Me and ID
by MikeGeneSince we have been receiving a lot of new traffic over the last week or so, and many people rely on stereotypes when thinking about Intelligent Design, I thought I would repost three blogs that better clarify my position. (Of course, the best clarification will soon be found here).
Some ID Positions
Over on the Panda's Thumb, ID critic Steve Reuland outlines the basic positions of ID. Since none of his assertions would help someone to understand my views, I thought I would answer the various questions he poses.
Age of the Earth. According to Reuland, the ID position is, "We don't know. And besides, it's really not ripe for debate yet."
My reply: The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. However, this is not an answer that is provided by my ID investigation, as detecting signals of design amid biotic reality does not provide the type of information necessary to make this judgment. The data for such dating come from fields independent of any ID investigation.
What was created/designed? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Some feature(s) of the universe, including but not limited to living things, although it's not clear which feature(s) of living things were actually designed."
My reply: The working hypothesis is that the first life forms to appear on this planet were designed and such design has helped to shape subsequent evolution. The objective is to put some flesh on this hypothesis and a) better describe the first life forms and b) better define the manner in which their design has influenced evolution.
Who was the creator/designer? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Some unknown and unknowable "intelligence", which we coincidentally happen to believe is God of the Bible."
My reply: All I can propose about the identity of the designer is that it is an agent with a human-like intelligence. I propose this because I find it unlikely that we could ever detect design/teleos from an entity that thought in ways that are completely and totally different from our thinking process.
As for identifying the designer (the question posed by Reuland), I have addressed this before. Unless someone comes up with a methodology that allows us to reverse engineer the identity of a designer by using nothing more than the designed artifact, I don't see how it is proper, in an epistemic sense, to identify the designer as part of an investigation. One is certainly free to speculate about such things by drawing from considerations extrinsic to the investigation, but it is not the output or the necessary assumption of the investigation.
What was the mechanism of design? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "We don't know, but we know it can't be "natural", which implies divine intervention."
My reply: If we are talking about the outflow of design from the original design events, then the mechanism I propose is front-loading. I have currently been exploring the plausibility of such a mechanism and the results are encouraging. Ironically, the main complaint from critics of ID is that front-loading is "˜natural,' indicating that they demand some non-natural mechanism. When focusing on the original life forms, the mechanism is intelligent intervention. It is difficult to speculate here because of the limitations of our own understanding and technology. This point is made succinctly here. Further preliminary consideration is offered here. Suffice it to say that I will eventually have much more to say about this issue.
Evolution is"¦ According to Reuland, the ID position is, "The cause of most of society's ills."
My reply: No, I do not consider evolution to be the cause of most of society's ills. I would answer that evolution is a very powerful theory that has played a crucial role in helping us to make sense of much of biology.
Noah's Flood"¦ According to Reuland, the ID position is, "They'll ask, "˜What do you think of Noah's flood?' or something like that. Never bite on such questions because they'll lead you into a trackless wasteland and you'll never get out of it."
My reply: Noah's Flood is a story that is found in the Bible. If there is any historicity to the account, the flood would have been local.
Evolution and belief in God are"¦ According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Incompatible."
My reply: Evolution and belief in God are compatible. In fact, over the years, I have encountered several ID critics who argue that evolution and science itself lead to atheism. I have pointed out the problems with this view. What's odd is that I cannot recall an ID critic helping me out in any of these discussions.
Wants ideas taught in public schools? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Yes. I mean no. I mean yes. I mean, look, we've been consistent and clear on this, so what's the problem?"
My reply: No, I do not think intelligent design should be taught in public schools. I have consistently taken this position and have explained my reasoning. However, I view the attempts to monkey with the science curricula in public schools to be more of a nuisance than some disastrous threat to science.
Do humans and apes share a common ancestor? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Usually no. Occasionally yes."
My reply: Yes. The evidence for such a relationship is very strong.
Claims to have science on their side? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Yes."
My reply: I do not consider ID to be science. But I do think that science has discovered many things over the last 25 years that have made ID and Front-Loading much more plausible than it was prior to these discoveries.
Why do scientists almost universally reject them? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Because they're all a bunch of atheists, libruls, and ivory tower elitists who can't be trusted."
My reply: There are several reasons that interact synergistically.
First, scientists view ID as an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence. When asked about what type of data they would count as evidence for ID, they typically reply along the following lines: 1) Some proof that evolution is impossible or 2) A confirmed detection of the designer-in-action. Anything less than this is dismissed according to the second reason and third reasons.
Secondly, since more than 90% of scientists view the concept of ID as inherently religious while agreeing with Eugenie Scott that "science is restricted to explaining natural phenomena using only natural processes," clearly ID will be ruled out on a priori grounds. We've documented many examples on this blog where scientists hear "God" when presented with "ID." A beautiful case study of such behavior was recently illustrated for us here.
Thirdly, most scientists probably view ID exactly as Steve Reuland portrays it. That is, ID is supposed to equal creationism. But not just any ol' strain of creationism "“ a dishonest, virulent strain so toxic that is represents a bona fide Threat To Science.
Put simply, Reuland raises a sociological observation and there are plenty of sociological hypotheses to consider and test.
Mike Gene ID
A couple of people in the comments section wanted me to distinguish my views about Intelligent Design from those that are commonly expressed (mainstream ID). So here's the short list:
- Mainstream ID argues that ID is indeed science. I do not think ID yet qualifies as science. I view ID more as a nascent proto-science and intellectual curiosity.
- Mainstream ID argues the evidence for design is strong and that we have identified systems that are best explained by design. I think the evidence for ID is weak yet there are examples where design is plausible. Thus, I am not out to convince skeptics and critics; I am interested in testing my own suspicions.
- Mainstream ID argues that irreducibly complex (IC) structures could not have evolved, while I think IC helps bring focus to candidates for design.
- Mainstream ID argues that biological systems demonstrate complex specified information (CSI), indicating design. While I think the method is a promising way of inferring design, I am not convinced that a true specification has been demonstrated.
- Mainstream ID seeks to challenge neo-Darwinian evolution. I think ID complements neo-Darwinian evolution.
- Many proponents of mainstream ID are anti-evolution. I am an ID evolutionist. There are a small number of cases where I tentatively propose design candidates that did not evolve (i.e., the flagellum), but I do not infer design by arguing they could not have evolved; I argue they did not evolve.
- Many proponents of mainstream ID argue that that information increase over evolutionary time cannot be explained by natural means. I don't agree.
- Mainstream ID seeks to detect design in a manner that is completely divorced from consideration of the designer. I am willing to make working assumptions (albeit, minimal) about the designer.
In the future, I will elaborate on some of this in much more detail.
Why I am Not a Critic
In my previous blog, I outlined ways in which my views of ID differ from mainstream views of ID. Let me now symmetrically balance this out by pointing to the areas where I disagree with the average ID critic.
Here are some ID critic positions I have commonly run across that I disagree with.
- ID is nothing more than religious belief and an attempt to sneak creationism into the public school curricula.
- ID is Complete Bunk and Total Nonsense.
- Irreducible complexity (IC) does not exist and if it did, it would always be explained (and predicted) by neo-Darwinian evolution.
- Complex specified information (CSI) does not exist in any biological system and if it did, it would be always be explained (and predicted) by neo-Darwinian evolution.
- Evolution is the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
- ID is inherently anti-evolution. But if it is not, it is superfluous.
- All biological information has arisen by non-teleological processes.
- To detect design, one must first demonstrate the identity, methods, and psychology of the designer.
December 30th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Hello those with telic thoughts-happy new year to you all.
This is my first post here.
Mike you say:
"˜I do not think ID yet qualifies as science. I view ID more as a nascent proto-science and intellectual curiosity. "˜
Mike what would need to change for you, to make ID qualify as science?
I see front loading and the modular idea approach to common descent as outlined by you in the excellent article found at: http://www.idthink.net/biot/cr... (i.e. the "˜same solution' that is plugged into a "˜different context.') as interpreting the data, using a different worldview from Naturalistic Neo-Darwinism.
The data remains the same; the interpretation is the only difference. Yet one interpretation is deemed science while the other is not.
Is that a fair assessment of your position?
Comment by God3 — December 30, 2006 @ 10:27 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 12:23 am
ID as science: I don't view Darwinian thought as science. You have theories which science undergirds and make more or less plausible. But history can't be repeated in a lab experiment. So it depends on how wide or narrow the definition of "science" is. Conclusions based on science being lumped in with science doesn't give me much heartburn.
Why do so many scientists reject ID? Variety of reasons. But I would assume a pre-existing faith commitment to atheistic materialism which requires a creation story for it to be true.
Comment by geoffrobinson — December 31, 2006 @ 12:23 am
December 31st, 2006 at 12:30 am
One thing I _always_ like to point out to people new to ID is that Irreducible Complexity does not mean that a structure cannot have evolved, or even evolved naturally, it just means that it cannot have evolved _Darwinistically_.
Comment by johnnyb — December 31, 2006 @ 12:30 am
December 31st, 2006 at 12:38 am
johnnyb,
Behe was already proved wrong with the bacteria flagellum. It's been shown that it evolves naturalistically.
Comment by Sam — December 31, 2006 @ 12:38 am
December 31st, 2006 at 12:39 am
Both Dembski's and Trevors and Abels 'choice contingency' is a "theoretical term" which refers to a "theoretical entity" , an unobservable. The unidentified intelligent agency behind DNA's process. (I should post this at panda's thumb including the statement)>> That was easy–Ockhamism has its benefits!
(" Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces nontrivial optimized algorithmic function at its destination. Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity.
Organization requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic.(In this statement,Trevors and Abel drive a wedge between Science and Darwinian Dogma-platolives)
Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings. Physical switch settings allow instantiation of nonphysical selections for function into physicality. Switch settings represent choices at successive decision nodes that integrate circuits and instantiate cooperative management into conceptual physical systems. Switch positions must be freely selectable to function as logic gates. Switches must be set according to rules, not laws. Inanimacy cannot "organize" itself. Inanimacy can only self-order. "Self-organization" is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. "Self-organization" provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term "self-organization" erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information…Unfortunately, others since have continued to blur the distinction between order and organization [32], [33], [36], [37], [38], [54], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [82], [95],[123] and [137]. The illegitimate merging of the two concepts now seems almost universal. The "category error" of logic theory leads to countless faulty inferences. Anti-informationists often appeal to epigenetic factors, prions, self-replicating peptides, regulatory proteins and small RNAs to argue life is merely physical without need of formal genetic algorithmic control mechanisms. "The appearance of design" [38] is all that is granted to the most highly organized phenomenon known to science, that of life. A corollary of this perspective is to often view cases of merely self-ordered objects and events as being evidence of self-organization. "Self-organization vs. Self-ordering Events in Life-origin Models" "Physics of Life Reviews." by David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors July 2006.")
Comment by platolives — December 31, 2006 @ 12:39 am
December 31st, 2006 at 12:54 am
An interesting post that makes some good points indeed.
While I've not posted much here, I've lurked for some time, and have enjoyed the ambiance on this particular blog. In particular, I feel that Mike Gene approaches the subject with a healthy dose of skepticism, which I appreciate and admire.
Personally, I don't think ID is Creationism in disguise, but I do feel that the idea has been exploited for religiously motivated purposes. But I also don't think ID is science. Science is a process… something that you actively perform. While the writings of some of the major ID proponents have provided a useful basis for science to proceed from, it has yet to produce anything that can be described as science.
I also believe that Mike makes an incredibly important distinction re: biological information, with the following statement:
I would have to wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Indeed the entire process of evolution appears, at least in my mind to be an unzipping of information that changes in response to environmental signals and cues in some manner. The unfolding of the fossil record and what we can infer re: origins of life appears to require an increase in biological information… or at the very least the use of biological information in a variety of 'contexts.'
Sometimes I wonder how appropriate any analogy we can make to information as we understand it to biological information is. More and more evidence suggests that biological information is constrained at multiple levels. The recent info re: synonymous mutations seems to demonstrate this perfectly. In addition to the linear information, and structural components present in DNA… apparently DNA… or more technically mRNA sequence, and codon usage can affect protein folding. Amazing… and more or less constrained in a manner unlike any information, I am aware of…
In any case, great post… and I hope to become a regular commenter here now that I've broken the ice so to speak.
Comment by kallikak — December 31, 2006 @ 12:54 am
December 31st, 2006 at 2:03 am
Sam:
No it hasn't.
Comment by Guts — December 31, 2006 @ 2:03 am
December 31st, 2006 at 2:05 am
Hi God3,
You ask, "Mike what would need to change for you, to make ID qualify as science?"
What I would need is to see the hypothesis of intelligent design generate a track record of experimental success that generates novel understanding about the biotic world. And as unpleasant as it may seem, given my sociological perspective of science, some non-ID members of the scientific community would have to acknowledge it as science (while not necessarily agreeing with the conclusions/assumptions).
Hi kallikak,
You write:
I think this is very well stated.
My own view, in embryonic form, is that life is a form of technology that was designed to "download" information from the environment and, in conjunction with the front-loaded state, gave rise to what we call evolution.
Well, great comments on your part. I'll be looking forward to reading more.
And of course, welcome to Telic Thoughts!
Comment by MikeGene — December 31, 2006 @ 2:05 am
December 31st, 2006 at 5:30 am
Thanks for showing us once again how Darwinian propaganda machine has been successful in misrepresenting the truth. In reality, contrary to your claims there is no bit of empirical research and evidence to show us that The Flagellum could have evolved purely by naturalistic means. Darwinian realm is a place where hypothesis, theoretical papers and works of imaginations are disguised as scientific hard proofs.
Comment by Farshad — December 31, 2006 @ 5:30 am
December 31st, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Hi Mike,
I would imagine that you are famiiiar with the work that William Jeffrey has performed with cavefish.
From his homepage:
Pretty cool, and supportive, IMO, of what you've stated above.
Comment by kallikak — December 31, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:24 pm
http://www.arikah.net/encyclop...
Comment by g arago — January 2, 2007 @ 8:24 pm