Sober and ID: Part II
by MikeGeneWhile discussing Intelligent Design in the peer-reviewed literature, Elliott Sober offers the following analysis:
Young Earth Creationism denied that human beings share common ancestors with other species while affirming that God was the designer of organisms and that life on earth is at most 10,000 years old. ID, at least when stated in a minimalistic form, is officially neutral on these three claims (Behe 1996, 2005). The single thesis of what I will call mini-ID is that the complex adaptations that organisms display (e.g., the vertebrate eye) were crafted by an intelligent designer"¦"¦ they often affirm that the intelligent designer they have in mind is supernatural ( Johnson 1991; Dembski 2002),and most deny common ancestry (Davis and Kenyon 1993; Dembski 1999). Why, then, do proponents of ID think that mini-ID is so important? After all, it leaves out so much. One reason is that versions of creationism that mention a supernatural being have a Constitutional problem"”U.S. courts have deemed them religious, and so they are not permitted in public school science curricula. ID proponents hope that mini-ID can avoid this objection. In addition, mini-ID has the advantage of expressing an idea to which all creationists subscribe; it thus presents a united front, allowing the factions to stop squabbling and to face their common enemy.
Considering that Sober is an expert philosopher, I can merely point out that I find this to be an incredibly disappointing analysis. Compare Sober's analysis to this one. On one hand, we have an expert philosopher publishing something in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (and acknowledging helpful suggestions from a dozen or so peers). On the other hand, we have a lone internet loudmouth with a web page.
You decide which one is better.
You decide which one makes you think.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:04 am
Intellectual honesty won't allow the ID proponent to move from a design inference to identifying a designer. It didn't take me long after I began studying ID to figure this out. A scientific study of designer(s) must be based upon a study of designed patterns which, in turn, must first be identified as being designed. You can't start by studying a designer because designers are not recognizably physical entities under any face-saving account of physicalism. That some of the brightest ID critics can't see this thoroughly baffles me!
Comment by Crandaddy — February 25, 2007 @ 3:04 am
February 25th, 2007 at 4:52 am
I like your essay, MikeGene. "…it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)." Indeed. The "but you believe the designer is God" objection is blatant, pristine, textbook ad hominem - in fact it's hard to imagine a better real-world example. Last time I checked, ad hominem was a fallacy.
Comment by BenK — February 25, 2007 @ 4:52 am
February 25th, 2007 at 8:43 am
I just find it amazing that a philosopher thinks that a distinction between what someone believes and what someone thinks they can prove is indicative of someone trying to get around legal issues.
If Sober has a hunch that he doesn't think he can prove (or can only prove part of it), does that mean that he is simply dishonest by not saying that he can prove the rest of it?
And is perhaps the reason why most teleologists agree to a core kernel (mini-ID) because it is fundamentally compelling? I'm a YEC, and I understand why a lot of people disagree with YEC (there is in fact a lot of evidence against it), but the general design arguments are fairly watertight.
Why is it inappropriate to attempt to prove a subset of what you believe? Why is it inappropriate to say, "well, I believe X but can't prove it. However, there is a subset of X which is quite clear from the evidence." In addition, it seems that with "mini-ID" there is quite a diverse group who agree on this subset. Is it not possible that the reason why all these people agree on the subset is that it is actually convincing given the evidence?
Comment by johnnyb — February 25, 2007 @ 8:43 am
February 25th, 2007 at 10:04 am
What's interesting about Sober's peer-reviewed article is how he sets the stage:
So he feels obligated to first engage in some psychologizing. The "few comments" include the excerpt in the blog above and this:
Thar she blows! Where would the Intellectuals be without their wedge-centrism? This reminds me of Paul Gross, who once wrote that we must first consider the politics before we turn our attention to the arguments. Oh yes, there is nothing like the political dimension when it comes to helping us think more clearly about these things.
So the expert philosopher, writing in a scientific journal, starts off the article with a subtle appeal to threatiness. Why? He is effectively poisoning the well by trying to increase the odds his readers will be cheer-leaders. Why else was it so important to set up this context?
Keep in mind that this is not simply the work of one expert. The article ends, "My thanks to Richard Amasino, Alan Attie, Jeremy Butterfield, Michael Cox, Mehmet Elgin, Malcolm Forster, Daniel Hausman, Bret Larget, Gregory Mougin, Ronald Numbers, Robert Pennock, David S Wilson, and the referees of this journal for useful suggestions."
In other words, Sober had help from over 12 other experts! Twelve.
Comment by MikeGene — February 25, 2007 @ 10:04 am
February 25th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Mike wrote:
Hi Mike,
Could you point out the parts of Sober's analysis you disagree with? I've read through both threads, and all I can find are
1) your objection to what you consider to be Sober's "appeal to threatiness", although you don't indicate any disagreement with the truth of what he says; and
2) your feeling that the timing of the "discrimination test" is crucial, although again you don't indicate any disagreement with Sober, but just a sense that the discrimination test should not be applied too early.
Regarding the latter, I would argue that premature testing of a theory is not really a problem. Most theories are tested throughout their lifetimes. An early failure doesn't usually cause the developers of a theory to abandon it — they collect more data, or modify the theory, or both, and then bring it back to the table for more testing.
Think of the Copernican system. At first, it was actually worse in some respects than the Ptolemaic system at predicting planetary motions. Only after modifications and a long period of testing did it supersede the Ptolemaic system.
Comment by keiths — February 25, 2007 @ 11:04 am
February 25th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Hi Kieths,
I'm disappointed in Sober because he is wading in the shallow water. The expert philosopher acknowledges "this question about the evidential status of mini-ID differs from the psychological question of why it was developed" and them actually begins to psychologize needlessly.
So what do we have? A philosopher writing about sociology/psychology in a biology journal! LOL. But don't worry "“ it's been "peer-reviewed" by over Twelve other Experts.
So once again, focus in on this part of Sober's analysis:
Sober then psychologizes and comes off as a conspiracy theorist.
Compare his "reason" to this one.
Comment by MikeGene — February 25, 2007 @ 11:51 am
February 25th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
LOL. Sober gets it. You've gotta understand what many academics are reacting against. For years and years, they were told by the ID movement that ID was fine with common ancestry, the age of the earth, that it was a revolutionary new scientific movement, that it was perfectly good science for the public schools, that it definitely wasn't creationism, etc. For years, fairly "neutral" commentators would accept these sorts of talking points unquestioningly.
Then Kansas, Ohio, Dover, etc. come along, and all of the previous collapses as it is shown to be just a facade, devised and employed for constitutional/political reasons. This facade is one of the defining features of the ID movement. If Sober had left it out, he wouldn't be accurately characterizing the actual situation.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 25, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Nick:
"For years, fairly "neutral" commentators would accept these sorts of talking points unquestioningly."
Was Coyne one of these neutral observers?
Comment by Krauze — February 25, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
LOL. Prior to Dover, no one in academia dared to think that ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. No sirree.
Nick is just peddling some more revisionism.
Comment by MikeGene — February 25, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
This is lame rationalization. Sober was not writing a history of the ID movement. In fact, he is now on record as acknowledging the irrelevance of this sociology:
This question about the evidential status of mini-ID differs from the psychological question of why it was developed.
The focus of Sober's article is the "evidential status," but he just can't stop himself from bringing up the Wedge. It's like we're dealing with WedgeZombies.
Comment by MikeGene — February 25, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Obviously Coyne was not in my "neutral" category. I was thinking of people like Charles Haynes.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 25, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
I fail to see why Haynes is relevant to the arguments I pose above. Nevertheless, can you complete the list? Haynes and……
Comment by MikeGene — February 25, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Hi Nick,
"I was thinking of people like Charles Haynes."
Since the subject is scholars writing about ID in scientific journals, shouldn't the proper contrast be with a scholar writing about ID in a scientific journal prior to Dover? Like philosopher Robert T. Pennock, writing in the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics:
Comment by Krauze — February 25, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Del Ratzsch, Larry Witham, and Richard Osting are others. Heck, even Randy Olson, of Flock of Dodos fame — if you watch the video, which is generally very good, there is a bit where he uncritically accepts the line that ID is fine with the age of the earth and common ancestry.
So, there is a significant misunderstanding out there even amongst some fairly serious people about what ID actually is, and thus people like Sober are doing a service by conscientiously acknowledging that, e.g., most IDers actually don't buy common ancestry.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 25, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I see. You are admitting that these people changed their opinion about a concept because of the behavior of others?
I can understand how such data would appeal to those intrigued by the intellectual equivalent of gossip, but it does not speak to what "ID actually is." To address what "ID actually is" is to address the concepts and arguments on the table. In this case, we can see that Sober's understanding of ID is actually quite shallow. The philosopher tries to explain "mini-ID" and can go no deeper than sounding (to me, at least) like a conspiracy theorist.
Contrast his explanation (and thinking) with this.
Comment by MikeGene — February 25, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
What, exactly, are you claiming about Ratzsch? That he is fairly neutral in this debate and doesn't buy into the PR stuff you guys put out? I can accept that.
Comment by macht — February 25, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
This is worth repeating:
I wonder if Nick agrees with Sober.
Comment by bipod — February 25, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
"So, there is a significant misunderstanding out there even amongst some fairly serious people about what ID actually is, and thus people like Sober are doing a service by conscientiously acknowledging that, e.g., most IDers actually don't buy common ancestry"
Again, you completely miss the point. Whether or not _IDers_ accept common ancestry is irrelevant. The point is whether or ID is compatible with common ancestry or not. It is. There is nothing in ID which gives the limits to ancestry. IC does not limit ancestry, nor does the Design Inference, nor complex specified information. The fact that a certain percentage of IDers have a specific belief is irrelevant.
Should we assume that Darwinists are trying to push atheism just because a certain percentage of the national scientific associations are atheists? The argument cuts both ways when you try to make it.
Comment by johnnyb — February 25, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Neither Kansas nor Ohio proposed teaching ID or creation science. Only Dover made a policy of exposing students to a brief statement about ID, and in that case, the Discovery Institute consistently took the position that the Dover policy was wrong and should be dropped. In view of the facts, the supposed creation science education conspiracy from the ID think tank does not hold up.
None of these events implies that ID is suddenly revealed as inconsistent with common descent or with an old earth, or with the operation of random mutation and natural selection for that matter.
To put the "Sober providing a service" idea on the other foot, would it be relevant to the truth of evolution and an important service to point out in a biology journal article that, although evolution theory is neutral on the existence of God, many of the vocal proponents of evolution are atheists, and here are some examples of those who have met to strategize on how to bash religion or who want to wipe out the God delusion, etc.?
Ethical treatment implies equivalent expectations whichever foot the shoe is on.
Comment by eric — February 25, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Clarification: I don't think Ratzsch's opinion has changed, rather, people like Sober know that people like Ratzsch, with the "ID is not creationism" misconception, are out there. So Sober makes his position on the issue clear by noting that "mini-ID", which is the official definition of ID put out by the ID movement (and uncritically swallowed by the sorts of people I mentioned), is not really representing ID as it really is.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 25, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Pure, unadulterated, textbook, ad hominem. Logic 101, people. Logic 101.
Besides which, there's no point in telling many of the people on this board that ID precludes common descent. I find Behe's IC argument convincing, and while I'm not one hundred percent sold on Dembski's 'Specified Complexity' I think it's quite a good approximation of something real. In short, I find the IC -> ID and SC -> ID arguments convincing. Meanwhile, whilst I'm far from convinced that all species share a single common ancestor I'm reasonably convinced that many species (including human beings) do share common ancestors with other species.
Regardless of whether Mike Behe is a closet creationist trying to sacrifice all our childrens to the ichor god Bel-Shamharoth (or whatever it is creationists are supposed to do) his argument from irreducable complexity stands as an argument. You may think it is false, but his young-earth creationism (or not) has nothing to do with it. Likewise Bill Dembski and his argument from specified complexity.
Comment by BenK — February 25, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
keiths raised the question "Could you point out the parts of Sober's analysis you disagree with?"
I'm obviously not speaking for Mike, but I find several points of Sober's analysis more disappointing than even the inappropriate and irrelevant psychologizing.
1. By casting ID into the role of an "alternative to evolutionary theory" it creates a false dilemma, i.e. a false exclusive either-or. Consider as one illustration the final line of Darwin's own "Origin of the Species" which suggests an ID beginning followed by a Darwinian process. Some in ID lean toward front loading positions. Sober should understand this by now.
2. I'm not sure whether to believe that Sober really misunderstands what Hartwig and Meyer say about testability as much as he appears to. Obviously, by "purely physical antecedents" they cannot simply mean any antecedent that is physical. They clearly are referring to physical antecedents that do not yet have the specified complexity / information that is needed for life. (To start with that in place would beg the question.)
The test is to show that observable unguided natural processes are able to go from time T without information/specified complexity to time T+n where you do have the protein-based life and specified complexity we see, without employing intelligence. That would be evidence against that ID claim.
When Sober claims that ID would just invoke an earlier designer, ad infinitum, he knocks a straw man and appears to not understand the subject. Could blind natural processes (i.e. laws and/or chance) create all of the specified complexity needed for life? If so, Dembski's own design filter excludes employing an ID explanation for any such case. I would expect Sober (or at least one of his many advisors) to understand such a basic point.
3. Sober is trying to make the case that ID has no real testable, observable, falsifiable claims. But we can easily list several that are specific corrolaries to the above.
- Unguided natural processes could not have produced the protein machines needed for life (by any means, with or without DNA, etc). Proteins have specified complexity.
- Unguided natural processes could not have invented the language of the genetic code for the purpose of encoding symbolic instructions for creating proteins.
- Unguided natural processes could not have constructed DNA and the machinery necessary for storing the information in DNA and then retrieving it and using it to drive the process of protein construction.
If origin of life research succeeds in showing that unguided natural processes can produce the information rich, protein life we see, then that would be contrary to the claims of ID. I would think this should be apparent. Does Sober not really understand this? Or does he not want his readers to clearly understand this? I cannot tell which is the case.
Comment by eric — February 25, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
This is just the sort of half-baked political/legal propaganda that has to be exposed and debunked every time it comes up. Of course Kansas and Ohio were about teaching ID, that's why the "Intelligent Design Network" groups (Kansas - Ohio), plus the Discovery Institute, were the primary drivers of the policies in each state. The fact that they (sort of) deleted the "intelligent design" label for legal/political reasons doesn't change a thing, because they kept the same content.
If I could, I would post my in-depth analysis of the Kansas and Ohio policies and how it is all just cosmetic variation on creationism, but as it is I can only give you the reference to the published version:
Matzke, N., and Gross, P. (2006). "Analyzing Critical Analysis: The Fallback Antievolutionist Strategy." Chapter 2 of Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools. Scott, E., and Branch, G., eds., Beacon Press, pp. 28-56. http://www.beacon.org/productd...
You can only support this position by ignoring half of what ID proponents actually argue. Paul Nelson has been on a 10-year campaign against common ancestry (that's the title of his ever-forthcoming book, On Common Descent). That's Jonathan Wells's biggest issue, after Icons of Evolution. Dembski explicitly said "Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution." And then we have Casey Luskin's defense of the special creation of Homo sapiens on the Discovery Institute blog. Every time an ID advocate (e.g. Phillip Johnson) goes after "macroevolution," gaps in the fossil record, "evolution across kinds", etc., they are just copying the exact same arguments that the "creation scientists" made in favor of special creation.
The existence or nonexistence of God are not scientific issues. Common ancestry and the age of the earth are. It's quite simple really.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 25, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Of course I do.
It is only fair to point out that I have spent more than a little time working on the "evidential status" side as well. Both are important questions.
What bugs me these days is that a kind of fake history of ID is promulgated that is used to attempt to portray ID as having some intellectual credibility that it doesn't deserve on the merits. E.g. claims along the lines of ID being a "revolutionary new scientific movement, distinct from creationism."
Comment by nickmatzke — February 25, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
These are negative arguments against evolution; even if true, they would not be positive support for ID. This is just the same old "contrived dualism" trick all over again.
Similarly, if it turned out that you were convinced that evolution could produce the above-mentioned things, how would this rule out ID? One could still claim divine guidance or front-loading. ID might be ruled out as unparsimonious, but this is not a falsification.
Sober's point is that ID needs a positive model that results in specific, detailed expectations about what we should observe:
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.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 25, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I am logging out for at least a week, c ya.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 25, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
As a philosopher, almost everything Ratzsch writes about design is about design the idea and not design the movement (if I may use the terms that us TT'ers use). Ratzsch writes about this in his review of Pennock's book and he doesn't, as you say, rely on what IDer's say about themselves, but rather on the actual history of the ideas of creationism and ID. As you know, Ronald Numbers has pointed out this distinction, too (that ID the idea came from natural theology not creationism).
Comment by macht — February 25, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
I've followed Nick Matzke's argumentation for some time, and it's always that of a conspiracy theorist who refuses to believe that people can change their minds based on evidence and logic. As someone with a lifelong intellectual commitment to Nick's worldview of atheistic materialism, I began to question my beliefs in this dogma after reading Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Denton's book has nothing to do with creationism or the bible, just evidence, common sense, and logic, that anyone with a solid foundation in mathematics, chemistry and engineering should find compelling.
I would be interested to know if Nick actually believes that people cannot arrive at conclusions contrary to his, based on evidence and logic:
http://telicthoughts.com/matzk...
Comment by GilDodgen — February 25, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
On an unrelated-but-related topic, I was recently wandering through the net and stumbled on this remarkably well-written Wikipedia article.
Please don't take this as a guilty-by-implication verdict, but I'll just mention that I noticed some similarities. In any case, I thought it was a worthwhile read.
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 25, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I prefer Feyerabend's definition of crank.
Comment by macht — February 25, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Individuals on both sides of this debate are using the ambiguity of the term "ID" (which can be used to refer to ID the movement, ID the generic concept, or ID the specific version someone happens to agree with) as a semantic flashbang to confuse and distract. Nick's argument that ID = creationism is roughly true when discussing the mainstream ID movement (which is composed almost entirely of and for creationists), but incorrect when applied to the generic ID concept, or specific versions of ID such as FLE. The opposing argument that ID is compatible with common ancestry is certainly true of generic and specific ID concepts, but would sit badly with most of the members of the ID movement (although they may pay the notion lip service for appearance's sake).
If everyone was specific about which version of ID they were talking about this discussion would be moving a lot more smoothly.
Comment by Mesk — February 25, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Hi Mesk,
I think you might just be a little too optimistic here. You write:
Yes, you can make this valid distinction, as can other reasonable critics. People like Krauze, macht, and I obviously make this distinction. But are you sure Matzke can make this distinction? Let's see when he comes back.
Comment by MikeGene — February 25, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Nick:
I see. So Sober uses the pages of a scientific journal to get the "message" out. Nothing like a little PSA before getting to the arguments, eh?
Once again, pay attention to the fact that Nick and the expert philosopher are focused on sociology and not logic. So we have Nick, a "revolutionary mind," (where's g arago when you need him?) and an Expert Philosopher. They ask, "Why "mini-ID?" Their best (and only) answer - the Wedge!
As usual, it's 30+ comments into the blog and I can simply repost what I originally posted:
Comment by MikeGene — February 25, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Nick:
Thar she blows again! Nick is effectively admitting that once these thinkers 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.
Keep in mind the implications of this insight. Sober, and those like him, have to be very, very careful not to "give ammunition to the enemy." But if their minds are so easily affected by a movement, can we trust the thinkers to remain 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?
Comment by MikeGene — February 25, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Your analysis has been reviewed and found wanting. For starters, you will have to do better than the genetic fallacy, especially when Ken Miller, whom you advised, undercuts your position by his testimony in court. (more here)
You also appear to commit the fallacy of confusing
"Intelligent Design includes a criticism of/objection to certain evolutionary claims."
for
"All criticism of evolutionary claims is in itself the teaching of Intelligent Design."
X is a Y. Therefore all Y is X?? (more here)
Arguments based on who endorses and agrees with a policy do not constitute a legitimate case about its content. Is that the strongest support you have?
BTW, as is true for evolutionists, every individual proponent of ID is entitled to their perspective on points of differing views, such as descent from a common ancestor. None of the individuals you mention speak for or trump the differing views of others in the movement on these side points that ID itself does not cover.
Mike's article on "The Designer's Identity" is excellent, and one of the best points is where he asks ID critics to logically move from the ID position to the identity of the designer. They cannot do it.
To borrow a theme from that page…
nickmatzke, can you move logically from
Premise: Certain features of nature are best explained by intelligent design (e.g. specified complexity, irreducible complexity).
either to
Conclusion: Therefore descent from a common ancestor is false.
or if you prefer to
Conclusion: Therefore descent from a common ancestor is true.
Please, feel free to try either one. I'm eager to see which case you can make so that the one true position of ID is finally revealed.
Comment by eric — February 25, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
If I remember correctly, Sober argued that the Design hypothesis is scientific in the textbook on philosophy of biology he published in the early 90's. Does anyone know why he changed his mind?
Comment by jamesm — February 25, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 4:08 am
Nick,
No? What other options are there, than unguided Evolution (from some variation of RM&NS) and Intelligent Design? Are you proposing a third option, something like, "Unconscious, Intoxicated Design" Or maybe "Guided Evolution" (Whoops, that last one would actually fall under the category of "Intelligent Design".)
Comment by Douglas — February 26, 2007 @ 4:08 am
February 26th, 2007 at 8:08 am
nickmatzke:
Haynes seems to be theologian, who is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center. You wrote in your essay:
(I was not able to comment your essay at PT). I didn't find, where Haynes "clearly" recommends teaching ID in public school science classes as if it were a legitimate scientific alternative. He used the phrase "teach the controversy", but what he meant by it? He clearly did not use "teach the controversy"- phrase for arguing, that ID should teach in public school science classes as science. His example of "teach the controversy"-proposal was:
"biology texts might explain briefly why many religious conservatives reject evolution and why many religious liberals accept it (although they may still have problems with neo-Darwinism)."
Thus he proposed (1999), that it could be taught, that there is controversies about evolution between the "conservative" and "liberal" Christians.
Haynes also wrote (but it was not his "teach the controversy"-proposal):
"In science classes, present the prevailing scientific theories widely accepted by most scientists, but also find room for those who criticize the prevailing view within the scientific community (e.g., those who argue for "intelligent design")."
He didn't argue in his commentary, that ID should be taught as science. After quoted sentences he wrote:
"Public schools shouldn't be in the business of promoting religious views in science or anywhere else in the curriculum. At the same time, schools shouldn't fall into the trap of teaching a kind of "scientism" (the notion that only science provides reliable knowledge about ultimate reality).
Public schools should find ways to expose students to the variety of ways - religious and scientific "” in which human beings understand the universe."
Thus he was arguing against teaching only "scientism" in public schools. I'm not sure, has he changed his position.
Comment by Analyysi — February 26, 2007 @ 8:08 am
February 26th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
The equivocation concerning the age of the earth is, I agree, inexcusable; there is no virtue in catering to recalcitrant ignorance on that point.
Comment by obrienr — February 26, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
obrienr:
What ID promoters are equivocating on the age of the earth? Matzke talks big, but the school boards in Kansas, Ohio and Dover, PA didn't attempt to get a course in Young Earth Creationism into public schools, they attempted to open discussion of the idea that life may be created and/or intelligently designed. Thus to my understanding (I'm sure one of our Dover experts will correct me if I'm wrong), the age of the earth has nothing to do with criticisms of Neodarwinism or introduction to ID.
Of course, there was nothing of ID beyond the "Pandas…" book to introduce, so it wasn't like there was much ID to teach. Residents filed suit on school board members' motivations, which they'd made no secret of - it was religion. NCSE got involved not because they were afraid somebody would mention a 6,000 year old earth (that was already in the textbook, as criticism of religion), but because they want Neodarwinism protected against criticism by law.
Before taking Matzke at his word on things like this, it's best to weigh the fact that he is the paid propaganda director for the NCSE - it's his job to introduce scarecrows and terror alerts into any and all reasoned discussions of ID or criticisms of NDS.
Meanwhile, the teaching of evolution has changed in spite of NCSE's efforts, looking a lot like what those standards in Kansas and Ohio originally suggested. I have a review of one recent high school textbook in What's Being Taught In Biology Class if you're interested.
It's also good to keep in mind that the current ~4.5by estimate of the age of the earth has only been around since 1956, based upon C.C. Patterson's uranium-lead radiometric dating of the Canyon Diablo meteorite.
Prior to 1956 science dated the earth variously at 75,000 20my, 90my, 96my, 100my and 400my, depending on who was doing the estimating and why. Current evidence of change over time in the fine structure constant [alpha] may affect dating of the age of the universe, but probably won't put a significant dent in earth age estimations. These may be more affected by evidence of catastrophism and re-examination of assumptions made about elemental distributions in the solar nebula. Again, not significantly enough to put us anywhere near Ussher's 6K.
Religious concepts on the age of the earth vary as well. Hindu cosmology postulates an eternally repeating cycle of 'ages' of 311 trillion years. The Chinese had the earth created and destroyed every 23 million years. The Greeks were fond of an eternal steady state (as were some notable 20th century astronomers).
Comment by Joy — February 26, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Some DI fellows are young-earthers (e.g., Paul Nelson) and some others have a tendency to adroitly avoid the question (e.g., Phillip Johnson). I think ID as a whole makes nice with YEC for political reasons, despite its scientific vacuity, which is unfortunate.
Comment by obrienr — February 26, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
obrienr:
Well, you'd have a point if there were some kind of monolithic ID equivalent to NDS and its protection squad turf warriors. But there isn't. There is just the strong appearance of design in life, and the explanatory inadequacies of NDS. I imagine there will be a number of sub-theories offered in the next decade or so, hopefully with an uber-theoretic at the far end. Those will come from within biological science and its more recent technology upgrades and sub-fields. From scientists, about science.
What individuals believe philosophically and metaphysically is irrelevant. Always has been. Problems only arise when science gets corrupted by metaphysics, and that is the current situation with NDS and its protection squad turf warriors.
Why anybody would be afraid of Paul Nelson's or Phillip Johnson's religious beliefs is a total mystery to me. YEC beliefs have been soundly ridiculed in biology textbooks used in high school classrooms for decades, but you didn't see Paul Nelson or Phillip Johnson suing schools. In the textbooks introduced since 2000 that situation has been corrected, so that possibility is now moot.
The danger to science now comes from the 'New Atheists' and I think Matzke is very much aware of it, even if he's not too sure what to do about it. He made his bed, now he's having to sleep in it.
Comment by Joy — February 26, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
In addition to the good points Joy has made, I believe Mike's article on "The Designer's Identity" actually can be applied to your current concern. The common point is this:
There are many questions (whether it be the designer's identity, the age of the earth, common ancestry, and others) where ID is necessarily neutral because you can't get there from here. In other words, even if ID is regarded as fully true, that doesn't imply or lead to a particular answer on these other questions.
That is why it is inappropriate to describe ID as an "alternative" to evolution. Strictly speaking, its not even a good fit to say it is an "alternative" to Darwinism, as though ID requires denying that natural selection and random mutation exist or operate.
ID looks at certain features found in nature, some of them in biology, and says that these features are best explained by an intelligent cause. Thus it is an alternate explanation regarding the source of those features. That's it. It does not address other features or other questions. As Mike shows, the way it comes to and supports its conclusions doesn't give you answers to those other questions.
Consequently, it would be better to describe ID as proposing a boundary or limitation around what unguided, natural processes (including mutation and selection) can accomplish on their own. Nature operates, but we have reasons to expect that there are some things blind, mindless nature cannot accomplish.
Comment by eric — February 27, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 4:17 am
I am reading Philip Kitcher's recent book "Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design and the Future of Faith". Kitcher is an expert philosopher. [He argues, that ID is refuted idea.] But it is interesting, what he writes about logic of ID:
Comment by Analyysi — March 1, 2007 @ 4:17 am
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 am
Nice find. Now contrast Kitcher's logical approach to Sober's sociological approach. Since Sober is not a sociologist or historian, his views are amateur views. In contrast, Kitcher draws from his expertise.
Comment by MikeGene — March 2, 2007 @ 12:10 am
March 4th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I just noticed that, in response to my comments on Sober and the three specific consequences of ID that I list, nickmatzke Says:
So if this is a "contrived dualism" trick, then besides teleological and ateleological, you would see what other distinct options? There is no trick here. If unguided processes cannot do X without the aid of guidance, then guidance is needed. The ID claim is that "guidance is needed."
Perhaps you still cannot get past preconceptions about ID. ID is not a claim for mysterious, undetectable divine guidance. It is a claim that some features are best explained by an intelligent cause because they exhibit certain detectable features (e.g. specified complexity), that
a) cannot be explained by appealing to unguided natural processes, and
b) that are of the type that we consistently observe as being executed by intelligent agents.
The fact that an intelligent agent can produce specified complexity is beyond doubt, so that half is not the issue. The issue is about whether or not unguided natural processes could do so. If the unguided processes are found to provide a convincing scenario, then both Occam's razor and Dembski's explanatory filter would prefer the unguided solutions.
I gave testable, falsifiable predictions that natural processes cannot do the job. I'm disappointed that Sober apparently did not comprehend Meyer's position.
We should observe that complex specified information remains uniquely and solely the result of intelligent causes, never the result of unaided, unguided natural causes working without prior information input. The continued consistency and resolute uniformity of that observation is the basis for making a scientific inference to the best explanation for that feature. Until observations show otherwise, the natural process belief remains a blind leap of faith that is in spite of all observations.
Comment by eric — March 4, 2007 @ 12:17 am
March 8th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Dr. Egnor explains that the same issues I raised above about the implausibility of matter making codes and creating symbolic information were influential in moving him toward skepticism about hand waving evolutionary just-so-stories.
If Sober, et al, want to avoid seeing more soldiers deserting the castle of Darwin, they will have to come up with a better response than that, starting with one that understands the testable nature of what is actually being proposed. Misrepresentation cannot prevent people from eventually learning the truth.
Comment by eric — March 8, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Eric — You might have a point, if IDists could provide a non-question begging definition of specified complexity, which they can't. Hidden behind all the verbiage, Dembski's definition equates to "something that evolution can't produce."
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 8, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Hi Nick,
I actually agree with you that Dembski's definition of specified complexity seems to include, "something that evolution can't produce." As such, as a proof that evolution is in error, it becomes a toutology. (I honestly believe and hope that it is this component of his definition that has had science reject it so.)
Let me propose my definition for specified complexity. I propose complexity to be defined as a sequence with reduced compressability — ie, Shannon information. The "specified" bit is that the information specifies something, as in, using the correct decoding technology the information carefully describes something else to the point where that something else can be built from the source information.
Comment by bFast — March 8, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
The term "specified complexity" doesn't come from Dembski. It was used by Dr. L. Orgel to point out how life is fundamentally different from anything else that science has studied before in nature.
He was referring to exactly the same features I referred to earlier and that Meyer is referring to, i.e. the non-ordered, non-random, meaningful, yet not regular arrangements in DNA and proteins. While recognizing the reality of specified complexity in living organisms, he attempted to explain it via natural processes. It would be absurd to accuse Orgel of begging the question in favor of an intelligent design conclusion.
Further, there is nothing question begging about Dembski's approach to the matter. If one is going to consider whether or not chance is a reasonable explanation, one must establish how much chance is acceptable. Even Dawkins acknowledges this, and Dembski gives more room for a chance explanation than Dawkins does. How is that begging the question?
The tests I mentioned earlier are valid, testable propositions. If unguided nature is not capable of inventing language and using it to store the complex specified information in DNA or drive the construction of real proteins, then the unguided (i.e. ateleolgical) explanation fails. Dr. Egnor also recognizes the same issue.
Comment by eric — March 8, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
bFast,
Your definition of SC is much more rigorous — but then, under your definition, standard well-known evolutionary processes can increase SC, and therefore Eric's very confident claims are wrong.
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 8, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Nick,
Like many, and perhaps understandbly, you miss the point of Dembski's work. Even without the assumption of intelligent origin, Dembski has shown Darwinian evolution's claims are self contradictory.
One can not simultaneously claim Darwinian evolution as the major factor in the features of life are as established as the sphericity of the earth (a certainty) by using mechanisms that appeal to mathematical uncertainty.
The probablitly P(A) can not simultaneously state:
That is an illogical statement. Dembski's work was written to show that Darwinian evolution is basically self-contradictory. Darwinism should be rejected outright on logical grounds.
The definition of specified complexity makes the proof easier to see, but one can do the same proof via other means.
Whether specified complexity requires intelligence is another story.
By the way, how much of Debmski's work have your read?
I read 3 chapter's of Darwin's books. I found them vacuous and unscientific.
Yeah. I'll say.
PS
Thanks to an un-named friend for finding the quote.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 8, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Nick, I agree with you (Oooh, scary.) I think that under certain circumstances evolutionary processes can increase SC as I have defined it. I seriously question whether evolutionary processes, as implemented in earthly life, can increase SC to any major extent. Further, I am still quite baffled as to how natural processes could possibly have produced enough SC to get the mighty evolutionary engine started in the first place.
Comment by bFast — March 8, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
The term "specified complexity" doesn't come from Dembski. It was used by Dr. L. Orgel to point out why life was different from anything else that science has studied in nature.
He was referring to exactly the same features I referred to earlier and that Meyer is referring to, i.e. the non-ordered, non-random, meaningful, yet not regular arrangements in DNA and proteins. While recognizing the reality of specified complexity, he attempted to explain it via natural processes. It would be absurd to accuse Orgel of begging the question in favor of an intelligent design conclusion.
Further, there is nothing question begging about Dembski's approach to the matter. If one is going to consider whether or not chance is a reasonable explanation, one must establish how much chance is acceptable. Even Dawkins acknowledges this, and Dembski gives more room for a chance explanation than Dawkins. How is that begging the question?
Comment by eric — March 8, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
bFast, if evolution can produce some SC, then how do you draw a line? It can always produce a little more and cross the line.
Dembski sort of concedes this, and so invokes Behe's IC argument to block a gradual increase of SC. So, after reading all of Dembski's work (which I have done, Sal), you eventually realize it's all pointless because in the end Dembski relies on Behe for the key piece of the argument. And people wonder why people get so annoyed about ID…
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 8, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
You just demonstrated you lack of comprehesion of Dembski's work.
In fact Dembski was surprisingly critical of Behe in his book.
Care to cite the definition of specified complexity from No Free Lunch.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 8, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Beyond that, how does mindless matter invent language to represent symbolic information? The symbolic recipe for a protein does not have the properties of the protein.
Matter never needs to invent symbolism. It can always just operate according to actual attractions and repulsions, with no known tendency or capacity for language.
Also, mindless matter cannot use imagination. It cannot think of or imagine what does not exist. The proteins would have to precede their symbolic description. But how does mindless matter make and reproduce protein machines without following a recipe? It is already well established that protein's cannot reasonably occur by chance combinations.
Comment by eric — March 8, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
To assume that specified complexity already exists in some measure and only needs to be increased would be an example of a question begging argument. It assumes what needs to be established. The challenge is to create the genetic code, DNA, and proteins in the first place.
The term "specified complexity" doesn't come from Dembski, or from the intelligent design movement. It was used by Dr. L.E. Orgel to point out how life is different from anything else that science has studied in nature.
Orgel was referring to the specified complexity of DNA and proteins. His aim was to explain this naturally. Clearly he was not trying to question beg for intelligent design.
The line drawn is the one drawn by Dr. L.E. Orgel. Nothing else in nature besides life exhibits specified complexity. Extending the same processes that produced a dead universe devoid of any specified complexity will not create specified complexity. Nowhere do we observe those processes crossing the line into language or complex specified information where there was none before.
Comment by eric — March 8, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Nick:
Nick, I see a pretty huge chasm, not a hairline. It is my undertanding that at lease 100 coding genes in humans have no equivalent in chimps, nor any clear genetic predecessor (ORFan genes). That's a lot of SC. Contrast that with the convergent evolution of the digestive ensyme in the langor monkey. In 25 million years, it took on 7 mutations that are convergent with the enzyme in the cow. That, in the grand scheme of knowledge, in an increase of SC, it is achieveable via natural processes, however it is not nearly enough to account for the 100 genes that have shown up in humans since the human/chimp common ancestor.
Show me that evolutionary processes can realistically account for even one of the 100 human ORFan genes, and I will take back my claim that evolutionary processes don't have the capacity to produce the necessary SC. If we can't get to 1% of what is called for, well, it doesn't matter that much where we draw the line, does it?
Comment by bFast — March 8, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
A line need not be drawn, one can mererly state the odds and then one has a measure of how much confidence can be given for a hypothesis. If the answer is highly improbable, then the answer is highly improbable. If the answer is we don't know, then the answer is we don't know. But such answers are a far cry from claiming it's as sure as the spheriphicity of the Earth.
If you go around claiming Darwinism is 100% factual, you'll have to make pretty convincing case mathematically just to compete with real theories like the creationist Maxwell's electro dynamics.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 8, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
To assume that specified complexity already exists in some measure and only needs to be increased would be an example of a question begging argument. It assumes what needs to be established, i.e. specified complexity. The challenge I pointed to is to create the genetic code, DNA, and proteins in the first place.
The term "specified complexity" doesn't come from Dembski, or from the intelligent design movement. It was used by Dr. L.E. Orgel to point out how life is different from anything else that science has studied in nature.
– L.E. Orgel, 1973 The Origins of Life, p.189, emphasis in original
The line drawn is the one drawn by Dr. L.E. Orgel. Nothing else in nature besides life exhibits specified complexity. Since he was endeavoring to explain it via natural processes, it cannot be claimed that this is a question begging notion for the sake of ID.
However, extending the same processes that produced a dead universe devoid of any specified complexity will not create specified complexity. Nowhere do we observe those mindless processes crossing the line into language from non-language or into complex specified information where there was none before.
Comment by eric — March 8, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
To assume that specified complexity already exists in some measure and only needs to be increased would be an example of a question begging argument. It assumes what needs to be established, i.e. specified complexity. The challenge I pointed to is to create the genetic code, DNA, and proteins in the first place.
The term "specified complexity" doesn't come from Dembski, or from the intelligent design movement. It was used by Dr. L.E. Orgel to point out how life is different from anything else that science has studied in nature.
– L.E. Orgel, 1973 The Origins of Life, p.189, emphasis in original
The line drawn is the one drawn by Dr. L.E. Orgel. Nothing else in nature besides life exhibits specified complexity. Since he was endeavoring to explain it via natural processes, it cannot be claimed that this is a question begging notion for the sake of ID.
However, extending the same processes that produced a dead universe devoid of any specified complexity will not create specified complexity. Nowhere do we observe those mindless processes crossing the line into language from non-language or into complex specified information where there was none before.
Comment by eric — March 8, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
To assume that specified complexity already exists in some measure and only needs to be increased would be an example of a question begging argument. It assumes what needs to be established, i.e. specified complexity. The challenge I pointed to is to create the genetic code, DNA, and proteins in the first place.
The term "specified complexity" doesn't come from Dembski, or from the intelligent design movement. It was used by Dr. L.E. Orgel to point out how life is different from anything else that science has studied in nature.
– L.E. Orgel, 1973, The Origins of Life, p.189, emphasis in original
The line drawn is the one drawn by Dr. L.E. Orgel. Nothing else in nature besides life exhibits specified complexity. Since he was endeavoring to explain it via natural processes, it cannot be claimed that this is a question begging notion for the sake of ID.
However, extending the same processes that produced a dead universe devoid of any specified complexity will not create specified complexity. Nowhere do we observe those mindless processes crossing the line into language from non-language or into complex specified information where there was none before.
Comment by eric — March 8, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Um, bFast, you pulled this from the Long et al. 2003 paper, but as Mesk explained they were citing the 2001 human genome work, which was incomplete.
It is also worth pointing out that the chimpanzee genome draft wasn't even complete until 2005. By "all animals" all Long et al meant was "the half-dozen or so distant relatives of humans that had been sequenced by 2001."
Wow, an entire confident disproof of evolution all built upon a wild reading of a single line in a paper!
But, since you said "only one", have another look at the Long et al. paper and the 20-some examples of new genes that they reviewed in 2003:
Long M, Betran E, Thornton K, Wang W. (2003). The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old. Nature Reviews Genetics. 4(11):865-75.
If evolution can produce new genes with different sequences and different functions, then it is producing specified complexity on bFast's non-tautological definition.
Comment by nickmatzke — March 8, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Hmm, I had a reply but its not showing up, and when I try to repost I get "duplicate comment."
Short version: Evolution can produce new genes, bFast is wrong that there are 100 new genes in the human lineage because he doesn't understand that only a few genomes were sequenced in 2001, and Sal is citing Maxwell even though Sal will happily sacrifice the speed of light on the alter of biblical inerrancy at the drop of a hat.
Comment by nickmatzke — March 8, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Some drive-by comments
Joy wrote…
This is approximately the same length of time "Under God" has been in the pledge of allegience. Scientific evidence that is compelling, is compelling regardless of it's age. The rest is politics.
Salvador T. Cordova wrote…
There has been much talk in this thread about "neutral" observers. I earnestly approached the understanding of ID as a neutral observer. First, during the study of the Dover case and, then, in trying to understand what Dembski was saying. In Dover, right or wrong, ID was completely linked to the book "Of People and Pandas". Any truly neutral observer could see the problems with the history and content of that book.
Not being deterred, I attempted to look beyond the PR smoke and mirrors to see if there was any substance to ID. Dembski has mentioned things similar to "telic properties in nature". I have subsequently learned (from Joy) that "Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis" is a term that has been used in the past.
Since you are obviously familiar with Dembski's work. Why a designer? And why does the designer have to be intelligent as opposed to simply purposeful?
Self-organizing principles in nature would surely be a more likely (and scientifically embraceable) alternative in support of Dembski's and Behe's hupotheses.
It isn't just a lack of the designer's identity that is the problem, it is the lack of any mechanism at all.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 8, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Nick:
A good question Nick. The answer lies in analyzing why adaptive changes are possible. They are possible because genomic changes occur within a very narrow range. Too many mutations lead to genomic meltdown and none, or barely none, do not allow for change. This in turn is possible only because key core functions like a functional genome that codes for genomic repair mechanisms, protein and nucleic acid synthesis mechanisms and enzymes required by critical metabolic pathways are already in place. A true test of your hypothesis that evolution produces SC requires testing whether the core enabling functions can evolve. If they must come front loaded then your only move is to become an ID evolutionist.
Behe could have chosen IC systems that are more basic to the function of life. If he is to be faulted it is for being to generous in his choice of examples. There is a mirror of annoyance with those who turn a blind eye to the strongest arguments and evidence for ID. It's not too late to apply for membership in the club. Gene and Krauze accept applications 24/7.
Comment by Bradford — March 8, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
March 9th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Bradford,
I would be more sympathetic to the IC argument if the IDists had a non-ludicrous response to the scientific work on the evolution of IC systems like the immune system.
As for the origin of life — look, guys, if your argument is about the origin of life, just say that up front, and don't babble nonsense about evolution not being able to produce new information or [reasonably defined] "specified complexity," which it clearly can, and especially don't uncritically toss around imaginary factoids like 100 unique genes in the human genome.
But if you don't accept the simpler capabilities of evolution, as it appears you don't, then there is no point about talking about the origin of life until these simpler issues are resolved.
Comment by nickmatzke — March 9, 2007 @ 12:00 am
March 9th, 2007 at 12:03 am
I am logging off again, having again dashed my naive hopes for actually making progress in a discussion.
Comment by nickmatzke — March 9, 2007 @ 12:03 am
March 9th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Mechanism is an inappropriate way to characterize the functioning of intelligence or the emergence of specified complexity. Penrose showed why in his book Emperor's New Mind which was a critique of Strong AI.
Mechanism implies that the phenomena in question can be sufficiently characterized by an algorithm. But claims of algorithmic origin is logically incompatible with phenomena that may not be algorithmically compressible.
Whether one thinks intelligence is the source of the design of life is a separate question from the fact Darwinism is self-contradictory and so is the idea that simple mechanisms can generate algorithmically co