Responding to Jay
by KrauzeJay of Ocellated has also reacted to my post about how big ideas take time, and although he has some nice words about the level of discussion here, he too disagrees with my post.
Unfortunately, Jay starts out with the misunderstanding that my claim is that "all that intelligent design needs" is time, but since I covered that in my reply to Rosenhouse, we can skip that. He argues that there are "notable differences between Darwin's theory and intelligent design", and proceeds to list three things that evolution requires to be true:
1. Inheritance or heredity - species passing on their characteristics to successive generations.
2. Variety or mutations - new features or characteristics arising.
3. Natural selection - differing rates of reproductive success for organisms better suited for their environment.
As Jay asks, "what is it about intelligent design, what is it that we can pin our hopes to and look for, to see it happening?" The problem with this is that the first two items on his list were already well known by the time of Darwin - the whole practice of animal breeding was based on the fact of heredity, and Darwin spent the very first chapter of Origin of the Species reviewing what was known about variations. And if the hope of observing natural selection was the driving factor behind the acceptance of Darwin's thoughts, why did it take more than 60 years to take up the mantle after Bates? In fact, as Ruse explains, "if the fact of evolution was established by the Origin, Darwin's mechanism of natural selection fell flat. Virtually no one thought that it could do all that he asked" (p. 85).
Same thing with mutations and natural selection. We can watch them happen. Mendel's wrinkled or round peas are the result of a mutation that effects the branching of starch molecules. My Scottish Fold's ears are the result of a mutation from the 1960s. Same with sickle-cell anemia, and I could go on. As far as natural selection, there are a ton of studies where we've watched it happen. Perhaps my favorite is the Grant's study of Galapagos finches, in the easily accessible book Beak of the Finch. And as for sickle cell anemia, natural selection beautifully explains why it doesn't go away.
Again, Jay's sense of chronology is impaired. All of those discoveries (including the molecular basis of the mutations Mendel observed) were made in the post-synthetic era, more than 60 years after the Origin. Arguing about the view of evolution among Darwin's contemporaries by using studies made long after his body had been laid to rest in Westminster Abbey is one heck of an anachronism.
The peculiar thing is that Jay, in the middle of his post, seems to agree with my point, attempting to provide a reason for the long "maturation period" of evolution:
Take the idea of inheritance. Mendel showed that this was certainly happening, and we've advanced our knowledge of how this works tremendously today, but in Darwin's time, this was very much an open question. … So in this context, I think it's understandable why evolutionary theory took time. One of it's biggest pieces had yet to be really discovered, understood, and appreciated. And if it took time for that to come about, I can see why it was at least reasonable that some scientists might hold their breath and hope that the day would come.
However, this doesn't explain the complete absence of a research program. As Ruse pointed out, other studies could have been performed, which didn't require the deeper understanding of heredity discovered by Mendel. But let's nonetheless accept this as a legitimate reason; then, Jay has just pointed to another reason why big ideas take time.
January 23rd, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Hey Krauze,
Your previous statement is quite baffling; " As I said in the comments, we have yet to see a work comparable to Darwin's Origin of the Species on intelligent design." I find this hard to believe. What about Dembski's seminal books on CSI? Don't they lay the foundation for design detection? Why do we have to wait for more books on ID in order for it to be launched as a scientific program? I think ID is as good now as it ever has been. And with that said, I think the research can begin now, not later in the future. I feel like this is something both you and Rosenhouse have failed to see.
Comment by Benji — January 23, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
January 23rd, 2006 at 2:20 pm
There is no offense intended in what I previously said.
Comment by Benji — January 23, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
January 23rd, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Benji,
Krauze is right. Darwin painted us a full and comprehensive picture of life and its development backed by biological facts. Dembski and Behe have done less. They've not given us a compelling or comprehensive historical narrative nor have they attempted to fit all the biological facts into that narrative.
Comment by bipod — January 23, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:42 pm
And that's why I waited before commenting to Benji that he was wrong… I had hoped someone else would do it for me, so I didn't look like I was being mean.
Comment by Ocellated — January 23, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:50 pm
True, but keep in mind that Darwin's speculations might only account for, as Dembski says, 2% of biological data. I happen to agree with him as well. At the same time, Dembski/Behe argue for design detection, while Darwin argued for evolution in natural history. Again, we have the problem of detection versus mechanism. All the books written by these proponents are seminal in their own right. Moreover, many people, including skeptical scientists, find Dembski's works to be very good and valuable to the scientific literature. I don't think any precise and exacting methodology of design detection has ever been formulated, until Dembski. So just like Darwin, Dembski is as good. However, they argue two separate things. Now, it's up to contemporary or later design theorists to figure out how design can fit into natural history. In the end, we really can't compare Dembski and Darwin all too much because their arguments are different, yet as equally important. That's the bottom line.
My only criticism against Krauze is, his belief that design needs a book like Darwin's in order for it to propel forward. He almost seems to imply that, at the moment, ID is pseudo-science and needs possible further vindication in order for it to be elevated to 'science'. I disagree, I believe the great books have been written. However, the only thing needed is research and the right predictions to move ID forward.
Comment by Benji — January 23, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
January 23rd, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Hi Benji,
My reply is slightly different from Bipod's. Darwin's book was a survey of a large amount of biological phenomena, outlining how concepts such as common descent, natural selection, and inheritance of acquired characters could account for them. Neither Dembski nor Behe have written anything like this.
Comment by Krauze — January 23, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
January 23rd, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Right, and I agree with you. That's why I stated that both Behe and Dembski address different things in relation to Darwin. Nonetheless, Darwin's assessment of biology is still valid and good, but not the whole 9 yards. Thus, ID may complement it.
But Krauze, what is your assessment of Behe's and Dembski's books?
Comment by Benji — January 23, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
January 23rd, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Hi Benji,
"That's why I stated that both Behe and Dembski address different things in relation to Darwin."
Well, Behe certainly writes about the same general category as Darwin: The origination of adaptive structures in biology.
As for Dembski, I get your point about the difference between biology and design detection, but my point about depth still holds. If Dembski were to have been the "Darwin of design detection", he would have had to survey nummerous phenomena, drawn from various areas, and showing how his thoughts about design detection helped make sense of their origins. As of this post, the number of examples which Dembski has dealt with in any kind of detail can be counted on one hand: The Caputo ballot fraud, the message in Contact, the Oklo reactor, and the bacterial flagellum.
"But Krauze, what is your assessment of Behe's and Dembski's books?"
I think Behe's book was quite reasonable, with a good discussion of why design inferences are independent of religion and philosophy. Most of his biological examples were also fine, considering the knowledge of that time. Later research has changed the status on some of his examples, primarily the blood clotting system and the immune system.
I'm less happy about Dembski's books. They're plagued by contradictions, counterintuitive definitions, and mathematical proofs of noncontroversial theorems. I wish everyone talking about "specified complexity" would read what Paul Davies wrote about it in The Fifth Miracle.
Comment by Krauze — January 23, 2006 @ 9:29 pm
January 23rd, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Well, Krauze, with your high level of criticism, I wonder why you still support ID? By the way, I hardly think the evolutionists have given a good rebuttal to Behe's objections. I still think they are valid as they always have been. Moreover, Dembski's math has been praised as genious. Sure, it's complex, however, it gets the job done.
Comment by Benji — January 23, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Hey Benji, please don't badger our bloggers. Keep in mind that Telic Thoughts is an independent blog, and not everybody here has the exact same views on the relative strengths of different arguments relating to ID. Krauze has covered different things that cause him to suspect ID in different areas many times before.
For my part, I like Dembski's work, and I think he's managed to capture the essentials of how design detection works in real life. My main complaints with his writings are that I don't think he always does a good job of boiling down his concepts into terms that are accessible to most people, and he doesn't illustrate them enough, to help people conceptualize them (often I have to go back over something a lot of times before I understand what he's trying to say at all, and I often get the wrong impression the first time). And since, when in doubt, the critic will tend to come away with the least charitable interpretation they can, I think it's important for him to boil down a complex abstract argument into terms that everybody can grasp (while still having the complex stuff there for those who are capable and willing to slog through it). Also, more examples would be nice.
Comment by Deuce — January 23, 2006 @ 10:26 pm
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Okay, I understand. I'm sorry for any intrusion taken. I just thought Krauze's objections were a bit eccentric. That's all. By the way, I'm Benjii on the regular computer, however, on the other comp, I'm known as Benji. I'm sure one 'i' won't make a difference.
Comment by Benjii — January 23, 2006 @ 10:57 pm