Gaps, ID, and OOL
by MikeGeneBilbo has offered an inductive argument for ID that has generated quite a bit of discussion. Some have said that it is a "god-of-the-gaps" argument, leading me to share some thoughts on such "gaps."
Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that the first cells were indeed designed and used to seed this planet. What would this look like to someone who was convinced that this planet instead spawned those seeds? A gap. That is, if one is committed to the hypothesis that the planet's geochemistry is sufficient cause for the origin of these cells, yet their origin depends, at least in part, on some form of intelligent design, the non-teleological perspective interprets its difficulty in bridging the discontinuity in epistemological terms "“ a gap.
Now, once we realize that such a design event will be perceived by non-teleologists as a gap, two other interesting insights follow.
First, if the original life forms were designed, does this mean non-teleologists cannot at least shrink the gap? No. False ideas can generate predictions that bear fruit. Also, recall the lessons from the OLL research:
Clas Blomberg, a researcher of abiogenesis, writes that origin of life research "is aimed to show how it could have happened"(emphasis added/ J Ther Biol 187:541-554). And when it is time to evaluate various speculations about the origin of life, Blomberg points out that the "primary question is not: "is this the way it happened?", but rather, "what arguments support the possibility that it could have occurred this way and what speaks against it?"
Thus, the limiting factor in speculating about ways life could have arisen from non-life is the human imagination and such imagination, coupled with sophisticated lab equipment and significant funding, is likely to somewhere provide circumstantial evidence that "support the possibility that it could have occurred" in some way. Thus, it will look like the gap is shrinking. And this takes us to our second insight.
The gap argument is simply a different way of stating the Promissory Note Argument. This argument appeals to the history of scientific progress and incorporates the circumstantial evidence about how things could have happened, and then promises that the non-teleological explanation will one day be provided. The progress of science is a historical fact and human beings, using science and reason, have been tremendously successful in closing many gaps. For example, the demise of creationism, which defended multiple gaps during biotic history, creates an intellectual inertia to think that the OOL is just another gap that will likewise be filled. I cannot deny the power of this argument, except to offer the caveat that filling littler gaps is not very persuasive justification for promising to fill a much larger gap.
Things get more interesting when you realize that most non-teleologists believe that a design inference necessarily depends on the ability to identify and describe independent information about the designer(s). Without such information, the teleologist is left with nothing more than gaps. If it can thus appear the gaps are slowly being filled, the non-teleologist will never suspect that life was designed (remember we are making this assumption for the sake of argument).
But there is one major problem with the Promissory Note Argument "“ it has no expiration date. Since, FAPP, we can indefinitely generate new speculations and lines of inquiry that provide new sets of circumstantial evidence, the perception of a discontinuity as a gap can be maintained long past my lifetime. And this takes us to Dawkins' argument about the origin of life "“ the OOL event was so ancient and improbable that we should NOT expect an ability to completely close the gap. In other words, the Promissory Note has been given an expiration date after all "“ eternity.
In summary, if life was indeed designed, non-teleologists cannot ever hope to suspect or detect this. The design event would register in their minds as a gap that had the appearance of being slowly filled and the eternal promise that it will one day be filled. The only way for them to break out of this mindset is for someone to provide powerful, independent evidence of the designer(s), even though the design of life does not entail that such independent information should be available to us now.
I don't bring this up as a way to insist non-teleologists should abandon their gap arguments and promissory notes, after all, they may very well be correct. I bring this up in the hope that at least some non-teleologists will try to understand why their gap arguments and promissory notes are not compelling to teleologists. To break the impasse, non-teleologists will have to either close the gap or teleologists will have to come up with something else that cannot be interpreted as a gap.
Addendum:
When it comes to various "shrinking the gap" claims, teleologists should keep several things in mind.
1. Most of those claims are an attempt to support the way things "could have happened." But abiogenesis claims are claims about history and history is not about what could have happened.
2. People who are hostile to ID are likely to exaggerate the significance of some research. But consider the larger picture:
They are wrestling with basic questions: What is life, exactly? Does it always require liquid water and those long Tinkertoy carbon molecules? Does life require a cell? Did life begin with a hereditary molecule or with some kind of metabolic chemical reaction? Where did life begin on Earth? Was there a single moment that could be described as the "origin of life," or did life sort of creep into existence gradually?
All that is very much in play. In the words of George Cody, an origin-of-life researcher, "No one knows anything about the origin of life."
3. When it comes to skepticism about the OOL, consider that there is probably a good deal of self-censorship among the experts. Recall the candid observations from Paul Davies:
Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled. There seem to be two reasons for their unease. First, they feel it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations. Second, they worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding, especially for the search for life in space.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Naive induction is not always a useful methodology. Science entails a much more powerful methodology, hypothetico-deduction. It allows us to "punch through" the Gap.
Consider when Halley predicted the return of a comet. Or when Einstein made the bold prediction that light would have a quantifiable curvature when passing the Sun's gravitational well. Or when Mendeleev predicted the existence of heretofore unknown elements. These were very strong confirmations of their respective theories, and very importantly, eliminated many plausible competing theories. It didn't require knowing everything about the process. Maybe angels do push planets on crystal spheres, but it looks just like gravity.
We form a generalization from the evidence. It can come from any source whatsoever, induction, imagination, anywhere. But we then use that generalization to make specific and distinguishing predictions, the more extraordinary the better.
But let's follow your thought-experiment.
Assuming we have sufficient resolution of the historical events, it might appear that life suddenly appeared on Earth. And of course, science would attempt to investigate this apparent discontinuity.
Though knowing a few odds and ends does not constitute a complete theory of abiogenesis, it is not nothing. The existence of replicating molecules and complex organic chemistry that may have preceded cellular life is important information. That living chemistry shows signs of descent is of paramount importance. After a while, a Gap may become full of stepping stones with a discernable far bank. From this, it may be possible to generate a valid theory and make specific confirming predictions.
That is certainly not inevitable. And this is where your argument breaks down.
Science makes predictions based on valid hypotheses. Knowing the properties of organic chemistry, living systems, evolution; it is quite reasonable to postulate a natural origin to life. But it is not an inevitable conclusion. But whatever the hypothesis, in order for it to be substantiated, it has to lead to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
To say that nothing can ever be scientifically known about the seeding of the Earth is not a valid claim based only on your thought-experiment. We certainly can expect to find evidence. If you want to add the addition claim that this process left no evidence, that there is no evidence in life itself, and that the Seeders disappeared and likewise left no trace, that would not constitute a valid scientific hypothesis–even if true. It has exactly the same empirical validity as Last Thursdayism–even if true.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
People have downplayed gaps a little too much. Gaps speak to the ability of Science to speak of things as a whole. To rule out design, intervention, or God as a whole as "unnecessary". The argument then is that something about dumb nature is sufficient to produce everything we see around us (and what is doing the seeing). Sufficiency cannot be well-established if we just have a default assumption that because we don't know anything else exists, we'll consider what we do know "sufficient". Potential deficiencies of the system (as understood) can never be dealt with, because the system is considered "sufficient by default".
I have no problem with considering the system sufficient. I do have a problem with forgetting that it is a conscious decision to attribute sufficiency. In a simple form "supernatural" is the prospect that everything that we can, by a path of evidence, connect to what we now think as "nature" does not explain it all. The gaps in our ability to construct a path, are precisely the mitigating details to making a demonstrable, evidential path for "everything".
Take for example the standard two-part argument about ghosts: If we should ever be able to construct an evidential path to ghosts, then they'll be natural. If we are never able to, then there is no reason to believe they exist. As if gaps in evidential paths are somehow never evidenced. The argument that they are only temporary and circumstantial is, at best, a useful optimism.
If I might see in the future reductionists using the "trail gone cold" argument it sounds like Dawkins is using–while not abandoning the "Future Science will make a way…where there seems to be no way…" line, then I'll know that I am dealing with the ever-evolving duplicity of reductionists. Science can only find a path if the coldness of the trail doesn't obscure all possible telltale signs. It's really cheating to tell somebody that supposing that there will be no reconstructible path to X is anti-science, while accepting that you may never be able to prove your theory beyond a certain threshold because that evidence might not be reconstructible.
Since when did "hedging your bet" become a Scientific explanation? We're saying one of two things when we say that the trail has grown cold. We're saying 1) we might never be able to prove it, 2) the trail is so cold that it will much more time to trace. The first one says there may not be any evidential trail, and as "science must stick to the evidence", Science would be stopped. It doesn't matter what meta-overcoat we put on why Science is stopped, it just is. The second one is one we see an awful lot: We may not now understand how it all comes together, you can't say we never will.
But (say it with me…) there either IS a reproducible chain for everything that exists or there isn't. Our optimism might help us get things done, but it doesn't provide evidence where there isn't any. If there are things which perhaps could exist but cannot be manifestly linked by evidential chain, than that's what there is. There is a gap. Thus if this "unlikely" event should ever befall us (and throw us back into the Dark Ages(TM)) it would speak to the sufficiency of Science to explain the sufficiency of Nature ONLY.
(And how could we ever "give them time", to figure it out when Dawkins is arguing that time has a negative role, to counter which we would only have the stipulation that there is no reason that the two rates might intersect.)
In light of this reasonable possibility (as only the complement of the optimistic assumption), the ghost argument is pure claptrap. Ghosts don't only start existing if we construct a logical path to them, and they don't only exist if there is a evidential path to them to coherently incorporate them into "Nature".
The "gap" — where one exists is the evidential statement that we cannot easily incorporate the transition into natures "sufficiency". If we want to assume that, then fine. Don't forget what you've assumed. Don't try to pretend that nature has a manifestly observable "sufficiency" to "under-make" everything, that's just arguing your assumption.
Gaps are germane to discussions about the assumptions of sufficiency of nature and of Science and of ubiquitous evidence by which atheists argue whether or not God is "necessary". Gaps provide no clue to their surmountability or insurmountability. They only demonstrate a weakness to the current evidentiary chain, or the level of its sufficiency to explain.
All your gaps are belong to us.
Comment by Axeman — June 5, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Knowing what we know about bioengineering, it is quite reasonable to postulate a designed origin to life.
There's two ways to explain how a ship got in a bottle. Why not start with the most obvious one?
Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
There's always a Gap. There's always more unknown than known (which explains why proving a negative only works within limited domains). That's why humans have developed the scientific method–to make reasonable predictions based on limited information–to help them peer into the darkness.
Postulate whatever you will. Now frame the hypothesis, put forth specific and distinguishing empirical predictions, and test them. Let us know how it turns out.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Is postulating self assembly preferential to postulating design simply because self-assembly is more testable? Even if it is wrong?
Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Hi MikeGene,
Actually, I think the design of life does entail that powerful, independent evidence of the designers should be available to us now. A few years ago, you asked me on ARN what I would find to be convincing evidence of design, and I mentioned finding a message in DNA, which was pretty much poo-pooed by IDists. Now I am reading about how 21st century genetic engineers are inscribing messages into DNA. Mike, your hypothetical designers had a lot of foresight, in that you have hypothesized that they designed unicellular eukaryotes specifically for the purpose of evolving into complex, multicellular organisms, something currently beyond our capacity. Presumably they would have foreseen the possibility that evolution would result in intelligent organisms, in fact that may be what they intended, and one would think they would want to leave a message for us, since they cared enough to arrange for our ultimate appearance, in the one format that would survive billions of years, dna. So if 21st century genetic engineers, scant decades after the discovery of dna, are already inscribing messages into bacterial dna, I think it is a very probable hypothesis that if the eukaryotic cell was designed, a message for us would have been inscribed into the dna by the designers. That message is what I would be looking for if I were an IDist, because if it exists it will be the greatest scientific discovery ever. If there is no such message, the probability that life was designed, in my opinion, droppeds to virtually nil, which will soon become glaringly obvious, as I expect genetic engineers will be inserting all kinds of messages (such as patent numbers) into engineered organisms in the years to come.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 5, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Self-assembly isn't inherently more testable. It doesn't matter what you postulate if you have the supporting data. Newton made the astounding claim that the force that caused the apple to fall was the same force that made the planets trace arcs in the sky.
Frame the hypothesis, put forth specific and distinguishing empirical predictions, and test them.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Zachriel
Assuming under Mike's thought experiment that your hypothesis is wrong, at what point do you stop?
Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
A good theory will generate new hypotheses. A great theory will spawn entire new fields of study. By this measure, the Theory of Evolution is a great theory.
If there were a discontinuity at the origin of cellular life that was resistant to investigation, then scientists would generally work around the problem. This will often lead to new insights in related fields of study.
Meanwhile, if someone (Chunkdz?!) comes up with a wonderful new hypothesis (and that means specific and distinguishing empirical predictions) that can help resolve the mystery, then scientists will attempt to confirm or falsify the wonderful new hypothesis.
Otherwise, the discontinuity remains a gap in scientific understanding. Ignorance is not a problem for science, but an opportunity. As there is far more unknown than known, there are ample opportunities to learn and explore.
In any case, you can't scientifically justify filling the Gap in with spirits or metaphysical paste. It just confuses the angels and gums up the works. But you are more than welcome to speculate or muse a while. And maybe you'll come up with the answers. Einstein raced a beam of light in his imagination.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Filling the gap with citations of SRMs looks like an attempt to gum up reason. In reality gaps are filled. The unspoken filler here is the belief that an SRM is the starting point on a road to a cell. That strikes many of us as a PUC in the gaps.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I said:
Zachriel said:
In other words 'never'?
Is a wrong explanation preferable to an untested explanation even if it means being wrong in perpetuity?
I think you gave an answer when you said:
An opportunity for chasing a false premise for eternity?
Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Hi Zachriel,
No it doesn't. You think it does because you ignored the very points I laid on the table. This is where your criticism breaks down.
I agree that it is quite reasonable to postulate a natural origin to life. If you want to generate specific and distinguishing empirical predictions from there, go for it. Yet if life was indeed designed, knowing the properties of organic chemistry, living systems, evolution, it would still be reasonable to postulate a natural origin to life.
I never proclaimed that nothing can ever be scientifically known about the seeding of the Earth.
So what might it look like?
Actually, I'm not adding those claims. But what is significant here is that you acknowledge that science and truth are not necessarily the same.
Along with Last Thursday. For example the powerful hypothetico-deductive method would fail me if I wanted to tell TT readers all the things you did (and thought) last Thursday. Just as it would fail you if you wanted to know all the things I did (and thought) last Thursday. Or are we not part of empirical reality?
Comment by MikeGene — June 5, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
I didn't pooh-pooh it; I simply explained the problems with it. Besides, even if there was no problem with this, I have zero experience with cryptography, meaning I would have to look elsewhere.
Nevertheless, you may not be too far from the mark.
Comment by MikeGene — June 5, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Hi chunkdz,
These are good questions. Keep in mind that when we talk about making generalizations that make predictions, it is indeed easier to do this if you are working with regularities. Regularities, by definition, lend themselves to generalizations, which in turn make it easier to predict things. With intelligent design, it would indeed be rather easy to mimic this approach IF we had a robust data base about the designer(s), as such information would allow us to make the generalizations/predictions. But if we don't have such information, then it does become much more difficult to mimic an approach that studies non-teleological forces. In fact, it is so difficult that critics throw in the towel, demanding first to see the independent evidence about the designers. Those of us interested in exploring the issue must come up with ways that circumvent the need for such information, yet that can at least approximate the ability to make generalizations and predictions.
Comment by MikeGene — June 5, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Hi chunkdz et al,
What are you proposing?
What is the model?
If you don't like the default answer, give us another one.
We "Erdlings" already tried 1000 years of presuming God creates and controls everything. Excuse my disinterest in going back to that.
Give us something other than indications you want us to give up.
What is the matter with taking the current theories and ADDING TO THEM instead of trying to subtract from them?
Prenrose/Hameroff are providing revolutionary ideas that are peered reviewed and even somewhat support ID. Let's talk about that.
The gaps belong to whoever fills them first. Start providing models and proposing mechanisms. Yes, I said "mechanisms".
If Penrose can talk about non-algorithmic, non-random, non-local mechanisms, ID scientists can too.
Excuse my bluntness, but we all know this is just going around and around the merry-go-round.
Let's try thinking harder about generating more ANSWERS instead of more leading and loaded questions.
Provoking Answers
P.S. I posted before checking to see Mike had done so just before me. He added…
He is being more tactful than I. Yes, the burdon is on those interested in exploring the issue. Let's do science.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 5, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
That's quite contrary to what I stated. As long as a theory produces valid hypotheses, then scientists might continue to investigate. Science could work around the problem learning about related phenomena. Again, as long as useful hypotheses are being generated. Meanwhile, someone might come along with a better theory. That might be Intelligent Design. But no one has suggested a workable theory of Intelligent Design, meaning one that generates useful hypotheses.
I'm not sure where you get the impression that scientists would prefer wrong explanations. Wrong explanations usually result in an evidentiary dead-end, though they sometimes lead to a correct explanation. An untested explanation is wonderful. An untestable explanation is scientifically useless.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
TP,
I hear you.
Nobody hates the roundabout argument as much as I do. I simply can't abide the "If it's not scientific materialism - IT'S CRAP" argument.
Science proper doesn't care a lick about what's true, it only takes comfort in explanation no matter how wrong it may be. Truth is the only thing that matters, IMHO.
Just as a wrench is a tool to work on a car, scientific materialism is a tool to help arrive at truth. But too many folks think they can drive the wrench wherever they want to go, and that is enough to satisfy them. I'm not among them.
That being said, I have always been in the "let's do science" camp. I have long postulated a persistent quantum mechanism to generate novel morphology, even before I came to TT. (though I am decidedly in the minority around here.)
The only think I think anybody should give up on is the notion that they can find truth through an exclusively materialistic inquiry.
Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
I may have misread your first statement above. I assumed it was not void of content, that you meant to say something about a non-empty class of investigators. Confronted with that conundrum, I thought you meant investigators who reject disembodied, telic spirits. This was presumptuous. Scientists regularly investigate teleology, often suspect and detect design, so your statement doesn't apply to scientists. Frankly, I don't know what you meant.
I have no idea. I haven't proposed a Theory of the Seeding of the Earth. There might be a Monolith buried on the Moon.
That's fine. So we're left with speculation concerning design, and several lines of valid evidence (including new evidence of chemical descent) for a spontaneous origin on the primordial Earth. While the former has never resulted in a valid hypothesis, the latter has generated all sort of interesting results. Still far from a complete theory though.
If anybody has a testable hypothesis, telic or otherwise, they ought to let somebody know.
Of course. Science is always a tentative description and works within a very limited domain. Newton's Theory wasn't the absolute Truth in the 18th century then ceased being the Truth in the 20th century. However, it would be the Truth to state that in the 18th century Newton's Theory was a valid and strongly supported scientific theory. Just as it is True to say that the Theory of Evolution is a valid and strongly supported scientific theory today.
What people have done is certainly subject to scientific and forensic investigation. That doesn't mean science will necessarily be able to provide a definitive answer. But if you are suggesting that science is not always the appropriate tool of investigation, I agree.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Hi MikeGene, I looked at your arguments and have some responses:
Humans are obsessed with trying to communicate with others about ourselves: we bury timecapsules, we attach messages to deep space probes, and we are searching for messages from ET. If the designers cared enough to arrange for our evolution, why wouldn't they want to communicate with us?
The designers were extremely sophisticated, so I would expect that they would not have a great deal of difficulty in encoding a message into the portions of the dna coding for the very structures which multicellular life need, and which have therefore survived for billions of years.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 5, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Mike said:
I agree that it is quite reasonable to postulate a natural origin to life. If you want to generate specific and distinguishing empirical predictions from there, go for it. Yet if life was indeed designed, knowing the properties of organic chemistry, living systems, evolution, it would still be reasonable to postulate a natural origin to life.
I think it is still reasonable to consider only natural causes for natural phenomena for the simple reason that no super-natural phenomena have been shown to exist… ever!
Chunkdz says:
That being said, I have always been in the "let's do science" camp. I have long postulated a persistent quantum mechanism to generate novel morphology, even before I came to TT. (though I am decidedly in the minority around here.)
Well, it looks like you have a theory but your mechanism may need some working out.
I know of at least one ID proponent who regularly makes vacuous statements about "quantum mechanics disproving materialism" - I often find that QM is used as a some "woo" to distract an audience from the fact that the proposer really has no idea what they are talking about and certainly not the very hard science of quantum stuff.
The only think I think anybody should give up on is the notion that they can find truth through an exclusively materialistic inquiry.
There is no other scientific proposition whose validity rests on a rejection of materialsm other than Intelligent Design. Why should ID be an exception to this rule?
How can "materialsm" be so wrong if it works so consistently well. If we can only find a single proposition that disagrees with materialism, then how can we be so sure that the fault is with materialism and not with the proposition?
I've often challenged anti-materialismists to come up with just one example of the supernatural; It need not be anything big, but that would be just enough to utterly undermine our understanding that natural phenomena have natural causes.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 5, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
MikeGene and others have raised questions about predictions, generalizations, coming to closure about Gaps, and what options there are for ID.
Consider alchemy.
Some searches are abandoned, even if we can never exhaustively try every possibility. But on what basis?
With alchemy, we consider it reasonable to give up — not because we can make predictions about alchemy itself, but rather because we have developed an understanding that we have confidence in about how physical and chemical processes do behave and this behavior (according to the well established model) does not lead to any ability to change copper into gold, etc.
Consequently, we don't merely have a gap and promissory notes that can last forever. ("How might copper be turned into gold? No one has a complete theory of alchemy yet. But we might someday have stepping stones, etc.") What we have instead is a discontinuity or a conflict with an accepted and established understanding of how chemicals do behave. We have confidence that chemicals just don't behave the way the alchemists wish they would.
How would this apply to something like the origin of life or of the genetic code?
It would not require knowledge of the designers (at least not for scientific reasons — more on that separately). What it would require is establishing confidence about how chemicals do and do not behave with regard to the requirements for life or for the genetic code or for other issues.
That brings the matter squarely into the realm, as Zachriel mentioned, of "Knowing the properties of organic chemistry, living systems, evolution".
For example, one of those properties of evolution is that selection only operates with regard to present considerations. It is blind to future value, future benefits, future function. Thus when the
alchemistsabiogenisists want to postulate that there would be a fitness landscape that selects for a future function (e.g. symbol translation), this can be ruled out by observing that selection doesn't work that way.The advance of understanding about how chemicals behave and about what is required for the life we observe is making it harder rather than easier to sustain the abiogenisis hypothesis.
Comment by eric — June 5, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Hi MikeGene, I accidently hit "post" before I finished. Here are the rest of my responses to your link.
If the designer has not intervened just a couple of billion years ago, but frequently and recently, then we can reasonably expect to find extrinsic evidence of their activities, and perhaps even encounter the designers themselves.
The designers would have thought about this as well. I would expect that the message would begin with something that would be universally recognizable, perhaps prime numbers.
So what? Finding a message from an intelligent agent planted billions of years ago would be a staggering accomplishment, which would change the world, whether that agent was a "designer" or not. Remember, Columbus set out to find China, but "discovered" the New World instead.
In this case, ID would be science in having made a highly specific, falsifiable prediction confirmed by empirical evidence and repeatable by any geneticist. There's always someone who digs in their heels when a new scientific theory appears; thats no reason not to do the research.
If I were you, I would acquire it; perhaps you could learn more about the SETI project.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 5, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
The designers were extremely sophisticated, so I would expect that they would not have a great deal of difficulty in encoding a message into the portions of the dna coding for the very structures which multicellular life need, and which have therefore survived for billions of years.
It seems reasonable to me that if this hypothetical designer had the capability to design life in the first place then he might have had the capability to embed a message into it.
No matter how well preserved the genome there are sure to be a few mutations of this hypothetical message of the millions of years; however perhaps we might re-construct this message by putting together the gnetic material from multiple branches of the tree of life.
It seems like a very sensible way to preserve a code: Hide it in a strongly conserved part of the primal DNA and then allow that organism to reproduce, evolve and fill every available niche on the planet with your message. Such a message could survive intact over billions of years, and would outlast a message etched in diamond.
Here is a proposed mechanism: We know there is such a thing as multiple-coding DNA: Genes that code for two or more proteins. These are very strongly conserved and evolve infrequently. Perhaps this designer wrote his message in DNA and then engineered the primal cell system that would interpret that message as multiple useful proteins.
If ID proponents could find and decode a message from the deisgner, that would be an exquisite validation of their own theory.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 5, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
salimfadhley:
Huh. You might want to check in with your teammates on this. A couple of them have been arguing on another thread that intelligence is both unnatural and artificial. Or, to use another term, "supernatural."
That glaring absurdity aside, I don't know why anybody would want to seek supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. Unless we happen to be the supernatural agents, we cannot hope to control any other supernatural agency. Science is all about control - that's it's intelligently designed job description.
At the risk of sounding woo-ful, I would remind you that there's nothing particularly materialistic about QM or the phenomena it quantifies. Students are cautioned against thinking in materialistic terms about the phenomena, because it wouldn't help them understand anything.
But even if there were no QM, there's no good reason anyone - or any scientist - should have to swear ideological allegiance to materialism in order to do science or to discover useful knowledge about the world. It's just that in the task of quantifying and controlling material things, non-material mechanisms won't deliver the desired power (or justify the expended funds on that expectation).
Comment by Joy — June 5, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Huh. You might want to check in with your teammates on this. A couple of them have been arguing on another thread that intelligence is both unnatural and artificial. Or, to use another term, "supernatural."
I have no "team mates", at least not here. We all speak for ourselves.
Intelligence is an entirely natural phenomena. We do not fully understand how our brains work, but we can be pretty sure that everything our brains do is a consequence of their structure & neurochemistry. There is no magic happening inside the brain.
That glaring absurdity aside, I don't know why anybody would want to seek supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.
Me neither! It sounds crazy - for the simple reason that supernatural explainations of natural phenomena have been shown to be utterly redundant. That is why I (and every professional researcher who is not employed by the DI) finds the idea of rejecting materialsm so absurd.
At the risk of sounding woo-ful, I would remind you that there's nothing particularly materialistic about QM or the phenomena it quantifies. Students are cautioned against thinking in materialistic terms about the phenomena, because it wouldn't help them understand anything.
While the discoveries that QM physicists have made can seem spooky at times, there is nothing at all in that field of study that negates materialsm. Granted, some physicists talk of "god particles", but that's just an attempt at poetry.
If you believe that Quantum Mechanics somehow supports a rejection of materialism, kindly cite your evidence.
there's no good reason anyone - or any scientist - should have to swear ideological allegiance to materialism in order to do science or to discover useful knowledge about the world.
There is a very good reason: Science since the age of Newton has shown that supernatural (non-materialistic) explainations for natural phenomena have been utterly redundant. A scientist who spends valuable research time devising experiments to rule-out paranormal or supernatural causes for whatever he is studing has failed to learn the lessons from previous generations of scientists.
In contradiction to your claim; Every sucsessful scientific proposition that has ever existed has been wholly materialistic. Many of these have been superbly sucsessfull.
It is precisely the opposite (embracing non-materialsm) that has been shown to be a complete waste of time. There is not one sucsessful scientific theory that takes as it's requirement a non-materialistic view of the world. ID is a rarity amongst scientific propositions in belonging to this category.
It's just that in the task of quantifying and controlling material things, non-material mechanisms won't deliver the desired power
Or should I say, the answer that YOU desire? What you want is of no concern to the hundreds of thousands of busy scientists who get paid for delivering useful results!
Comment by salimfadhley — June 5, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Why is knowledge of the designer(s) SO important concerning whether to allow intelligent causation to be even considered seriously?
There are plenty of cases where intelligent causation is perfectly acceptable, even when we know almost nothing about the designers of some artifact. We are perfectly comfortable with recognizing that writing and tools do not come from nature, even if we have no idea what the writing says or what the tools are for. A decodable message from space would certainly be accepted as intelligently caused, even if we had nothing other than that message.
Yet there is no permission to even consider intelligent causation seriously regarding explaining the biological life we observe on this planet (or other aspects of nature). Why should that be different, even to the point of hostile rejection and career retribution?
This is so in spite of the fact that even if we start from the working assumption of methodological naturalism and that intelligent life can evolve by natural processes, that leads directly to a plausible intelligent design scenario for the life on Earth. As Bilbo was indicating, our own success builds the case by demonstration. Life certainly could be a designed artifact, but "scientific" papers may not pursue that hypothesis.
To satisfy the current dominant paradigm, I would suggest that it will never be enough to show that the intelligence that designed Earth's life could have been a completely natural intelligent agent. "Could have been natural" is insufficient, even if that would technically satisfy methodological naturalism. It would still be "not science".
I would submit that, in practice, before an inference to intelligent agency can be permitted for any particular effect, the dominant paradigm demands that it is established that the designer is natural and not supernatural.
The issue is not to merely have an explanation that can be natural. The issue is to exclude any possibility that the explanation goes beyond nature. To express it in the words of geneticist and Marxist Richard Lewontin:
You can ring the doorbell all you want. You can knock on the door with a pattern that demonstrates a specified complexity that nature cannot produce. Before the door would be opened to an intelligent design inference on any topic, the current dominant paradigm insists on asking "Who goes there?" One has to be careful. Not everyone is to be allowed into this universe.
Comment by eric — June 5, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Not a chance. There is no possibility regardless of the message, the methodology etc. Opposition to design is theological in nature. It's the "I want to believe there is no God and will shut off all data and arguments that might be used against me" approach. So here is the counter argument to the type of message you allude to.
The message cited is not from a designer. In fact it is no message at all. So what is it? A false finding of the type we have seen many times before. Where have we seen such false messages? Remember the Bible codes? JKF conspiracy theories? Astrological messages found in stars? Whenever you have a huge body of data, one can always impose an interpreting convention on bits and pieces of it so that it will appear to communicate something. Gunshot sounds from the grassy knoll never traced to an identifiable culprit. Codes within codes in Bible passages that anyone can create with enough ingenuity and effort. A configuration of stars that aligned with a predicted event. If you make enough such predictions some will come true. What you actually have are DNA mirages, not messages. The ID creationists are once again tilting the evidence to favor their Trojan Horse strategy which we all know ends up producing a theocracy.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
You have misunderstood me. I didn't advocate rejecting materialism. (nor does any ID'er that I know of). I simply recognize that it is merely a tool, and not the "be all and end all" that it is touted to be.
Those who rely exclusively on materialist pursuits may find comfort and satisfaction in thinking they have an explanation, but they have no gauge for truth and no hope of ever finding it. If you're cool with that, then have at it. 350 years ago you would have been arguing just as vehemently that maggots endogenously generate from raw meat.
Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Alchemists lacked a valid scientific methodology, often worked in secrecy, and included elements of mysticism. Even then, they made progress by working on the edges of the problem. Ultimately, the question of transmutation was resolved. It is not possible with "ordinary" means.
That evolution doesn't work with a goal in mind doesn't mean that progressive adaptation doesn't occur. That's the whole point actually. Fins develop into limbs develop into wings. There is no evolutionary goal of fish to birds. Each step is independent and locally adaptive, but can be seen as progressive in retrospect.
Abiogeneticists, in contrast with alchemists, do utilize the scientific method, including hypothesis, prediction, and publication of results.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
If you have evidence of a message in a genome that meets reasonable scientific scrutiny, then of course, it would be considered by the scientific community. But you don't have any such evidence!
If you have evidence of a message in a genome, please present it. I'll even help you with the statistical tests.
–
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Hey, I wasn't the one suggesting the silly idea.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Hi Bradford,
Why is it silly, Bradford? Genetic engineers are placing messages in dna now; why wouldn't a designer put messages in dna?
Comment by Aagcobb — June 5, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Why would a designer do it? It's speculative but the point is any finding of a message could easily be debunked by spin and clearly would be.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
I'll see if I can get to your responses tomorrow, but I want to bask in this moment. You say that you would accept a message in the genome as evidence for ID, where the message could be "something that would be universally recognizable, perhaps prime numbers." Sal agrees with you, arguing, "If ID proponents could find and decode a message from the deisgner, that would be an exquisite validation of their own theory."
Even Zachriel seems sympathetic, noting, "If you have evidence of a message in a genome that meets reasonable scientific scrutiny, then of course, it would be considered by the scientific community," while also adding, "If you have evidence of a message in a genome, please present it. I'll even help you with the statistical tests."
In one fell swoop, the critics have corroborated two of my arguments. First, the designer-centric approach is not necessary. It turns out none of the critics really need independent information about the existence, nature, identity, and motivations of the designer. None of them need independent information about the technical abilities of the designer. None of them need the actual mechanism by which the message was implanted in the genome (although Sal offers one for perpetuating the message). So they don't need the answers to who? when? where? and how? to infer design after all. The message alone will suffice.
Second, what happened to the "who designed the designer?" argument. It has completely vanished! The critics would recognize a message as the product of design even though they could not explain the origin of the message's designer.
Thus, we have a brief moment of clarity here, showing that the demands for information about the designer, along with the demands that the designer's origin must come into play, have all been rhetorical smokescreens.
Comment by MikeGene — June 5, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
salimfahdley wrote:
This is simply not true. Every successful scientific theory has been based upon observation and rational inference; and there is no successful wholly materialistic account of either observation or reason.
The most successful scientific theory of all time is quantum mechanics, and its difficulty of accounting for measurement in wholly materialistic terms is notorious.
Comment by stunney — June 5, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
June 6th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Hi Bradford,
As I said before, why wouldn't a designer do it? Genetic engineers are doing it now, and we've only known about the existence of dna for a few decades. By the time the designers began to craft eukaryotic cells to terraform earth, they had likely been placing messages in dna for decades at least, more likely centuries or millenia. Humans are all the time trying to communicate with people and intelligences we will never meet by burying time capsules, sending messages to space and searching for messages from space. If the designers cared enough about us to craft eukaryotic cells to evolve into us, why wouldn't they want to leave us a message?
As to your second point, it completely ignores a history of scientists rapidly accepting controversial ideas well supported by evidence. Genetic engineers are placing messages into dna now. Thus messages in dna are recognizable as being such. If such a message were found conserved in the dna of all the different species of eukaryotic organisms, demonstrating it had been placed in a common ancestor of all of them, and was observable by any geneticist, no power on earth could stop the realization of its meaning for life on earth.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 6, 2007 @ 12:15 am
June 6th, 2007 at 12:21 am
MikeGene,
All I have ever wanted is some kind of empirical evidence to support IDists intuition. A two billion year old message encoded into our very dna does the trick for me.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 6, 2007 @ 12:21 am
June 6th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Why choose this method when there are more direct ones available?
Anything other than a complex message that is completely unambiguous is unacceptable evidence. We already observe messages in DNA. We observe codes as well. If a mathematical equation is expressed in code how are you to rebut an argument that the relevant configuation evolved because of selection and that the DNA actually exists because it enhances reproductive fitness? The math is just an incidental side show. A freak of nature.
Of course you already pointed to the obvious take on this if a message interpretation is inevitable. ET. That's the designer's identity. How do we know? The other possibility is unthinkable. So we ramp up SETI and our search for extra-solar system planets. But how did ET come into existence? For that we fall back on conventional thinking.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2007 @ 12:41 am
June 6th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Hi Bradford,
But there aren't. If we ever decide to terraform a planet using this method, and we want to leave a message that we know will last two billion years, the only format that we could have confidence would survive for that long is dna.
DNA has enormous storage capacity. I would expect the designers to have left a complex message. You seem a defeatist, Bradford. I thought you were an IDist, but now you seem to be claiming that scientific study of IDism is futile because no-one will ever believe it, no matter what evidence is produced.
I'm talking about a scientific theory of ID. Looking for God is a theological pursuit.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 6, 2007 @ 7:06 am
June 6th, 2007 at 7:10 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Very good. And as I said, in doing so, you've nicely helped us see why all the designer-centric demands and "who designed the designer?" questions are rhetorical smokescreens.
Comment by MikeGene — June 6, 2007 @ 7:10 am
June 6th, 2007 at 7:21 am
This is, of course, true by definition. Our concept of 'the material', and hence, of 'materialistic', are defined by current physical theory; 'physical' and 'material' are synonymous and hence 'physics' implies 'materialistic'.
But this doesn't say anything meaningful about anything. 'Material' is defined by scientific consensus, ergo, whatever scientific consensus is is 'materialistic'. But the Nineteenth century materialists hardly expected the fundamental building blocks of the universe to have anything like the weird properties we ascribe to quanta, moreover, if Astrology had turned out to be true we would have incorporated it into our theories of the material world such that would still truthfully say that 'every successful scientific proposition that has ever existed has been wholly materialistic.'
Comment by BenK — June 6, 2007 @ 7:21 am
June 6th, 2007 at 7:34 am
That is not correct. The analysis of any purported message in DNA will presumably hinge on answers to those questions. Consider this comment:
There is a great deal of ambiguity in the term "message". According to this comment, there already are messages in DNA.
The analysis of any purported message would involve trying to understand the nature of the message, the nature of the sender of the message, whether it can be better explained by non-telic forces, how the message was inserted, how it survived through billions of years of evolution, whether it affected evolution, and if so how. But we can't even begin to answer these questions "” UNLESS YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF SUCH A MESSAGE. I am more than happy to look, but for millenium, people have seen messages in the coming rains or the movement of planets.
I will not allow you to suppose what my views would be concerning data not in evidence. The extent of my comments was to say that if you have evidence, I would be happy to look at it.
Comment by Zachriel — June 6, 2007 @ 7:34 am
June 6th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Mike says:
None of them need the actual mechanism by which the message was implanted in the genome (although Sal offers one for perpetuating the message). So they don't need the answers to who? when? where? and how? to infer design after all. The message alone will suffice.
A conclusive message hidden in DNA would be information that changes the entire way we think about evolution. Supposing we found something astonishing, like a sequence of primes or an encoded star-chart pointing to the location of habitable worlds, I'd initially be at a loss for words because such a find is utterly unprecedented in biology.
Of course when we manage to overcome our shock, given strong evidence like that we can start making strong inferences about this designer - we can start learning his nature: For example a prime sequence would indicate he had mathematical ability. A star-chart would indicate that he was capable of interstellar travel (or at least knew more about the galaxy than us). The method of encoding confirms that the designer could work directly manipulate DNA.
The whole nature of the designer becomes scientifically testable once we have the first conclusive artefact of his work. Such a discovery would therefore open up entire vistas of scientific inquiry.
Second, what happened to the "who designed the designer?" argument. It has completely vanished! The critics would recognize a message as the product of design even though they could not explain the origin of the message's designer.
I disagree: Nobody (including ID proponents) spends a serious amount of time considering the question of the designer's identity right now, because we do not have any clues or artefacts of his work.
If such an artefact (e.g. a message) were found we might have a "rosetta stone" from which we could go on to decode further messages and ultimately discover this designer's identity.
It is precisely because a deliberate message reveals so much about the sender's identity that it would be so convincing.
Stunney says:
This is simply not true. Every successful scientific theory has been based upon observation and rational inference; and there is no successful wholly materialistic account of either observation or reason.
So are you arguing that ALL acts of reasoning and observing are somehow non-material phenomena? If so, that would be your conjecture and not a widely accepted theory.
When I say a proposition is "materialistic" I mean that it attempts to explain natural phenomena with only natural causes. Please tell me if there is any successful scientific proposition that explains a natural phenomena by causes that are not natural? ID is the only such proposition and it has not yet been successful.
I'll say it again: There are no successful scientific propositions that require a rejection of materialism. If you disagree then please name one! I submit that Science has nothing at all to gain by rejecting materialism.
Philosophers and theologians should feel perfectly free to reject materialism. I'm sure you can get to some very interesting conjecture by asking "what if" the immaterial were somehow knowable. Unfortunately that kind of speculation is not within the domain of science.
Bradford asks:
"Why choose this method when there are more direct ones available?"
Some kind of signature in the designer's handiwork would be direct evidence. It would corroborate the circumstantial claims and innuendo made by most ID proponents.
Mike Gene is right to suggest that some people would be sceptical after a single find; after all it's proponents could be replicating the Bible-Code proponent's mistake. One can discover any code in any text if we are free to alter the coding system.
However having found a coding system that produces meaningful data from part of the genome, if the same coding system were to generate meaningful data from two (or more points in the genome) then this would add serious weight to the evidence that part of the genome is designed.
There is no known evolutionary process that could account for a mathematical sequence (e.g. Mersenne Primes) or astronomical data getting into the genome. Multiple confirmed finds of this sort would confirm beyond the requirements of most ID sceptics that some kind of pre-historic genome intervention had been found. This would seriously cause us to doubt that all of life's complexity is due to natural evolution and give us genuine grounds to speculate on whether these modifications have purpose.
To answer Mike's skepticsm, a single message might not be enough to fully convince us that the designer was responsible for the OOL, however multiple, similarly encoded messages ought to be enough to convince us that evolution is not the only phenomena which has shaped life.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 6, 2007 @ 7:41 am
June 6th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Back-tracking. LOL. I have to run, but I'll get back to this later.
Comment by MikeGene — June 6, 2007 @ 7:42 am
June 6th, 2007 at 7:47 am
The analysis of any purported message would involve trying to understand the nature of the message, the nature of the sender of the message, whether it can be better explained by non-telic forces, how the message was inserted, how it survived through billions of years of evolution, whether it affected evolution, and if so how. But we can't even begin to answer these questions "” UNLESS YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF SUCH A MESSAGE. I am more than happy to look, but for millenium, people have seen messages in the coming rains or the movement of planets.
Quite right!
No such evidence has been found, and as yet we have no direct evidence from which to infer that there ever was a designer. Michael Behe confirmed as much in his Dover testimony.
On the other hand, I do want to encourage ID proponents to start thinking about methods for obtaining direct evidence upon which to corroborate their claims. Much of the basis for ID belief seems to rest on a novel and unsupported interpretation of scientific findings that have simpler or well established alternatives.
Sal
Comment by salimfadhley — June 6, 2007 @ 7:47 am
June 6th, 2007 at 7:52 am
That is not correct. The analysis of any purported message in DNA will presumably hinge on answers to those questions.
This seems reasonable to me: We will at least need a hunch about the designer in order to decode his messages. For example, if we know the designer can do math we might start looking for number-sequences. If we believe the designer to be innumerate we ought not waste our time searching for that kind of code.
A discovery of a coding system that consistently reveals multiple messages will confirm many of our hypotheses about this designer's nature.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 6, 2007 @ 7:52 am
June 6th, 2007 at 8:12 am
BenK
This is, of course, true by definition. Our concept of 'the material', and hence, of 'materialistic', are defined by current physical theory; 'physical' and 'material' are synonymous and hence 'physics' implies 'materialistic'.
So why is it that ID requires the definition of "material" or "materialistic" to be changed? The definition has not changed since the time of Newton.
Give me an example of one thing that science currently regards as super-natural or immaterial that you think should be more correctly categorized as natural or material.
if Astrology had turned out to be true we would have incorporated it into our theories of the material world such that would still truthfully say that 'every successful scientific proposition that has ever existed has been wholly materialistic.
During this testimony at the Dover trial, Behe conceded that definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 6, 2007 @ 8:12 am
June 6th, 2007 at 9:26 am
You can seriously consider all sorts of things, but serious consideration doesn't lead to firm scientific conclusions absent scientific evidence. This is what I mentioned to MikeGene, who then ran with it saying I had somehow affirmed that the designer-centric approach is not necessary. That is not my view.
What scientists do is compare a purported artifact to known cases attempting to draw a valid correlation between the artifact, the artisan and the art. There are many examples of not applying valid methodology that reach errant conclusions of design; everything from angels pushing planets on crystal spheres to fairy-rings. That's why we don't jump to conclusions, but acquire evidence systematically, primarily by forming and testing hypotheses.
A design is inevitably evidence of the designer and science attempts to determine the causal relationships. Absent such a causal relationship, we would be very tentative and suspicious of any conclusions. This also responds to MikeGene's statements.
But by all means, seriously consider whatever you will. Einstein imagined he was racing a beam of light.
Comment by Zachriel — June 6, 2007 @ 9:26 am
June 6th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Just to quickly note- that's not what Behe said
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2...
This has been distorted so many times, it's just silly at this point.
Comment by HaroldJenkins — June 6, 2007 @ 11:17 am
June 6th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I should add- his point was closer to the fact that the NAS defines theory in a manner that most scientists don't agree with.
Comment by HaroldJenkins — June 6, 2007 @ 11:20 am
June 6th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I should add- his point was closer to the fact that the NAS defines theory in a manner that most scientists don't agree with.
I'd be very interested to see evidence or citations for that claim.
The NAS is a very conservative science organisation that tends to back the overwhelming consensus of it's members opinion. I'd be very surprised if it was at odds with the majority of the members that it purports to represent on such a fundamental matter.
I presume that Behe disagrees with NAS's definition of science; A definition that I would assert the majority of scientists are most likely very comfortable with. Can somebody explain the rationale behind Behe's dissent?
Comment by salimfadhley — June 6, 2007 @ 11:37 am
June 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Behe's testemony from the Dover trial, Court's record:
Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.
A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.
Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?
A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.
Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.
A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.
Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?
A Partly — it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.
Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 6, 2007 @ 11:44 am
June 6th, 2007 at 11:54 am
salimfadhley:
I'm glad you (at least) are rational enough to recognize that 'natural' must include all the regular, ordinary and even extraordinary phenomena we encounter, generate and/or deal with during the normal course of our sojourn through time and matter. It really amazed me that any nay-sayer here would claim that a beaver dam isn't natural. Ridiculous!
That said, I am not "pretty sure" that consciousness boils down to physical structure and neurochemistry of brains. I do accept that brains are material organs that have physical structure and neurochemistry.
"Redundant" doesn't seem to apply very well to philosophical explanations of phenomena. Philosophical explanations of things are mental constructs that attempt to formalize depths and meanings rather than form and function. Physical descriptions are often divorced from meaningful context because such descriptions are purposely limited to being physical.
For instance, a physical description of pregnancy and childbirth is sufficient to explain the physical processes of pregnancy and childbirth, but does not address depth or meaning in the experience. So we wax poetic on the subject regularly, transformed by the physical and emotional states parenthood allows us to experience. It means something to become a parent. That meaning will be with us all our lives. The physical part is just mechanics, and doesn't last long.
As for materialism, it's just another philosophy and may be rejected by anyone who finds it insufficient for their philosophical worldview. In fact, the vast majority of human beings who ever lived (and who are alive now) have already rejected it. Obviously it's not 'absurd' to do so.
There is plenty in that field of study that challenges materialism. If you reduce things far enough you'll end up with a challenge to your preconceived notions about the nature of things. A reductionist occupational hazard, but not one that seems to shake the faith of materialists very much. They can always reject the philosophical implications, just as most people reject the philosophical implications of materialism.
You can do your own homework, given that all you need do is Google "QM" and start reading. I am not a materialist. I am a realist, even though I do recognize that at some levels of examination reality can be decidedly un-real.
Since RQFT is the most successful scientific theory ever constructed, I can accept the demonstrable peculiarities of nature on the sub-material level. Even while keeping in mind that RQFT breaks down (spews nonsense) at high energy levels. thus is incomplete or wrong. It works, FAPP. That's all science needs at any given historical period.
Newton wasn't a materialist. Nor did he attempt to explain the nature of gravity. Not because it would be "redundant" to the formalization of its effect on matter, but because there was no experiment Newton (or anybody else) could perform that would reveal WHAT gravity is.
Science to this day doesn't know WHAT gravity is. Though Roger Penrose does believe it's got a boson. I am not convinced, but that's okay. Nobody's ever going to see a graviton.
Again, THE most successful scientific theory ever devised is not materialistic. It does try to be naturalistic, and up to high energy levels works very well. When you end up having to deal with 'virtual' matter, 'irrational' numbers, mathematical cheats and arbitrary variables it's pretty difficult to pretend that any of it pertains to matter. Up to and including the moment of reduction that translates sub-material weirdness into the material world. Then you can be as matter-minded as you like.
There is more than matter in the world. A useful understanding must account for non-material phenomena that have effects on matter, and these include both the quantum realm and the influences of consciousness (plus its several attributes). To pretend otherwise is silly, since science is an intelligently designed human endeavor that is very much consciousness-intensive.
If one cannot do that, s/he ends up spouting absurdities like beavers and birds and humans aren't 'natural' because they act on matter with a purpose in mind. That's uncomfortably close to an unstated claim that life itself must be 'unnatural' because it can be conscious and move matter around intentionally.
Excuse me? I have said I am a realist. I've said I understand the intelligently designed job description of science (quantification for the purpose of control = power). I've also suggested that philosophical answers to scientific questions aren't useful to that job. So why the macho posturing?
Most people understand very well that there is more to life than getting paid to deliver useful scientific results. That's perfectly normal and natural. Why in the world would that bother you?
Comment by Joy — June 6, 2007 @ 11:54 am
June 6th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
It's because we know the properties of organic molecules that it is not reasonable to postulate a natural origin of life.
Comment by Doug — June 6, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
June 6th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Joy,
In your few hundred carefully written words you did not actually state one scientific theory that necessitates a rejection of materialism. You mentioned (vaguely) that there is something about the mind or quantum mechanics but declined to cite any specific evidence for your proposition, apart from telling me to go and look at Google myself!
You mentioned that poets, theologians and philosophers know that there is more to life than material technicalities, but please note that I'm talking about science. Poetry, philosophy and theology have their place in life but they are not the same activity as science.
Believe what you want; and inquire wherever your curiosity takes you.
If ID proponents are arguing that scientists should reject materialism, then they need to back those arguments. You've not done that yet.
It's because we know the properties of organic molecules that it is not reasonable to postulate a natural origin of life.
Nice sound-bite, Doug b