Open thread: Back to school edition
by KrauzeHave something you want to share? Do it here. Some thematically related suggestions for discussion:
Evolution News & Views points to an article in The Chronicle on Higher Education (registration required) on the case of Francis Beckwith, the pro-life and ID-friendly philosopher who had tenure denied to him at Baylor. From the article:
C. Stephen Evans, a professor of philosophy and humanities, says he will consider resigning if the decision is not reversed. Mr. Evans, who calls himself a liberal democrat, says Mr. Beckwith is being "railroaded for his conservative views, even though he clearly merits tenure on the basis of his scholarly work and teaching."
Denyse O'Leary of Post-Darwinist doesn't support attempts to mess with the science classes of high schoolers, because she believes that students should earn the right to dissent from their teachers' views.
To those of you taking Front-Loaded Evolution 101, here's a little thing that might be on the exam:
In the September 12 issue of the journal Public Library of Science Biology, the researchers report that in both fruit fly and chick embryos proteins called BMPs play similar roles in telling cells in the early embryo to switch certain genes on and off, specifying the identity of the cells making up the three primary subdivisions of the central nervous system. The findings suggest a unified model of early neural development in which at least part of the mechanism for creating neural patterning has been preserved from a shared ancestral organism that lived over 500 million years ago.
"Mechanism to Organize Nervous System Conserved in Evolution"
September 14th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
I would like a bring up a aspect of front-loading that I have unsuccessfully attempted to explore in the past.
First some declarations about me. Most people would classify me as an Evolutionist and, with some justification, a Troll. What I really like to do is test myself and my beliefs (along with others). My philosophy is such that the only way I could be convinced of the truth of ID is by what Demski calls "telic organizing principles in nature". Unfortunately, he also states this ID alternative is "way down the totem pole for most people". (both quotes are from http://www.uncommondescent.com...).
I am not easily deterred, so with that introduction…
Disclaimer: I have been unable to get anyone to explain in enough detail what Dembski meant by his term, so I may be misrepresenting it. For the rest of this post, please assume that the term "telic organizing principles of nature" (TOPN) describes a set of natural processes that are so interconnected that they appear to be organised into a system.
With this definition, I hope everyone can understand how I could and would view the mainstream evolution position and a form of TOPN. This is where Front Loading comes into play. Evolution is back-loaded TOPN. Front-loaded TOPN is not. Front-loaded TOPN could be claimed by ID proponents. This is a position that might be believable to me.
The difficulty in this proposal is in the prediction mechanisms. How does future information get folded into the front-loaded mechanisms? It would be simple job for a supernatural designer, but we all know what the problem is with assuming that. We could assume an almost-but-not-quite-supernatural designer but, if you haven't guessed already, I'm not willing to accept that possibility without a whole lot more convincing. So the problem for me is getting around the time issue.
What if we all are biased when thinking about time? We biasedly think the cause forces the effect. What if we think of the effect forcing the cause?
Getting to the point…
What there are natural mechanisms that transcend time?
Like the difference between Newton's physics and the physics we know today, what is observable by the average person with an average lifespan may not tell the whole story. It may take a million years for this mechanism to be significant. A million years is only 0.03% of the time life existed on this planet.
I will stop here before I dig myself any deeper. I throw this out for an "Open Discussion". Feel free to run with it, kick it, spit on it, whatever.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 14, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
September 14th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Check out this thread by Wesley Smith:
More Evidence That Science is Becoming a Mere Special Interest
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 14, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
September 15th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Hi Thoughtprovoker
I don't really understand what you are trying to get at, but noone else has responded to your post, so I'll tell you what I think MikeGene and Krauze mean by frontloading.
What I think they mean by frontloading is that a eukaryote was designed by an unknown intelligence, which could be a God, ET, or maybe something which we can't categorize, with lots of complex parts which could eventually prove useful for multicellular life, like a nucleus, and then evolution was allowed to take its course. If that is a misrepresentation of their position, I apologize, and would appreciate any correction they care to give.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 15, 2006 @ 10:40 am
September 15th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Aagcobb wrote…
Thank you for your reply. I also appreciate you telling me that you don't understand it. After all, it is crystal clear to me
I think the misunderstanding starts with the term "telic organizing principles of nature". From its usage it is apparently something that is distinct and different from ascribing to an external designer, especially if that designer is God (it is used as an example of how ID is not religious).
The only way this would make sense coming from a group opposing the mainstream evolutionary theory is if it is front-loaded. Otherwise, it is just another way of describing mainstream evolution. However, you are right, "front loaded" is a term used for many things for this debate"¦
1. A front-loaded universe - closely related to Theistic Evolution
2. A front-loaded solar system - see DI's Privileged Planet
3. A front-loaded biogenetics - most likely meaning for this thread
This begs the question (at least for me)…
"How could front-loaded biogentics work without a designer?"
I am not surprised over the lack of interest. Evolution proponents already have an explanation. Most ID proponents find godless explanations unpalatable or, at least, uninteresting.
Still, I throw it out there hoping someone who is truly thinking outside the box would at least argue against it. So far, no luck.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 15, 2006 @ 11:40 am
September 15th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
The reason neither Mike nor myself have commented on TP's post is because we are both pretty busy at the moment. Aagcobb's description of front-loading is very good, although front-loading probably extends further than just giving eukaryotes a nucleus.
As for TP's comments, it sounds as if he's more interested in the identity of the designer than in front-loading. The designer-centric approach is a topic that has so often been rehashed on this blog, and it doesn't strike me as a fruitful approach. So I'll defer the discussion to those more interested in the subject than I.
Comment by Krauze — September 15, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
September 15th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Krauze wrote…
Thank you for taking time out to post. Obviously, I am not communicating very well, because what I wish to talk about is the opposite of a designer-centric approach.
I will try to be clearer…
What is meant by "telic oganization properties of nature"
I have put together my educated guess of how this would work. Please, please suggest modifications to it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 15, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
September 15th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Hi Thought Provoker,
"What is meant by "telic oganization properties of nature""
I don't know; I've never used that expression.
Comment by Krauze — September 15, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
September 15th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
TP
It doesn't, unless the designer can predict the future. Even then, front-loading can't be claimed intrinsically to cover every contingency.
Quanta can transcend time. I'd look for a quantum mechanism to direct the process. More of a side-loading than a front-loading. Or perhaps front-loading with a quantum-keyable feedback chain.
Comment by chunkdz — September 15, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
September 15th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Krauze or MikeGene,
How is it decided who you will add as a contributor to the site? I know I've said it before but I think William Bradford would be a good addition.
Anyone you have ever asked who has rejected the offer?
Just curious.
Comment by Doug — September 15, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
September 15th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Thank You for your responses.
To Krauze…
I suspect most of the quotes about a telic principles of nature and/or telic processes trace back to William Dembski. Here is an example of him speaking on the subject…
http://www.ideacenter.org/cont...
From this, I am deducing Dembski's "telic process" is the design agent (not external to nature, but part of it).
Concerning the prediction nature of front-loading, Chunkdz responded with…
While it doesn't have "to cover every contingency", front-loading is inherently predictive. Information about the future must be involved in a front-loading process. Now it is my turn to say "this doesn't mean it is supernatural" or even perfect. Even human designers predict future needs, events, etc. The "I" in ID is there because of the need to predict. If the designer doesn't need to predict he/she/it could be as dumb as a… Darwinian process.
The fact that it sounds like science fiction shouldn't be a detriment. The Atom Bomb was pure science fiction at one time. Ok, "Predictive Process" doesn't sound as cool as "Intelligent Design" but, it is more scientifically supportable (e.g. "Quanta can transcend time."). It supports most, if not all, the evidence ID proponents are pointing to. As a bonus, it directly contradicts mainstream evolutionary theory. If it turned out to be valid, it would vindicate the entire ID movement.
Why isn't it getting more attention?
I will close with that Thought Provoking question.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 15, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
September 15th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Hi Doug,
"How is it decided who you will add as a contributor to the site?"
Someone on the Telic crew suggests a contributor, and if the candidate gets a majority of the votes, we'll invite him or her. As to who is being considered, I'd rather not make any public statement about it. In those cases in which a person does not get a majority of the votes, that would be like announcing that "the members of the secret club have voted, and we don't want to let this-or-that into our club house."
Comment by Krauze — September 15, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
September 15th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
TP,
I'd buy your version of front-loading if it didn't require the knowledge of the next 3 billion years of environmental contingencies. Front-loading has limits (noise, degredation, unknown future contingencies) Front-loading with persistent side-chain feedback control can adapt, and what we see in biology is adaptation, not just reaction.
Comment by chunkdz — September 15, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
September 15th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
chunkdz wrote…
Interestingly, we are switching roles. The mechanism I am suggesting doesn't have to be very effective as a predictor. It could be pretty darn lousy and limited. All it has to be is good enough to raise the likelihood of nearly impossible complexities to a level that allows them to happen.
I am not discounting side-chain feedback. If fact, that is a good suggestion because it would significantly amplify the effectiveness of the proposed Predictive Process.
While side-chain feedback helps, it has difficulties standing alone. What controls the biogentic design? The biogentic design would be rudderless and as unguided as the mainstream evolutionary theory. That is why "front-loading" is a common ID topic.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 15, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
September 15th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Contrary to PZ Meyer's contention it looks like Beckwith's denial of tenure was unrelated to his scientific viewpoints.
Comment by Bradford — September 15, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
September 15th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Hi, Thought Provoker. Your suggestions are interesting, and have a 'school' in the physics realm. Don't have time to do it justice, so you can take it from Here if you wish to go seeking.
Comment by Joy — September 15, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
September 16th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Krauze:
Don't forget to mention that my vote is up for sale.
Comment by MikeGene — September 16, 2006 @ 11:46 am
September 17th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Or at least not just that. In the bigger picture, it looks like Beckwith's main sin is that he questions the dogma of philosophical naturalism. And, he's a thoughtful conservative. Baylor has some real soul searching to do. Some might say, Baylor needs to search for its soul.
Comment by DonaldM — September 17, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Fall's here (yesterday)…. when is the book going to be available?
Anyone like the Bill Cosby hip hop song?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Comment by Doug — September 22, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Stephen Barr came out against ID on a show on EWTN. But only on ID regarding biology. He pretty much said, "leave biology to the biologists" and that there is no reason for one to believe that findings in biology/evolutionary biology should cause anyone concern over their religious beliefs.
He also stated that the work of the Creator can be noticed in the laws that govern the universe as well as our assumption that the universe is rational…. allowing for scientific inquiry.
If anyone was curious.
Comment by Doug — September 25, 2006 @ 11:29 am