More than Information
by Steve PetermannHow can one evaluate the claims of intelligent design? Of course, one way is through some sort of method for acquiring and interpreting empirical observations. However, there is another method that for many people is a reasonable approach and often compelling as long as the empirical approach does not dispell it. That is by analogy.
Biotic reality contains many astonishing "machines". The more we delve deeply into the structure of life, the more we see analogies to what humans have designed and built: information systems, modular mechanisms, transport systems, power generation and distribution, manufacturing facilities, built in tests, etc. To evaluate the claim that biotic reality is the product of design, the qualitative similarities and differences between biotic systems and human made systems can be examined.
DNA is one area that is ripe for comparison. DNA contains an enormous amount of information. So do engineered systems. If one was to examine the information associated with the analyses, design, and manufacture of the Space Shuttle, I'm sure it would surprise many. However, in modern engineered systems there is a disconnect between information and the product. The process of creating complex engineered products starts with the creation of specifications. These include part drawings, electrical and electronic schematics, material specifications, computer code, quality control specifications, test procedures, etc. Once the specifications are complete then they are released to manufacturing where there is usually another set of specifications including manufacturing routings, tooling, manufacturing processes, assembly procedures, etc. This requires interpretation of the engineering specifications into manufacturing information. Materials are acquired and the process of removing materials from aggregates to the final product proceeds. This includes scraping, grinding, milling, drilling, bending, punching and so on. Then there are coating, plating, laminating and other processes to condition those materials. For the control systems there are similar operations and procedures to build, combine, program, and integrate electronic components. I describe these processes just to point out the disconnect between the information of the system specification and the manufacture of the final product. However, for DNA and the processes associated with it there is no such disconnect.
DNA is more than information. It is also the manufacturer. Remarkably, the information is also the builder. There is a seamless flow from genetic information to protein product. The inefficient process of removing materials from aggregates in human manufacture is avoided. There is no need to have a disconnected interpretation of the engineering specification to enable manufacturing. From an engineering perspective one would be hard pressed to think of a more efficient and economical method for going from specification to product. We, as humans, have just recently made crude attempts at this with CAD/CAM (computer aided design and computer aided machining). Those attemps still fall orders of magnitude short in efficiency and economy from the integrated specification/production schemes in biotic reality. When one thinks of the vast and sometimes heroic efforts of intelligence found in creating human systems that pale in comparison to biotic systems, is it not a reasonable inference that those biotic systems are, in fact, the product of intelligence? It would seem that, given the force of analogical evidence, the burden of proof should lie with those who reject this inference.
April 30th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Of course its reasonable. Its not politically correct, however. Why else does MikeGene feel that he should use a pseudonym?
People like Dawkins and Eugenic Scott want to do our thinking for us. But, they really don't have any special knowledge or authority over other equally qualified scientists who have made similar observations.
Comment by David — April 30, 2006 @ 7:34 pm
April 30th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
David,
Perhaps. But do they have authority over non-qualified non-scientists? I need to know - I don't want to be an unintentional rebel or anything.
Comment by Douglas — April 30, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 3:17 am
Right. So both similarity and difference to human machines indicate design. That covers all the bases, doesn't it?
Comment by Myrmecos — May 1, 2006 @ 3:17 am
May 1st, 2006 at 10:23 am
Hi Steve!
Sorry, this isn't a court of law. Scientists want theories that they can use in research. Evolutionary theory has proven to be very useful, as evidenced by thousands of articles published in science journals every years. The design inference, in contrast, is a science stopper. This was evident at the Kitzmiller trial. Using evolutionary theory, researchers are learing a lot about the evolution of the human immune system, which should provide signiifcant breakthroughs in medicine. Behe testified he hadn't even bothered to read most of those articles, since, based on the design inference, the research is a waste of time. What research has Behe done on the human immune system since he declared it designed? What breakthroughs have resulted from inferring a biological system was designed?
Comment by Aagcobb — May 1, 2006 @ 10:23 am
May 1st, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
This is all off topic. The issue is who should bear the burden of proof concerning an inference of design/non-design or more generally put teleology/non-teleology in the emergence of biotic reality? Given that the overwhelming evidence from analogy points to design, it should be the Darwinists who bear that burden. Do the Darwinists or you have other evidence to overturn the evidence from analogy?
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 1, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 2:02 pm
But for scientists, evidence from analogy simply does not count for anything other than perhaps as a teaching tool. There is no field of science where analogy is treated as a valid form of evidence.
Comment by Myrmecos — May 1, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Hi Steve,
Well, the point I was trying to make is that this whole burden of proof notion is nonsense. Scientists are looking for theories that help them do productive research; they aren't adjudicating a legal issue.
Yes, lots of observation of populations of organisms evolving, none of which have ever been observed being designed by a nonhuman intelligent agent.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 1, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Hi Myrmecos,
Really? What about experimental science? Looks like to me experimental science uses evidence from analogy all the time.
From the dictionary:
What are experiments if not analogous systems? They have some similarities to the system being studied and other things that are dissimilar. This is particularly true for reductive experiments where certain factors involved in the natural system are ignored to make analysis feasible.
Then there's biology. Doesn't biology use evidence from analogy all the time? Here's just one example from a quick Google search:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 1, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 2:47 pm
According to Michael Ruse, design-type thinking is behind most biological discovery. Here is what he says:
"Both history and present Darwinian evolutionary practice have shown us that design-type thinking is involved in the adaptationist paradigm. We treat organisms "“ the parts at least — as if they were manufactured, as if they were designed, and then we try to work out their functions. End-directed thinking "“ teleological thinking "“ is appropriate in biology because, and only because, organisms seem as if they were manufactured, as if they had been created by an intelligence and put to work." Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design: Does evolution have a purpose?, p. 268 (Harvard, 2003)
Comment by Jack — May 1, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Steve,
This is what your link says
I think it makes the point well - superficial similarities are often of little value.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — May 1, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 2:57 pm
And this from Del Ratzsch: "If things in nature can appear designed, if nature can produce things that are as if designed, if results of natural selection function as if designed, then doing science as if nature was designed - methodological designism - might be a productive, rational strategy." Nature, Design, and Science, pp. 127-8
Comment by Jack — May 1, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Then why do Dennett, Dawkins, Pinker and other scientists make the inference that evolution is unguided, purposeless.? If they are going to do that they should be willing to back up that inference with some kind of evidence.
Have scientists ever observed "populations of organisms evolving" by unguided, purposeless means?
I would be perfectly happy if scientists as scientists were just mute on these types of inferences. But they aren't. Some claim that it is science itself that supports non-teleological inferences.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 1, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Hi ethel,
If you read further using analogous explorations apparently does provide fruitful evidence.
That's the whole point of exploring analogies. If there aren't enough similarities then the analogy breaks down. If there are strong similarities as there are between human systems and biological systems then the analogy provides strong evidence.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 1, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pm
I reposted my last comment it because I thought there was a posting error, but apparently someone put it in the memory hole (which I discovered looking at the recent comments sidebar). Can someone tell me why it got sent there?
Thanks!
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 1, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Hi MatthewCromer,
While I appreciate some of your sentiments, I'd like to avoid off topic tangents. That's why I'm putting these types of comments in the memory hole. On topic comments are certainly welcome.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 1, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Steve,
Thanks for the reply.
I'm not suggesting that analogies are not useful devices; however, arguments which are exclusively from analogy rarely provide more than a convenient way of emphasizing similarities. Take the current example; the superficial similarities would, using your definition, suggest that the animals are actually similar in other respects. Apart from being living things they don't seem to be and I'm sure that studying their genomes will demonstrate that - that's a prediction.
I'm not sure which dictionary you used but that definition of "analogy"
seems almost the opposite of (i) the way "analogy" is used in biology in the sense of your example and (ii) the way analogies are used in science. That is, simply because two things have some properties in common is not used to imply that they will have other properties in common. For example, why are snails and shrimp deemed to be "analogs" when the properties which they do have in common imply nothing at all about their physiologies otherwise?
In evolutionary theory, as in many areas of science, words often assume a techical meaning that is somewhat distinct from their everyday meaning. * Here "analogy" is defined to mean, specifically, "similar because of convergent evolution and not because of common ancestry." And note that it is only the shells that are analogies, not the organisms. So it boils down to saying that the bits that are similar are similar and not that the similarity of some bits implies the similarity of others.
Of course, biologists and scientists often draw analogies in the conventional way (e.g., when teaching) and seeing analogous structures, behaviors, etc. can certainly suggest good experiments to do, but theories are not built simply from making analogies. And certainly theories are not based on assertions that seeing an analogy in one area must, therefore, have broader implications. For example, Rutherford spotted a seeming analogy between an atom and the Solar System. But he was dead wrong.
Ethel
* for example, the terms "reversible and irreversible process" in thermodynamics cause students hours of heartache because these terms are used in a much more specifically manner that everyday usage would suggest.
Comment by ethel_merganser — May 1, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Hi Steve,
Sure, due to mutations which are random with regard to fitness and natural selection. Now, it is true that everything that happens is part of God's plan, so ultimately, in sense, everything that happens is guided and has a purpose, however, the workings of God's will in the universe is not something which can be empirically studied and so is not incorporated into any scientific theory. For example, the development and path of hurricanes occur due to complicated interactions between the ocean, the atmosphere and other factors, but as far as scientists can tell they are not intelligently directed. Does Pat Robertson's belief that Katrina was God's judgment on the sinfulness of New Orleans and Mississippi casinos mean we need a science of "intelligent meteorology"
Comment by Aagcobb — May 1, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 7:00 pm
- Steve P.
Making an analogy to 'design' or 'engineering' or 'construction' or 'building' or whatever non-IDM metaphor is one thing. Another thing is creating God in the image of man - a reverse perspective toward creation. You're not saying that we can 'evaluate' (the claims of) God by the products created, are you?
Comment by g arago — May 1, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 7:24 pm
ethel,
I guess it depends on what one is looking for. I would say that analogies are prima facie evidence where inferences drawn from similarities are reasonable. Certainly, if possible, those inference should be corroborated by further evidence. I think that is where we are with ID as a scientific explanation. However, culturally there are also broader issues. Whether or not the scientific evidence to forcefully corroborate either ID or non-ID inferences is forthcoming is an open question. Culturally, however, there are pressing issues for many people relating to morality and religious imperatives. The issue of teleology/non-teleology is not a trivial issue. The personal decisions impose themselves. Without definitive corroborating evidence either way a person must decide what to believe. Peirce and the pragmatists said that a belief is something one is willing to act upon. So at this point the question for honest seekers is which way to make an actionable jump. Based on evidence from analogy and the existing arguments/evidence of ID, I suggest it is perfectly reasonable to make the teleological leap of faith. I'm more concerned about this than the science issue.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 1, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Hi garago,
This is off topic (my apologies to Matthew) but I'll comment because it is of interest to me.
You raise the whole issue of natural theology which is my real interest in ID. Obviously this is an enormous topic but I'll make a few comments.
Plato posited the unity of being and knowing. Calvin used the term "sensus divinitatus", sense of the divine. Tillich called it the "mystical a priori". The essence of these propositions is that knowledge of God is possible because of a unity of being with God and an inherent sense of the divine. Accordingly human metaphors applied to God are a legitimate exercise. Are the metphors true? This is the question. The history of religion dating back to animism shows that metaphors come and go and those that are not compelling fade into oblivion. Metaphysical and religious sentiment are subject (to use the Darwinian phrase) survival of the fittest. In Hegelian terms this reflects the evolution of divine consciousness.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 1, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Steve,
Perhaps, but most scientific theories have been surprising in showing that reasonable inferences drawn from analogy or based on the apparently obvious are, in fact, incorrect. For example, objects on Earth go around each other only when there is some physical attachment (e.g., beads following hoops) — from this we got epicycles with mechanical analogies (the deferent) used to explain retrograde motion. Quantum mechanics is nothing like anything we can imagine based on analogs from everyday experience. Certainly, making analogs may have (and still are) been useful in developing early hypotheses but the analogs were discarded.
In general that is perfectly fine for people who wish to make such a leap of faith. The problem arises when ID supporters insist that it be taught as established science or even as science or ask people to disprove ID when that cannot be done. Not being able to disprove a negative proposition is not the same as accepting that such a proposition be a legitimate contender with other scientific theories. Otherwise the Sphagetti Monster would be a reasonable candidate for Designer.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — May 1, 2006 @ 8:33 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 11:18 pm
[...] Steve Petermann is right. Humans, scientists included, do a great deal of reasoning by analogy, and I'd agree that it is commonly used in design arguments. Unfortunately, that is about the extent to which he right. [...]
Pingback by hell’s handmaiden » More than Information, but less than solid — May 1, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
May 2nd, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Hello Aagcobb,
Aagcobb wrote:
Isn't there value in exploration? Many useful theories have been generated as a result of exploration. You seem to think that exploring ID inference is useless simply because the future applications and disciplines of research are not evident yet. Maybe scientists want theories they can use in research, but humanity in majority wants to explore the question of whether design inference is possible, and if so what is the mechanism of design.
Maybe if you lack the same spirit of exploration you should step aside. The explorers of the world are at work and don't need or care to listen to the detractors and naysayers.
Comment by chunkdz — May 2, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:23 am
hello chunkdz,
First, I don't know what the basis of your first claim is (I suspect the vast majority of humanity doesn't even know what the design inference is). Second, let me know when IDists start researching the mechanism of design. Its my understanding that the official ID position is that the mechanism of design is outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 3, 2006 @ 8:23 am
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Aagcobb wrote:
A recent Zogby poll. I'll qualify the statement by saying "the majority of Americans", although it is accepted that the majority of humanity is predisposed to accept an intelligent designer conceptually.
I always thought it was the identity of the designer that was officially out of bounds.
Quantum mechanics seems to be offering insight into the possible mechanism of design. Protein folding has been demonstrated to be guided by quantum effects. Zero-point vibrations are a Heisenbergian phenomenon that account for weak hydrogen bonds in water, which in turn account for sophisticated functions in DNA activity. Quantum computing offers insight into how complexity can be front-loaded, or side loaded into an informational system. (Indeed it has been postulated that EVERYTHING is a quantum informational system.)
The mechanism of design is being researched, even if the researchers don't identify themselves as "ID researchers".
(I understand you can be denied tenure for doing so, so who could blame them.)
Comment by chunkdz — May 3, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
May 7th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Methinks Steve might want to brush up on his definitions and how they are used within fields of science.
I.e., analogy does not seem to mean what he thinks it does in the link he provides.
Analogies are not evidence, at least not in science. Just as has been pointed out.
Comment by derwood — May 7, 2006 @ 11:32 am