed into a larger explanatory theory. If Darwin had taken this position, which is the negative approach he challenges his opponents to take, I think it is safe to conclude that Darwin's own thesis would have never been developed and he would not have become a significant figure in the history of science.
(Chap.2, p.26)
I'll post more later.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
From page 214: "It is worth noting that evolution as a blind, ignorant, tinkerer also happens to further enhance the plausibility of front-loading. If evolution is blind, it can be led. If evolution is ignorant, it can be instructed. If evolution is a tinkerer, it depends on what you give it. The blind, ignorant tinkerer can be more easily enlisted as a servant of the intelligent watchmaker. You do not have to worry about the blind, ignorant tinkerer seeing some unintended goal and reaching for it. You do not have to worry about the blind, ignorant tinkerer figuring out how to invent its own way through deep time. You do not have to worry about the blind, ignorant tinkerer rebelling against the plan you have for it. Thus, Intelligent Design and blind, ignorant tinkering can indeed co-exist in our biotic reality. They simply have a defined relationship as a function of their differences. It is the relationship of master designer and servant designer. The servant may meander, may make mistakes, and even be incredibly slow, but the servant remains in his place. He serves the master."
Comment by Stephen — May 15, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
May 16th, 2008 at 5:44 am
From the book:
Where does Darwin challenges his opponents to take a negative approach? May be he does, I am not sure, but most modern day ID opponents argue the exact opposite; that the standard ID arguments (for instance, IC, CSI, the EF) are flawed because they take a negative approach. Proving Darwin is wrong is not enough, you have to prove your theory is superior.
To succeed as science, IDists need to propose a hypothesis (as Mike has done), and show that that hypothesis makes better predictions than the prevailing hypothesis. It is, I think, disingenuous to blame Darwin (and/or ID opponents) for the ID movement's reliance on the negative approach.
Comment by The Pixie — May 16, 2008 @ 5:44 am
May 16th, 2008 at 7:13 am
The Pixie:
http://www.literaturepage.com/...
Comment by Pez — May 16, 2008 @ 7:13 am
May 16th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Pez
Darwin is saying how his theory is falsifiable. He is not saying how proponents of a completing theory should approach the issue. I guess it comes down to whether you are an anti-evolutionist or an IDist. Anti-evolutionism aims to refute evolution, leaving us with "We don't know" or more likely "We accept the theory is not right, but it is the best model we currently have". ID, I would have thought, aims to show that an intelligent designer did it.
It is the difference between proving Newton's laws of motion were wrong in some situations (eg the orbit of mercury), but accepting that they are still useful in most circumstances; and proposing an alternative theory in relativity.
[Sorry I gave up on our other discussion by the way, I found myself to busy for a discussion heading in too many directions, most of them circular.]
Comment by The Pixie — May 16, 2008 @ 7:31 am
May 16th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Hi Bilbo. I thought Mike went out of his way to be as fair and objective as possible in assessing the evidence. Accordingly I enjoyed the simple test found on page 125 where sentences are found inside two triangles. I missed the mistakes in both as I was not expecting them. The humble acknowledgement that what one brings into a discussion influences our view of data has become lost in a mass of strident exchanges.
Comment by Bradford — May 16, 2008 @ 10:21 am
May 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Page 86.
Comment by nobody — May 16, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
May 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Stephen, Bradford, and nobody,
Yes, I like all those parts, too.
Comment by Bilbo — May 16, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
May 16th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Comment by Bilbo — May 16, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 4:32 am
This very much fits with the previous point, and is because the ID movement has largely adopted a negative approach.
IDist: X could not evolve, therefore evolution is wrong
Evolutionist: Actually X might have evolved like this, therefore your argument is refuted.
The symmetry is broken specifiucally because one side has chosen to take the negative approach. In real science, the symmetry is maintained by both sides offering a positive hypothesis, and then competing on how well their hypothesis' predictions match reality.
Comment by The Pixie — May 17, 2008 @ 4:32 am
May 17th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Pixie said:
IDist: X could not evolve, therefore evolution is wrong
Evolutionist: Actually X might have evolved like this, therefore your argument is refuted.
So what your saying is that "might have" always takes precedence over "could not" have.
If x is excluded as a result of y pathway, then that is a negative approach, and a just-so story to explain away x with the "perhaps-it-happened" y pathway is therefore much more scientific?
By this logic, for every "can't have" there are multiple "can-do's". Can-dos' can be magical fairytales, but that is science, and ID by default is unscientific.
Where do we draw the line? Perhaps, experimentally verifying the most failed hypothesis (DE) in the history of mankind would be a good start. Otherwise, I don't see it as being distinguishable from the other in any form.
Pixie said:
…and then competing on how well their hypothesis' predictions match reality.
So Pixie, can you identify a prediction by Darwinian Evolution. What organs shall we expect disposal from our future human counterparts. Think of all the environmental factors: global warming, air conditioning, computers, soda, chips, t.v etc…. Surely, with all the wireless transceivers and other electronic devices expelling radiation, what mutations are to be expected, since this historically new environmental shift must be pushing NS and RV to its limits.
I hope this is not too much to ask for from a results-oriented scientific discipline.
This would even be a benefit to all science, production, technology companies etc…
Glove companies could start producing 4 finger gloves so that they're much ahead of the competition.
Biologists could stop studying x biological feature because it has no future use anyhow.
Comment by computerist — May 17, 2008 @ 6:14 am
May 17th, 2008 at 6:35 am
computerist
No, I am saying "might have" disproves "could not have".
The solution for ID, then, is to find a "could not have" for which there is no "might have". Or abandon the negative approach, and do real science.
I would say that Newton's laws of motion have been thoroughly disproved, but are still taught as science. In contrast, most biologists believe that the theory of evolution is a very successful theory.
See here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/ind...
Comment by The Pixie — May 17, 2008 @ 6:35 am
May 17th, 2008 at 6:43 am
From your link Pixie,
Talkorigins said:
so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical.
I have given an example to why it is practical, thereby refuting this claim that it is not practical.
Comment by computerist — May 17, 2008 @ 6:43 am
May 17th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Pixie, that "response" from talkorigins gives no future predictions.
Comment by computerist — May 17, 2008 @ 6:49 am
May 17th, 2008 at 7:44 am
computerist
Talk.Origins say "Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical." They mean that it is impractical to make specific predictions because we do not know the initial conditions and extraneous factors, rather than because there is no application to that knowledge (and this might have been clear if you had quoted the whole sentence).
Yes. Did you read the explanation for that?
The bottomline is: Do you have a theory that offers better predictions?
Comment by The Pixie — May 17, 2008 @ 7:44 am
May 17th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Prediction refers to observations. So, we might predict that most α-particles passing through gold foil will do so with minimal deflection. We *predict* the observations.
Comment by Zachriel — May 17, 2008 @ 9:15 am
May 17th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Yes, this is the point Mike makes early in the book, and why he rejects what he calls the "Traditional Template," where IDists keep trying to prove that evolution is impossible. Instead, he adopts the "Inductive Gradualism" approach, where he will try to gradually move up the evidential ladder, from possible, to the plausible, to the probable.
This first volume is the beginning of climbing that ladder, where some evidence is presented to show that ID is plausible; and then an exploration of what would have to be done to show that it is probable.
Hopefully volumes 2 and 3 will present some of that evidence. Sooner or later, I think we'll find out.
Comment by Bilbo — May 17, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Bilbo
I think you may well be right about Mike's approach, and he certainly starts from a definite hypothesis about what happened, in marked contrast to the ID movement. I would also tend to agree with Bradford's comment that Mike was fair with the evidence (as far as I was able to judge). My objection is that Mike seems to be blaming the evolutionists for IDists adopting a negative approach.
Comment by The Pixie — May 17, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
My own favorite passage:
It's a very simple point, but an extremely strong one that (oddly enough) many people don't seem to think about.
Comment by nullasalus — May 17, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I don't know, nullasalus. I think people think about it all the time how the presence of one species affects the evolution of another species. Even Darwin himself already looked at how different species of finches affect each other. Since human beings probably have the largest impact on the face of the planet these days, I don't think there are many evolution biologists out there who don't think about the impact of humans on evolution.
However, since humans have only been around for (depending on what you like to call humans) maybe 2 million years, I don't think biologists assume any sort of retrograde action of human intelligence on evolution. Yet, if we were to discover that civilizations were present on earth earlier than that, I would assume that their impact on evolution would be studied with great interest.
Comment by hrun — May 17, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
hrun,
It's not a reference to species, but the fact that intelligence not only is a factor to take account in evolution, but can (and with humans, many times directly does) guide it towards a goal. With greater and greater precision, as our technology increases.
People are used to thinking of evolution as an agent itself, with less of an accent on it being a process, or even a tool that an agent can employ. In fact, I think the distinction between agents and tools is generally a problem for some.
Comment by nullasalus — May 17, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I understand that your point was about 'intelligence' and 'goal'. However, the point still remains: Biologists study how species affect evolution of other species all the time. It does not matter if this is through their intelligence or through competition for food, predation, breeding, … Don't forget, the animal kingdom actually has other examples of 'artificial selection'. For example, termites breed their own fungus, a teleologist might say, with a goal in mind.
So, as I said, the effects of one species on the evolution of another is one part of what biologists study. And, if one would find evidence of another intelligent species that might have shaped evolution, then I'm sure that biologists will study that as well.
Comment by hrun — May 17, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Yet another example of intelligent design.
Quick questions: If we were to discover the fungus with no prior knowledge of the termites would it be impossible to infer that it was designed?
What would we look for?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 17, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
hrun:
Great example, animals practicing agriculture and selecting the right crop. Similarly, many ant species keep aphids as "cattle"; some aphids are used for "milk" (honeydew), others go the slaughter. They also manage aphid reproduction by selectively killing aphids intent on sexual reproduction (rather than clonal reproduction), thus affecting genetic variation in their "herd". There's loads of examples like that in mutualistic relationships between species.
Comment by Raevmo — May 17, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
fmm:
Nope. Some of these fungi have lost the ability to live independently from their "masters". Such inability might lead to a "design" inference.
Comment by Raevmo — May 17, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Suppose all non- aphid animal life is wiped out today by a virus could an Alien arriving tomorrow look at the genetic variation and infer design or is this impossible?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 17, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Don't really know if that would be enough to infer design, would it? I guess the IDers should answer that one. There seem to be a lot of organisms that can't survive without other organisms. Are they all designed? And, as a side note, are such codependent species irreducibly complex?
Comment by hrun — May 17, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I thought all organisms show the hallmarks of design, don't they? If that's true, then of course such a 'design inference' could be made by aliens.
However, leaving that framework, I don't really know. Do you? Even given everything that is known about the ants and the aphids: Are they designed or not? Are the ants using creativity, foresight, goal directed behavior, …
Comment by hrun — May 17, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
fmm:
The aliens would find a bunch of starving aphids. They'd wonder what happened to their food (their entire ecosystem for that matter). They would be able to construct a phylogenetic tree of the aphid species based on the genetic variation, but to infer relationships with no longer existing ants? Seems doubtful.
Comment by Raevmo — May 17, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Raevmo
So you are saying God genes and the occurrence of religion in all cultures might lead to a design inference. Very interesting
hrun
Not enough to conclusively infer design but maybe to suspect it. ID is a cumulative science.
I'm not sure where you heard this. Since there are organisms that have yet to be discovered I can't see how you could say all show the hallmarks of design
I don't know about creativity but foresight and goal directed behavior seem like a safe bet.
Aphids eat honeydew not animal life so I don't see why they'd starve I would think they would prosper in the absence of predators and masters.
It might be hard but isn't that what makes science fun.
If an ET scientist produced a paper entitled
Genetic variation in aphids possibly evidence of design
would he be published?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 17, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
fmm:
I was wondering what you were after. Now I wonder what line of reasoning you followed to conclude that I was saying that. Could you spell it out a bit?
What do you conclude from the occurrence of religion in all cultures? I see the postulation of gods as proto-science, an attempt to assign causes to all kinds of phenomena. This tendency is very common not just among humans, but among many "higher" animals. It helps them predict future events, usually a very adaptive trait. If you feed pigeons at unpredictable times, the pigeons will nevertheless detect correlations between feeding events and whatever behavior they were engaged in at such times. As a result, they will adopt stereotypic behavior in order to "elicit" feeding, but the precise type of stereotypic behavior varies enormously because different pigeons happened to be engaged in different behaviors when feeding events occurred.
No, aphids suck plant juices. Plants are also life and would have been done in by your hypothetical virus that kills all non-aphid life.
Scientists are also lazy sometimes.
You can publish anything these days, so I don't see why not. Certainly in a blob-reviewed journal.
Comment by Raevmo — May 17, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Raevmo
I really was just trying to illustrate that ID can be scientific and ID and Darwinian evolution are not mutually exclusive and besides that I'm genuinely interested in different ways that we can infer design.
The God gene comment was just a throw away line
You said that you would infer design in organisms that don't have the ability to live independently from their "masters". Some might argue that God genes and the presence of religion in every culture is evidence that humans for the most part don't have the ability to live independently of the designer.
Feel free to take it with a grain of salt.
I specifically said all non aphid animal life you've got to pay close attention when we are dealing with imaginary worlds
Touché
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 17, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
May 17th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
fifth monarchy man, I see you did not answer the one question I was really interested in: Knowing what we know about the ants and aphids, do you think that ants designed aphids?
Comment by hrun — May 17, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 7:48 am
hrun
I think it's obvious that they designed aspects of their aphid herd. The same way a dairy farmer designs his cattle or a gardeners design tomatoes. I Thought I made this clear.
These Aphids have some characteristics that are clearly the result of the ants design (their genetic variation) some that are clearly not (their wings) and some that are ambiguous (their movements).
I think this is exactly what IDers see on a broader scale when we look at other organisms. The difference is in the case of aphids and cattle and tomatoes the designer is visible to us with the naked eye and for other things we are in the position of the Alien scientist we talked about.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 18, 2008 @ 7:48 am
May 18th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Zach:
Whoa. Alpha particles DO NOT "pass through gold foil." The paper you linked is about quantifying the difference in how alpha and beta are reflected by the foil, in search of a way to measure just the alpha. FAPP, measuring alpha turned out to be much easier than Geiger suspected in 1909.
Comment by Joy — May 18, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
So then aphids are intelligently designed. Great. We can actually look at the process and the result and see if this applies to other organisms. I wonder why ID is not jumping on this.
Maybe it's hard to actually support the notion that ants show the characteristics of design that ID usually puts forth. Do you think there is some sort of boundary when we truly can't speak of intelligence anymore? Mammals, insects, plants, bacteria, viruses? Could they all design?
I wonder, for example, if this would also mean that Rhizobia are designed by legumes. In this case some would say it takes the whole intelligence out of the equation. Unless of course we think that legumes are intelligent, show foresight and/or goal directed behavior. Any thoughts?
Comment by hrun — May 18, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Nearly all alpha particles pass through gold foil, most with very small deflections. Only a tiny percentage are significantly scattered. In particular, "the number of α particles emerging from a scattering foil at an angle Φ with the original beam varies as 1/sin^4(Φ/2)." This tiny percentage, however, is sufficient to show that the positive charge of the atom is concentrated into a very small area.
[edited to fix formatting of equation]
Comment by Zachriel — May 18, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
hrun
I don't know. Could be a lot of reasons perhaps genetic variation is not convincing enough evidence remember Raevmo said that he doubted he could make an design inference based on such a thing.
It might be that there is just not enough of us yet
Yes intelligence has a definition if an entity does not meet the qualifications it can't be labeled intelligent seems simple to me
Depends Are they intelligent? Can they learn? Do they show foresight? You would need to make a case for intelligence before you could make a case for design.
Do the legumes make purposeful changes in the Rhizobia? We can observe ants clipping wings of aphids and selectively killing those intent on sexual reproduction. Do we have any evidence for such behavior in legumes?
And since intelligence is required for ID legumes would seem to be out side its scope. don't you agree
An interesting study could be done comparing the kinds of designs done by ants and variation resulting from symbiotic relationships of unintelligent organisms.
Aint science cool
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 18, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
fmm:
Yep:
http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
Soybeans punish uncooperative rhizobia.
Comment by Raevmo — May 18, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
What am I missing?
Punishment has to do with looking back not looking forward. Do you see punishment as purposeful or goal oriented?
I could say that an electric fence punishes trespassing or natural selection punishes non fitness but I don't think you would call either of these things intelligent
Heck I've even heard some say that history rewards those that plan. But I would not say history is intelligent would you.
Sounds like anthromorphizing to me
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 18, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Seems like usually ID does it the other way around. Make a case for "design" first and then claim an intelligence must have done it.
Maybe. But then I would have also not thought that ID would label aphids intelligently designed by ants. You know, I bet it would be hard for anybody to show that ants, for example, show foresight.
Comment by hrun — May 18, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Hrun
That is only because all known design is the result of intelligence.
If you can find design that is not the result of intelligence ID goes away Hence the testable prediction that all CSI will be the result of intelligent causes.
The question was can Mammals, insects, plants, bacteria, viruses design.If we had evidence that they had designed something we would not need to ask are they intelligent that would have already been established.
Why not? Perhaps because you thought this was all about sneaking religion into public schools.
How could an ant killing only aphids that are intent on sexual reproduction or clipping wings of aphids instead of killing them not be the result of foresight?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 18, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Zach:
In nature (or any unnatural situation in which you might find yourself surrounded by alpha tunneling out of some decaying atom of this or that), alpha particles can't even manage to get through a few centimeters of thin air, much less solid objects.
Thus I don't see how this relates to computerist's question about the total lack of predictive abilities of evolutionary theory. Which Pixie attributed to a lack of knowledge about initial and subsequent conditions. Did you mean to show that precise establishment and control of initial and subsequent conditions CAN allow prediction? [The prediction per this experiment - that even heavy nuclei are very small].
I just can't wrap my head around how this relates in any way to whether or not it could be predicted that a primitive prokaryote + 3.5 billion years equals everything that ever lived. Which *is* the prediction (properly post-diction), isn't it?
Comment by Joy — May 18, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Yeah, well, that's then the question of what design is. That's why I was asking about whether or not you think the ants designed the aphids.
No. Because generally when ID speaks about designing intelligences, they are portrayed as having significantly higher brain function than ants.
Huh? That's somewhat of a non-sequitur. Just because it's a specific behavior doesn't not mean that the ants know in advance what is going to happen to the colony of aphids they keep when they kill the ones bent on sexual reproduction.
Do you think the ants who do the killing actually know about the increase of genetic diversity through sexual reproduction and decide that it would be good for the future or the whole ant colony if genetic diversity was minimized?
Comment by hrun — May 18, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Hrun:
It never ceases to amaze me when folks wonder about the meanings of common words from here http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
Design
1.
a. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent:
b. To formulate a plan for; devise:
2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form:
3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect:
4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
v.intr.
1. To make or execute plans.
2. To have a goal or purpose in mind.
3. To create designs.
How could such a thing not be the result of intelligence?
Here is an experiment for you find out what possible reason an ant would kill only these certain aphids other than forsight
No but the question of knowing something is a question of consciousness not intelligence does a computer know anything when it predicts a chess move I will make based on my past history? Probably not. Does it show foresight? yep
Deciding between two options is about freewill not intelligence deciding based on what is good for future of the colony is about morals not intelligence
The only relevant questions are do the ants show foresight and do they design
The answer is Yep on both counts
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 18, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
So if ants were biologically programmed to kill aphids in response to their sex hormone, you would agree that ants do not use foresight when killing?
Very interesting. So then you would also agree that legumes designed rhizobia?
Comment by hrun — May 18, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
You had said, "Alpha particles DO NOT 'pass through gold foil.'" That is incorrect.
Computerist said, "that 'response' from talkorigins gives no future predictions", suggesting that computerist may not understand the nature of scientific predictions. We predict observations. Hence, the example as a clarification. The Theory of Evolution makes many empirical predictions, many of which are detailed on the Talk Origins Archives.
Comment by Zachriel — May 18, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Once more as I've already made clear I've concluded that the ants show foresight based on specific actions, their killing of only certain aphids for example. And I've concluded that they have designed certain aspects of the aphids because concrete changes were brought about in the aphids due to this foresight.
What similar actions do the legumes do to the rhizbia and what changes result from them? I've yet to see anything comparable here. What am I missing?
What do you mean "in response to"? It's possible that we humans are biologically programmed to want to save for a rainy day does that mean that we are not showing foresight when we do so?
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 18, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Zach:
You had said, "Nearly all alpha particles pass through gold foil." That is incorrect.
This is a highly controlled experiment with a highly contrived situation and specialized tools, designed to test the 'size' of atomic nuclei (and alpha particles). I thought maybe you were trying to illustrate Pixie's point about initial conditions and extraneous factors with something intelligently designed and couldn't figure out why. I now see it was just another totally irrelevant throw-away.
Anybody can make empirical 'prediction' that they observe what they observe when they observe it. I don't find that very pertinent to anything but consciousness, nor does it answer computerist's actual question.
TO admits that current evolutionary theory has "low power" to make future predictions. You can go ahead and admit that.
Comment by Joy — May 18, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Getting this thread back to favorite passages, as Bilbo requested. From page 251:
Comment by nobody — May 19, 2008 @ 12:56 am
May 19th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
That's a good one, too, nobe. Since this thread got a little derailed, maybe we should start another one: "More favorite passages from The Design Matrix." I have plenty more. But I've run out of time, today. Maybe someone else can start one, in the meantime.
Comment by Bilbo — May 19, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
The Pixie said:
The bottomline is: Do you have a theory that offers better predictions?
Yes I do Pixie, its called 'goal-directed design'.
I can make actual predictions with that theoretical model.
The probability for that model to account for the evidence is more realistic.
Comment by computerist — May 19, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:49 am
Joy, I've provided you several cites already, including the original papers. Here's a simplified description:
Comment by Zachriel — May 22, 2008 @ 7:49 am
May 26th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Hi Pixie,
I honestly wasn't trying to convey that point, although I probably worded it poorly. The point I was trying to make is this:
Darwin himself laid out ways that his theory could be disproven. Because of the appeal of his theory, it quickly spread and took root. Teleologists and skeptics responded by looking for areas of weakness and Darwin helped them focus in this regard. The negative approach was born because a) Darwin's theory was so powerful (and thus seemed threatening) and b) there wasn't much to work with in developing a positive teleological approach. Now, the second quote above outlines a hypothetical "“ a clear "what if?" The point being that if Darwin himself took a purely negative approach against the special creationist views of his day, I doubt very much he would have developed a scientific theory. Thus, the message to the reader (assumed to be largely ID-sympathetic) was supposed to be "learn from Darwin."
The basic theme of The Design Matrix is to begin thinking about design on its own terms; a positive, investigative approach rather than a grab bag of criticisms and attacks.
Comment by MikeGene — May 26, 2008 @ 12:56 am