More Telic Thinking
by MikeGeneTomday, over at the TheUndergroundDialectic.com, has a thought-provoking blog about ID:
"I conclude this gelandesprung saying to those that don't think ID is valid: none of the above ideas are based on any particular type of creator, intelligence, or religious point of view. Maybe, as Douglas Adams postulated in his seminal book, the designers are mice. Regardless, it is an error in judgment for those in the press, those that are legitimate scientists, and true philosophers to dismiss out of hand the concepts that underpin ID. This dismissal is, in itself, unscientific and as a result deserves to be dismissed. True science must always wonder at the world."
December 29th, 2005 at 3:07 am
Great.
So what good is the dang notion to scientists to date? Weak heuristic, sure.
…….faint praise, guys.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 29, 2005 @ 3:07 am
December 29th, 2005 at 4:25 am
That's a pretty weird post to endorse. TheUndergroundDialectic says that "The Second Law of Thermodynamics" is something that he finds a compelling argument for design. Yep, no religious history to that one…
In the just-plain-dumb category:
* Describing Stephen Hawking as "not the heavy-weight scientist" he's made out to be, and that "he is given scientific sympathy because of his condition." What? No discussion of the interaction of quantum mechanics of black holes? Nothing about Hawking Radiation, which I'm sure they named after Hawking just because they felt sorry for him. Please.
Back to the just-plain-dumb, but also clearly religiously-motivated. TheUndergroundDialectic writes:
There we go, the tired old "evolution/science removes purpose from the universe and leads to Nazism" argument. Nothing religious about that either.
And, this guy is clearly advocating ID not just for biology, but for our planet's location, "heat/cold", and basic physics. There is no way the IDer of the Universe could be aliens, the only IDer option is God or someone with the same job description. Sounds like a "religious point of view" to me.
Comment by hebenz — December 29, 2005 @ 4:25 am
December 29th, 2005 at 9:18 am
Mike. I appreciate the post but you know what: this is one of those points that it really is not worth arguing anymore because of social dynamics.
Unfortuantely, the environment in which this dialogue is taking place is one in which people, even the intellectuals, have largely lost the ability (or at least the motivation) to make critical distinctions.
As I said in an early post, why make the effort when 1) you know that you are right and 2) your only goal is that of persuasion. Blurring the options is strategy #1 in any persuasive technique.
It is obviously true that ID is not inherently religious. One only needs to read the works of the Stoics to understand this. For them, rationality was necessary to explain certain features of the world, but the Stoics were physicalists. Go figure?
They must have been living with a contradiction, as Dennet says.
Comment by bipod — December 29, 2005 @ 9:18 am
December 29th, 2005 at 9:56 am
IDism hasn't been dismissed out of hand; its been dismissed after every idea it has been produced has been considered and debunked. IDists need to come up with something actually worth considering.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 9:56 am
December 29th, 2005 at 10:10 am
Aacobb sez:
IDism hasn't been dismissed out of hand; its been dismissed after every idea it has been produced has been considered and debunked.
Then show us the peer-reviewed pub that demonstrates that information can originate via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.
Show us the peer-reviewed pub that demonstrates that life can arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.
Or admit your post was a mistake.
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 10:10 am
December 29th, 2005 at 10:17 am
hebenz sez:
There is no way the IDer of the Universe could be aliens, the only IDer option is God or someone with the same job description. Sounds like a "religious point of view" to me.
The origin of nature could not have come about via natural processes because natural processes only exists in nature. Therefore it all "turtles down" to something non or super natural. There's just no escaping that reality.
We exist. There are only 3 options to that existence:
1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes
2) Intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes
3) A combination of 1 & 2
So if you want ID to go away start substantiating option 1 and stop blaming IDists for the (your- ie anti-IDists) failure to do so.
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 10:17 am
December 29th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Joe G says Then show us the peer-reviewed pub that demonstrates that information can originate via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.
I already did that with the link I provided you concerning the mobility experiment.
Show us the peer-reviewed pub that demonstrates that life can arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.
Or admit your post was a mistake.
You don't get it Joe. IDism doesn't get any traction from pointing to gaps in our knowledge and saying "you can't explain that!". Its got to come up with some testable ideas which explain those gaps itself. Abiogenesis researchers are testing ideas about how life could have arose; what ideas do IDists have about the origins of life, and what research are they doing to test them?
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 10:29 am
December 29th, 2005 at 10:30 am
Hi Bipod,
"It is obviously true that ID is not inherently religious. One only needs to read the works of the Stoics to understand this. For them, rationality was necessary to explain certain features of the world, but the Stoics were physicalists. Go figure?"
Nah. The moves made by the chess-playing computer Deep Blue are characterized by both rationality and teleology, yet a describtion of Deep Blue need not go beyond the physical.
Comment by Krauze — December 29, 2005 @ 10:30 am
December 29th, 2005 at 10:33 am
Aagcobb wrote:
"IDism hasn't been dismissed out of hand; its been dismissed after every idea it has been produced has been considered and debunked."
To elaborate on this, ID has in fact been considered and debunked by a community of objective and fair-minded individuals, who would have no qualms whatsoever with acknowledging it, had ID supporters ever made a single reasonable point. Right, Aagcobb?
Comment by Krauze — December 29, 2005 @ 10:33 am
December 29th, 2005 at 10:46 am
No, Krauze, as we know, all evolutionary biologists are card carrying members of the EAC*, who have dedicated their lives to destroying christianity and all that is good and wholesome about the American way of life.
*evil atheist conspiracy
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 10:46 am
December 29th, 2005 at 11:01 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Does this mean that the belief that ID critics are objective and fair-minded is as faulty as the belief that evolutionary biologists are evil atheists?
Comment by Krauze — December 29, 2005 @ 11:01 am
December 29th, 2005 at 11:06 am
I'm an evolutionary biologist by profession. The reason I got into it is because I am BLOWN away by what, as far as I am concerned, is a complete bloody miracle. For crying out loud, the fact that we even exist COMPLETELY BLOWS MY MIND.
In fact, all evolutionary biologists I know study what they do because they are fundamentally curious about all these things. I would seriously chop my hand off in exchange for proof of an intelligent designer. I think it is sad that so many people characterize evolutionary biologists as being close minded and fundamentally biased when the only reason many of us got into what we do was fueled by complete marvel at the world.
The fact that I don't by ID has nothing to do with my lack of being objective. It is because I have become trained to be as objective as I possibly can be.
Comment by blockheadster — December 29, 2005 @ 11:06 am
December 29th, 2005 at 11:55 am
Krauze, ID critics are just people like the rest of us. I'm sure that some of them wouldn't acknowledge the reality of the ID if he showed up in their lab and designed a bacterial flagellum right in front of their eyes. That being said, many evolutionary biologists are faithful christians who have no problem with the concept of an omnipotent God, and would therefore presumably be open to evidence that life was directly designed rather than evolved, if IDists had some substantial evidence to show them. As it is, evolutionary theory has been spectacularly successful in explaining biological phenomenon, while IDism hasn't produced any research of substance. This doesn't make IDism unique in any way; scientific hypotheses which don't measure up get savaged and discarded whether they have religious implications or not. Cold fusion comes to mind, as well as recent criticism of NASA's claims that Mars was once a wet planet, and their claims a few years ago that they found microfossils in meteorites from Mars. Thats the nature of science; scientists want the beef, and so far all IDism has to offer is a big, fluffy bun.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 11:55 am
December 29th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Blockheadster,
I'm sure you are quite sincere in perceiving yourself as being objective. And you may even be correct. But because of our hefty experience dealing with many critics of ID on the internet, that's not a default assumption we grant to critics of ID (consider the recent demands to label all IDers as liars, for example). If you are being objective, evidence of this objectivity will ensue and thus speak to your objectivity. Then, and only then, will I be happy to acknowledge your objectivity. For example, I can accept the fact that you would be happy to have a PROOF of an intelligent DESIGNER. Of course, anything less than this means that your objective inquiry would make you a traitor, giving ammunition to the enemy that wants to put and end to science and set up concentration camps with their lies.
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2005 @ 12:04 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Except that on one point, intelligent design differs from cold fusion, that Mars was once a wet planet, and that microfossils had been found in meteorites from Mars: The far majority of the scientific community does not think that the latter hypotheses are "inherently religious", nor that they're the spearhead of people wanting to institute a theocracy.
Comment by Krauze — December 29, 2005 @ 12:12 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Aagcobb:
Since IDism is perceived to be synonymous with supernatural causation and religion, and these are not allowed in science (as Judge Jones, relying on scientific experts has ruled), of course it must be dismissed out of hand. When you claim IDists need to come up with something actually worth considering, we've already seen what this is supposed to be "“ a proof of the designer or a proof that evolution is impossible. It is thus easy to rationalize a priori out-of-hand dismissal when those are what is worth considering.
What is "worth considering" is rarely an objective call. You may not deem life's design to be worth considering, and that's fine. I have no interest in compelling you to consider ID, as evidenced by the fact that I will not follow you around the internet to convince you of this. But you, along with your fellow critics, are here in my home. Are you here, in my home, trying to tell me I am too stupid, dishonest, or deluded to understand that ID is not worth considering?
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2005 @ 12:15 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
MikeGene,
Fair enough. This is the internet, afterall, as you point out.
And while I would give a hand or arm for PROOF, as you seem to suggest, this may be an unfair burden. You can just as easily make the offer for PROOF of RM + NS being the sole force behind the flagellum without having to worry about losing.
So, let me hedge the offer. I'll give my pinkie finger for a full statistical treatment that says the probability of a designer (for anything - the flagellum, resistance to HIV, whatever) is > 0.5.
And I don't think you guys are liars. And I certainly don't hate any of you, as someone suggested earlier. In fact, I think you share the same amazement as me at the world, but are just wrong.
Cheers,
BH
Comment by blockheadster — December 29, 2005 @ 12:20 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Aagcobb:
How substantial is substantial? Being a theistic evolutionist doesn't make you more predisposed to taking ID seriously. There are often two dynamics involved that involve more than "the evidence." First, as we have seen, many theistic evolutionists hold to a theology that precludes something like ID. Secondly, there is the social dynamics where TEs, in an environment where most of their colleagues are atheists, are embarrassed by the creationists. And since the anti-IDists have done a very good job of selling the ID=creationism meme, a good hypothesis is that a high level of peer pressure exists for them to join in at the sneering of ID. Because of this, TEs would likely need the "substantial evidence" is effectively amount to a proof capable of convincing Richard Dawkins.
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2005 @ 12:26 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Mike Gene says Are you here, in my home, trying to tell me I am too stupid, dishonest, or deluded to understand that ID is not worth considering?
Of course not, Mike. But may I remind you the topic is Tomday's assertion that scientists are being unscientific in dismissing ID. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you yourself have asserted that IDism isn't science, which would mean you disagree with Tomday as well. There are lots of ideas worth considering which aren't scientific, but the question present here is whether scientists ought to be giving IDism more consideration as science.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 12:27 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Thanks, BH. It's important to remember that our perception of critics is largely shaped by internet personas and high profile figureheads involved in the political dimension. The larger scientific community does not pay much heed to this debate. Thus, readers of this blog should not think "ID critic" is synonymous with "scientist" or "evolutionary biologist."
And I have no problem with you thinking that I am wrong. In fact, I have long ago admitted that there is a very good chance I am wrong.
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2005 @ 12:32 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Aagcobb,
It all depends on how you define 'science.' I don't think ID is science because the scientific community doesn't think it is science - it is not a hypothesis that is hashed out in the scientific literature (something I tend to stay buried in). But this does not mean I think ID is wishy, washy subjective philosophy/religion either. I think ID can be approached in an investigative manner and don't care much about the label we attach to it.
I don't think Tomday has a sociological definition of science in mind. I think his thinking can be found in the first four bullet points - which are thought-provoking.
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2005 @ 12:39 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
MikeGene says Because of this, TEs would likely need the "substantial evidence" is effectively amount to a proof capable of convincing Richard Dawkins.
Thats like the guy who won't ask the girl he likes for a date because he's sure that he'll be turned down. Its a good rationalization for why IDism isn't getting any traction in the scientific realm. Of course, it doesn't explain why the Templeton Foundation didn't receive any reasearch proposals from IDists, even when they asked for them. But like Charlie Brown contemplating talking to the red headed girl IDists probably said, "I've got a great research idea, but those Templeton people won't want to be laughed at by Dawkins, so I won't even bother to submit a proposal."
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 12:40 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
Joe G says Then show us the peer-reviewed pub that demonstrates that information can originate via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.
Aacobb:
I already did that with the link I provided you concerning the mobility experiment.
The key word, of course, is originate. What you article demonstrated was that something novel can come about from existing information via genetic engineering.
So how about the origin of that information?
Show us the peer-reviewed pub that demonstrates that life can arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.
Or admit your post was a mistake.
Aacobb:
You don't get it Joe.
Actually I get it all too well.
Aacobb:
IDism doesn't get any traction from pointing to gaps in our knowledge and saying "you can't explain that!".
The gaps are in YOUR knowledge. IDists understand what intelligent agencies can do:
IC and CSI are testable ideas. Why would you think otherwise? (Both have been defined.)
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
Aagcobb,
Human beings are inherently and deeply social beings. It would be unscientific to deny this. I am not arguing that there is this all-powerful case for ID and that the TEs shy away from it for social reasons. On the contrary, the social dynamics insert themselves where the case is weak. Yet a weak case is not the same as a non-existent case. Nevertheless, my hypothesis is that the social dynamics will fuse the two, causing most TEs to treat a weak case as a non-existence case. In fact, this is where their theology also comes into play. It's a shame the scientific community doesn't explore and test things like peer pressure and how it shapes scientific discovery.
Look, all I am saying is that I don't attribute any meaning to the TEs dismissal of ID - the argument that they would be more predisposed to ID doesn't hold up.
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
Joe G says The key word, of course, is originate. What you article demonstrated was that something novel can come about from existing information via genetic engineering.
So how about the origin of that information?
So something can be novel without containing any new information? please explain that concept to me.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 12:57 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
But Mike, why didn't IDists submit research proposals to the Templeton Foundation? It exists to bridge the gap between science and religion. Foundation officials were intrigued by the ID concept. You can't blame the scientific community for IDists failure to even try to submit a research proposal when invited to do so by people who should be sympathetic to their ideas. Why should the scientific community take IDism more seriously when people who did take it more seriously got back nothing from IDists in response?
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 1:04 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Krauze says Except that on one point, intelligent design differs from cold fusion, that Mars was once a wet planet, and that microfossils had been found in meteorites from Mars: The far majority of the scientific community does not think that the latter hypotheses are "inherently religious", nor that they're the spearhead of people wanting to institute a theocracy.
Which was exactly my point, Krauze. Those ideas got savaged, and in the case of cold fusion and the microfossils, rejected even though they don't carry any religious baggage with them, because the arguments didn't hold up. Lets say that IDism wasn't linked to religion, and was instead being promoted primarily by people who think life on earth was designed by ETs. Its lack of testable content would leave it just as bereft of support in the scientific community as it is now.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 1:16 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Aacobb:
So something can be novel without containing any new information? please explain that concept to me.
One more time- "New" information is NOT the same as the origin of information. "New" information arising from already existing information does not qualify as you start with the very thing you need to explain- that existing information from which the alleged "new" information was derived.
The Aacobb sez:
Its lack of testable content would leave it just as bereft of support in the scientific community as it is now.
What part of the following don't you understand?:
Dr Behe (again):
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 1:48 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Could MikeGene, Krauze, Steve or any other ID friendly person correct me on this:
ID isn't ncessarily about any specific research program (at this point in time), as it is about allowing for a design inference to be made based on scientific research being conducted, from research that has been conducted and research that may/ will be conducted.
Isn't that how it would go in any field? Make an observation, come to a consensus- intentionally designed or the design is illusory- and THEN decide what to do with that determination. Does that determination help us? Do we even care once we make that determination? "Oh Joe G, did it? Who cares?" or "Let's get him."
(It is obvious that determination matters in a great many endeavors. Why exclude it from biology)
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
I don't know of any scientific field that proceeds like that. Usually, you make observations and try to square them with one idea or the next, and the competing ideas usually sort themselves out as useful/not useful. The determination of a consensus is usually based on the capacity of the varying ideas to do their jobs relative to each other in the field of science, ie to predict explain and control the natural world.
What you basically get (as far as I can see) is that the process that leads you to the consensus is the same process that tells you both the degree and type of utiolity of the consensus. As time goes on, of course, all of that can change………..
Comment by poikilotherm — December 29, 2005 @ 2:57 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Aagcobb:
I think someone needs to look into exactly what happened with the Templeton foundation stuff. When I first read that, I though that, if true, it was pretty damning of ID.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 29, 2005 @ 2:59 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Joe G says "New" information is NOT the same as the origin of information.
Then your problem is with abiogenesis, rather than evolutionary theory.
I agree with Behe; IDism is unfalsifiable, and there is no evidence against it, since there is no theory of intelligent design.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 3:15 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Joe G says "New" information is NOT the same as the origin of information.
Aacobb:
Then your problem is with abiogenesis, rather than evolutionary theory.
Try to follow along- YOU said, "IDism hasn't been dismissed out of hand; its been dismissed after every idea it has been produced has been considered and debunked."
One of the ideas of ID is the origin of information is due to an intelligent cause. That is based on observation throughout time.
Aacobb:
I agree with Behe
Great. Finally you understand that ID is testable, as he states.
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 3:27 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
JoeG: Isn't that how it would go in any field? Make an observation, come to a consensus- intentionally designed or the design is illusory- and THEN decide what to do with that determination. Does that determination help us? Do we even care once we make that determination? "Oh Joe G, did it? Who cares?" or "Let's get him."
poikilotherm sez:
I don't know of any scientific field that proceeds like that.
Whatever dude.
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 3:29 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
Joe G says One of the ideas of ID is the origin of information is due to an intelligent cause. That is based on observation throughout time.
Thats just a vague notion, Joe, unless you can tell me when anyone has observed a nonhuman intelligence originate information in a biological organism. I also don't appreciate your use of the typical creationist tactic of quote mining me. I didn't agree with Behe that ID is falsifiable; I agreed with him that we can't have it both ways. IDism is unfalsifiable, and there is no evidence against it, since it makes no positive factual statements about design which can be tested.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 3:40 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
What about the testable statement that there are some things in nature that can't be attributed to natural law, Cob?
Comment by Dane Parker — December 29, 2005 @ 3:53 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Thats a mighty vague statement, Dane. Exactly how would one test it?
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 3:56 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
It's not hard, Cob, and there are a variety of choices. Pick any system described ID-ists that they say can't be produced by sheer natural law, find an organism that doesn't possess it, and see if it can be evolved in that organism. Can you evolve a flagellum in a microbe that lacks it?
Comment by Dane Parker — December 29, 2005 @ 4:06 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
What would the controls in such experiments look like? Positive? Negative? How does one determine a suitable scale for such a study? How does one "shield" away design so that a positive outcome can reliably be ascribed to natural mechanisms?
I don't think people like Behe have thought this line of thought through very well. Proposing "experiments" that are technically unfeasible or fundamentally flawed because they cannot be controlled isn't a very good approach to science (or even debate).
Comment by Art — December 29, 2005 @ 4:27 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
Thats not a positive statement about ID, Dane, its a negative statement about evolutionary theory. Even if scientists succeeded in evolving bacteria with falgellum from those which lacked it, that does nothing to falsify an ID theory, since there is no ID theory to falsify. Besides which, IDists would never admit any such experiment did falsify ID; they would say that the experiment only showed that intelligent agents (scientists) could bring flagellum into existence, or that, even if flagellum did evolve, other aspects of life could not have.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 4:29 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Aagcobb,
That the Templeton Foundation was inviting ID-based research proposals was news to me (I first found out about this when Dembski blogged about it a few weeks ago). Can you point to the place where they made the announcement inviting such proposals? I'm curious about a) the type of research they were looking for and b) the amount of funding they were offering.
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Don't know any details, Mike. I just read about it here. Have a happy new year!
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 5:14 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Today the WSJ ran a front page story mentioning the John Templeton Foundation in a way suggesting that the Foundation has been a concerted patron and sponsor of the so-called Intelligent Design ("ID") position (such as is associated with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and the writers Philip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe and others). This is false information. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The John Templeton Foundation has provided tens of millions of dollars in support to research academics who are critical of the anti-evolution ID position. Any careful and factual analysis of actual events will find that the John Templeton Foundation has been in fact the chief sponsor of university courses, lectures and academic research which variously have argued against the anti-evolution "ID" position.
Here
Doesn't sound like a funding source that was/is friendly to ID to me. Sorry, but unless I see the announcements that invited this ID-based research, I feel rationally obligated to dismiss the Templeton claims.
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2005 @ 5:29 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Hi everyone,
I'm new commenting to this group blog, although I've been reading it for a while. I appreciate the high quality of the blogs, and also the even-handed yet firm way the bloggers have of dealing with various unnecessarily rude ID critics.
Regards,
Omar
Comment by Omar — December 29, 2005 @ 5:40 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Aagcobb,
Are you familiar with Dembski's claim at his blog? Apparently, there is more than one side to the story of Templeton-ID relations. Are you assuming that the version you heard is correct even when you don't know all the details?
Comment by Omar — December 29, 2005 @ 5:54 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
Aagcobb,
You wrote:
"Thats just a vague notion, Joe, unless you can tell me when anyone has observed a nonhuman intelligence originate information in a biological organism."
The notion may be vague, but vague notions are used by us all the time. Many of the notions we operate with on a daily basis are vague, but they are still perfectly usable for all that.
I'm curious, though, as to why it should be necessary for anyone to observe a nonhuman intelligence originating information.
The point is that we have observational evidence that intelligent beings have certain powers (and these observations also show us that nonhuman beings of a comparable level of intelligence would have similar powers). These powers include the ability to bring about irreducibly complex systems.
On the other hand, we have no observational evidence that RM+NS can bring about irreducibly complex systems.
Thus, the ID hypothesis is better than the RM+NS hypothesis for explaining the origin of irreducible complexity.
I'm not at all sure why observation of nonhuman intelligences is in any way necessary for concluding that intelligent beings can have powers not possessed by undirected processes.
Comment by Omar — December 29, 2005 @ 6:17 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
Cob says:
Is your logic regarding two mututally exclusive options is failing you, Cob? Do you not realize that evidence against one is evidence for the other? Also, Art whines about controls and wants me to give him a lab manual on performing such experiments. Such demands aren't relevant to me. I'm not a biologist so stating a precise method of experimentation is beyond my scope. Nonetheless, true biologists do know what environments, say, a flagellum is optimal for. So why not pressure the relevant microbes in such a medium? Furthermore, evolution and evolving have been experimented with for decades by biologists with bacteria, fruit-flies and other forms of life. Surely, Art does not mean to imply that when it comes to things such as the flagellum, evolution some how (conveniently?) becomes untestable.
Also, the complaints about ID-ists not buying such evidence, and there being no ID theory are all irrelevant to my point about empirically confirming the supposed creative forces of nature alone. As far as my comment is concerned, once we test the power of nature in this manner (depending on what the results are) then we can try ironing out the issues of who's convinced of what and issues regarding an 'ID-theory'. Until then, they don't concern my point.
Comment by Dane Parker — December 29, 2005 @ 6:50 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Joe G says One of the ideas of ID is the origin of information is due to an intelligent cause. That is based on observation throughout time.
Aacobb:
Thats just a vague notion, Joe,
Actually it has been well defined- information that is.
Aacobb:
unless you can tell me when anyone has observed a nonhuman intelligence originate information in a biological organism.
Can you demonstrate a barrier or a difference between information in a biological organism and plain ole information?
Aacobb:
I also don't appreciate your use of the typical creationist tactic of quote mining me.
What are you talking about?
Aacobb:
I didn't agree with Behe that ID is falsifiable; I agreed with him that we can't have it both ways.
Behe said that you can't have it both ways by saying that ID has been refuted/ falsified and/ or setting out to empirically falsify it and then out of the other side of your mouth claim it can't be tested. IOW logic and reason dictate if it can be falsified, as ID can be, then it can be tested.
Aacobb:
IDism is unfalsifiable, and there is no evidence against it, since it makes no positive factual statements about design which can be tested.
Both CSI and IC have been defined. If we observe unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes fulfilling those definitions then ID, as it currently stands, is falsified. Pure and simple- that is how it works in science.
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 7:58 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
BTW not being able to find evidence against a theory, ie evidence that could falsify it, IOW all attempts to falsify it are unsuccessful, does not mean the theory isn't scientific.
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 8:02 pm
December 30th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Sounds like a "religious point of view" to me.
Run for your life!
About the only people who believe in analyzing statements based on supposed intents and motivations to try to define them as "religious" are the textual degenerates of the American Judiciary. If you're going to begin to think as they do then you may as well just pull whatever you want to say out of your own penumbra and leave it at that.
The Constitution says "In the year of our Lord…" which placed God as sovereign over time rather like the sentiment "Under God…" and so we come to the point of declaring that the Declaration and the Constitution are unconstitutional. Not to mention the fact that they use the letter "T" which looks suspiciously like a cross and then there's the presidential seal which has an eagle on it, which some native Americans hold sacred religiously. Oh my.
Why has the American Republic become the material of satire? It's what Jefferson said would happen given the tendency of the Judiciary from the beginning.
Comment by mynym — December 30, 2005 @ 12:00 am
December 30th, 2005 at 11:46 am
ID isn't ncessarily about any specific research program (at this point in time), as it is about allowing for a design inference to be made based on scientific research being conducted, from research that has been conducted and research that may/ will be conducted.
Isn't that how it would go in any field? Make an observation, come to a consensus- intentionally designed or the design is illusory- and THEN decide what to do with that determination.
Take archaeology. A well respected science. Archaeolgists depend on artifacts from which they can draw an inference. But first they must determine an artifact from a natural object (that being an object created by nature acting alone). Only then can they try to determine what the artifact was used for (function), how it was made and who made it (although via written history they may have an idea of the who but are looking for verification of the documentation). Or they could determine that particular artifact isn't of any use to what they are trying to accomplish, continue digging at the site or decide to move to another hopefully more promising site (keeping a small crew back at the first site just in case).
Then take an archaeologist who thinks that the design inference is tantamount to "giving up", what kind of future would that person have in their field?
"Sir take a look at this vase. It is obviously an artifact"
"Don't fool yourself. You are giving up by not looking for a natural cause for that shape. Now get back to work and don't come back until you have done so."
Doesn't make sense does it?
ID critics & anti-IDists are always saying that ID isn't science because it doesn't attempt to answer questions about the designer- such as its capabilities; the implementation process/ mechanism of design (how); when or where it was designed.
But that is exactly why ID is scientific. Because it forces us to ask those questions.
I have always maintained that ID isn't interested in answering those questions but IDists are. I have always maintained that is the same as the ToE not being concerned with life's origins but evolutionists are. I never could or will understand why anti-IDists can't understand that pure & basic logical connection. But anyway…
IDists understand that in order to possibly answer those questions there is quite a bit of work to be done. However the more & deeper the pap we have to waste our time fending off, the less amount of time we can spend on the doing part.
The first is the detection- that is why gets archaeologists going. Then we look for more while others are going over the first. We fit the pieces together, unless of course we find a short-cut, but the answer turns out to be 42* but we don't know the question. (those darn mice)
*Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevany sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely. Del Ratzsch page 5 of Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science
or as I refer to it as anything that nature, acting alone, could not or would not do.
Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 11:46 am
December 30th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
Dane Parker said:
Not a lab manual, but just an indication that the proposed experiment can accomplish the task at hand. I don't believe that it does.
How many organisms? Over what time periods? How does one "find" the evolved (or, for that matter, designed) outcome? And the controls? What about the controls?
As it stands, the "experiment" that Behe has been pushing wouldn't pass muster at an elementary school science fair. It gives no chance of yielding a conclusion (either way) and it is uncontrolled. Uncontrolled experiments that cannot provide answers to testable hypotheses may be part of the new science that we can expect in the Post Wedge ID world, but they have no place in an authentic science.
I know how I would ask questions about evolution and the flagellum. I don't see any authentic interest on the parts of IDists in doing likewise.
Comment by Art — December 30, 2005 @ 6:40 pm
December 31st, 2005 at 11:01 am
Art sez:
As it stands, the "experiment" that Behe has been pushing wouldn't pass muster at an elementary school science fair.
Could you substantiate that claim with something from the real world? Or is this "vague accusation" the best you can dish out?
Art sez:
I know how I would ask questions about evolution and the flagellum. I don't see any authentic interest on the parts of IDists in doing likewise.
Ummm shouldn't it be the evolutionists asking the questions about the alleged evolution of the flagellum? Aren't they the people telling us it evolved via some blind watchmaker-type process- yes they are.
So why is it they don't come up with something that would substantiate that claim?
Comment by Joe G — December 31, 2005 @ 11:01 am