Sober and ID
by MikeGeneTwo standard criticisms of Intelligent Design are a) that ID is untestable and unfalsifiable and b) that various imperfections in nature argue against ID. What is interesting is how the two criticisms oppose each other, where ID is both unfalsifiable and falsified.
In the recent issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology, Elliott Sober, a philosopher from the University of Wisconsin, points out the problems with these criticisms of ID and seeks to replace them with a new and improved version of ID criticism:
This leads Sober to jettison the concept of falsifiability and to provide a different account of testability. "If ID is to be tested," he says, "it must be tested against one or more competing hypotheses." If the ID claim about the vertebrate eye is to be tested against the hypothesis that the vertebrate eye evolved by Darwinian processes, the question is whether there is an observation that can discriminate between the two. The observation that vertebrates have eyes cannot do this.
Sober also points out that criticism of a competing theory, such as evolution, is not in-and-of-itself a test of ID. Proponents of ID must construct a theory that makes its own predictions in order for the theory to be testable. To contend that evolutionary processes cannot produce "irreducibly complex" adaptations merely changes the subject, Sober argues.
Sober comes close to the target.
It is commonly claimed that ID is incapable of generating testable hypotheses. It is commonly claimed that ID is nothing more than a "dead end" to any empirical investigation "“ ("after we say "God did it," there's nothing more to do", etc.). And a common complaint about ID is that it is focused only on the negative (anti-evolution) and not trying to express itself in a positive fashion. The emphasis of my book (and thinking) is to deal with such questions/criticisms.
The discrimination issue ("must be tested against one or more competing hypotheses") is better dealt with after a positive expression of ID is fleshed out. As it stands, ID today is little more than skepticism of evolution because there is precious little of a positive ID framework. It makes more sense to develop ID in a positive way and then compare/contrast the teleological and ateleological interpretations of the data to determine which best accounts for them.
And this leads to a serious problem with this "discrimination" test "“ the issue of timing. Just at what time is the discrimination test supposed to be applied in order to resolve the dispute? To validly discriminate between two hypotheses, they should both be compared in their strongest form. This is because any hypothesis, in its early stages, is just a shadow of what it will become upon further investigation/study (if the hypothesis correlates with reality). For example, when Marshall first proposed his hypothesis about the bacterial origin of ulcers, it did not fare well against the mainstream scientific views. It took time, luck, and a certain degree of stubbornness on the part of Marshall to extract the scientific payoff from his hypothesis. And he was working on an issue that was rather easy to test.
The most significant complaint about ID (in my mind) is the focus on the negative. But a prematurely raised discrimination test simply functions to inject the focus on the negative. That is, the discrimination issue entails that I find something the ateleological perspective cannot account for. This will quickly fall into the old rut of the negative approach.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Mike, I think you are too hard on the "negative perspective" component of ID. I think that if the negative perspective of evolution wasn't extensive, most of us would just be evolutionists and be done with it. If anyone can convince me that evolution, from minerals to man, is viable, I'll give up on the whole ID thing.
Comment by bFast — February 24, 2007 @ 11:39 am
February 24th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Philosophical mumbo-jumbo, smoke-and-mirrors, bait-and-switch. IOW the usual.
It's the typical "Internet Infidel" false dichotomy argument. This argument always works for ID-critics because they invariably assume a self-contradictory position wrt to both sides of the false dichotomy, as even Sober (a respected philosopher of science) does.
ID finds itself in the unique position in the entire history of science and philosophy: Every conceivable argument works against and no conceivable argument supports it! Certainly no idea in the history of human thought has been more thoroughly refuted than ID! Nothing possible could support it and everything imaginable is against it! LOL
I like Sober, but this argument doesn't much enhance his reputation with me. (As if he GAS.) This one goes into my "IQ-theory" file too.
What I would like to see a philosopher address is Darwin's self-contradictory conclusion (which is commonly and uncritically repeated by philosophers and scientists, not to mention "Internet Infidels") that the "old argument from design" fails with the discover of the "Law of Natural Selection."
Darwin's ("key") argument for natural selection is, of course, by way of comparison to "man's power of selection." This allows us to assume the design instrumentalism that has been almost universally assumed by evolutionary theorists and scientists (maybe less so by philosophers) ever since. I just skimmed through the first few chapters of Origin (to confirm what I already knew), that the argument is key for Darwin (as he says) because in almost every instance when dealing with criticism of his theory of natural selection Darwin appeals to known instances of "man's power of selection."
I'm sorry for being so terribly ("philosophically"?) confused about this, but this is what I call a "design argument." Is there any other kind? Yes there is! There is an argument from design to miracle (supernatural creation). How convenient that the two fundamentally different arguments can be "philosophically" conflated. The latter "design argument" being easily dispensed with, while the former design argument is indispensable to Darwin himself in establishing the plausibility and validity of his theory of natural selection.
"In all its forms, ID fails to constitute a serious alternative to evolutionary theory [The conclusion from Sober's essay cited by Mike Gene.]
To me its just plain silly. A design argument sits at the very core of modern evolutionary thought. How then could something called "intelligent design" ("mini," "maxi" or whatever ya gotty) even be considered an alternative to evolutionary theory?
By way of the oh-so-convenient false dichotomy.
Comment by Rock — February 24, 2007 @ 11:53 am
February 24th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
It almost seems as though your blog entry was prematurely cut off due to a software error. What is the exact ID theory you are proposing, and what is the exact evidence you are citing for which ID offers a better explanation than the current theory of evolution? Give me something to work with here. Surely you aren't proposing that I must buy your book in order to find out?
The way in which scientists disseminate such information is by publishing articles. Where can I find your article on this topic? If the normal peer-reviewed journals do not accept it, that does not stop you from at least putting it on the web.
Incidentally, the ID movement surely has enough resources to publish its own peer-reviewed journal. Why doesn't it do so? I might be able to read and evaluate your arguments, and in turn your article would be improved by peer review.
In short, no scientist publishes a book in order to present new arguments and theories. At least one reason is so that such arguments may be evaluated on their own grounds without the possible conflict of interest with book revenues.
This relates to my final comment on a previous topic (edited slightly):
…A question you might ask yourself is whether your assertions can be falsified through experiment or evidence. If not, then it is philosophy.
I don't mean this in a pejorative sense. I am reminded of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is mostly philosophy. Anyone is free to reject the Copenhagen interpretation in favor of some other one. In a sense it doesn't matter since the mathematics remain the same in each case. However it could matter if a particular interpretation somehow makes a prediction which the others do not.
Likewise, if someone wishes to declare that each replicator mutation was guided by an intelligent designer and/or that each selection was so guided, there is nothing anyone can do to disprove it. One could say the designer acts in a way indistinguishable from natural variation and selection. It is simply an interpretation of the empirical evidence of evolution.
In order to distinguish itself from philosophy, the ID movement must produce evidence which demands the ID interpretation. But since there are countless cases of previously unexplained phenomenon being subsequently explained by naturalistic means, it is not enough to simply point to particular cases which are not (yet) fully understood ("God of the gaps").
[end quote]
So I will ask again, only to clarify my point: What is the exact ID theory you are proposing, and what is the exact evidence you are citing for which ID offers a better explanation than the current theory of evolution? Until a reasonable response to that question is proposed, then certainly we can agree that ID is not scientific, at least for now.
This leads to my next question, which I really want folks to think about: Would it really be so bad if ID was categorized as philosophy?
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 24, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
bFast:
Then you will always be in the position of having to respond and naysay. I would not be interested in ID if the only thing to do was to shoot down other people's speculations and hypotheses. Nor is there anything wrong with being an evolutionist. Too many people equate evolution with an ateleological approach when, in reality, the ateleological perspective is just glommed onto evolution.
Rock:
Bingo. For generations, teleologists have chosen two common reactions to Darwin "“ deny evolution or retreat into the spirit world. The time is ripe for someone to come along and pick up the design argument that sits at the very core of modern evolutionary thought.
Jeff:
I never claimed to have an ID theory, nor do I promise to turn ID into science. I am simply pointing out the need to develop a positive approach with ID. If such an approach can be made, and if it generates a successful track record, THEN we can begin to worry about "better" explanations. As for buying the book, of course you don't have to do this. If the arguments in the book are bogus, they will die. If they are not, you will encounter them, sooner or later, without having bought the book.
Comment by MikeGene — February 24, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
MikeGene, "Nor is there anything wrong with being an evolutionist. Too many people equate evolution with an ateleological approach…"
Tuche. I accept evolution — common descent. Its the ateleleological random variation + selection mechanism that I find unconvincing. I also agree that ID needs more than just anti-evolution. In truth (though I haven't yet read your book) I have found very little in the line of a positive case for ID. It remains, however, if the RV+NS variant of evolution cannot make a convincing case on its own, it has no right being called "fact" by the scientific community; rather the scientific community should feel discontent and have its eyes wide open for an alternative.
Comment by bFast — February 24, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
In order to distinguish itself from philosophy, the ID movement must produce evidence which demands the ID interpretation. But since there are countless cases of previously unexplained phenomenon being subsequently explained by naturalistic means, it is not enough to simply point to particular cases which are not (yet) fully understood ("God of the gaps").Jeff, IDers are a mixed and diverse lot. You can get more productive responses, if that is what you are looking for, by asking individual IDers for their own take on a more general field of study. If your focus is on Mike's views he is more than capable of returning a coherent response to your question.
Your own comment as to something being "yet" not fully understood is revealing of where you have placed your own faith. By implication you mean not understood outside the context of an explanation that allows for purposeful, intelligent causation. That exclusionary boundary may very well explain the reason for the lack of understanding. Believing that an understanding will come about, that aligns with your expectations, is an article of faith on your part. One cannot philosophically pursue a belief that forces inducing genomic decay outpace information gains that would accrue from a RM + NS process. One cannot philosphically pursue an investigation into the plausibility that blind forces of nature generate encoding conventions within which RM + NS occurs. God is not being stuffed into any gaps and faith in expected outcomes should not be either.
Comment by Bradford — February 24, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
LOL. The Design Matrix breaks all the rules. I'm gambling on the fact that there is a small, but significant, number of people who a) take this issue seriously and b) hunger for something different.
Comment by MikeGene — February 24, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
MikeGene:
OK, point taken. I read more into your post than was actually there.
Does this mean you concur that, at present, ID is not scientific but philosophical?
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 24, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
bFast:
Evolution is a fact. Random variation is a fact. Natural selection is a fact. But to say, "That's all there is," well, that's not a fact.
Also, be careful not to conflate the scientific community with the community of anti-ID loudmouths.
Comment by MikeGene — February 24, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Jeff,
I have said for years that ID is not science. This might help a little.
Comment by MikeGene — February 24, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
"Also, be careful not to conflate the scientific community with the community of anti-ID loudmouths."
That sometimes is a bit difficult to do, the community of anti-ID loudmouths speaks to us outsiders ten times more loudly on this topic than the rest of the scientific community put together.
Comment by bFast — February 24, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Do any of the TT bloggers think ID is science (I probably should know this by now, but I don't)? I don't, for the record.
Comment by macht — February 24, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Me neither.
Comment by Krauze — February 24, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Me:
Bradford:
You have misinterpreted my meaning in that quote. The "yet" simply refers to the previous clause, not to some grandiose faith in naturalism.
Why not? How else are we to further our understanding, if not by naturalistic methods? Are you making a philosophical statement or a scientific one? At this point I cannot tell if you believe ID is philosophical or scientific.
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 24, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Macht:
Depends (as does everything, it seems) on how one defines 'science'. The dictionary isn't really much help with this -
Science, noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Theology, mysticism and magic could all fit one or more of these definitions. But using definition #1, ID is not science. There is no coherent theoretic that admits direct testing (and falsification, if you're a Popper fan), and the law question tends to focus on origin rather than operation.
This doesn't mean ID cannot ever be science. I expect it will, though I don't know if any of the theology-motivated movers and shakers will make it so. I expect science itself will do that when the scale finally tips on the weight of evidence. I don't expect they'll call it "Intelligent Design," but that won't matter.
Comment by Joy — February 24, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Though I am just a guy, hardly a scientist, I see a lot of evidence that random variation plus natural selection are fundimentally inadequate to explain the living world from minerals to man. When I examine all of the enhancements that have been made to the neo-Darwinan theory, all that I know of, they all fall within the realm of random variation plus natural selection, therefore they do not solve the dilemma of how the living world developed.
That said, I have not found that the "postive" cases for ID are compelling as scientific theory. IC is a good challenge to RV+NS, but is not truly a "positive scientific case".
I, therefore, am philosophically attracted to the ID position, but do not believe that science (the IDers) have a handle on a positive case. I think that the proper current scientific position on how life came about is "we don't know". (Not that some bits haven't been figured out, but that there is a glaring piece missing, a piece that most likely requires a designer to fill.) Bottom line, I also don't believe that there is a science of ID.
Comment by bFast — February 24, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Ye gods. Doesn't anyone else see the contradiction here? In the first Sober claims that what counts is evidence differentiating between two theories; in the second that evidence against one theory doesn't count as evidence in favor of another.
The simple truth is that arguments in favor of design are so obvious and overwhelming that the majority of thinkers before Darwin have been convinced by it; epicureans have usually been in the minority. I myself have been doing intense lab testing of ID, let's me show you my results:
—ID Experiment—
1. Question: "Can intelligent agents generate complex specified information?"
2. Method: Look at computer in front of me.
3. Conclusion: Yes, intelligent agents can generate complex specified information.
——————
The fact is that we all know intelligent agents can design complex things that are analogous to organisms. One reason not a lot of 'science' gets done here at the ground level of 'Intelligent Design Theory' is that the primary contention is bleeding obvious; we can see the power of intelligent design all around us, without recourse to the professional instruments of scientists.
Intelligent agents can generate CSI, no one doubts this. The critical question is 'can unintelligent processes also create CSI?' In this ID has the disadvantage that you can't prove a negative; it's always possible that some unintelligent process we have yet to discover can generate CSI. Indeed, many Darwinists argue along this line: 'ID is a God of the gaps argument' they say, meaning precisely that 'We must have faith that science will one day solve these problems within the existing paradigm'.
But this is of course bunk of the first order. If it cannot be shown that unintelligent processes can generate CSI, then it makes sense to infer intelligent cause from CSI, regardless of any considerations about the quality of ID research programs.
Comment by BenK — February 24, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Jeff: Why not? How else are we to further our understanding, if not by naturalistic methods?
Philosophical musings do not equate to naturalistic methods. While it is true that the latter operates within a philosphical framework, as does most everything else, empiricism is a very narrow aspect of philosophy. It serves no purpose to conflate a broad term with a subset.
ID makes claims that fall within the philosophical realm. No surprise there. Philosophical foundations are common to all belief systems. ID also makes claims that fall within an empirical purview. Whether they pan out depends on future experimental results.
Comment by Bradford — February 24, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
To Joy and bFast and anyone else:
Do you think that random, chance, accidental events can ever be classified as science?
I quote professor Hasofer:
""˜The fatal weakness of the monkey argument, which calculates probabilities of events "somewhere, sometime", is that all events, no matter how unlikely they are, have probability one as long as they are logically possible, so that the suggested model can never be falsified. Accepting the validity of Huxley's reasoning puts the whole probability theory outside the realm of verifiable science. In particular, it vitiates the whole of quantum theory and statistical mechanics, including thermodynamics, and therefore destroys the foundations of all modern science. For example, as Bertrand Russell once pointed out, if we put a kettle on a fire and the water in the kettle froze, we should argue, following Huxley, that a very unlikely event of statistical mechanics occurred, as it should "somewhere, sometime", rather than trying to find out what went wrong with the experiment!'"
Do you find the statement "I can't discover a law to create life, so it must have been a random, chance, accidental occurrence" a positive scientific argument, or a "chance of the gaps" statement?
Since science is the discipline which attempts to explain natural phenomenon in terms of laws, then the hypothesis of abiogenesis (replicating information processing systems) by chance proceses is unscientific.
Furthermore, if life bears the hallmark of conscious intelligent action — information — then ID is the default position until a scientific law can be discovered to create information processing systems. To say that it just … oops… accidentally actualized without proposing a scientific law is preposterously anti-scientific. It goes against all observable phenomenon. To say that information processing systems are the result of chance when we know that information is not defined by natural laws and we already have an observable mechnism — conscious intelligence — is horribly anti-scientific.
So, ID is still THE POSITIVE case for the generation of information processing systems. I believe it could be put foreward that there is a scientific law that any conscious intelligence which has the ability to affect a natural system WILL produce information. There is your positive case. Any takers to provide contrary evidence? Are there any examples of conscious intelligence which possesses the ability to consciously manipulate a natural system yet which has NOT produced information? Now, with the scientific understanding that information is not defined by any natural laws and that saying that an information processing system will randomly self-organize is tantamount to a perpetual motion machine (compare information for free with energy for free) we come to the conclusion that ID is so far THE ONLY POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS proposed for the creation of information processing systems. Now that we understand that information processing systems are the result of intelligent and conscious programming, we just need to discover how it was programmed into our universe. Look at that — ID actually creates further scientific questions. Go figure?!?!?!?!?!
Actually, I would have to disagree. From what I have just laid out, it would seem that consious intelligence creating information is a general law.
Maybe … however can you ever falsify a theory who's mechanism is random accidents? Refer to professor Hasofer quote above.
As to origin vs. operation, I would have to say that law is the operation and information is the origin. Every example of operational laws arising from a program that we can see have an origin of information. Even in life, the information at the foundation creates laws of life.
I propose "the Theory of Information by Consciousness," but of course, Intelligent Design is a lot "catchier." And yes, I think that ID, whether science or not, is a lot "more" scientific of an explanation for the origin of information processors than random, accidental, chance occurrences.
I personally think that the ability for information processors to exist was programmed into the initial conditions of the universe. Of course, this is just as scientific as the big bang theory itself. Lots of observation leading to a conclusion without the repeatability of the phenomenon itself.
Comment by CJYman — February 24, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
CJYman:
Of course not. Random cause and random effect break the chain of inference, just like singularities break equations. One can "cheat" to pretend it's not really there, but that's an internal contradiction that will eventually break any theoretical scaffolding erected upon it.
Physics already knows this, and is actively seeking re-unification via a hoped-for better theory. Biology has been in a state of abject denial for a century and a half, moreso in the last 75 years or so. Critical mass quickly approaches, but rather than deal with it, they're busy shoring up the battlements against reality. Pitiful, IMO.
Deal is, Evolution's insistence on "random" variables is in fact the current regime. Biologists call it "orthodoxy," complete with tenets and dogmas. That language in itself should inform us of how desperate the situation actually is, among those whose belief-in the NDS is tied directly to their metaphysical worldview. This is a corruption of science, and only science can deal with it effectively. As we have seen the recent dramatic departure of the 'New Atheist' contingent from science proper, we are also beginning to see some signs of life in the broader science community in countering the thrust.
We can point out the unscientific premises of DDs all day and night on blogs and internet message boards and paying choirs at churches and lecture halls, and it's not ever likely to change science's collective mind. The collective mind is changed by evidence and better sub-theories to explain it, and these have been steadily accumulating for awhile. I expect that both Charlie Darwin and Greg Mendel will soon have their moldy corpses laid to rest in the crypts of history, where they belong. "Modern Evolutionary Theory" (by whatever they end up calling it when it's fully formulated with the new evidence of telic design) will not look much like Darwinism, Mendelism or Neodarwinism.
…but it will still be 'natural' as theoretical explanation for the natural phenomena under examination. This is science's purpose and strong suit. It was not intelligently designed to probe or prove anybody's metaphysics.
There are all sorts of self-professed science-based religions. Many of them claiming outright that telic design in life got here by intelligent design intervention. Usually aliens, sometimes time-travelers, sometimes extra-dimensional, sometimes positively pantheistic. And there's your basic, every-day Scientism for Dummies as well. That there is telic design in life is apparent to one and all. Their various candidates are just alternative tales told - mythologies. There is nothing new under the sun.
Consciousness will of course have to factor into the uber-view of reality, if for no other reason than that it controls both the questions we ask and the answers we get. I have followed the multidisciplinary quest to quantify consciousness for some years. They're nowhere close to even agreeing on a definition for what they wish to examine. While doing great battle with the 'usual' metaphysical materialists and radical reductionists who claim there's no such thing as consciousness (contradictory enough to be a comedy gag). One notable participant predicts at least 200 years for that definition. Then they can actually start looking…
I'm not hoping to get any kind of firm answers in my lifetime. And when it's not my lifetime anymore, I won't care. Doesn't materially affect my life, so I'll believe what I choose. Because I can.
I believe there is telic design in life, and in the totality of that which exists - on however many levels and dimensions that may encompass. What I believe makes great sense to me, but obviously not to others. That's okay. What I believe is not science. Someday it probably will be on the material, evidential end of things. On the experiential, spiritual end of things it will never be.
That's okay too, per definition #1. §;o)
Comment by Joy — February 24, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Me:
Bradford:
This paragraph might make sense if you replace "naturalistic methods" with "naturalism." But I was careful to say naturalistic methods, which is empiricism in my dictionary. But let's not play the pedantry game, please.
As I've mentioned before, give me a ring if they pan out. Seriously, I'd be curious to know what the experiments would be, and how the evidence gathered would conclusively demonstrate ID over regular selection. It would without question be the most monumental discovery in all of history. I am not being sarcastic.
But until then, would you agree that ID should not be considered part of science, at least because it has contributed nothing to scientific knowledge?
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 24, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
jeff_alexander
Just such an experiment was discussed on this board about a month back or so. 'Seems that a million or so base pairs of dna were removed from mice without any measurable deleterious effects. What made the experiment really interesting was that about 1000 segments (100bp long average) of the DNA was "highly conserved" though it was not coding. The discussion started with the challenge that if this DNA was conserved, it had to be selectable, yet early analysis did not find it to be selectable. Our conclusion was that we needed to experiment with somewhere around 500 mice for about 5 years, to see if a very natural environment would prove this DNA to have a selectable advantage. If the DNA is conserved without it offering a selectable advantage that is strongly contra-predicted by RM+NS. As such, because some variants of ID, such as the front-loading hypothesis would positively predict such an phenomenon, ID would win this challenge hands down.
Now, given a few necessary resources, I am prepared to participate in this experiment. Are you willing to get yourself involved and put your theory to the test?
Comment by bFast — February 24, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
BTW, here is Sober's paper.
Comment by macht — February 24, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Er,
Comment by MikeGene — February 24, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
macht:
I guess I've really lost interest in this question. I'm for open inquiry in all forms of human exploration. It seems that the only purpose this label has taken on is to close down or denigrate novel ideas or approaches. Since I don't think the sky is falling because of ID, it should take its place along other controversial ideas where they will succeed or fail based on their merits over time.
The thing about ID is that it is out there now. Even if it is not classified as science (which is Ok by me) the explorations and ideas will continue and also continue to permeate both popular and scientific culture. If it comes up wanting then it will fade into the footnotes of history.
Comment by Steve Petermann — February 24, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 11:56 am
bFast:
Yes, I think I should blog about this.
Comment by MikeGene — February 25, 2007 @ 11:56 am
February 25th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
jeff_alexander:
Why the need for a conclusive demonstration of ID? Abiogenesis research involves processing subtle clues and using them to make an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for a non-teleological origin of life. Why not cut ID researchers the same slack? ID researchers are following the example of abiogenesis researchers by processing subtle clues and using them to make an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life.
Here's an instructive comment from Mike Gene:
Comment by Jack — February 25, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Mutations are nothing more than changes that have eluded a cellular correction and repair safety net. It is sometimes thought that changes are randomly generated and then directed by selection. The existence of correction and repair mechanisms requires that proponents of randomness base a historic case on the random generation of such mechanisms. If such mechanisms could not have been randomly generated and selected, then a non-random element was introduced along with the correction and repair functions and any randomness of mutations is limited to mutations that escaped a safety net due to a random inefficiency of the net itself.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Bradford:
Oh, I don't doubt that accidents happen. Or that the fact that accidents happen isn't the reason for proof-reading and repair mechanisms. I just don't think that genomic rearrangements are exclusively or even primarily random in the first place. At least, not the specifically adaptive ones that lead to evolution rather than degeneration.
The "random" qualifier on mutation was added - IMO primarily for ideological reasons - back when biology could no longer ignore the inferred presence of reliable particulate inheritance. It's not like they didn't try hard to 'lose' Mendel's work (for 77 years), or that they wanted to see it revived. Darwinism was in big trouble as Lamarckism went drastically out of favor, and selectionism was plain inadequate to explain what *is*. So mutations in reliable particulate inheritance were assigned to the "what goes wrong" category of disease-centrist ways of viewing life.
This view was specifically supported by immediate, concerted research efforts into the mutagenic properties of radiation and industrial chemicals. Radiation was "certifiably random" per the physicists, so resulting mutant fruit flies and such tended to support the idea that mutations were both random and almost always harmful. Neodarwinism's "survival of the fittest" culling machine got its origin mechanism… "random mutation."
Now that we know that adaptive mutations are not predominantly random (even though probablistic in statistical appearance), and can even come by highly specific means (HGT, transposons 'enlisted' by genes, duplication-hypermutation, creative expression suite dynamics, epigenetic write-codes, etc.), Neodarwinism is in big trouble. Heck, we're purposely mutating genomes to serve our needs every day now! The "safety net" is porous for a reason, it seems, and that reason is life's Prime Directive - the true source of evolution.
So now they want to protect the NDS "orthodoxy" by political means, not scientific ones. Force us to believe-in it no matter what's real.
I see this as a science-killer. If the ideological/metaphysical corruption can't be excised, it deserves to die. At least, this version of it. There are better things we could spend limited resources on at the present time, and a more relevant science will arise eventually.
So no, I don't agree that either or any of the engines of evolution are "random" by cause or effect. And I do not believe that statistical variations on a probablistic level establish this assumed "randomness." Or ever could.
Comment by Joy — February 25, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Me:
Jack:
My quote was regarding what it would take for ID to be formally incorporated into science. Since Mike Gene has said that ID is not science, it is unclear what you intended for me to gather from the quote you cited.
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.
To answer your question, 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 25, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Bradford:
Me:
bFast:
Just for the record, in your post you clipped my sentence: "As I've mentioned before, give me a ring if they pan out." My curiosity referred to examining a finished experiment.
For the general audience, I'll remark in passing that designing an experiment is incredibly difficult. It requires careful review by other scientists, some of whom will actively attempt to disbelieve the experiment has any relevance at all, some of whom will declare prejudiced methods by pointing to possible alternative outcomes, and so fourth. It takes some time and effort to whittle down your initial ideas into something potentially useful.
The mention of unexpected results from genetic experiments with mice reminds me of Steele's "Lamarckian scare" which Dawkins wrote about long ago in The Extended Phenotype. Interpreting the results of an ambiguous experiment is like wading through a minefield.
So my answer to your question is, What test? Are you writing up a proposal? If you posted it online, I might be tempted to review it. But as I mentioned earlier, I don't have a horse in this race. If you are seeking federal grants, I would suggest that you not word it as: "Proposal to supplant naturalism, overthrow evolutionary theory, and bring fourth a new world order of scientific thinking."
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 25, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Jeff_alexander,
Of course not, one would hardly want to admit that one possible outcome of this experiment would support an ID hypothesis because the scientific elete would have a bird.
Comment by bFast — February 25, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
I was thinking more along the lines of not getting any money.
On the other hand, ID has deep pockets; the various ID think tanks and related organizations will undoubtedly rush to bury you in cash. Go ahead and write the proposal.
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 25, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Joy:
This brings up an issue that has implications for ID. If adaptive mutations are observed, which are not the result of random changes but rather are part of an underlying coping mechanism, then design is evident for such systems. In such cases Neo-Darwinians could contend that the non-random adaptive mutation mechanism itself resulted from RM + NS but that is not evidence driven but rather an ideologically motivated claim. This indicates that in these kinds of scenarios design should be the default assumption and the burden of proof should lie with the alternative non-design claims.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Bradford:
Of course such things have implications for ID! But while you allude to assertions that DNA proof-reading and repair mechanisms could have themselves been evolved by RM-NS, some of the adaptive genomic rearrangement processes we are identifying are not subject to these mechanisms in the first place. They do not result by replication error, but are dynamic in situ processes of enhancing genomes. Heck, even gene duplication doesn't appear to be particularly prone to these "error correction" mechanisms, whether there are mutations in the duplicates or not. Duplications - which are *not* evolved into 'new' genes - are now known to account for most of the difference between individuals.
If evolution does not primarily proceed through replication "errors" that happen to get past inherent proofing and repair mechanisms (that exist to mitigate this very thing), then replication "error" has very little to do with evolution. It has a lot to do with devolution - degeneration, disease, loss of 'fitness', etc., and this is why there are proofing and repair mechanisms.
I've got nothing against evolution. I never really bought the RM-NS pablum though, but didn't much care about biology's self-deluded theoretics. My interest was physics. Now that I've taken the time and effort to get the overview, it's even weaker than I thought way back in the olden days. Its own fault, not mine.
So I've no biological science loyalties to honor or betray in this fight. I don't buy the schtick, and I'm getting honestly quite sick of seeing it replayed so often in public as if it were a classic gag or something. It's not a classic… it doesn't even rise to the level of semi-humorous. I do not believe adaptive evolution is about "random" accidents. The more desperate the arguments become, the more convinced I am that they're wrong.
Leftover teenage rebellion, no doubt. Whenever they tell me they've got an Absolute Truth I need to kneel to, I get a stiff crick in my knees that reminds me that I don't have to kneel to any of it. So I don't. §;o)
Comment by Joy — February 25, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Joy:
All of which leads a reasonable person to conclude that there are already existing published studies making a good case for design. Before someone adds an "of course, where have you been" response" to this, is it simply inertia that keeps the scientific community from recognizing the implications of already existing evidence? Any anti-ID types that want to add their input?
And if error has very little to do with evolution then…
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Joy and Bradford,
The scientific community is sceptical of directed mutation with good reason: the experiments of Cairns and Hall that purported to show this phenomenon in bacteria turned out to be artefactual, and other claims (e.g. Ted Steele's) have been similarly refuted.
But this scepticism is not the dogmatism you imagine. I have had more than one conversation with evolutionary biologists about the notion of non-random mutation, and most have expressed mild surprise that such a mechanism has not yet been identified (there was a burst of excitement regarding the HOTHEAD gene in Arabidopsis for precisely this reason, although those results too have now been cast into serious doubt). The general feeling is that if there was a way to direct mutations towards adaptive sites, biology would probably have stumbled on it. If someone can come up with solid evidence supporting a mechanism for directed mutation, it will be accepted quite readily into mainstream evolutionary biology, just as semi-directed systems (e.g. stress-induced mutagenesis, evolutionary capacitance) have been tentatively accepted.
But directed mutation, while interesting, would provide no evidence for intelligent design - it would be just as compatible with naturalistic evolution as with a design scenario - so I'm unclear why some members of the ID community pursue this as though it will be the magic bullet that kills off mainstream evolutionary biology.
Comment by Mesk — February 25, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 4:12 am
Mesk:
I think you are overreacting in interpreting remarks as indicating that we think citing specific mutations indicates a belief that this is a "magic bullet that kills off mainstream evolutionary biology." I had another more recent study in mind which I had been made aware of through a friend but I'll have to look for it. However even before that I was of the view that the directed mutation idea was too narrow an indicator. Variations in the rate of mutation as an adaptive response can be viewed as a non-random response even if accelerating the number of mutations involves a random mechanism.
McClintock's work suggested that when protein modification and changes in gene expression fail to cope with stress, cells alter their DNA- 'Evolution in four dimensions: genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life'
Also there is evidence that the protein LexA in Escherichia coli promotes mutations in evolving resistance to antibiotics. Inhibit the relevant pathway and death ensues.
I believe cells have ways of initiating mutations in response to stress and that this plays a major role in generating adaptations. Tests indicating that mutation rates vary according to stress inducing conditions would substantiate this POV IMO. So too would enhanced mutation rates in response to antibiotics. If mutations are to some important degree programmed responses then the next question becomes how and when did the programming occur?
Your remarks indicate an interpretive bias. Even a directed mutation would not count as evidence of design to you because you believe the directed mutations would themselves have come about through a random, selection process. But that should be an open question yet to be determined; particularly when uncertainty exists as to the nature of a causal pathway. If evidence of a directed pathway exists why should another pre-existing directed causal pathway to it be ruled out in advance?
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2007 @ 4:12 am
February 26th, 2007 at 5:50 am
Sorry, Bradford, that was my fault - when I attributed this viewpoint to "some members of the ID community", I should have been clear that I wasn't referring to you specifically.
I absolutely did not say that ID should be ruled out as the origin of directed mutation; instead, I said that "directed mutation [...] would be just as compatible with naturalistic evolution as with a design scenario". The existence of non-random mutation would be irrelevant to the broader debate, since it would provide no evidence either for or against intelligent design.
This isn't a matter of interpretive bias - there simply isn't a necessary logical link between directed mutation and ID that I can see. If I'm missing something obvious, by all means spell it out.
Comment by Mesk — February 26, 2007 @ 5:50 am
February 26th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
There seems to be a bit of a consensus forming here, and you know me, I hate to disagree, but ID is not a science. It is not a philosophy. It isn't even a theology.
At best its an argument, and at worst its not a very good argument.
Comment by Rock — February 26, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Exactly my thoughts on what passess for conventional biological wisdom- arguments and not good ones.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Well when scientific experiments are being performed and the results published in Nature in an attempt to refute ID, it is kind of hard to claim ID is not a science.
Comment by Jehu — February 26, 2007 @ 3:34 pm