Reflections on Chapter 2 of The Design Matrix
by Bilbo Well, after that lengthy discussion over chapter 1, I think we are ready to move on to chapter 2 of Mike's The Design Matrix, "The Explanatory Continuum."
Mike begins the chapter by tracing the present debate about Intelligent Design back to the debate among the ancient Greek philosophers, relying heavily upon Barrow and Tipler's book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, which I guess already did a lot of the documentation. (Makes me want to pick up a copy of it myself.)
Then Mike draws a distinction between the two ways of approaching the debate: The "Traditional Template," and "Inductive Gradualism." In the Traditional Template, both sides tacitly agree that the teleologists must prove that life couldn't have arisen and evolved non-teleologically in order to win the debate. The non-teleologists need only show that it is possible for life to have arisen and evolved non-teleologically in order to win.
At this point I think I should interject a caveat. I doubt either Dembski or Behe would see themselves participating in this description of the Traditional Template. I think both would say that they are only trying to show that non-teleological evolution is improbable or implausible, not impossible.
Then Mike describes Inductive Gradualism, which is a method which investigates a question by gradually accumulating and evaluating the evidence, either for or against a certain hypothesis, and moving up or down a gradient, starting at the possible, to the plausible, to the probable, and finally to the certain. (I assume Mike also meant to include the converse, so that the investigation could start at the uncertain, to the improbable, to the implausible, to the impossible.)
It's clear then that Mike will adopt Inductive Gradualism as the way he wants to approach the investigation of Intelligent Design.
December 13th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Does he touch on the scientific approach? I.e., formulate a hypothesis, derive bold predictions, test those predictions.
The teleologists seems to have tacitly decided they must prove life could not arise without the intelligent agent. As far as I am aware, most ID opponents object that this is merely "anti-evolution", not ID, rather than tacitly agreeing to it.
Comment by The Pixie — December 13, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Pixie:
LOL!!! You want conclusive findings in chapter 2? That's funny, Pix.
You know, your criticisms might be pertinent to this book if there were any evidence at all that you've read it. But since it's as obvious as the nose on your face that you've no idea whatsoever what it's about or what it says - about anything - you just look like a toddler spashing in a 3" blow-up wading pool.
You might enjoy The Design Matrix. I did, and I've never read an ID-related book before. But don't be posting garbage about books you haven't read. That's just silly.
Comment by Joy — December 13, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I imagine the conclusion are towards the end, Joy, that would be the usual way of doing it. I get the impression, Mike is laying the ground work in chapter two by explaining the approach he will use, which again would be the usual way.
With that in mind, I was wondering if Mike had considered the standard scientific approach, as well as the "Traditional Template," and "Inductive Gradualism." I am not asking that Mike do the scientific approach in chapter two, please note Joy, only that he consider that approach, when he is considering alternative approaches.
Please, Joy, I never claimed to have read the book, and the fact that I asked about what was in chapter should have made this abundantly clear. This just comes across as a strawman plus an insult as well. Is that really how IDists debate at Telic Thoughts?
I am actually tempted to read it, so I am reading these reviews with interest. Sadly, the review of chapter two has put me off - but of course that may just be Bilbo's interpretation. Bilbo says that Mike looks at just two approaches, neither being scientific methodology, and it looks unfortunately as if Mike is trying to redefine how science is done. Of course, this is just an impression I get from a review. Maybe Mike does discuss and/or use the scientific method, and Bilbo missed it, or presented it badly, or just has not got to that bit yet. Maybe Mike is not making any scientific claims. So I asked the question. Sorry if you feel that is "garbage".
Comment by The Pixie — December 13, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Hi Pixie,
Yeah, I probably should have presented a more complete review of Mike's introduction, where he makes it clear that he does not claim that ID is science. In fact, if I remember correctly, he says it isn't.
I guess I haven't done a very good presentation of chapter 2, either. Mike compares Inductive Gradualism to a detective sifting through the clues in order to solve a crime.
Chapter 3 is where he starts presenting what he considers to be the relevant clues that would make one suspect design. I'm only half way through it (not much time for reading, right now).
Sorry if I've put you off. Mike writes better than I summarize. Perhaps someone more talented should try this.
Comment by Bilbo — December 13, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Hi Pixie,
I have long acknowledged that ID is not science and do so in the beginning of the book. First things first. If you are interested in the 'scientific approach,' you might want to consider this.
I have experience arguing with 100s of ID opponents. And from this vast experience, I can report that huge numbers do indeed want some extraordinary "anti-evolution" evidence. In fact, those who follow the FLE discussions might notice that this is perhaps the most common complaint about FLE (i.e., FLE doesn't come up with something that non-teleological evolution cannot possibly explain or account for).
Comment by MikeGene — December 13, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
mikegene: "I have long acknowledged that ID is not science"
I seems to me that it could be scientific by default, if it could be demonstrated that the opposite conjecture, "blind watchmaking", is impossible. And it may be true that given the laws of nature and chemistry it is impossible. Proving a conjecture by disproving it's opposite is a well used technique in mathematics. Isn't this sort of thing allowed in empirical and historical science?
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 13, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Kornbelt,
With this, you prove yourself to be an ideal candidate for reading The Design Matrix.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 14, 2007 @ 1:05 am
December 14th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Hi Mike
I am still thinking about buying the book. I just checked it was available in the the UK on Amazon, and found it was only £7.72!
By an "anti-evolution" argument, I was think rather of the argument that evolution could not do such-and-such, therefore it was ID. That argument gives us no idea about what did happen, only what did not. What you are talking about sounds like what I would describe as pro-ID (or pro-FLE) evidence, where ID (or FLE) comes up with a better explanation or prediction. It is kind of like winning a race by being fastest on the track, rather than winning by getting the favorite disqualified and hoping no one notices the other runners.
Comment by The Pixie — December 14, 2007 @ 8:30 am
December 14th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Mike Gene says:
Yes, we need to acknowledge that ID is not science but don't we also have to acknowledge that evolution is not science? Here I mean evolution in the sense of origins. When the good ideas of evolution (in the sense of mutation and adaptation) are co-opted for use in an explanation of origins doesn't their scientific status begin to fade?
Comment by 0112358 — December 14, 2007 @ 11:17 am
December 14th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Pixie, "rather than winning by getting the favorite disqualified and hoping no one notices the other runners." Or as the evolutionists do it: "rather than winning by getting the newcomer disqualified and hoping that no one notices the other runners." That knife cuts both ways.
Comment by bFast — December 14, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Hi Pixie,
Which is effectively the same argument that countless critics use "“ show me that evolution could not do such-and-such and then I will seriously entertain the hypothesis of ID.
This is a bad analogy. A race is a one-time event, happens quickly, and the winner is clearly seen by all (regardless of who you were hoping would win). Neither are races tied up with extensive, deeply-felt, metaphysical and political baggage. Any "race" between a teleological and non-teleological perspective is going to be a long and complex one. People demanding simple solutions and magic bullets are typically expressing their biases.
Comment by MikeGene — December 14, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
[Sorry, double post]
Comment by The Pixie — December 14, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Hi Mike
Well I can only say for sure what I say (how about a link to one of those critics).
Well pardon me. I do not spend hours agonising over my posts; it seemed appropriate at the time. Bear in mind that it was just an analogy; of course there are differences. It was my hope that it would illustrate this one very specific point. Okay, I guess I was wrong.
Okay, forget the analogy, let us try a hypothetical. IC is an anti-evolution argument. The basic point of IC is it is saying evolution could not do it. It then hopes that everyone will adopt ID as the only other alternative. Suppose hypothetically it was proven. We abandon evolution, and replace it with what? The claim that life was designed. We have abandoned books of mechanisms and explanations, in exchange for one sentence, which, frankly, gives us virtually no clue about what might have really happened.
Now consider a scientific FLE, which beats evolution as theory in that it produces better explanations and better predictions. This is a pro-ID theory, it is based on find evidence that support that theory. We abandon a substantial and useful theory, for a better one.
I think most critics are demanding a pro-ID argument. I think that is why you so often see ID pegged as vacuous; because it has no sign of ever wanting to produce a pro-ID theory, i.e., a theory that produces better explanations and better predictions. I am not so sure if that is true of you, but certainly mainstream ID is entirely anti-evolution.
Comment by The Pixie — December 14, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Hi Pixie,
Well, none of these complaints apply to The Design Matrix. While it doesn't deliver the "theory" that makes the "predictions," it is definitely moving in that direction by laying down the ground work.
Comment by MikeGene — December 14, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Recently evidence has accumulated indicating that a histone code and a separate ribosomal code exist which complement the more familiar genetic code. Claiming that mainstream ideas predicted this is vacuous. Nowhere in nature is matter found, the purpose of which, is to act as symbolic placeholders representing (in this case) molecules that act independently in regulatory mechanisms. Is that consistent with intelligent design and would an intelligent design paradigm predict such phenomenon. Yassiree. Why? Because intelligent organisms are observed designing this way.
Comment by Bradford — December 14, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Mike Gene states:
Well, that is good to hear stated so explicitly. This has been the only real issue between ID supporters and detractors, culminating in the events at Harrisburg. Is is a pity the TMLC weren't listening to you as the Dover school board could have saved some money.
Now if only you could pass this on to Dr Dembski…
Comment by Alan Fox — December 15, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Dr Dembski at UD 15th December 2007
Comment by Alan Fox — December 15, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Bradford:
Sure, Bradford. Just like intelligent organisms are observed producing crap. Whatever you see, some intelligent organism have dun it before, yes sirree. Therefore we predictedit and jesusdidit, no doubtaboutit. Or Hitler.
But seriously now. Have you given some thought on how natural selection might give the impression of design? How mathematical models of population genetics give rise to equilibria that are equivalent to game-theoretical Nash equilibria? Game theory, as in optimally designed strategies? I guess not. Why spoil the fun of believing that jesusdidit, right?
Oh, never mind. I didn't write this. Need more pills.
Comment by Raevmo — December 15, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
What a bunch of malarkey. Or horsepuckey. Or some other equally out of fashion word.
Comment by nullasalus — December 15, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Bradford
If ID predicted it before it was discovered you have a great point in its favour. I am going to stick my neck out and guess that did not happen.
Comment by The Pixie — December 15, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Yup. When the data points to natural selection that's when I point there too. I'm just not into the thoughtless selectiondunnit mode.
Have any of the above predicted what I actually discussed- explaining the origin of molecular coding systems? Guess not.
Comment by Bradford — December 15, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 4:05 am
You think so? Whatever the merits of ID as philosophy, and its potential to emerge as a tool of scientific inquiry, it was the "wedge" strategy that resulted in the Kitzmiller decision. Trying to claim there was something scientific to teach as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory when such an alternative did not exist was an error from which political ID will never recover.
I note you are one of the more lucid commenters at UD. You must have noticed the downhill slide. I think Robert Marks may be beginning to regret his association with Bill Dembski.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 16, 2007 @ 4:05 am
December 16th, 2007 at 4:25 am
Who, besides his children and some of the lapdogs at UD, doesn't regret his or her association with Bill Dembski?
Comment by valerie — December 16, 2007 @ 4:25 am
December 16th, 2007 at 8:20 am
There must be someone.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Comment by Alan Fox — December 16, 2007 @ 8:20 am
December 17th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
I do not know Dr. Dembski personally, but I have a great deal of respect for his work in the field of Intelligent Design. The question of whether or not ID is science depends upon one's definition of the terms.
I'll have to do a re-review of Mike's intro, when I have more time. As I said in the first abbreviated review, it's a real grabber.
Comment by Bilbo — December 17, 2007 @ 7:30 pm