Our Matrix vs. The Design Matrix
by MikeGeneJames F. McGrath writes:
Let's imagine a hypothetical (and admittedly implausible) scenario, in which some new information comes to light - whether through scientific investigation, or from a booming voice from a burning bush - showing that in fact the intelligent design crowd, or even the young-earth creationists, were right, and it turns out that evolution is utterly inadequate as an explanation for the development of life on this planet.
The Design Matrix:
The concept of Intelligent Design need not contradict anything science has discovered about evolution. If design at the hands of an intelligent agency intersects with our biological reality, this does not mean that mutation and natural selection would not exist.
["¦]
The final way in which the Traditional Template shapes the design debate is with the very familiar evolution versus design paradigm where it is assumed that the two explanations somehow contradict each other and are mutually exclusive. In fact, in the debate between evolutionary scientists and creationists, the only place there ever seems to be agreement is with the claim that evolution is incompatible with design.
["¦]
Evolution itself is needlessly set against design as if we could not exist in a reality where both are true.
McGrath:
The YECs and cdesign proponentsists, on the other hand, should be ashamed even if they turned out to be right. Because in the realm of science, and in the realm of honest discourse in general, it isn't whether your opinion or conviction happens to be right. It is how you reached your conclusion that matters.
The Design Matrix:
In the process of characterizing the fingerprints that signal design, the context I have provided in the previous chapters becomes more important than ever. In Chapter 2, we decided to steer away from the traditional approach of looking for some extraordinary marker that would unequivocally"prove" design. We are not looking for data that scream "Design!" Instead, we adopt an incremental approach and systematically gather clues to determine if they converge on a signal of design. We surveyed some of those clues in Chapters 3-5. But then, in the following chapters, we encountered obstacles. Our attempt to infer design was clouded by the existence of natural selection acting as a designer-mimic (Chapter 6), and further by the possibility that an intelligent designer may indeed make use of the designer-mimic (Chapter 7). If we assume designed things carry with them some residual trace of their history of being designed, can it ever be strong enough to break through all the noise?
McGrath:
If someone picks a view of the universe because it makes them feel good, and doesn't care about the evidence, the fact that they happened to pick the one that was right doesn't mean for a moment that they made an intelligent, honest, careful, well thought out choice. The ID and YEC proponents have engaged in trickery and deceit, sleight of hand and misrepresentation of the facts. These things are utterly shameful behavior, even in the service of a viewpoint that happens to be correct.
The Design Matrix:
It is not uncommon for people to approach the topic of design from a myopic perspective, thinking that " Intelligent Design" is an American idea invented back in the 1990s by sneaky creationists with a socio-political agenda.
March 21st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
There is no other way to say this. It is McGrath et. al who have the closed minds. When someone alleges Bradford, you and other IDists have "engaged in trickery and deceit, sleight of hand and misrepresentation of the facts," the response is- cite the misrepresentations and deceit. The evidence is on the internet for all to see. Be specific. False allegations are a form of sleight of hand.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I find it tedious to say "proponents of Intelligent Design - except for the guy with all the bunnies". Can we take it as given that Mike Gene is a "design proponent" but not a "cdesign proponentsist"
Comment by ReligionProf — March 21, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
ReligionProf:
Who is the author of this "tedious" remark?
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I agree with what ReligionProf is saying even though I don't think those criticisms apply to Mike. Mike is trying to create a third camp that uses a reasoned approach to consider whether evidence might exist to support design. Most ID supporters, even on this forum, don't manage to be as reasoned and impartial as Mike. Still I think the term "ID" carries a heavy taint from those who are using it to push a religious and political agenda. This taint will make it harder for Mike to have his work properly judged on its own merits.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 21, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
RP,
What is your intention when you use the term 'cdesign proponentsist'?
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Does this mean that anyone who thinks it might be a reasonable position prior to having all of the supporting evidence is in the 2nd camp. That ID camp that, from your post, appears to not really even be interested in the evidence.
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Todd:
This is nothing more than an excuse for bashing. Noone on this blog has any hidden agenda. If we are speaking about agendas why do Myers and his ilk get a free pass from the guardians of what is right and proper?
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
If you think ID is reasonable without considering any evidence then yes, you are in the camp ReligionProf was writing about. Now when you use the phase "all of the supporting evidence" I suspect you are highlighting that it is never truly feasible to have all the evidence about anything. Some effort should be made to consider both the supporting and contradicting evidence for all the likely theories. In my opinion, you should have equal understanding of all the positions before claiming to support one or another and your confidence in the position you support should be proportional to the amount of evidence you have considered.
Those using ID for religious and political reasons do not care in the least about the evidence, that's the problem. They are looking for tools to enact their political agendas.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 21, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
The world is black and white for critics like Todd. Those evil IDists on the one side and the good guys on the other.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I agree that this blog is not bogged down by this sort of agenda pushing, that's why I'm willing to read what is posted here. I like this blog because it focuses on the actual issue of detecting design and avoids devolving into God-pushing or politics. I am not "bashing" anyone here.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 21, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I said no such thing. I have never claimed that faith-based ID supporters are evil even though I believe their views are harmful. But I am completely justified in holding a political opinion just as they are entitled to their opinion. When those opinions are in conflict I am every bit as entitled to fight for my view as they are entitled to fight for theirs.
PS: So psychologizing us critics is ok, but not the other way around?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 21, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Todd B:
And the rest of us contributors support that effort. I think that given the existence and ideological thrust of this blog - obviously supportive of ID - this cannot come as a surprise to anyone who reads the posts or comments to them.
That's probably because we aren't Mike. We all have our reasons for interest and support, and our own ideas about how best to approach the issues. I fail to see why any reader or commenter would be surprised by that, either. We are not a PZ Peanut Gallery of mindless 'Amen' choir or in-club back-slappers.
Alas, the religious and political agenda of some of the movers and shakers in the 'Movement' has been soundly defeated, as well it should have been. If there were such a thing as a singular "ID Theory," it is illegal to teach it in public schools alongside NDS. That is entirely reasonable given the finding that those who pushed for teaching what doesn't exist to be taught had a strongly religious agenda for doing so. I (for one, I speak for no one else here) am a big believer in secular government and the separation of church and state. I would no more want my children taught religion (or anti-religion) as science than I would want political partisanship taught as civics or history.
Luckily, I know because I've experience to know that ideology disguised as secular bodies of knowledge to be taught is very difficult to impose on the hearts and minds of teenagers. Who, thank nature, are undergoing some radical, hormone-induced biological changes in their beings during this time of life, and who are primarily predisposed to reject everything their parents and other authority figures try to impose upon them.
Hopefully none of the ideological wannabe mind-tyrants will ever figure out that they've approached this indoctrination thing all wrong, and hit the kids at precisely the wrong time of life to expect ready uptake. That may in the end be our system's greatest strength (its ignorance of biological reality in application). Adage of note: Revolutions are fomented by the old, but fought by the young.
There's a sensible biological reason for that, thank God! §;o)
Such is the fate of all revolutionaries in any walk of life. Depending on who wins - thus writes the history - being right usually earns a spot in the end.
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
What if you haven't actually had a chance to see the evidence for or against….. yet.
What if you're coming from a philosophical position?
You think something along the lines of:
"I have this universe all around me. If it's ultimately unintended, just some brute accident, there very well maybe no further reason for me to conclude that there is any possibility of my mind making sense of anything about it. My mind would just be a product of something that inherently is nonrational.
The seemingly magical occurrence of some cognitive faculties that appear as if they grant me the ability to rationally poke and prod the universe and to then come to a reasonable conclusion about this or that aspect of reality must be mistaken. That would certainly require me to believe, in the absense of evidence, that this is about as likely as the statements of traditional religions. But with one big obstacle that I must ignore - that I would have no way of knowing any of this. No way to step out my mind and the perceptions it allows me, to verify with 'reality' that my mental conception of it is accurate or precise or precise and accurate. Furthermore, I'm still left with the problem of understanding how a product (myself) of this mess just 'gets' those abilities. As well as what reason do I have for trusting them - at least enough to form an opinion backed by an argument that I authoritatively project to others while criticizing their beliefs."
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
McGrath said:
I don't know about McGrath, but I didn't "pick" a view of the universe. The universe simply appears designed to me, and it does not look accidental.
I suppose I could "pick" the opposite view, but it would be like tasting a fine wine and "picking" the view that it is a glass of rotten wild grape juice.
I could then dedicate my time to trying to explain how wild grapes could grow under just the right conditions, fall off the vine at just the right time, mix with all the right ingredients in just the right proportions, and ferment in just the right way for the right amount of time so that it tastes spectacular.
But I suspect that whichever view we "pick", in the end we will discover that it takes a lot of work, a lot of knowledge, and a lot of loving care to make a really fine wine.
Comment by chunkdz — March 21, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
There is a non-ID group with a social and religious agenda. It starts with the number one science blog and continues beyond that. They get a free pass from you Todd. Why?
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Todd:
I feel the same way about faith based non-IDists.:grin:
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
In the spirit of Easter let me throw in this in the mix.
2000 years ago there was a historical figure who claimed to be the Son of the God of the Jewish people. This historical figure died like all humans do albiet in a very brutal way. His followers at first were convinced he was dead but later became convinced that he was alive. This individual had affirmed the Jewish belief in a Creator God.
Yes, this is not scientific evidence but it is historical evidence. Since we want to consider all the evidence does this speak to the question at all?
If we believe all this is merely a just-so-story, it of course, brings nothing to the discussion. Much of the historical evidence, however, suggests that it might just be true. That it might be true coupled with the order and apparent design in the universe would support intelligent design.
What evidence is offered to support the idea that there is an eternal set of natural laws that have led to the order we measure in science?
Comment by 0112358 — March 21, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
They don't just get a free pass, they get my support.
This evidence might speak to the historical existence of Jesus, but the fact of Jesus' existence does not lend credence to the factuality of his statements. For example, I quite clearly exist and yet you doubt the veracity of my claims. Still, I think people should read religious texts to judge for themselves whether mystical evidence should be placed on par with scientific evidence.
All empirical evidence suggests the current existence of predictable natural laws. This evidence collected over time suggests these laws are unchanging. Interpolation of those observations suggests that perhaps these laws have always existed.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 21, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
So the complaints about the ID movement are based on sheer hypocrisy. Talk one way and walk the other. When PZ Myers et. al use their blogs to promote a left wing agenda that's OK but if the DI does the same but instead supports social causes you are at odds with it is not OK. Just so that we understand where ID critics are coming from. Incidentally, I have no problem with scientists promoting social causes. If entertainers can do it why not scientists? However, the moaning about the ID movement needs to be exposed for the ideological complaint that it is.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
How so? We are talking about opinions here, not arguments for or against anything. Have I not repeatedly mentioned that everyone is entitled to their opinions? Have I not specifically said that if someone believes in ID purely by faith that is a legitimate opinion for them to hold? Just don't claim that opinion or philosophy is science or reason. Have I ever claimed not to have any biases what-so-ever? Obviously when stating an opinion my biases will be apparent, after all that's what an opinion is. If I make any argument, however, that shows personal bias then you would be justified in pointing that out. As it is you are mistaking my honesty in expressing an opinion with an argument against ID. No such argument has been presented in this thread.
I have no problem with anyone promoting social causes, but if its a social cause I disagree with or which I think is harmful to humanity then I will certainly express my opinions in an effort to avert that harm. If the proponents of the cause try to claim science or reason support their position then I will certainly take them to task to prove that claim.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 21, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Bradford: So the complaints about the ID movement are based on sheer hypocrisy.
I'll make it easy for you. I'm claiming that my ID views are based on reason and that empirical evidence can and has been used to support them both at Telic Thoughts and another place I blog at- Intelligently Sequenced. That does not mean of course that I don't have social or religious views. But I identify them as such. I've challenged others in the past to point out that my views cannot be sustained by reason or science. Usually the challenge is not taken up. When it is it becomes clear to all observers that the subsequent exchanges themselves reveal a dispute involving both reason and science. But you're welcome to document your allegations.
Bradford: Incidentally, I have no problem with scientists promoting social causes.
The DI has a definable conservative bent. Their social views are not a matter of science. Their critiques of mainstream theories are loaded with scientific references. Their critics conflate the two areas and wrongly allege that the social views are presented as science. That's dishonest.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Here's the background to the term cdesign proponentsists, for anyone who might be unfamiliar with the term. Hopefully that will make clear why I thought it might be useful for distinguishing 'those other guys' from Mike. I must admit, though, that I have yet to manage to get hold of a copy of The Design Matrix. If I were to be sent a copy, I'd be happy to review it!
Comment by ReligionProf — March 21, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 7:38 pm
RP,
I know the background on the term.
I'm asking what is your intention in using it.
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
March 21st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
RP,
Was "creationist" just the typical term used to describe anyone who viewed life as exhibiting at least some degree of design, foresight and purpose?
Did those that hold those beliefs view themselves as creationists at that time? Regardless if the distinction was 'top - down' (Bible then evidence) *which I always thought that term was creation-scientist* or 'bottom - up' (evidence to Creator)
Let's just say that they did. And they (bottom - up) thought that their idea was important enough not to have it completely discounted in an academic setting because a court ruled a particular term not permissible.
So, this term "creationist" was used to refer to almost anyone that held the above stated beliefs - regardless if they thought those beliefs were solely a product of Scripture, or if they thought scientific evidence actually laid the ground for the beliefs in a Creator. Maybe, from that evidence alone, taking one no further than deism.
What do you think, pre-ruling, their opponents would have thought? Would their opponents have cared to make the distinction? Or would it just be "creationist" across the board?
Maybe they knew quite well that the scientific evidence was able to support the idea of a Creator…. but certainly not enough to support the whole of Christian theology.
Which, for a Christian wouldn't even really be an issue…. since we do understand the difference between General Revelation and Special/Divine Revelation.
The error in the transition therefore shouldn't mean that much at all. Except for those looking for easy real estate to buy up and then exploit. For them it's convenient. Because that little fact can then be used as a perfect weapon to shut anyone up. Considering that most, yourself included, would not be gracious enough to view the whole situation this way. It's effective when preaching to the choir. Because honestly, who among your ranks is going to argue contrary? In back patting sessions not many are going to object (read: put their neck on the line).
And for the cdesign proponentsists, it would take an effort every time to rebut the claim/insult. Considering that those using the term for derisive purposes are not going to just give up that real estate, there will more than likely be no concession on your side.
Is that your intention in using it? A handy way to shut those up. To mock out of your way?
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:56 am
Hi Todd,
I agree. But there is really nothing I can do about this. My only option was to eschew the term "ID" but that was really never an option. It's a matter of public record that I became interested in ID because of Behe's book. It's also a matter of public record that I have been arguing about ID for years. Any attempt to eschew the term "ID" would clearly be seen and portrayed as a dishonest, political move in response to a court ruling.
So all I can do is turn the taint into a teaching moment. A teaching moment for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, that is. We human beings are deeply defined by our biases, our emotions, our fears, and our subjectivity. Yet my culture has continually taught me that if there is one group of people who can rise above this level, who can approach topics with a strong sense of objectivity, rationality, and fairness, it is the scientific and scholarly community. So just how true is my cultural indoctrination?
Comment by MikeGene — March 22, 2008 @ 9:56 am
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Comment by MikeGene "” Yet my culture has continually taught me that if there is one group of people who can rise above this level, who can approach topics with a strong sense of objectivity, rationality, and fairness, it is the scientific and scholarly community.
The culture on your planet is very different from ours. When you came here you must have experienced what we humans call "culture shock." How well do think you've adjusted so far?
Comment by Rock — March 22, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I'm dealin' with it. Like I always say, I may be a slow learner, but I am a learner.
Comment by MikeGene — March 22, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
That's very interesting. Even though you are from another planet you have been able to adapt to terrestrial conditions…
Comment by Rock — March 22, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I'm surely not the brightest bulb in the room, but I have enough to adapt.
Comment by MikeGene — March 23, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
March 24th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Hi Todd,
Since it is slow around here, I thought I'd comment on this:
When it comes to this highly polarized debate, the ID folks on this forum strike me as quite reasoned and impartial. Then again, you need to remember that I have an experience you lack "“ over the years, I have argued with literally hundreds of ID critics. And sadly enough, I cannot report that the majority of them were reasoned and impartial. On the contrary, stereotypes, arrogance, emotionalism, and extremism are far more common.
Comment by MikeGene — March 24, 2008 @ 10:13 am
April 14th, 2008 at 9:55 am
My review of The Design Matrix has been posted on my blog at http://exploringourmatrix.blog...
I don't have time to write more here now, but as I've written a lot there, hopefully it will suffice for the moment!
Comment by ReligionProf — April 14, 2008 @ 9:55 am
April 14th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Reading your review made me feel as if I were listening to Archie Bunker review the movie "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner".
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
April 14th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
chunkdz:
Meathead?
Comment by Bradford — April 14, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
April 14th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I haven't read Mike Gene's book and I don't want to distract from any discussion of the review, but I looked at the "A Mathematician, A Computer Scientist And An Engineer Walk Into A Bar"¦." thread.
Resisting the impulse to feel insulted instead I found it ironic that the argument is made by an assistant professor of religion, a subject without an object! (Which as I understand is a subject that is the very antithesis of any and every science!)
I don't know if more "mathematicians, engineers and people qualified in similar fields" are skeptical of "Darwinian evolution" than biologists. But I do know a lot of biologists who are skeptical of "Darwinian evolution." And their skepticism is grounded in what they know about biology.
But is a bioengineer a biologist or an engineer? When biologists talk about the genetic "code" who's more qualified to decide if it is indeed a code?–A biologist or a communications engineer? When a biologist observes that the regulation of genetic expression is complex, does he know as much about regulatory systems as a control theorist? Does he know as much about complexity as a computer scientist? When a anatomist comments on the modular design of life forms, does he know as much about modularity as a computer programmer? When a biologist refers to his field as "systems biology" does he know more about biology but less about systems then a systems designer?
(I also know that that when I became an "engineer" I was like the majority of my engineering peers"”they had no degree in engineering, but in the natural sciences. I don't think that situation has changed much, other than the fact that increasing numbers of "engineers" are being drawn to biology. My natural science degree is physics. But oddly enough, my field is computing. Golly, on McGrath's silly parochialism the two can't hardly be related. What has one to do with the other?! What has biology have to do with engineering! Nevermind that so many physicists who entered biology, with virtually no background in biology, during the 1930's and "˜40's (and whom I followed), and managed spur the "Biological Revolution." Some of these "unqualified" interlopers won Nobel Prizes in Medicine (biology).
This kind of idiotic parochialism is a bane to science.
Comment by Rock — April 14, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
April 14th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Rock:
This question is so very revealing. Do codons map to amino acids or not? If they do then how do they not have symbolic meaning?
Comment by Bradford — April 14, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
April 14th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Maybe it's more like Archie meeting Sammie Davis Jr. You know, genuine admiration - but he always feels the need to point out that Sammy is one of the "good colored's". Not like all them other colored's that's always making trouble.
McGrath even has the gall to suggest that Mike should consider calling himself something other than an ID proponent. Even Archie never suggested such a thing to Sammy.
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
April 14th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
April 14th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Don't be too hard on him chunkdz. McGrath might be one of those small town types who has become embittered by IDists and uses religion as a crutch. I got that from a source who wants to unite all Americans especially those backward townies who got left behind.
Comment by Bradford — April 14, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
April 14th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Bradford:
LOL!!!! Why, Bradford (what kinda elitist name is THAT?) you know it's all about the ORANGE JUICE! Nobody but an upitty so-and-so would order OJ in a Pennsylvania diner where everybody who's an embittered anybody just drinks the day-old coffee sludge! §;o)
As for McGrath wanting Mike to pick a different title, we get that fairly regularly around here. Usually after whatever newcomer from the Infidel ranks figures out that we're not talking about Young-Earth Creationism. Tough titty, my Mama used to say…
Comment by Joy — April 14, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
April 14th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I was just feeling a little low cause Hillary got to drink boilermakers with the boys while I'm stuck here sipping grape juice.
Comment by Bradford — April 14, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
April 14th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Yeah. There's just hardly enough bitterness to go around these days! But knocking back shots the night before didn't help that "Compassion" forum performance any…
Then again, there's the reason all those country songs whine about being FROM Kentucky, or maybe someday going BACK to Kentucky, but hardly anyone admits actually LIVING there.*
[*A commenter does note that referring to a 46-year old black man as "boy" is probably not a good idea, but then talking about a "top secret" national security exercise in public probably isn't the best idea either...]
Wake me when it's over…
Comment by Joy — April 14, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Thanks, James. I'm a little speechless here as I am overwhelmed by your sense of fairness and insight as you approached the book. It's been a long time since someone out there has caused me to question my own stereotypes about critics. Like I said, I'm speechless. So let me just quote you:
Wow.
Comment by MikeGene — April 15, 2008 @ 12:29 am
April 15th, 2008 at 2:17 am
McGrath wrote:
Ok, I'll bite. Who DOES favor science ceasing to investigate and seek explanations for phenomenon?
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2008 @ 2:17 am