Seeds of ID
by MikeGeneInformation theory, along with cybernetics, have significantly shaped and influenced the study of molecular biology. As a result, it should be no surprise that something like "˜intelligent design' would eventually emerge. That is, as the models and metaphors began to generate a track record of success, sooner or later teleologists would take note and begin to question whether the success was indebted to a deeper reality.
Anyway, there is a little piece of historical trivia that helps us see how easy it would be to transition from the application of information theory to biology to something like intelligent design.
Those who are familiar with the ID debate know that information theory, and the work of Claude Shannon, have played a substantial role in the whole debate about origins. Shannon, however, did not develop his ideas in a vacuum. On the contrary, the first person to get information theory off the ground was Harry Nyquist , who was still working at Bell Labs when Shannon joined the team in the early 1940s. The significance of Nyquist can be seen in this excerpt from Robert Losee's synopsis of the birth of information theory:
Writing in the Bell System Technical Journal, Nyquist suggested that two factors determine the "maximum speed of transmission of intelligence." Each telephone cable is implicitly considered to have a limit imposed on it such that there is a finite, maximum speed for transmitting "intelligence." This limit was widely understood by practicing electrical engineers of the era to be related to such factors as power, noise, and the frequency of the intelligent signal. Accepting such a limit as a given, Nyquist was able to work backwards towards the study of what was transmitted. He began referring to what was transmitted as "information."
I am not bringing this up to suggest it somehow validates anything about Intelligent Design. It is simply a piece of history that helps us see how the critic's version of the history of ID is much too simplistic. According to the critics, Intelligent Design was/is nothing more than a moniker that was invented purely as a PR stunt to re-label creationism so the Bible could be taught in the schools. Yet a more nuanced and sophisticated approach to history allows us to see something much deeper at work. If theories about the transmission of "intelligence" gave rise to theories about "information," and information theory influenced the development of molecular biology, why would anyone think that teleologists would not eventually come along and close the loop?
May 29th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Sure, those that suggest ID was exclusively "creation science" re-labeled following the court trials of the 1980's oversimplify the case. ID has a history of thought going back centuries.
Yet, the entirety of the ID's history, from Aquinas to the modern day, is limited to theological philosophy and (more recently) religiously-converted or -renewed professionals, the vast majority of which are not biologists.
So ID may not be merely re-labeled creationism, but it most certainly is still theologically-based.
Comment by Daniel — May 29, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
May 29th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
On the other hand, the deep connection between information theory and thermodynamics was established long before the phrase "intelligent design" was applied to the origins debate. Thermodynamics shows clearly that information is not something that must be generated by an intelligent source, but rather something that inheres in nature.
Comment by keiths — May 29, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
May 29th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Daniel,
Whether or not we can state, with certainty, that ID is "theologically based" is another question. For now, it's first things first. In this case, the common meme among the critics is that ID is nothing more than creationism re-packaged with a new label. If most critics can agree that "those that suggest ID was exclusively "creation science" re-labeled following the court trials of the 1980's oversimplify the case," we can proceed to your next step.
Keiths,
You say that "information is not something that must be generated by an intelligent source." Since my blog does not claim that information must be generated by an intelligent source, it's a point that is off-topic.
Comment by MikeGene — May 29, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
May 29th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Mike, I (continue to) resent your broad brush strokes about 'critics.' It may be true that a majority of 'ID-critics' (a term coined by IDists, and furthered for propaganda uses by TT's) simplify the history of i+d theories. There are others, however, who do not simplify it and, I dare say (on your blog), know it better than you do. It just seems that you do not often heed their words or advice.
You seem to subsume IDists under the label 'teleologists.' The fact is, however, that almost all social scientists and humanitarians are (already) teleologists, by definition. Most of these scholars believe that human life *is* purposeful, meaningful and (even) with a planned destiny (the latter being the most controversial). Instead, the ID Movement, i.e. the creators and most significant promoters of ID theories and hypotheses, insist that their 'scientific revolution' (yeah, Demski and Behe!) is taking place (or that it should take place) in *biology* and other natural sciences, where teleology is much more difficult to establish. It is not merely a question of Aristotle's four causes; that efficient causes and first causes are preferred to final causes and formal causes in 'modern' science. There are more appropriate vocabularies to select than what i+d has hitched its wagon to. Your hunches, Mike, about Intelligence and Design 'in' the universe, are likely valid, but could still nonetheless take another form and function alternatively in a different language.
You linkage to 'information' theories is much more appropritate for positive discussion. Is W. Dembksi really a Newton-like thinker? He seems more like a T. Malthus figure, in my view.
Why biology? Why biology? Why botany? Why natural science(s) at the cost of other sciences? Isn't there a possibility that after the 'reformations' in geology, biology (early, middle 19th century and middle 20th century) and physics (beginning 20th century), that another discipline (probably something more established than 'information theory') is ripe for redefining the landscape of scientific knowledge and scholarship in the modern academy? The 'loop' being referred to is one in which those who study human beings are more likely to solve (close) than people who are rather interested in physical or material components of human existence would be fit (by training) to understand.
Arago
p.s. Daniel - ID (i+d) has a history of no more than two decades - please don't let the advocates trick you into thinking their concept-duo has such lengthy roots. Arguments 'from design' (cf. apologetics), however, are much, much older. This is why the IDM would probably be more successful if it/they stuck just to 'pattern recognition' and 'specificationalism' (built upon Behe's IC assumptiom) than to chants of 'scientific revolution.'
p.p.s. Mike, you are more (agnostically) relativistic sometimes than Dr. Evil (Austin Power's was shown in Russia tonight)! 'First things first' are spiritual, not material, according to many great thinkers. You can stuff your 'memes' in the appropriate place:eek:!! How do you get 'information' if not by an 'intelligent' source?
Comment by g arago — May 29, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
May 29th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
One of the most (philosophically) interesting statements Shannon made is:
"The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages. The system must be designed to operate for each possible selection, not just the one which will actually be chosen since this is unknown at the time of design." [Shannon's emphasis.]
IOW a communications system may be designed regardless of the semantic content of the messages conveyed via that system. Therein enters the uncertainty that information theory is cast in (i.e., acquisition of information, the reception and comprehension of the message, is understood as a reduction in uncertainty).
I like Shannon's definition of what "meaning" is: messages have meaning insofar as they have material correlates according to some system. Some system? (Systema Naturae?)
Notice that this entails a pre-specification"”"some system" of physical and conceptual (mental) correlates. Obviously, that is not given to the designer a priori, because it's not even his problem in designing the communications system! It is not required of the designer (or his design) that he know what are the meanings of the messages.
All that is required is that the design(s) convey the message with some fidelity (and efficiency).
I mean, the fact that messages have meanings is given"”but what specifically those messages may mean is immaterial (so to speak) to the designer (?!).
So for whom in the world is the message selected materially meaningful? The source, sender, and the destination, recipient.
Sorry, Mike Gene, but I've made a lot of statements about the "designer" here. As you know, a "designer-centric" approach is fruitless.
In his excellent book under the section "The Information Source," Jaynes notes the design problem was initially correctly stated by Norbert Wiener, in practically the same terms as Shannon, the selection of one from amongst any number (An infinite number!) of possible messages. Jaynes writes, "Already we see the conceptual difficulties faced by the frequency theory of probability"”the man [or any other source] at the sending end presumably knows perfectly well which message he is going to send. What then could it possibly mean by speaking of the probability that he will send something. There is nothing analogous to "chance" operating here [My emphasis.]." Jaynes says that it isn't the ignorance of the sender but of the receiver that defines the information. "Yet on second thought that doesn't make any sense either…" Shannon's theory doesn't really depend at all upon the specific (meaningful) information that is transmitted!
Jaynes is right! "[Shannon] is thinking of the theory as something of practical value to the engineer whose job it is to design the technical equipment in the communication system. In other words, the state of knowledge Shannon is describing is that of the communications engineer when he designs the equipment." [Jaynes' emphasis.]
Information theory is a statement about the knowledge of the designer.
Originally, or very early, Dembski wrote that ID could be unpacked as a theory of information…This was then quickly left off as a research direction, in preference for more "traditional" probabilistic analyses.
Wonder why?
Comment by Rock — May 29, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
May 29th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Arago,
Of course, ID as a movement has only been around for ~2 decades - that's not in doubt.
I do concede that the writings of Aquinas and Paley sound an awfully bit similar, and further, the notion of "Seeing design in God's Creation" is far older than two decades. But yes, the ID movement - including the intellectual dishonesty of trying to relabel such theological philosphy as science - IS only about two decades old.
But anyway, I think we're on the same page…
Comment by Daniel — May 29, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
May 30th, 2006 at 12:00 am
G. arago:
So you are not a critic who thinks Intelligent Design was/is nothing more than a moniker that was invented purely as a PR stunt to re-label creationism so the Bible could be taught in the schools?
Well, we need to get beyond the "may be true" and determine whether or not this is true. As for "˜ID-critics', it is a term I came up with while arguing on the ARN forum.
The words and advice have to be clear before I can heed them.
I'm not sure I get the point here.
Perhaps they could. However, I should point out that I am not part of any movement that sees itself in the midst of any "˜scientific revolution.' I've made this clear to you in the past.
I'm not making any claims about Dembski. I'm simply pointing out that if theories about the transmission of "intelligence" gave rise to theories about "information," and information theory influenced the development of molecular biology, why would anyone think that teleologists would not eventually come along and close the loop?
Why biology? Actually, if you look more closely, the ID people are much more focused on molecular biology. Think of Stephen Meyer and his DNA arguments. Think of Behe and his decision to focus on the molecular realm. Think of Dembski as his specified complexity. A better question is "˜Why molecular biology?' Well, it's basically answered in the first sentence of my blog "“ "Information theory, along with cybernetics, have significantly shaped and influenced the study of molecular biology."
Rock mentions Norbert Wiener. Here is something to chew on:
Or check this out:
The Teleological Society? Imagine that. I'll say more about Wiener, but I'll probably save it for its own blog.
I've never claimed to be a "˜great thinker.' My first thing was far less ambitious "“ like sticking to the topic I bring to the table.
Well, I am trying to get my mind around the critic's belief that the concept duo poofed into existence two decades ago, apparently as someone was just trying to come up with a more catchy name for "˜creationism.'
Ask Keiths.
Comment by MikeGene — May 30, 2006 @ 12:00 am
May 30th, 2006 at 12:51 am
There's nothing wrong with the term "ID critic". Even the critics themselves use it:
Comment by Krauze — May 30, 2006 @ 12:51 am
May 30th, 2006 at 8:29 am
[...] MikeGene has a post up at Telic Thoughts that does a pretty good job of illustrating the fundamental flaws of the modern approach to ID. He writes: Information theory, along with cybernetics, have significantly shaped and influenced the study of molecular biology. As a result, it should be no surprise that something like "˜intelligent design' would eventually emerge. That is, as the models and metaphors began to generate a track record of success, sooner or later teleologists would take note and begin to question whether the success was indebted to a deeper reality. [...]
Pingback by Heaven is not the sky » Blog Archive » Science and language — May 30, 2006 @ 8:29 am
May 30th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
MikeGene wrote:
I think this post does contain a hint of validation for ID. Admittedly, the presence of encoded information does not indicate a designer. Nor does the presence of an encoder and decoder. As Rock paraphrased Shannon:
But it is not just the semantic content of the message that points to design.
The Nyquist theorem is evident in digital audio as it defines the bandwidth of the signal. In the case of the first digital recorders, the bandwidth of the encoded PCM signal was specifically chosen to replicate frequencies within the range of the human ear. Also the error correction inherent in the PCM code is designed to provide just enough error correction for human enjoyment under human circumstances. Not to mention dithering of the digital signal to minimize quantization errors. A sort of 'anthropic principle' for an intelligently designed CODEC system. The message is not what's important, it's the mechanism.
There are hundreds of other examples, but I like the idea of a 6 bit code like DNA that incorporates parity error correction, uses noise reduction mechanisms, and is packaged in such a way as to optimize the system for biological life, regardless of the message. It is neither too low or high in fidelity for it's given application, indicating a possible design bias for biological life.
The only difference in biology (vs. PCM audio) is that when you change the message, the mechanism can also change (due to embedded metadata - a definite pointer to design, front-loading, side loading, etc.)
But I understand that the original intent of your post was to point out that ID is not a new phenomenon. I must admit I wonder why you expend so much energy trying to convince a bigoted minority of detractors that this is so, when your energy would be so much better spent exploring the 'biotic reality'.
Comment by chunkdz — May 30, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
May 30th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Hi Chunkdz,
I like what you wrote "“ "The message is not what's important, it's the mechanism."
As for spending more energy on exploring 'biotic reality,' I hear ya. The amount of energy and time I spend on blogs like these is a small fraction of the time I spend exploring ID. I will add a very significant update to my web page in the upcoming weeks.
Comment by MikeGene — May 30, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
May 30th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
This is just my comment on the nomenclature of "ID critic" or IDC…..
It seems to me that if you've followed the comments about 'Intelligent Design' of the last few years on the Internet you've found :
1) frequently the motives of people are questioned (ie no one is given the benefit of the doubt).
2) such 'original' terms as 'IDiot' or 'cretin(s)'/'cretinist(s)' are coined/used to mean 'creationist' and/or IDist, then used over and over again, to the point where you question whether the person HAS a point to a post (this on message boards and blogs) or is merely looking for an excuse to abuse the opposition via the oh-so-clever coinages/vituperation (now grown rather stale).
3) and that's not even including the use of 'Dumbski' as a trashing of Dr. Dembski, an experience he probably hadn't had since, oh, about junior high school. But unlike message boards, junior high has SOME adult supervision…..
4) compare that to the aforementioned 'ID critic' or 'Intelligent Design critic' or 'IDC', an attempt, at least, at a NEUTRAL term to characterize those who oppose it: philosophically, scientifically, culturally, politically, juridically……..
——————————————————————————
Ah, what the heck, let's get down to PARTICULARS:
1) SecWeb (Infidels message board): search under 'Dumbski" (done today): 81 total hits(but some reposts). Including:
a) 'moderator' Oolon posting (partial):
So what is the use of his SC idea if examples cannot be cited? If it's just that we've not yet figured out how this complexity arose, the best he's got a specified complexity of the gaps.
Dumbski: This thing has SC.
Dawkins: Here's why it doesn't.
Dumbski: Well it wasn't SC then.
Am I missing something? Is it really that simple — and stupid?
Oolon
[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth...
———————————————————————
Then
b) (again 'moderator' Oolon posted on Oct 16, 2003) posted (partial):
I really can't be arsed with Dumbski. Whenever I've tried, the words 'impenetrable hogwash' keep coming to mind. But could those of you who have tried to decipher him tell me please: I take it that there's no reason, according to the filter or whatever, why the items on The List are not designed? I mean, if nerves are designed according to Dembski, then the recurrent laryngeal's route must be too, yeah?
Cheers, Oolon
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth...
——————————————————————–
———————————————————————–
c) and here, on July 4th, 2003, is that SAME Oolon, once again in his 'moderator' hat responding to a request to tone down the language:
Quote:
Originally posted by MrDarwin
Can we please put an end to such childishness as "IDiot" and "Dumbski" "Cretinist" is another one that makes me cringe.
Sorry, but if it's childish, then… "Shaaan't!"
I endeavour to only use such terms amongst 'ourselves', for the reasons you give. But there is a long and honourable tradition in English of deliberately mangling or making-more-appropriate an opponent's name.
It should not be used from the outset: nobody should call Disciple 'Dumciple', for instance. But it becomes an almost necessary outlet when talking about the constantly-refuted and incorrigibly-dense. It is an encapsulation: a single-word summary of what you think of the opposition.
Same with any derogatory name-calling. I feel fully justified in calling, Vanderzyden, say, a humpty-backed twat (to use a current favourite)… provided I then go on to point out just why I believe this is the case. It's just an elaboration of the common way of speaking: "it's due to the homeobox genes, like I said three times on the last page, you idiot!"
Of course it's no substitute for an argument. But that's not why I, at least, use these terms.
And 'cretinist' is shorter to type.
Oolon
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth...
—————————————————————–
Oh, but I know what you are thinking! Sure, a mere 'moderator' might use such childish abuse but surely not a mature scientist!
But you'd be wrong:
1) here's 'pangloss' aka Professor Scott Page, biologist, using the same term, same message board:
Quote:
Most Darwinists have not read or considered biochemist Michael Behe, geneticist Michael Denton, embryologist Jonathan Wells, or information theorist William Dembski. These dissenting voices are systematically marginalized and silenced by academic McCarthyism.
When did wells become an embryologist?
When did Dumbski become an Information theorist?
Do these clowns just make up important sounding titles to impress the lay public as they see fit?
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth...
————————————————————–
And that same biology professor, showing on Nov 12th, 2003 that the above was no fluke:
Originally posted by Principia
Yup, it was either him or P. Nelson would be my guess, given that Nelson has been active at both ARN and ISCID against niiicholas. The irony however is that everyone pales in comparison to MG's "internet activities." In fact MG himself is quite proud that he has personally "dealt with hundreds of critics." And with a post count well in excess of 3000 posts (more than 3x times nic's), Dumbski seems to have given the critics the perfect rhetorical ammo against some of his own compatriots. In fact, recently, it was even discovered that Julie Thomas of Talk.Origins was in fact a persona of MG. At least, niiicholas has the intellectual honesty not to cite his own internet personae as his own authority, as MG seems to do here, here, and here
I have long thought Gene to be an ass, this only adds fuel to that fire. Before they banned me for calling Duane Salmon a jerk after he died (and before I had time to 'apologize'), Gene's antics were pretty obvious.
I especially like his claim that 'telelogic' guided him to 'predict' transcriptional proofreading. He claimed that while writing an essay on translational proofreading, he 'predicted', in an ID perspective, that there should be transcriptional proofreading too. Did a search and he vindicated his ID prediction.
But if one does a pubmed search - which he did - using ANY terms relevant to translational proofreading, the article that Gene claimed to have later found supporting his 'prediction' shows up!
He didn't predict a damn thing - he saw the article while conjuring up some gibberish about translational proofreading and saw an opening for an 'ID' guided prediction and was able to fool morons like Nelson Alonso, who vociferously defended his hero at ARN and later at the KCFS forum.
Genie of course just claimed that he had made his prediction and wandered off…
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth...
————————————————–
And here is that same biologist using 'cretinist' to refer to creationist and/or IDist(s):
Ilion, as creationists are wont, has hitched a ride on the High Horse of the Superiority of the Outsider (he's not a scientist):
Silly Darwinists don't even understand the questions…
As the administration at that tower of intellectual freedom, ARN, won't let me post there, I might suggest that some of you who can rise to this occasion. I have read several posts there in which Ilion has his hat handed to him and in usual cretinist fashion, lacks the wherewithal to recognize that.
But hey, let him know again…
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth...
——————————————————————————–
At same message board: 400 hits under 'cretinist' and the search under 'IDiot' was inconclusive since it included hits for 'idiot' as well….but in TOTAL there were over 300 hits (IDiot/idiot)
————————————————————————-
But let's look elsewhere: if your stomach is strong you can look at this entry under "DUMBSKI" in the online 'Urban Dictionary':
http://www.urbandictionary.com...
——————————————————————–
Then we have the self-characterized "The foremost progressive blog in Kansas" whose entry by Josh Rosenau is entitled "Why we call him Dumbski"
http://jgrr.blogspot.com/2005/...
——————————————————————–
Then, at PANDA'S THUMB there is this entry:
Comment #27738
Posted by Stuart Weinstein on May 2, 2005 03:08 PM (e)
I had spoken with Peter Ward for about an hour or so when he came to give a couple of talks at the University of Hawaii, back in "˜99 or was it 2000?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure Peter mentioned he was atheist.
Dumbski doesn't do his homework.
———————————————————————–
A Google search under "Dumbski" (granted some ARE typos and/or references to other persons) turns up: 3,870 hits, many at blogs where 'science' (aka modern evo synthesis) is 'defended', frequently by being as 'offensive' as possible……….
Comment by len — May 30, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
May 30th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Len,
I just have to interject one point to your well taken point.
It is not, and has never been about science.
Do you really think that the folks that put the little Darwin fishies on their cars are proclaiming their love for a 19th century British naturalist? Or are they proclaiming their loathing of a certain 1st century carpenter who's symbol they are bastardizing. The kind of vitriol you find on PT and elsewhere does not occur in purely scientific discussion. It is only when the name of Jesus is invoked that the bigots start to spew their insults. Scientists disagree all the time - amiably or heatedly - but the kind of furious hostility that Dembski has had to endure is strictly because of his theological bent, not because of his mathematical conjecture.
Religeous bigotry is alive and well. I say ignore 'em, keep working and keep smiling.:wink:
They will only get angrier and more vitriolic as ID progresses.
Comment by chunkdz — May 30, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
May 30th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
"So ID may not be merely re-labeled creationism, but it most certainly is still theologically-based."
As an agnostic I find such statements ludicrous.
ID neither relies on, nor implies, any supernatural reality, nor any particular kind of god or gods. ID is about detecting design in biological entities and nothing more.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 30, 2006 @ 7:12 pm
May 30th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
No. Didn't you know that by now?
The similarities between language in Panda's before and after was quite shocking, however, and it would be far-fetched to say that 'creation' is/was irrelevant to the invention or concoction of i+d, don't you think? I would be satisfied if you simply adjusted your language to say 'critics of ID' or even 'ID critics' instead of 'the ID critics' which implies a stronger (more unified) categorization. Critics of i+d come in many shapes and sizes, even those who don't bother to criticize it anymore can be considered critics.
Mike, let's be fair. A. Peacocke, J. Polkinghorne, G. Ellis, G. Murphy, N. Murphy, E. Davis, D. Lamoureux and others are 'critics of i+d' too. But you refrain from criticising their criticisms (seemingly) because they often involve a theistic dimension, which you are not willing to entertain in your conceptualization of i+d. You seem to want to study i+d as agnostically (i.e. secularly or, please excuse, scientifically) as possible. The criticisms of those persons above are quite well-articulated (they are all accomplished scientists, with the exception of one) and also quite different from the atheistic or agnostic criticisms of i+d which you seem so fond to spend your time debating.
We're likely not all that far apart after all. But I demand respect for my areas of scholarship and research, as you likely do for yours. Reducing i+d or teleology to natural sciences alone is likely not conducive to discussion across the disciplines and rather fragmentary of knowledge, than seeking to integrate knowledge. Philosophy also has a role to play, beyond just repeating the demarcation game.
Yes, I know this. But you quote those who do chant 'scientific revolution' in your writings and formulations (see second quote below). I am not here pointing a 'guilt by association' finger, but that is what some of your critics do. Neither can you avoid this, not can you post-wedge something you weren't responsible for in the first place. If the IDM and Pajaro Dunes hadn't happened, if i+d hadn't been coined, if the CSC hadn't been set up, etc., then you'd likely be working on another internet blog project altogether. The same hunches about life being 'designed' may still be there, but without a further degree of articulation…thanks to the IDM.
Which teleologists? Do you mean social and humanitarian thinkers? Why not reference Daniel Bell or Manuel Castells when talking about 'information'? We are supposedly living in an 'information age' according to some people - not just natural scientists and naturalists.
This is the super duper trio!
It is not surprising that you rarely tip your hat to Phillip Johnson, the 'father' of i+d. And yes, molecular biology is included in my reference to biology; much like social psychology would be included in a reference to psychology. Would you answer the question, then, why molecular biology? I asked it directly to Dembski, who is not himself a biologist, and he answered rather curtly to me that biologists themselves think design is relevant, and that's why i+d focuses on biology instead of places where design is obvious (cue Rock's deserved laughter), i.e. human-made things. Nowhere in any ID literature (caveat: that I've read or heard about) has anyone successfully/satisfactorily addressed the difference between human-made and non-human-made things, in relation to theories of ID.
I suggest you take Chuckdz advice and just ignore certain critics. Others may be worth sparring with on-line. Nevertheless, it likely isn't true that you acknowledge no source, no invention date (stamp), no coiner of the 'concept duo i+d,' do you? It didn't just poof into existence!? The reasons and motivations aside (for the moment), someone had to first speak or write the words together, didn't they?
As for Norbert Wiener, you're probably right that it deserves its own thread at TT's (or did you really mean blog?). Cybernetics is big where I live these days. A colleague just wrote a paper about it and the talk persists. Probably Wiener and I will collide one day, but for now there are many of his disciples to contend with. Only one brief point of note: Wiener seems incapable of (or unintent to) find a bridge between human-made and non-human-made things. Studies in logic, mathematics and mathematical physics, engineering and weapons design, don't likely endear one to most humanitarian thinkers.
As with the link you reference, there is quite a difference between studies in technology and biology. What discipline or type of teleologist is Mike Gene; a natural science teleologist, an information theorist-teleologist, a psychology-teleologist, a humanitarian-teleologist, a theologically-curious-teleologist, etc.?
Arago
~~
Len, perhaps it is TT's wish to somehow help raise the level of discussion, instead of stooping to such 'droll' (as Joy recently wrote) comments of those persons who simply refuse to listen to the perspectives of others.
Comment by g arago — May 30, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 10:38 am
Sure. I discuss this here.
Point taken.
I am not excessively familiar with the criticisms from theistic evolutionists. Those that I have seen look pretty good. But before you can get there, one of these authors would need to establish the following position "“ "If Life was designed, the designer MUST have been God."
Just as I am not a "great thinker," neither am I am Renaissance Man. I can only speak of things from my perspective. If someone else seeks to integrate knowledge, they should make the effort to understand my position and perspective and tell me how it integrates with their own areas of specialty. Since I am the world's leading expert on the position and perspective of MikeGene, I can then determine whether the integration efforts succeed or fail to capture the essence of MikeGene's position and perspective. The other option, of course, is to ignore me. You won't find me hounding others and demanding that they integrate my position and perspective.
No, I don't quote them. I point out their focus of interest to serve my point.
LOL. Some? Many critics (but not you) demonstrate a herd mentality and then turn around and project that on me. It's worth pointing out.
Of course I cannot avoid it. So when many of the critics rely on a herd mentality and simple-minded stereotypes, I take a big spot light and illuminate such tactics for all to see.
Of course. I have already explained how Mike Behe's arguments played the critical role in the birth of my IDthinking. But you are viewing things in one dimension. Two other streams of influence play equally critical roles. First, there are "the critics" themselves. Without them, I might indeed be working on another blog. Second, and most importantly, is my own eccentric view of reality. Do you think I am simply a product of my environment, g arago?
Teleologists who would take notice that molecular biologists are cashing checks from the teleological bank accounts.
Well, I did write: "A better question is "˜Why molecular biology?' Well, it's basically answered in the first sentence of my blog "“ "Information theory, along with cybernetics, have significantly shaped and influenced the study of molecular biology.""
Why molecular biology? Well, it looks like this is something ID theorists should be writing and working on.
You want to chemical composition of human feces and fish feces? The former is human-made while the latter is not. I don't think "made" captures the essence of ID.
Well, according to very highly educated people, I must be a closet creationist. However, I know that I am not. So this raises interesting questions, allowing me to know that highly educated people are certain in their convictions about reality, but I know they are wrong. It's one of the few areas that I can build around things that I know.
I believe Charles Thaxton is the first person to have put the words together. This is not surprising if you have ever read his book, The Mystery of Life's Origins. As I playfully explain, the reasons and motivations are irrelevant.
Not if the focus is molecular biology (another reason for "why molecular biology?"). Molecular biology has taken biology and technology and fused them into biotechnology and is playing a lead role in the development of nanotechnology. The difference between studies in technology and biology will continue to shrink with each passing year. That's one reason why ID is in the cards. And some critics think they can kill it by painting it with the "Bible thumper" brush. LOL.
I'm a guy who is fascinated by the possibility that life itself was designed. Do you know who radical that sounds?
Comment by MikeGene — May 31, 2006 @ 10:38 am
May 31st, 2006 at 11:16 am
Hi g arago,
You say they are quite different from atheistic or agnostic criticisms. Are you refering to theological criticisms? Obviously each of these people have their own unique positions but from what I've seen their non-theological criticisms are very similar to those of other critics. You seem familiar with their positions. Could you point to some of the differences?
Also as far as flavors of theistic evolution (of which I think some of those individuals would fit) it's not as though there are no extant criticisms from a theological perspective. Cardinal Schönborn has been a vocal critic. I've also done one here and more recently philosopher of science and Catholic priest Martin Hilbert has one here.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 31, 2006 @ 11:16 am
May 31st, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Information theory is a statement about the knowledge of the designer.
No comment. But maybe food-for-thought"¦
Comment by Rock — May 31, 2006 @ 3:13 pm