Shaping the Thoughts of the Critic
by MikeGeneIn the pages of a scientific journal, Elliot Sober abandoned philosophy and replaced it with armchair pyschologizing. Nick Matzke, who is the Public Information Project Director at NCSE, attempted to rationalize this behavior and, in doing so, has offered a fairly significant observation in the comments section of Telic Thoughts.
He writes:
Another thing you folks are missing here is the impact of Of Pandas and People(both the main book, by Davis and Kenyon, and the concluding essay, by Hartwig and Meyer) on Sober's analysis. He cites it a number of times. Once you are aware of what is in that book, and the fact that all the leading ID proponents participated in and/or endorsed the book "” let alone its history "” it is extremely difficult to put the rose-colored glasses back on again and see ID as some kind of extremely subtle tweaking of biology.
But it's not about putting rose-colored glasses on; it's about the ability to think about the concept of ID independent of all the sensationalism that comes with the socio-political sideshow. Nick is effectively admitting that once the scholars find out how some people tried to use the concept of ID for socio-political purposes, they can no longer think clearly about the concept of ID. It's "extremely difficult" to "put the rose-colored glasses back on again."
Ponder the implications of this insight.
Once Sober et al. factor in "˜The Wedge,' they find themselves approaching this whole issue in a substantially different manner. The Wedge changes Sober. Does that mean that Sober, and those like him, now have to be very, very careful not to "give ammunition to the enemy?" That they must stay "on message" in the Battle Against the Forces of Darkness? If so, and their minds are so easily affected by the behavior of others in a movement, can we really trust the thinkers to be objective? Are they responding to the concept of ID or is it the ID Movement? Can they really tell them apart?
This raises an interesting question. Is Sober's paper an intellectual project or a political project? Are the scholarly critics of ID really that much different from the movement they critique?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:15 am
This study shows exactly what happens when political partisans evaluate evidence that disagrees with their world-view. And ID is all about politics to Matze, isn't it?
Here's a nice summary of the findings.
Comment by MatthewCromer — February 26, 2007 @ 7:15 am
February 26th, 2007 at 9:03 am
To my mind, the obsession with people's motivations reveals a very ideological approach to science. Nick seems to want to define ID by the motivations of a selected group of people. Nick and others seem to be saying: "They are wrong about science because their ideas and beliefs are wrong. You're really supposed to believe X and be motivated by Y." They are concerned about the ideology of ID because they themselves are protecting an ideology. They are concerned with the politics of ID because they are involved with politics. It is an ideological war. They are indeed, the flip side of creationists who want Genesis to be taught in science class.
But of course, arguments stand on themselves, not on motivations. It's probably unnecessary to point that out, but it does tend to highlight the fact that on both sides, the facts are less important than the ideology.
Comment by Brian Killian — February 26, 2007 @ 9:03 am
February 26th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Thanks for posting those links, Matthew. It is interesting that the results of the study appear to coincide well with George Lakoff's practical assessments about these things.
After my short time on this blog, I have come to the conclusion that the whole debate is needless. Until ID (in any of its forms) produces evidence, it is not part of science, and therefore should not be taught as science, etc. It's that simple. An ID critic need only say the words, "Produce the evidence." That will end the conversation quickly.
Really, what does it matter what ID critics think? If there was evidence for ID, then a genuine scientific conversation would ensue, and there would be no such psychological examinations on either side. But since there is no evidence, we are drawn into these endless philosophical discussions and emotional dissections—the equivalent of a slow news day.
From here I'll quote my previous comments (which has become a pattern for me here, but anyway):
I'll reiterate that ID as a philosophical position is untouchable. So an intelligent designer is creating variations and selecting from them, acting in an apparent probabilistic manner but in fact making the ultimate decisions behind the scenes. Fine. It doesn't change the mathematics of heredity, variation and selection.
A scientific version of ID would require a conclusive demonstration because it postulates an additional entity, a designer, for which there is currently no evidence.
You may think of abiogenesis as the null hypothesis if you wish. It is essential to start with an absolute minimum of assumptions and then proceed until a contradiction is obtained. Since selection exists and works, and furthermore since evolutionary algorithms have demonstrated genuine innovation in practical experiments (see my last comment here), we hypothesize that selection is sufficient.
That is why non-ID hypotheses are favored"”because they hypothesize less while making use of known processes. Just imagine how science would look if we introduced mysterious entities each time a new phenomenon was discovered. Instead of the precise simplicity of Maxwell's equations, we would have complicated theories about how magnets are endowed with "clinginess," electrical currents are endowed with "shockiness," and that clinginess appears in the presence of shockiness thanks to the CSM (clinginess-shockiness multiplexer).
It is often said that the scientific community is "dogmatic" in its naturalistic approach while seeking to brand others as "heretics." But I hope you can see that the approach is not dogmatic but practical. We wouldn't want our scientific theories populated by ghosts which we don't understand.
An experiment which conclusively demonstrates ID would have to be truly remarkable in order to convince scientists that regular selection could not be responsible. You might counter that scientists are just demonstrating faith in selection, but selection is just the default position, the practical position, for reasons I've just described. That is why I suspect ID will remain a philosophical stance for the foreseeable future. Would that really be so bad?
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 26, 2007 @ 11:55 am
February 26th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Jeff Alexander, do you really believe that this is the logical outcome of pursuing ID?
If so, then Emory University would like you to come in to be fitted for an fMRI as soon as possible.
Comment by chunkdz — February 26, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
"Just imagine how science would look if we introduced mysterious entities each time a new phenomenon was discovered."–jeff_alexander
LOL It would look just like science! That's a classic, jeff_alexander, because that's exactly what scientists do!
Comment by Rock — February 26, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
chunkdz:
I think you have demonstrated my point. Isn't this ridiculous? Since there is no evidence, we have nothing substantive to talk about. Instead, the conversation has taken a plunge into silly mischaracterizations and sarcasm.
To answer your question, that is how things would look if science introduced new entities without evidence that the current ones are insufficient. Which is the point of my post. Pursuing ID is fine. Pursuing string theory is fine. Pursuing anything is fine. The goal is to produce evidence which justifies incorporation into the body of science. Do you see how I would find your question strange, and your subsequent comment ironic?
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 26, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Selection does not exist or work with abiogenesis; at least in anything more than a philosophical sense. It is a default assumption- but one without legs. There is no advantage to abiogenesis over ID at point of origin.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Me:
Rock:
I might imagine this to be a decent retort, if the sentence you quoted had not been preceded the previous paragraph: It is essential to start with an absolute minimum of assumptions and then proceed until a contradiction is obtained.
Do you understand how I might find your comment silly, given the context of my post? And how I might further be convinced that debate about ID is quickly reduced to emotive context pranks and misconstruing, given that since there is no evidence there is really nothing else to talk about?
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 26, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Actually Jeff Alexander, I agree with you that the above argument (in the initial post) is pointless. I've pointed this out to MikeGene several times, but he a rather determined fellow. I believe ID will be justified by lab data, not by the political debate.
What I disagree with is your characterization of what would happen if someone investigated elctromagnetism under an ID paradigm. You think that Maxwell's equations would have been replaced by the "clinginess shockiness multiplexer" (speaking of silly mischaracterizations and sarcasm… hmmmm…)
I think that if one pursued research in electromagnetism under an ID paradigm, one might try to find evidence that matter itself bears any hallmarks of design. A difficult prospect, no doubt, but this would hardly have dissuaded Maxwell, and certainly would not make anyone stop research at the discovery of "clinginess and shockiness".
As for my sarcastic comment, I meant no harm. I simply felt that your mischaracterization of ID belied exactly the kind of bias that the Emory study was interested in. Ironic.
Comment by chunkdz — February 26, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
You are right. Abiogenesis is a default assumption. It has no legs, and neither does ID. But as I mentioned it does have an advantage over ID, because it hypothesizes less while making use of known processes.
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 26, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Jeff, you ask for evidence.
What kinds of evidence would suggest to you that the innovations and changes in evolutionary history involve intelligence, instead of being ONLY purposeless and random mutations winnowed through natural selection?
Comment by MatthewCromer — February 26, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I disagree. We can observe intelligent agents producing intelligent systems.
No one has observed unintelligent geochemical systems making anything intelligent. Observable phenomenon trumps unobservable phenomenon.
Comment by chunkdz — February 26, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
If we wanted to be really simple and hypothesize less, we could just attribute everything to chance. Natural laws don't exist, we could say. Things have just happened the way they have by chance. After all, something has to happen, and no outcome is really more unlikely than any other outcome. Or heck, on the other side, we could be just as simple by attributing everything directly to mind.
Comment by Deuce — February 26, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
chunkdz:
Huh? Did you read my response? That is how things would look if science introduced new entities without evidence that the current ones are insufficient. The CSM was a fair caricature of what might be the fruits of such an approach to science. The previous paragraph explaining the null hypothesis gives the context.
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 26, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Disagree. Purpose is already evident. It is simply a matter of what it is attributable to. Unknown, unspecified pathways to life are not known processes. OTOH, intelligently directed outcomes, generating complexity, can be defined by the inability of undirected natural ones to attain the same outcome. That has been the theme of OOL research for decades.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Deuce:
Indicating that philosophical materialism is being stuffed into the gaps.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Gas!
The arguments for ID:
Arguments from From Irreducible Complexity (Behe) and Specified Complexity (Dembski)
1. Intelligent agency can produce irreducible complexity / specified complexity (evidence: human beings create technology)
2. Unintelligent processes cannot produce
IC / SC (evidence: No unintelligent process has been suggested which can be shown to produce IC or SC)
3. Certain living systems are IC / SC (evidence: biochemistry)
4. Therefore, those systems are produced by an intelligent agent(s).
In fact, at a glance ID has much more evidential support than Darwinism (consider Dawkin's description of biology as the "Study of things that look designed): Ask a teleologist for evidence that intelligent agents can produce IC or SC and they could probably point their finger in a random direction and end up pointing to some piece of technology that made the point. Ask a darwinist for evidence that RM/NS can generate IC or SC and they can point to a handful of dubious computer models.
Comment by BenK — February 26, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
And the computer models assume an existing cell- the very thing that is most problematic from a Darwinian perspective.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Bradford:
Well, more than that, my point was that if we follow the principle that new entities shouldn't be postulated unless existing ones are insufficient, we will never postulate any entities at all, because pure chance is sufficient for everything we see in the physical world, including the things we usually attribute to physical laws. Or, on the other hand, we could say that chance was an illusion, and attribute everything to mind (arguably a more defensible view, since it's logically possible that chance is an illusion, but self-contradictory to say that the mind is an illusion).
A more reasonable argument would be simply that you shouldn't hypothesize new entities when you've got no reason to suspect that current explanations don't completely and correctly account for everything.
Comment by Deuce — February 26, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Y'know, I can't figure out how "random" anything in a science that purports to explain life on planet earth isn't considered a grotesque multiplication of mysterious, unquantified causal factors all by itself. Accidents happen – we see the sad results all the time in people and other critters and plants that fail to thrive and/or die young of constitutional weaknesses attributed to unfortunate genetic accidents.
But why do both Creationists and DarwinDefenders put their causal agents outside of the organisms whose lives *are* the issue. DDs characterize life forms as nothing more than chemically active "bags of goo" upon which the exterior environment writes its will by means of killing all life forms that don't express its will. Creationists tell us it's a supernatural deity who designs life forms (successfully adapted or unfortunate losers).
Why can't adaptive evolution be an expression of life's own designs? Why does telic design of telic processes for telically-oriented and essentially autonomous life forms have to be imposed from the outside?
Comment by Joy — February 26, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Hear, hear!
Comment by MatthewCromer — February 26, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
"Do you understand how I might find your comment silly, given the context of my post?"
And do you, jeff_alexander, understand how I might find your post silly in the context of my comment? Of course you don't, because you made a statement that is false. And you wouldn't have made the statement if you knew it was false.
I didn't bother to correct the statement because there probably isn't a correspondent who can't think of many examples contradicting the statement I quoted.
History of science, jeff_alexander, might look into it someday. I'm sure it'll be a revelation to you.
I've always been interested in the history of science, not the least reason for my fascination is that scientists seem to be dedicated to defying "conventions." They're always doing something or other that people insist they don't, can't, or shouldn't do. They have to hypothesize this, assume that, conclude the other… Ya know, if scientists did only what some think they are supposed to do then imagine what science would look like! LOL
Comment by Rock — February 26, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
That has already been done in peer-reviewed literature regarding OOL. I explored a proof by contradiction of mindless OOL here:
Perfect Architectures which scream design
Trevors, Abel, Yockey, Voie have published on the issue. Mindless OOL may be like perpetual motion machines, the notion itself violates a universal principle of the general direction toward entropy away specified structures.
I make the bold prediction that Solexa technology will confirm the claims of ID proponents decisively.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 26, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Bradford, BTW I have valued your input; at least I have a feeling that information is being exchanged.
We both recognize this as speculation, right? It might lead to something useful, but it might not.
In my post, "known processes" referred to selection and evolutionary algorithms in general. Do you see the twist of words? Nobody knows the specific pathway from one particular species to another, but we accept common descent, right? We have evidence that such pathways exist, and we understand a bit about the process of heredity, variation, and selection, if not the specifics.
So on the one hand you accept the existence of all the pathways of common descent, although you do not know the specifics of such pathways. But on the other hand you reject the plausibility of other pathways, because you do not know the specifics of such pathways.
It is true we do not know much about the replicators which preceded DNA. We need only argue that it is plausible: from primitive replicators, to better replicators, to primitive partial RNA, to better partial RNA, to RNA, and so forth. Continuous, gradual steps with selection acting on each step, with possible backward jumps and/or scaffolding removal in between. Remember we have a billion years on our hands here.
I don't like the argument, and neither do you. But we have to admit that it's plausible, because we have countless of cases where selection works; there is no particular reason to rule it out in this case.
But the fallacy here is all too obvious. We don't have the opportunity to spend a billion years observing a geologically active planet. Based on the fact that we haven't witnessed much during this infinitesimal slice of geologic time, we cannot declare that primitive replicators could not come about. We can't take our intuition of time and apply it to a billion years, just as we can't take our intuition of 50mph and apply it to half the speed of light.
Of course this does not "prove" abiogenesis, but only argues that it is plausible. Because it makes use of what we already know, it is automatically preferred over a hypothesis which makes use of new concepts which we don't know. This does not mean that ID should not be pursued. It just means ID has not (yet) made a better case.
It is fair to say that selection is being invoked as the magic black box from which DNA has sprung. But until evidence demonstrates that selection is insufficient, science has no choice but to go with selection, since it is already known. Again, the analogy with the null hypothesis is fitting.
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 26, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Since, (on the grounds that you can't prove a negative) it can't be proven that it is not possible for unintelligent processes to produce IC and SC we should assume that it is possible?
On the contrary, there is conclusive and abundant evidence that intelligent agents can produce IC and SC. It cannot be shown that unintelligent processes can similiarly produce IC and SC. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that biological IC and SC are the product of intelligent agency. This is a simple inferential argument.
Comment by BenK — February 26, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Jeff: But on the other hand you reject the plausibility of other pathways, because you do not know the specifics of such pathways.
This is untrue and the assumption of it makes unnecessary much of what you wrote. One does not take a let's test every possibility approach into science. It's a sterile approach that inhibits progress. We analyze things as best we can given our knowledge of what it is we are looking into. We know enough about organic chemistry and cellular biology to make assessments as to plausibilities of different models. We know life is dependent on information rich nucleic acids. We know their chemical make-up, the configuarations of nucleotides that correspond to different types of proteins and grammatical sequences as well. We can come to conclusions based on available data and form hypotheses, that if confirmed, would strengthen our conclusions. The view that functional specificity owes itself to a purposeful, intelligent arrangement is plausible based on scientific data. There is no need to put things on hold while we wait forever for advocates of abiogenesis to tinker with biochemical building blocks. Billions or trillions of years will not create a causal chain of events that do not exist. As for selection, before it can be taken seriously one must clearly delineate what is selected for and why. Incidentally, selection cuts both ways. There are experimental results indicating that selection favors outcomes opposite to those needed by an OOL paradigm.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
BenK wrote:
I hear many IDers make this claim, and it always baffles me. How can they state so confidently that no unintelligent process can produce IC or SC?
Darwinian processes are mindless. A process is Darwinian if it consists of heritable, undirected variation together with selection and replication. For a Darwinian process to produce IC (which Dembski argues is a special instance of SC), the following steps are required:
1. Undirected variations arise. This seems pretty uncontroversial.
2. Most variations are likely to be harmful, but some of the variations are advantageous in some way or at least neutral. This is somewhat controversial among IDers; more on this later.
3. Over time, selection weeds out harmful variants and favors helpful variants. Again, this seems uncontroversial. IDers generally acknowledge, at the very least, that selection can operate on pre-existing variants.
4. The process is repeated.
Now, if it is impossible for a Darwinian process to produce IC, as IDers say, then at least one of those four steps must be impossible, at least some of the time, on the way to an IC system. If you agree with me so far, steps 1, 3, and 4 are unproblematic. That leaves only step 2 as a potential barrier to the Darwinian generation of irreducible complexity.
Let's parse step 2 in some detail.
To get from zero to IC, there must be a sequence of variational steps, each one advantageous or at least neutral (neglecting for now the fact that even mildly deleterious mutations are OK in specific cases), linking the starting state to an irreducibly complex ending state.
In arguing that step 2 is a fatal barrier to the generation of an IC system, IDers must argue either that
a) beneficial/neutral variations are impossible, or so rare as to be impossible for all practical purposes; or
b) beneficial/neutral variations are possible, but no sequence of such steps exists which links the starting state to an IC ending state, or else such sequences are so rare as to be inaccessible to a process of undirected variation.
Here's where I think the IDers get into trouble. To assert that no Darwinian process can produce IC, you have to assert that either (a) or (b) is true for every possible hereditary coding system and every mechanism of undirected variation.
I don't see how it is possible to prove that (a) or (b) is true for all possible coding systems and all possible variational mechanisms. If anyone does, please let me know.
If it can't be proven generally, then IDers have to examine each case in particular and show that no linked set of stepwise variations exists which links a given starting state to an IC destination.
They haven't done this for any Darwinian process, much less terrestrial biology, as far as I can tell.
So whence the confidence in asserting that mindless processes cannot lead to IC?
Comment by keiths — February 26, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Yes, it's impossible to prove a negative. But if no positive case can be shown to obtain, it's generally considered reasonable to assume that positive cases are extreemely rare if not non-existent. To reasonably hold up darwinian pathways as the explanation for IC systems would require at the very least several cases where darwinian pathways can be clearly shown to lead to IC systems.
It's is abundantly clear that intelligent agents can create IC systems. Until it can be shown that an unintelligent process exists which can develop IC systems, it is reasonable to infer intelligent cause from IC systems.
Comment by BenK — February 27, 2007 @ 12:26 am
February 27th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Bradford,
Looking back, I was mostly writing to clarify my own outlook, and of course for google posterity. I was explaining to the general audience why scientists currently reject ID outright.
But we don't really know that. And we can still hypothesize some sort of primitive replicator selection, and hypothesize what is selected for and why (e.g. clay crystals).
I am not saying that this is convincing, and I can understand the motivation to pursue ID. After all, directed panspermia may potentially be consistent with ID, no?
Have you ever considered that the approach you describe might be classical biology after all? One could view it as a sort of extreme adaptationist approach—in some circumstances it may be useful to examine a system as if it were intelligently designed. When a system is sufficiently complex, one could say it passes a kind of Turing Test, at which point it becomes merely practical to treat the system intelligently.
Since I am a Douglas-Hofstadter-type guy, I also see the possibility of wacky sorts of "intelligences" arising in various systems. These would not be supernatural or hokey, but just systems which somehow exploit an isomorphism with symbolic self-reference. By definition we wouldn't be able to quite figure them out, but we might learn about them by examining their behavior as if they were trying to do something.
This is all to say that it might be worthwhile to look closely to see if your approach could be justified on its own, without reference to a literal designing entity.
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 27, 2007 @ 12:29 am
February 27th, 2007 at 12:38 am
[Note that what started as a response to you has turned into a long-winded rant, keith - don't take it personally.
]
I'm not sure about this argument, keith. You're absolutely right that it's technically impossible to prove that there are no conceivable evolutionary pathways between point A and point B in phenotype space. However, there are a lot of complex systems in biology, and I'm not comfortable with an argument that essentially states that they could all have evolved, because no-one can decisively prove that they couldn't have.
For instance, let's say that some clever IDists actually decided to do some research (I know, I know… remember, it's a thought experiment!), and using powerful, realistic models of molecular evolution they showed that the probability of any complex molecular system of the order of the flagellum of evolving naturalistically was in fact minute. We could certainly appeal that, for each complex molecular system, there might always be some extremely unlikely evolutionary pathway involving numerous unselected steps that could have resulted in the system in question. However, that argument starts to look pretty weak when one considers the sheer number of complex systems that exist in biology; by postulating extremely unlikely pathways for each of these systems, one rapidly starts to exceed the probabilistic resources of the biosphere. In fact one is left appealing to things like multiple universes to provide the necessary probabilistic resources – and I'm not a big fan of such desperate measures.
In fact, for large, complex systems like the bacterial flagellum, the eukaryotic cilium, or the F1F0-ATPase, and even simpler systems like actin-myosin motors, I think we simply need to accept that we don't yet have the information or the theoretical models required to perform the relevant calculations – the odds of these systems evolving under the mainstream evolutionary model are unknown. This is not a victory for IDists. It simply means that at the current time we are unable to resolve the issue either way; it awaits further empirical and theoretical developments.
But in the meantime, we can dispense with the generic argument that any IC system (using Behe's original definition of a system that requires all of its parts to perform a given function) is unevolvable through naturalistic means. In fact, our existing models of evolution tell us that some level of IC is precisely what we should see if organisms have evolved through the mechanisms of mainstream evolutionary theory. The reasoning is simple: genetic drift will tend, over time, to convert non-essential components of molecular systems into essential ones, since there is no selective penalty associated with this conversion, and mutations that increase the efficiency of a system are likely to also increase the probability that its components will become essential (by increasing their affinity for other components, and of other components for them). So the simplistic argument that the existence of IC systems defies mainstream evolutionary theory is simply wrong, and indeed quite back to front – we should be surprised if we didn't see IC under the MET model.
OK, so we should in fact expect to see IC – but how much? Is the level of IC seen in biological systems consistent with the MET model, or does it vastly exceed it? Again, I think the only proper answer to this question is that we don't know; our models are not yet quantitative enough to make such an estimate. Again, this is no victory for ID, but simply an admission that at the current time neither side of this debate should be strutting around with confidence. In a decade or two, all of the verbiage on this message board and the thousands like it will be obsolete and forgotten, as the answers to these questions come flooding in. But at the moment we should all be cautious.
Comment by Mesk — February 27, 2007 @ 12:38 am
February 27th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Billions or trillions of years will not create a causal chain of events that do not exist. As for selection, before it can be taken seriously one must clearly delineate what is selected for and why.
But we don't really know that. And we can still hypothesize some sort of primitive replicator selection, and hypothesize what is selected for and why (e.g. clay crystals).
One can hypothesize forever but unless we begin with a solid foundation we risk becoming like alchemists of yore. There is no causal specificity attached to abiogenesis needed to link a starting point to a cell, as there is found in biochemistry, evolutionary theories and yes- ID. The crystal analogies break down at the start. We are looking, not for deterministic chains of causality, but rather for causes that generate true codes. A true code allows for any nucleotide sequence. Function is the only parameter. That's why intelligence is a good fit up to a point where a viable replicator can take over; consistent with von Neumann's theoretical guide.
Comment by Bradford — February 27, 2007 @ 1:40 am
February 27th, 2007 at 2:06 am
"Ponder the implications of this insight." ==MikeGene
If ID consisted solely of yourself and a small group of others, your point would carry far more weight with me. As it stands, however, "official ID", is is a very open-ended platform that enjoys (or suffers, depending on your perspective) a very big tent. You've got a handful of reasonable folks amongst an army of yahoo YECs, etc.. They're all attacking evolutionary theory at every level, from many diverse perspectives, even those aspects of evolution that folks like yourself take as a given.
Now attacking the status quo and bringing a diversity of perspectives to the table is good. Up to a point. But there's a point where it becomes unproductive noise and detracts energy from more fruitful endeavors. The society of mapmakers should not have to take up the flat earth debate at each annual meeting. I hold the very same opinion for the geological society and young earth. Now where exactly to draw the line and who decides is a difficult subject, but I know it *must* be drawn, implicitly or explicitly, at some point or nothing would ever get accomplished.
So take a pragmatic perspective. Forgive the fanciful metaphor, but let's imagine you're dealing with a many-headed hydra, a few heads of which are knowledgeable enough to be amenable to a rational debate. The rest of the heads are snarling, biting, and spitting fire. And they're out to get you. Given limited time/resources–most of us have rather time-consuming jobs, after all–how do you deal with the beast? Do you (generally) engage it intellectually or violently/politically? Consider also that you know full well that, even having reached an understanding with heads #1 and #2, heads #3 thru 3000 will not stop until someone is carried effectively lifeless from the battlefield.
From a different angle, if you take offense at being lumped in with the "liberals," and to hearing your adversaries make arguments against positions you don't even hold, leave the Democratic party and join another. Same with Republican… (For the record, I'm neither.) But when you join a platform you get all the perks (name-recognition, support of peers) *and* the drawbacks (stereotyped, lumped together). And like it or not, ID–because of its open-ended criteria for inclusion–is more like a political platform than a specific philosophical/scientific position. And that's how the other side is responding to it. If it looks like a duck…quacks like a… In other words, it's probably OK to shoot it.
The way I see it, one party (the evolution camp) must respond to the general nature of the beast (2998/3000 snarling/biting/spitting hydra heads), and if there are a couple of rational heads (interesting positions, speculations, etc) among the bunch then chalk those up to collateral damage.
(yes, we have a few snarling heads of our own, but hopefully I'm conveying my general point. Lumping folks together under the "ID" banner/platform and engaging the "lump" according to its *general* characteristics/dispositions is human nature and necessitated by pragmatic considerations. Not every ID proponent can be individuated and given their due consideration; there's too much noise coming from the overall beast)
this was rather rushed, but I hope I was able to convey something thru the sloppiness and mixed metaphors
Comment by great_ape — February 27, 2007 @ 2:06 am
February 27th, 2007 at 2:34 am
BenK wrote:
That might be reasonable if we had already looked at thousands or tens of thousands of potential pathways and found them all to be dead-ends. Then you could argue that we're unlikely to stumble upon one that isn't, and therefore a Darwinian process is also unlikely to find one (although you have to keep in mind we're talking about geological timescales here). But we haven't been able, so far, to map out fitness landscapes in that kind of detail. We simply don't know how rare, or how common, feasible pathways are.
So rather than saying
…wouldn't it be more honest to say
Assuming you agree, you might then ask, given that we haven't mapped out fitness landscapes with the requisite detail, why don't ID critics acknowledge that ID is on an equal footing with naturalistic processes as an explanation of the origin of irreducible complexity?
The blunt answer is that ID is not on an equal footing with naturalistic explanations. Consider:
1. Many phenomena that were previously thought to require a designer's intervention have been shown over the years to be explicable in terms of simpler physical laws.
2. No phenomenon has been shown to be the result of intervention by a supernatural entity. (And yes, I recognize that the designer need not be supernatural).
3. Darwinian processes don't invoke unknown entities to explain away difficulties. ID invokes an unknown designer, vastly more complicated than the phenomenon being explained, solely for the purpose of explaining it. Occam's Razor suggests that this is not a good idea.
4. ID proponents have done nothing more than come up with a couple of concepts, IC and SC, which turn out not to be barriers to Darwinian evolution (for reasons explained in my previous comment).
Since they are not barriers, arguing that an IC system must have been designed is tantamount to saying "I don't see how it could have evolved," or "You haven't shown me a pathway by which it could have evolved."
This is an argument from ignorance — a classic "gaps" argument.
Before the concepts of IC and SC were introduced, the argument was that "I don't see how this could have evolved; therefore it was designed." After the introduction of IC and SC, the argument is still "I don't see how this could have evolved; therefore it was designed." We went from gap to gap. No progress.
The concepts of IC and SC have done nothing to advance the debate, which is why it mystifies me to see them invoked so often by ID supporters.
5. ID doesn't really help science along. Suppose we conclude that some system is designed. The first thing scientists should do is to try to falsify this conclusion by showing that natural mechanisms are sufficient and more likely. So science ends up doing what it would have done anyway, which is to find a naturalistic explanation for the system. ID does nothing, having reached a verdict already. So the ID conclusion, reached prematurely, ends up depending on regular natural science anyway for its confirmation, and confirmation consists only of the continued failure of science to find a natural explanation. Not very useful.
What ID needs is a concept which does what IC and SC were intended to do: identify a property of systems which proves that they could not have evolved, or at least that the probability is small enough to be neglected.
6. I'm anticipating that someone will respond to point #4 by arguing that a Darwinian explanation, in the absence of a detailed pathway, amounts to a "chance of the gaps" argument.
First of all, "chance of the gaps" is prejudicial, since Darwinian processes, taken as a whole, are not random. That aside, the fact is that naturalistic explanations do not invoke some previous unknown, hugely complicated entity to fill the explanatory gap. ID does.
As an equivalent to this, Jeff Alexander invoked a CSM (clinginess-shockiness multiplexer) — see his comment above.
I have another example. There is a recently discovered phenomenon by which sound waves can be used to cool refrigerators and freezers. Imagine you discovered this phenomenon in the lab, but didn't see how it could arise from the known laws of physics. Would you invoke a new law of nature which stated that loud noise causes cooling? Would you propose that the Sonocool Fairy was responding to the sound by cooling the refrigerator? Of course you wouldn't, but instead would try to work out how the phenomenon could arise via known physical laws. In the meantime, what good would it do to invoke the Sonocool Fairy?
Finally, let me stress that by saying that ID is not on an equal footing with Darwinian processes, I'm not saying that ID has been ruled out as an explanation. It's clearly not yet a science, since IDers have produced almost no research and the main concepts of IC and SC have not helped to settle the question. But it is still a competing hypothesis which is logically possible, even if the evidence seems to be stacked pretty high against it.
I'll keep an eye on it and see if any new concepts emerge or if any meaningful research is done. I'll buy Mike's book if it ever gets published.
But so far, ID has been a huge disappointment scientifically, though very interesting as a social phenomenon.
Comment by keiths — February 27, 2007 @ 2:34 am
February 27th, 2007 at 2:48 am
Mesk wrote:
Hi Mesk,
I wrote my reply above to BenK before seeing yours to me. But reading through yours, it seems that we are mostly in agreement.
Neither side should be strutting, as you say, but naturalistic science is clearly the horse to bet on in this race.
Comment by keiths — February 27, 2007 @ 2:48 am
February 27th, 2007 at 3:42 am
More like 'The thousands of scientists claiming that unintelligent processes can produce IC/SC have not shown that they can'.
I'd be interested to hear specifically which phenomena you're thinking of. In any case, it goes both ways; things which were once considered simple and straightforward turn out to be astonishingly complex. Until 1862 many people (including Aristotle, funnily enough) believed that organisms could simply arise from non-living matter.
The words "natural" and "supernatural" are usually question-begging. If we discovered a supernatural entity, how would we know that it was supernatural? And it's not enough to say 'it broke the laws of nature'. When 'the laws of nature' were Newton's laws, the perihelion of Mercury's orbit was 'supernatural', if we so define 'supernatural'. When something breaks 'the laws of nature', we don't call it supernatural, we revise our conception of the laws.
Intelligent agents exist. They can produce IC/SC systems. This is straightforward. Granted, the utter depths of the pre-biological past are opaque to us, but history, a fortiori prehistory is like that; I see no reason to believe their cannot be a non-human intelligence that predates life on earth.
As for evidence for such an intelligent agent – a chief evidence for the activities of prehistoric people are the artifacts they left behind. Essentially, ID is an argument that life on earth is such an artifact, evidence for an intelligent agent.
What, "Nobody can show that X is possible" is no reason to believe that "X is not possible".
Right. Here's the deal. I am the intelligent designer. I'm not a person, but an immortal sentient cloud of gas. I got _seriously_ bored, so I created life on earth using my telekinesis. Took a while to get interesting, but it's a hoot right now.
Now, nobody has yet proven that my "BenK is a sentient cloud of Gas" hypothesis is false, so I figure it's at least on the level of other theories about the place.
Of course, this is nonsense. If nobody can show that RM/NS can produce SC/IC, I don't see any reason to believe that they can, especially when evidence that intelligent agents can produce SC/IC is so abundant.
I'm not primarily interested in 'helping science along', I'm interested in knowing what's actually true. This argument sounds like we should adopt atelic explanations a priori and hold to them come what may.
The burden of proof cannot be on one side to prove a negative. Such proof is impossible. By definition, it cannot be shown that some unknown unintelligent process can produce IC/SC.
Comment by BenK — February 27, 2007 @ 3:42 am
February 27th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Many phenomena that were previously thought to require a designer's intervention have been shown over the years to be explicable in terms of simpler physical laws.
This is a common talking point but in reality no phenomenon apart from origins (the universe and life) have suggested that possibility. The wind up let it work idea would make the intervention view unnecessary anyway.
2. No phenomenon has been shown to be the result of intervention by a supernatural entity. (And yes, I recognize that the designer need not be supernatural).
It is no coincidence either. None of the major religions advocate constant interference by a deity anyway.
3. Darwinian processes don't invoke unknown entities to explain away difficulties.
At point of origins there are no identifiable processes. There is instead much speculation.
ID does nothing, having reached a verdict already.
An ID perspective opens up engineering and information approaches not suggested by an historic narrative. This comment by S Cordova helps illustrate the point:
What ID needs is a concept which does what IC and SC were intended to do: identify a property of systems which proves that they could not have evolved, or at least that the probability is small enough to be neglected.
An initial genome would fit this requirement. Minimal genome research supports the small probability concept.
First of all, "chance of the gaps" is prejudicial, since Darwinian processes, taken as a whole, are not random. That aside, the fact is that naturalistic explanations do not invoke some previous unknown, hugely complicated entity to fill the explanatory gap. ID does.
There is no identifiable Darwinian process until a cell exists. ID should go only so far as the natural evidence suggests. That does not encompass the supernatural depictions found in religious texts indicating huge complications.
Comment by Bradford — February 27, 2007 @ 7:08 am
February 27th, 2007 at 9:45 am
We can, however, apply basic mathematics.
The old saw about monkeys at typewriters creating the works of Shakespeare is an example.
If every atom in the universe were a monkey banging on a typewriter, and each monkey had typed one character a second since the beginning of the universe, you wouldn't have even one page of Shakespeare written. . .
So any theory that attempts to use "billions of years" as some kind of magic talisman to produce any result, no matter how improbable, is utterly flawed.
Comment by MatthewCromer — February 27, 2007 @ 9:45 am
February 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
keiths:
Erm… what do you mean by "shown?" Miracles happen every day, somewhere in the world to someone in the world. Prime example, I think, is spontaneous remission – when someone left for dying suddenly decides to get up and go home, no signs of their terminal disease in evidence. Sure, a lab crew would complain that it's "anomalous," by which they mean unrepeatable at will, but that sure doesn't explain it. They could ask around – there are literally hundreds of dedicated doctors all over the world who could cite these "anomalies" as real phenomena that indeed do happen.
Being "anomalies," the lab crew would probably say that while they have no idea what DID happen, they do know for a fact what DIDN'T happen – a real miracle. Of course, that's totally bogus, since they don't know what happened. If the individual whose late-stage terminal cancer disappeared completely overnight says "God healed me," who is qualified to say not so? The doctors who don't know? The lab rats that don't know? The internet insta-pundits who don't know?
Maybe a court of law could rule on the matter, as a 'finding of fact', on the testimony of medical and/or scientific "experts" pro and con. That ruling would be FAPP authoritative, n'est ce pas?
…and if so, the question was settled in 1999 when a ruling in District Court did indeed declare a certain unexplainable medical reality to be – in 'finding of fact' – a Miracle. On the sworn testimony of a dozen "experts" over two solid weeks, dealing with moving boxes full of physical evidence (including films).
So I'd have to say that your #2 is an erroneous assertion – legal precedent does exist and miracles do happen. Individuals may attribute it according to pre-existing beliefs, but that doesn't negate the fact that unexplainable things happen. There seems to be more to the totality of reality than just our little circumscribed corner of it.
Comment by Joy — February 27, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Did I hear someone ask for an example of a miracle?
Of course, a definition of "miracle" would definitely be needed. Is a miracle something which "breaks the laws of nature?" If this were the accepted defintion, then I'm wondering what would even be a relevant hypothetical example or a template of sorts?
Does flight "break" the natural law of gravity? Well, obviously not. It just relies on other natural laws to provide the appearance of a circumvension of a natural law.
Could we say that if someone just all of a sudden >poofHere's a little more of my brain juice re: information.
And, here's a question for anyone interested: "Since science is the study of natural laws which describe the repeatable results that occur upon specific initial conditions, what are the specific initial conditions that repeatedly produce information processing systems?"
Comment by CJYman — February 27, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Great, somehow I just deleted half of my post!
Comment by CJYman — February 27, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Comment by CJYman — February 27, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Guts, If your referring to my "post" then yah … all we need to do now is interprete it artistically.
grrrr …. and it was gonna be a good one.
Comment by CJYman — February 27, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
You were simulating a miraculous event by poofing half your post out of existence.:lol:
Comment by Guts — February 27, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Guts, don't be so anti-science. To conclude intelligent design, you need to know the motivation, methods, and astrological sign of the alleged designer.
Besides, who designed CJYman!
Comment by Krauze — February 27, 2007 @ 6:37 pm