Suspicions and Evidence
by MikeGeneThe debate about evolution and intelligent design eventually comes down to demands for evidence. Yet evidence is simply data that are interpreted in the light of previous experience and belief. What's more, evidence comes in different flavors. For example, the type of evidence that might be used to guide a police investigation may not suffice as "evidence" in the context of a court room trial. In fact, an investigator is likely to look at the data differently from a defense lawyer. The investigator may initially rely on lower standards of evidence to follow up hunches and be sensitive to cliues. The lawyer will insist on the highest possible standards to defend his client.
Even though evidence that merely sparks or supports a suspicion is insufficient to effect a satisfactory conclusion to a case, it is an essential starting point for any investigation. For instance, consider the mundane example of a woman who suspects her husband is cheating. She may not be able to prove he is cheating nor is she sure he is cheating. But she could probably tell you a few things that lead her to suspect he is cheating. Maybe he suddenly spends too much time at the office. Maybe someone has been calling the house and hanging up when she answers. And maybe one night he came home late and had the faint smell of perfume on his clothes. None of these reasons allow her to be certain he is cheating, and she realizes this. But her suspicions sensitize her such that she is more likely to recognize clues as clues. So she looks more closely and begins to find more, perhaps a phone number in his wallet. She calls the number and a woman answers the phone. While convinced her suspicions have been borne out, she might recognize her husband is likely to react with extreme skepticism when she confronts him. Perhaps she decides to strengthen her belief further, making it so probable that it will be difficult to deny. So she hires a private investigator to document the adultery with photographic evidence. Thus, the ambiguous data that lead to an initial suspicion ultimately results in a more rigorous attempt to confirm or dismiss those suspicions.
As we all know, the debate about evolution and intelligent design is highly polarized, where many on both sides have staked out extreme positions. According to the pro-ID side, ID is not only science, but also the best explanation for certain biotic phenomena. According to the anti-ID side, ID is without any evidence and nothing more than nonsense/wishful thinking.
To fit this to my analogy above, it's like a wife who accuses her husband of cheating and the husband accusing the wife of being paranoid/delusional. To settle that emotionally charged dispute, the wife would need to have the photograph in her hand.
But some of us are pro-ID in the sense that we merely suspect there is something to it. For us, we have no photo, just behavior that is odd and other assorted clues. What we would like to do is to investigate, not accuse. Without a suspicion, there can be no investigation. To investigate, you need clues. And without an investigation, where is this stronger evidence needed to move beyond the realm of suspicion supposed to come from?
Thus, when those involved in the Culture Wars tell me that they have a photo of the adultery, I see only suspicious behavior and cannot go along. When the other side claims there is no evidence because there is no photo, I still see the suspicious behavior and cannot go along.
All I can do is simply keep my eye on the Rabbit and see where he goes.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Mike:
I also wonder why the critics seem to believe their interpretations of evidence are evidential of anything but their interpretations. As if everyone else must be slaves to their metaphysical philosophy just because they are slaves to their metaphysical philosophy.
The sun appears on the eastern horizon and moves across the sky so that it dips below the western horizon. That's the evidence. It has been explained in a number of ways over the millennia that humans have been telling themselves stories about why this happens. The evidence is still the evidence, it's still doing what it's always done. Our interpretations have changed drastically several times.
Comment by Joy — December 29, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Hi Mike,
Nice Post.
It is a good summary of the main theme of your book.
Of course, the devil is in the details.
No one is going to stop you or I from exploring our hunches. People might even agree our hunchs are possibly correct and make "helpful" suggestions for specific experiments to test them. Others might make "helpful" suggestions that our ideas will go a lot further if they conform better with the prevailing opinion on one side or the other of the Culture War.
The reaction to my last major post on A Third Choice was that it didn't move the ball politically. It just wasn't keeping with the purpose of exercise. Joy summed it up very elegantly when I asked for her reaction to my disappointment in a lack of interest in Orch OR or EAM.
link
I hope Joy won't be too angry with me for dredging this up. If you go to the link I provided it will be clear that I had asked her for this kind of honest response.
In recent threads I have been accused of both playing politics and being naively ignorant of it. I had hoped it was obvious that I was not ignorant of the politics of the situation. I have openly been providing counter-spin and shield bashing in many of my comments. I am pretty sure you, Mike, are aware of that. A counter attack is still an attack. Political posturing is still politics even when done as a response. We all know this. At least I think we all know this.
The point is that we can either deal with the politics and metaphysics openly or continue with a let's-pretend game which foster suspicion and provides excuses for less-than-complete dialog.
Is it possible for people on opposite sides of the Culture War to agree to disagree on interpretation while mutually look for evidence that can be agreed upon and supported?
Mike, you have gone a long way towards doing this. You have accepted most, if not all, of the data points provided by mainstream evolutionary theory.
In one of our first exchanges, I pointed out that relying on people who agree with you philosophically is dangerous to critical thinking. I have come to notice you are far better at hearing out negative arguments than most Culture Warriors.
Frankly, I am finding difficult to figure out a strong close to this comment. I don't have a specific recommendation, so I will just leave it as my attempt to shine some light on the situation.
For what it is worth, I liked your post.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 29, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
TP,
Considering the case of Stuart Hameroff, it may not be possible for people on the same sides of the "culture war" to agree to disagree on interpretation.
Comment by nullasalus — December 29, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Mike
Well there is that business about making predictions and then testing them. In science, anyway. I appreciate your ID is not science, but modern evolutionary theory is.
Absolutely. So where is that ID investigation?
Right. So she investigates, find a phone number. She hypotheses this is the number of her husband's lover, leading to the prediction that if she calls the number, this hypothetical woman will answer. Then she tests the prediction.
So you are really just sitting on the fence?
Comment by The Pixie — December 29, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I've often wondered how much of the evolution/ID debate is really about evidence and how much of it is about the best way to interpret the evidence. When Darwinians challenge IDers to come up with some empirical results that strikes me as a strange demand. The empirical data is being churned out every day in labs all across the world. The question is whether that data fits best into a mechanistic model based on serendipitous mutations and natural selection or a telic model based on intention and intelligence. Just because materialists insist that only material explanations can count doesn't mean that material explanations are the best available.
Comment by Dick — December 29, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
The Pixie,
The mechanics are. The conclusions drawn about agency (presence or lack) are not. The problem is that the two get blurred, intentionally and not.
Dick,
I agree. Mechanism is one question, non/intentionality is another. Sometimes the two cross over. Behe makes a criticism of evolution that he bases questioning whether mechanism can operate as declared. Whereas, if I read him right, Mike's tact is to accept how a mechanism operates and look at it from a design perspective.
Comment by nullasalus — December 29, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I believe it is almost entirely a matter of interpretation. In The Design Matrix Mike made a comment that really resonated with me. He mentioned how struck he was by the reaction of biologists to the genetic code. They (and others) act as if this were an ordinary biological feature. It is far from it. The Big Bang and quantum physics get the attention of philosophers while the genetic code flies under philosophical radar. A symbolic molecular coding system is presumed to be a consequence of unobserved chemical reactions. But why? Because we find parallel results in chemistry? No, that's not it. There are vague references to complexity arising. But the type of complexity cited (crystals for example) is of a different nature. All of this leads me to believe a philosphical predilection underlies which lense we choose to view data through. If the lense orients one to a telic perspective it is not likely to see the light of day.
Excellent point. Data is neutral with respect to where it comes from. Whether researchers believe in ID or oppose it the data remains the same.
I agree. You must be a perceptive thinker.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
I am not sure whether you are referring to Stuart Hameroff as a person or his ideas or both.
He, personally, seems a nice enough fellow.
It is his ideas can be quite disturbing. While the details are complicated, the fundamental theme is not. Data from quantum mechanical experiments clearly show observations directly effects reality. The presumption (interpretation if you will) is that the consciousness of the observer is directly linked to quantum effects and visa-versa. This isn't a new idea. This idea was the motivation causing Schrödinger to offer his thought experiment, Schrödinger's Cat seventy three years ago.
What is new is people like Hameroff and Penrose are pointing out the obvious. Quantum physics isn't an isolated science or reality. Data points from the fields of biology, cosmology and quantum physics should all be reconciled with each other if we are to understand what is really going on.
Quantum physics can no longer be ignored in biology. DNA strands are being used to build nanocomputers at the quantum level. It has been recently discovered that the efficiencies of photosynthesis are a direct result of quantum superpositions at temperatures previously thought impossible (link). Several scientists, in addition to Penrose and Hameroff, are linking consciousness to quantum theory (link). I suggest the study of "bioquantum physics" is here to stay.
Now, if the Culture Warriors can pause for a moment and look at this they will see that the battlefield has changed. The term "materialism" has long lost its meaning when matter is no more substantive than the "force" of gravity (gravity isn't a "force" it is inhomogeneous artifacts in the space-time geometry that is our universe).
There is so much new data coming in that it is senseless to argue the final answer. OOL discussions are going to get turned on its head with the discovery of nanobes, especially since nanobe evidence has been found in space (link). It becomes silly to argue the fidelity of Miller-Urey of early Earth if life didn't start on Earth.
The Great Zombie debate also becomes ridiculous if it turns out that consciousness is, indeed, directly connected with the entire universe via quantum physics.
Of course there will always be the stubborn people that will absolutely refuse to accept anything that goes against their dogma (on both sides of the Culture War). These people do so at the risk of being left behind.
It is my suggestion that we (in Telic Thoughts) forgo that and move on even though we may disagree politically and philosophically.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 29, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
TP,
I'm only pointing out that Hameroff apparently saw himself as a culture war player, tried to offer what he called a secular spirituality with a scientific basis, and was thereafter given what is as close to excommunication as one can get in the "culture war".
Move on to what? I really can't see what you're saying should be the real discussion, especially since the quantum question, if I recall right, has been explored here a number of times rather than denied out of hand. Believe me when I say that, even with Penrose aside, the quantum role in these discussions isn't ignored, even outside of ID. Stephen Barr now and then writes about its relevance to philosophy for First Things, etc.
Comment by nullasalus — December 29, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 2:24 am
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
My turn to ask "huh?".
Here is a link to Dr. Hameroff's Curriculum Vitae
Apparently Dr. Hammeroff has 140 peer-reviewed articles and chapters under his belt. Here are a few of them…
Dr. Hameroff has received multiple grants and has "…given hundreds of invited talks locally, and at conferences and Universities throughout the world."
If you are talking about people like P.Z. Myers, Nick Matske, Dembski and Wells, I will agree they seem to be ignoring Hameroff and Orch OR. I have been trying to change that situation.
I haven't noticed Stephan Barr posting on Telic Thoughts. The point being that we can only deal with what we do here. Mike mentions quantum physics and nanotechnology multiple times in The Design Matrix.. It is my hope that this will foster more discussion on the subject. Hopefully that we can deal with the subject openly and positively and forgo worrying about whose philosophy it helps or hurts.
Borrowing from Mike's opening post. Let's keep an "…eye on the Rabbit and see where he goes."
Let's do Science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 30, 2007 @ 2:24 am
December 30th, 2007 at 2:40 am
It's a conspiracy!
Comment by valerie — December 30, 2007 @ 2:40 am
December 30th, 2007 at 2:46 am
TP,
Sure, but when did I deny any of that? I said that when Hameroff tried to broach this topic (even to people 'on his side' of the culture war – though he seems to have switched), no one stood for it. Remember my original comment?
I say this as someone interested in the subject, from Penrose to Barr to Stapp to others: Okay. What's there to discuss at this point? You yourself have written more than one guest post here about it. And as far as I know, developments in that vein don't come about daily. Or weekly.
Are you saying every day should be 'By the way, have you heard about Orch-OR and nanobes?' day at TT? Or better yet, 'Have you heard about Orch-OR and nanobes, and don't bring up philosophy'? The funny thing is, I think most people on the pro-ID side would approach Penrose's view with interest. It's Dan Dennett's boys who'll be anglin' fer a bruisin'. *ahem* So to speak.
Comment by nullasalus — December 30, 2007 @ 2:46 am
December 30th, 2007 at 6:50 am
nullasalus
Could you elaborate here? The mechanics of modern evolutionary theory, how natural selection happens, what it achieves, how various types of mutation occur, all these are science, that is people have made tested predictions from the numerous claims. And none of those claims involve agency.
Are you saying that you accept that, but still draw the conclusion that agency is required?
Thought Provoker
"Materialism" has lost its meaning for anyone who understands science. It is still a great word for IDists rallying their ignorant troops (eg the Wedge document).
Bradford
And yet many, many scientists are religious. I do wonder why they have this underlying philosphical predilection. If you are right….
Comment by The Pixie — December 30, 2007 @ 6:50 am
December 30th, 2007 at 11:42 am
All of this leads me to believe a philosphical predilection underlies which lense we choose to view data through. If the lense orients one to a telic perspective it is not likely to see the light of day.
It's not hard to figure out. The philosophical bias is not based on belief in God. It is based on a philosophical commitment to bottoms-up causality which has been useful in physics but failed mightily as a biological approach.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 11:42 am
December 30th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
TP:
Substantive or not matter and energy is all there is according to materialist culture warriors. Carl Sagan loved to repeat the phrase and was not taken to task for it by mainstream science despite the obvious metaphysics wedged into it.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
nullasalus:
The Pixie:
If I may be so bold. You just did what null was speaking of, The Pixie. How was it determined that the mechanics of evolution are atelic? It's an interpretation of the data, not the data itself, no? Or, are you saying that science (specifically MET) has already discovered how to detect agency, and ruled it out? Is that what is meant by 'intellectually fulfilled atheism'? As nullasalus said, and it's how I, as a layman, have always seen it; "Mechanism is one question, non/intentionality is another."
I always have trouble understanding where the demarcation line between science and philosophy lays. I'm not sure how one can discuss issues of agency in purely scientific terms. You seem to think that it can be done,… and has already been ruled out (via MET.) Is that correct, The Pixie? If so, how so?
Thanks and regards,
-Rob
Comment by Rob R. — December 30, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Very good RobR. Of course noone is able to demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolution are atelic. Worse yet there are no pathways to the very biological systems which would make evolutionary mechanisms possible. It's interpretation of data from start to finish.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Do you remember our recent discussion over your admiration for Ernst Mach?
You said…
And I asked…
"Ah, but will you stick to that policy no matter how uncomfortable?"
What empirical evidence exists that there is something beyond matter and energy?
Note, I suggest repeatable and independently verifyable evidence of something more comes from quatum physics experiments.
What evidence are you offering?
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 30, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I'm not even attempting to offer empirical evidence for this issue. My point is there is no empirical evidence one way or the other so why is it that only theists are accused of wedding metaphysics to science when that was Sagan's et al's intent?
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
The Pixie,
Rob R. already pointed it out.
As a default, I accept all of the mainstream data and mechanisms of MET. I'm certainly open to new developments in every way, from ID proponents and not – maybe Behe's edge is correct. Maybe epigenetics matter more than we think. But identifying natural mechanisms and limitations isn't enough to get you to 'there was no creator'.
Do I personally believe there was a creator at work? Absolutely. Do I think my conclusion is science? Not really – it's an interpretation of the data, based on philosophical views more than anything. So is the conclusion that there was no creator at work. You simply do not need to judge on the presence of a designer to do the science. The problem is that some (hey, many) people want to have it both ways – where ruling out a designer is scientific, but arguing in favor for one isn't. It's just Dembski's explanatory filter in reverse, except not even that. It's assumed.
Comment by nullasalus — December 30, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
There is no scientific evidence of telic causation in biological evolution and robust non-telic mechanisms have been identified. Hence, telic causation is an extraneous entity. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
That is incorrect. Scientific validity means specific and distinguishing empirical predictions entailed in the hypothesis.
Science is more than capable of identifying and studying telic causes, e.g. archaeology and forensics. There's just no such evidence in biology and substantial evidence that argues against it.
A scientific claim is validated by testing entailed predictions. Philosophical claims are validated by reasoning from axioms (which may be shared beliefs or understandings).
It's quite possible to philosophically investigate principles of agency. Indeed, many areas of philosophy are concerned with subjective experience that has been resistant to scientific investigation, e.g. aesthetics or morality. But that doesn't make such musings science (though philosophy is often informed by science).
Comment by Zachriel — December 30, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
{bump}
Comment by Zachriel — December 30, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
And here we go, all the excesses and contradictions in one neat passage. Agency and questions of teleology are philosophical, and while the musings may be informed by science, they aren't science themselves. But there's clearly no teleology at work in science, and there's no evidence in favor of it, and plenty of evidence against it (And the evidence typically turns out to be either a misunderstanding, or an assumption.)
See, Zach believes you can detect Intelligent Design using science, and the conclusions are also science. Just as Dembski-ish as Dembski. Except, he believes the answer is 'the filter turns up nothing, there is no design'. And not only that, disagreeing isn't science – it's philosophy.
It's a tortured, obviously unworkable view. Zach can't defend it – which is why all he does is repeat it and hope it sticks.
Comment by nullasalus — December 30, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
That is incorrect. Claims of agency acquire scientific validity when they lead to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. I would be happy to address any particular point you might make, but all I see is a flourish of handwaving.
Comment by Zachriel — December 30, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
It's not extraneous. Something is extraneous when an effect can be explained without it. The effect of life cannot be linked to an atelic a cause. The telic aspect of causality is the missing ingredient.
One more thing. At the most fundamental level of causality atelic causality is a philosophical assumption.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
What is the distinguishing empirical prediction leading one to believe the origin of DNA results from an atelic process?
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
My point is that any reference to agency whatsoever – whether presence or lack – is not necessary for the science. Mechanisms are mechanisms, and they remain so whether they were put into motion by an intelligent force, purposeless forces, or a mix. Viewing whether or not an agent would have or did employ these mechanisms is not science – it is philosophy, and (a)theology. You disagree? Then prove it. Show me where the science breaks down in evolution if you assume nature unfolded according to a plan. And 'well evolution assumes there was no plan' doesn't cut it, and is tantamount to admitting my point.
Designer views don't need to 'lead to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions' – and what's more, you know it. Further, someone can suggest a differing mechanism inspired by their thoughts of agency, be correct about the mechanism, and still wrong about the agent – either in specifics, or its existence either way.
Comment by nullasalus — December 30, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Rob R.
I was talking about the mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory (MET), i.e., the mechanisms that make up the model scientists currently accept. Look in a good evolution textbook and you can determine for yourself what those mechanisms are, and discover that no external agency is involved. I am not sure quite what null was talking about, whether he was thinking about the models in MET or what really happens.
Having hopefully established beyond reasonable doubt that the mechanisms of MET are all atelic, the question now is are those good models for what is seen in nature, and I think maybe this was your real point?
This is where the thing about predictions and testing comes in. All those atelic models in MET have been accepted as mainstream science because they make predictions, predictions that are notaby better (that is, give a better fit with the empirical data) than the competing models (but not necessarily perfect, of course).
I think that is different to mere "interpretation of the data".
Sorry, i have no idea what that means. Do you accept that the mechanisms of MET are good, that they are atelic, but nevertheless are good modes for what really happened and is happening? Where does that leave your ID?
Science is about making generalisations (so the woman worried about her unfaithful husband is not science) from which you can draw testable predictions. Philosophy is about making untestable generalisations.
nullasalus
Even though the mechanisms are all atelic.
Sure. So be a theistic evolutionist. Seriously, why ID?
Then lets agree that both positions are non-scientific. What we can say for sure is that MET has a whole load of atelic mechanisms, and absolutely no telic mechanisms, and we both agree that those mechanisms are a good model for nature, right?
It is exactly his filter reversed. Demski is rooting for ID, so takes ID as the default. Others are rooting for atheism, so take atheism as the default.
Comment by The Pixie — December 30, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Hi Zachriel,
I'm glad you bumped this. The next step is to arrive at some consensus about the type of data that would support the suspicion and the type of data that would undercut the suspicion. But this is something for investigators to hash out, as those without the suspicion have no reason to investigate, now do they?
You yourself have proclaimed that "there is no reason at this point to suspect so-called Intelligent Design" so it stands to reason that your contribution will be to nitpick and naysay in an attempt to get others to agree there is no basis for a suspicion (to merely suspect, you need something evolution cannot explain, evidence of telic manufacture, or an image of a humanoid embedded in some genome).
From where I sit, you come across as a wife who claims she'll suspect her husband is cheating if someone can only show her the photo.
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Why should it matter to you whether or not he considers himself one or the other? What significance do you find in it?
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
The Pixie,
You can define any mechanism as 'atelic' so long as you utterly bracket it off. Call fermentation atelic, but an agent can use it towards an end. Was the fermentation in that situation telic because an agent used it? If not, then 'atelic' is essentially meaningless in discussions like this. If so, it just backs up why telic and atelic is outside of science – and why it's superfluous to describe it as such one way or the other. Unless a science of agency that can handle propositions like that arrives on the scene.
I've outlined my reservations about the ID concept before on here – I have some big philosophical worries/doubts about whether intention on that level can be proven scientifically. But I'm open to having my mind changed, I think ID illustrates a major bout of philosophical/atheological hypocrisy and misunderstanding when it comes to science, and I also think ID could well be the beginning of a new and valid scientific discipline, even if it strays from its original concept.
When you get right down to it, ID is just a label. Over at UD, I've seen Dembski (I think) opine about how Ken Miller belongs in the ID camp. Maybe my views are more TE by definition, but my sympathies and hopes are more complicated.
Disagreed for reasons stated. The mechanisms are a good model for nature – tacking on atelic and arguing no telic mechanisms is pointless, and even inaccurate (No telic mechanisms? Tell that to my neurons.) (Edit: Or my microtubules, in case TP is reading this.)
I see a difference, in that Dembski is at least offering up some kind of method to discern design from non-design, versus an assumption.
Comment by nullasalus — December 30, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Mike
There is agreeing on a methodology, and then there is applying the methodology. In science, the agreed methodology is about testing predictions (that would be the "consensus about the type of data"). It is the woman who is suspicious, so yes, she does the investigation. Exactly what data she looks for, that is up to her to decide what will support her case.
You come across as a husband who has a suspicition (and has published a book about it), but just cannot bring himself to actually find out for sure.
Bradford
Theistic evolution is pro-evolution, pro-science. ID is anti-evolutuion, anti-materialism. I think that is a significant diference.
nullasalus
Fermentation is a process, not a mechanism. A mechanism (in science, anyway) is a detailed, step-by-step description of how it happens. If that step-by-step description does not involve an external agent, then the mechanism is atelic, even if the process is happening in a stainless-steel vat brewing beer. The process is telic in this case, but the mechanism is the same when a rotten apple ferments.
The process of evolution could be telic; that is what theistic evolutionists believe. But as Dembski said "ID is no friend of theistic evolution."
Oh, well maybe Dembski has changed his mind. UD is an excellent example of ID as anti-science, by the way.
Ah, now I see a fundamental difference between what we could call internal purpose and external purpose. A person, a cat, whatever has internal purpose; it seeks food, etc. for its own benefit. A lawnmower has external purpose; it cuts the grass for the benefit of its owner; it exists for the benefit of someone else.
Now I thought we were talking about external purpose. Like with fermentation, when it is used to make beer for us to drink. As opposed to when you look at the mechanism, you will find that what is happening is actually for the benefit of the yeast – internal purpose. I would describe fermentation as atelic, even though it can be used purposefuly by mankind and even though it has a purpose for the yeast.
Your neurons are part of your purposefulness. You have internal purpose. But whether some external agency designed you that way – well, surely that is the very issue we are debating? Are there mechanisms involving your neurons that involve some external agency?
Comment by The Pixie — December 30, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
You may wish to take care here. If you really think you have an understanding on a "method to discern design from non-design" (Dembski's or any other), I suggest you present it. You would have the undivided attention of all TT participants, especially mine.
I had Salvador T. Cordova walk me through step by step Dembski's equations and methodology for detecting design from a set of chance hypotheses. Here is the link to that exchange.
We referenced a 2005 Dembski paper titled Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence.
The results of that analysis demonstrated that Dembski's methodology didn't do what many thought it did.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 30, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
To the contrary, theistic evolution makes a claim that science is powerless to adjudicate one way or the other. It is non-science rather than pro-science.
Is Mike Gene anti-evolution even though he has made favorable statements about evolution or does your perception take precedence over reality? Materialism is a philosophy about which empirical evidence can be used to support pro or con arguments about it.
The difference is a highly subjective one on your part and none too helpful in distinguishing empirical from non-empirical claims.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Pixie to nullasalus:
Pix, we've been around and around on this at least a hundred times, yet here you are once again defining ID for your own internal purpose – confirming your stereotype – and denying that ID supporters can buy the identified mechanisms of evolution while still considering the process to be intelligent design. The telic designing that manifests itself in life forms adapting over time needn't be 'external' at all. It just needs to reflect the capacity of life to adapt over time, becoming ever more successful an agent (could be surviving and having the most offspring, could be a Ph.D. in biology, could be a gazillion bucks from a pyramid scheme…) via that process.
I know of no one in the ID ranks who thinks life is some godling's lawn mower. Though I do know people who use sheep as lawn mowers.
I don't know about nullasalus, but external agents had a whole lot to do with the design of my thinking. My parents gifted me with the machinery, then spent some years and investments on making sure I learned the things they considered it important for me to know. Then they sent me to school, where government agents got paid pretty good money for 9 months a year to drum other stuff into my head.
I presume it was that way for you, too. And if you've got a day job (aren't an independently wealthy jet-setter with a stable of employees who work to make you richer), half or more of the time of your life not spent sleeping is spent doing some external agent's bidding. Almost all humans are someone else's tool. Looks to me like life uses evolution's mechanisms – including a lot of epigenetic ones biologists know little or nothing about – for its process of intelligent design. Which is then subsumed by broader, non-biological sociological systems towards their telic purposes.
Will you now claim that parenting, education, and honest work are atelic too?
Comment by Joy — December 30, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
When we say that the planets move according to well-established scientific laws, we mean we have a robust non-telic explanation and that there is no evidence of telic intervention in their motions; hence, claims of agency are scientifically extraneous.
Again, incorrect. When we scientifically examine how a building comes to be, we look for evidence of the builders and their purposes. We test our hypotheses against the evidence, just like any other scientific hypothesis.
Comment by Zachriel — December 30, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Bradford: At the most fundamental level of causality atelic causality is a philosophical assumption.
Planetary motion is not fundamental. The causal source of basic natural forces and the universe itself is not subject to definitive answers based on empirical data. Some things are beyond the scope of science.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
My comment concerned scientific evidence and my response was to that point. I have no objection as long as you aren't making an unsupported scientific claim.
There is no valid scientific explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing.
Quite so.
Comment by Zachriel — December 30, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Zach:
You're digging that hole pretty deep. Why do you keep insisting that science can determine telic causes from non-telic causes, then assert that science has determined there are no telic causes? You may believe this, but it's not an accurate account of scientific knowledge at this point in time. Particularly in biology, where it primarily deals with population dynamics to quantify selection even as it pretends it can wall-off actual causation by appeal to effect.
Heck, even when we say the planets move according to well-established scientific laws, you can't pretend there is any philosophical difference between "Laws of Nature" and "Laws of God." That has already been established in philosophy, which is where philosophical assumptions belong. You can't negate Bradford's point that you're appealing to philosophy by appealing to philosophy.
Besides, our calculations of mass and resultant gravitational effects are evidence of regularity. Regularity is not the cause of regularity, it's an effect of something that causes regularity. That we have means to make those calculations is useful to us – FAPP, but tells us nothing about what causes matter to have mass, or mass to exert gravity. Causes can be ignored for practical purposes of simply quantifying effects. Quantifying effects does not establish causation.
Roger Penrose has suggested that consciousness is part of the equation – a fundamental parameter of space-time itself. Others are working toward the same ideas, though we don't have a way to test them directly. Which makes Orch-OR precisely as 'scientific' as string theories, brane theories, multiverses, bubbles, and other of the 'Wild Ideas' out there in sciencey-speculation land.
If consciousness is a parameter of universal reality it could well explain intelligent design. You might even come to accept it one day. Or not. The reason all those speculative alternatives are out there taking up so many big brains these days is because we know the standard model is wrong/incomplete (and we suspect the same of GR). I suspect biology will find itself in much the same boat eventually if it's not already there. Merely asserting that you Still Have Faith in the wrong/incomplete model doesn't make it less wrong/incomplete, or stop science from actively seeking better models.
Comment by Joy — December 30, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Science is a specific methodology for matching observation with theory. It is quite limited in its domain. However, we can confidently state that an assertion of telic causes with regards to planets moving in their orbits is an extraneous entity, and therefore of no *scientific* merit.
If you want to believe in angels pushing planets on crystal spheres, please do, but there is no scientific support for such a view, and substantial scientific evidence otherwise.
Comment by Zachriel — December 30, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
TP,
I don't. I've been clear about this – and clear about what I think of such methods, even in that same post. Read it again. Closely.
I don't think Dembski's method necessarily works. But it's different to present even non-working or in-development 'work' and just operating off an assumption. Which is the game Zach and others play – 'the view I have should be the assumption and everyone else should have to disprove it.' But the assumption, in either direction, is extraneous. Does nothing. And everyone knows it.
Which is why it gets asserted, never argued. I count a try and an arguable failure different from a just 'it is, because'.
The Pixie,
And calling it atelic or telic still gets you nowhere, and adds nothing. See where we're at? You're arguing the mechanism is atelic even when employed in a telic process – and what does it gain you? Not a thing. It's a bracketed description, a definition. You may as well call a rand() function in computer programming atelic, because all it is is a defined command. It doesn't do anything on its own, it just sits there. But if you want to force in some philosophical/political baggage, you can argue it should be called atelic. Or telic. Depends on your politics, doesn't it.
Really? Why? Because most of the time they just sit around criticizing other people's proposals they dislike, and quoting ones that back their views? Can you think of any other site that does that? I can – and they aren't ID places.
Joy actually provides a pretty good answer for me here – but I'll go further and say that where to draw the line when it comes to my neurons, what counts as agency, what counts as intention, etc – are philosophical questions as well.
But your examples, really, just show what I mean: Where you're saying 'atelic' and 'telic' is downright arbitrary, and gets the science nowhere. Which is why, when I called Zach out to show me how science breaks when we pull telic/atelic out of the evolution picture, he quietly dodged. Because it won't break. Mechanisms are mechanisms – they function and operate. Shoe-horning 'atelic' in there (Does science really make use of this term? Couldn't even find it on dictionary.com, as if that matters) gives the description nothing. Unless it's just there for some strange unpurposeful-as-default hope.
Zach,
Fan-tastic. When we're talking about buildings, I'll keep that in mind. Until then, I'll take your ignoring of my challenge as the expected dodge – telic/atelic isn't fundamental to the descriptions. They add nothing, removing them takes nothing. Whether to consider the data telic or atelic is a strained sideshow that says more about influencing people's views than providing an accurate depiction of the science. And Occam's Razor would chop it off.
First buildings, now this. You do a great job of replying to questions no one asked, and criticizing ideas no one has asserted. All while repeating assertions you won't defend. Does anyone ever get convinced by that routine?
Comment by nullasalus — December 30, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Zach:
I suppose that would depend on what "angels" are, and how "crystal spheres" is defined. Science has no definition of cosmic size crystals and no idea what angels are. You're back to philosophical name games again, as with the concept of "Laws." Only this time applied to causation, by appealing to agency and mechanism.
You cannot validly assert that causation is atelic because you want it to be. Science flat doesn't know. Just because angels and crystals are the only telic agency your brain can come up with – for express purposes of ridicule – doesn't mean there is no telic agency. You confuse your ideological bias with what science knows, and what suspicions may have *scientific* merit.
If you're willing to accept that science operates in a limited domain, you've no reason to assert that it makes ANY conclusive determinations about the nature of things outside its limited domain. Suspicions and speculations can make use of the methodology to match observation to theory, and that can expand science's domain a bit (as it's long been known to do). You seem to find that idea quite troubling.
Comment by Joy — December 30, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 6:26 am
Bradford
Even so, it is generally the case that theistic evolutionists are pro-science. I guess they understand what science can and cannot do.
I was thinking about the ID movement, as exemplified by the DI. I should have been clearer.
Did I claim it was helpful in distinguishing empirical from non-empirical claims? I do not remember doing that.
Joy
In the fermentation discussion in my last post I said that the mechanism was atelic, but the process could still be telic. I am happy to say the same about evolution. Oh, wait, I did: "The process of evolution could be telic; that is what theistic evolutionists believe." So perhaps, Joy, if you could could hold back on your stereotyping, and actually read what I post, you might be able to respond to what I post, rather than what you think the stereotype should post. How about that, eh?
I am suggesting that the biochemical mechanism involving neurons are atelic (I should have been clearer, but in the context, I was talking about biochemical mechanisms). I believe that they are there for your purposes (internal purposes I would call them), and not (primarily) for the purposes of any other intelligent agent. I do not think your parents designed them, nor any government agents.
nullasalus
I am wondering what we are arguing about here. My first sentence to you on this thread was: "Could you elaborate here?" What I am doing is trying to understand what you are saying. And making precious little progress, it feels like at the moment. I am arguing that the numerous mechanisms of evolution are atelic. I think you agree. Does that tell me the process is atelic? No, as I thought I said last time. Yes, yes I did. "The process of evolution could be telic; that is what theistic evolutionists believe."
Blame Rob. R for "atelic", he used it first.
How we define telic/atelic is, yes, arbitrary. But if we can agree on those definitions, then there should be no problem. I suggest a good definition is that something is telic if its primary purpose is for another agency. The primary purpose of a sheep eating grass is for itself (internal purpose) – even if it gets your grass cut. The primary purpose of a lawn mower is to keep the grass short for the owner (external purpose). Now if we genetically engineered an animal to cut grass by eating it, that would be telic. It would be eating the grass to survive, but it primary purpose – the reason it exists in the first place – is to keeping the grass short.
Occasionally I see people confusing internal purpose and external purpose in this debate; someone will show humans (say) have purpose, therefore they are telic, therefore teleology is true. You say your neurons have telic mechanisms. Well, okay, they have purpose, but that purpose is yours. They have internal purpose. There is no reason to suppose from that that they were designed that way by any intelligent agency, that they have a purpose for some external agency.
So I believe we need to be quite clear what we are talking about so we avoid that mistake. Maybe you think telic should include internal purpose, and I can appreciate why you might. But this web site is called "Telic Thoughts". Are they thoughts that have a purpose? Or are they thoughts about some external purposeful agency? I rather think the latter. Are the IDists here promoting the obvious and trivial claim that intelligent agents are purposeful? Or that life serves some purpose to an external agency?
Does that get science anywhere? Well hopefully it means we understand each other better, which I would say is a good thing.
Here is the abastract of a paper that discusses an evolutionary mechanism:
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cg...
The proposed mechanism is atelic because it does not involve an external intelligent agent. It will not say that, I know. It also does not say that the phase of the moon was not a factor. here are lots of factors that were not involved at all, and none of them get a mention. But this is what I mean by an atelic mechanism – a step-by-step description of how the process happened that does not invoke an external agent.
Comment by The Pixie — December 31, 2007 @ 6:26 am
December 31st, 2007 at 10:41 am
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
I read it again. This situation is the same as the first time I read it. You offered a qualification (a "difference") by stating…
"I see a difference, in that Dembski is at least offering up some kind of method to discern design from non-design, versus an assumption."
Those were your exact words. You gave Dembski credit for accomplishing something significantly different than others.
An assumption obscured by the smoke and mirrors of bombastic prose is still just an assumption.
This kind of discussion reminds me of the infamous Donald Rumsfeld logic. "There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."
Generally, the default position is that the burdon of proof is on those suggesting something exists. While Zach could do better at explaining it, he doesn't have to show an absence of telic influences, you have to provide something more than just an assumption (even a reason for suspicion). Otherwise, the default presumption is that telic influences are not necessary and, therefore, are not involved.
To hammer home the point, note how this works when we are talking about Orch OR. Suart Hameroff is arguing for a change in thinking and explaining WHY and HOW. This is quite difference than simply asking "WHY NOT?" and purposely avoiding discussing mechanisms.
Now, are you or are you not offering Dembski's "some kind of method to discern design from non-design" as a reason for suspecting telic influences?
If you are, could you please explain this method. If you are not, then it isn't a difference and we are back to the Status Quo presumption of waiting for a reason to at least suspect the existence of something we have no evidence for.
P.S. You also wrote…
If you really want me to get into what I think of Dembski's motives and methods, I will but I suspect you may already have a good idea of what I would say.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 31, 2007 @ 10:41 am
December 31st, 2007 at 10:43 am
I have carefully and sparely delineated what counts as science. If you want to hold non-scientific views or assumptions, I have no objection.
I answered this:
any reference to agency whatsoever
You made a sweeping generalization. And a false one. I provided a valid counter-example. Instead of responding to that, you used more flourishes.
I wrote an answer to this, but deleted it as it depended on your acknowledgment of your previous error. You have yet to do so.
That's the nature of sweeping generalizations. You swept up buildings with everything else that might be telic. You left a false statement uncorrected. Yet you accuse me of dodging.
Still incorrect. Agency is required for reasonable explanations of all sorts of things from The Pyramids to The Internet.
Comment by Zachriel — December 31, 2007 @ 10:43 am
December 31st, 2007 at 10:47 am
I don't make that assertion. I make the assertion that telic causes in biology are scientifically superfluous.
Science is quite limited in what claims it can make. However, angels pushing planets on crystal spheres is not a valid scientific claim. If there are angels, they are carefully hid, and a much more direct scientific explanation is available based on a very simple principle. That doesn't mean angels don't exist, or even that they don't cause the planets to keep in their orbits. Just that there is no scientific merit to the claim.
Comment by Zachriel — December 31, 2007 @ 10:47 am
December 31st, 2007 at 11:26 am
Zach:
Yes, you are right. For so long as biology relies on an ideologically atelic uber-theoretic and pretends that it has no need for knowledge of causality, the possibility that causation may be telic is entirely superfluous. Yet science (as opposed to just biology) does in fact deal with telic causation all the time, and includes telic causes and processes as part of its useful methodology. You might want to limit your generalities to where they apply.
Of course it's not. You've pulled an ancient and never claimed to be scientific theological claim out of the history bag and use it to illustrate a modern scientific point. I'd even agree readily that the earth isn't flat. It's certainly not the least bit flat here at my house, though there is a strand of sand between the dunes and the sea where I used to live that is as flat as semi-solid ground gets. So that probably depends a lot on one's perspective from ground level observation.
Angels may be 'hid' from your microscope, your telescope and your brain, but they are most certainly not 'hid' from human experience. Every cultural interpretation of humanity's capacity for spiritual experience describes spiritual beings that look a lot like angels, which quite often interact with human beings, even appearing to them corporeally on occasion.
Because throughout the history of human beings there are so many people who have had direct – i.e., empirical – experience of angels, of course science cannot validly claim such beings do not exist. Such claims are even more dubious lately, when it has become scientifically apparent that more than 3+1 dimensions of space, time and space-time are operative in shaping reality.
"Scientific merit" again depends on what the uber-theoretic in the specific discipline or sub-discipline of science is at the time you make such a claim. Should humans start being born capable of directly perceiving one or more of the extra dimensions of reality impacting life and death on planet earth, eventually they won't be stifled by throw-backs who insist they can have no such capacity (ignore it, kid. It's just your brain misfiring).
Seems to me like a die-hard evolutionist would know this and be entirely willing to suspend judgment on how much of reality human beings have thus far evolved to directly perceive. Looks like a total no-brainer to me. So I will say once again that it's bothersome to me when you confuse your invested faith in an entirely provisional uber-theoretic in one increasingly challenged sub-discipline of science with science itself.
See, the issue isn't what I believe or disbelieve about science, life, reality or the number 42. It should be about what's actually real. To say out of one side of your mouth that 'science' is a deliberately constrained and artificial means of looking at reality, while claiming out of the other side of your mouth that this constrained and artificial view determines for all what is and isn't real, is itself without scientific merit.
A truly informed scientific view would accept provisionality and actively seek to know more than is artificially constrained under the temporary current theoretic.
Comment by Joy — December 31, 2007 @ 11:26 am
December 31st, 2007 at 12:08 pm
The claim of agency in biology is scientifically superfluous because there is no scientific evidence of such agency.
Quite so, as I pointed out previously.
"Scientific merit" means the hypothesis has to entail specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
That is decidely not my view. You should know that, but you can provide a cite that you think indicates that I conflate science with what is and isn't 'real'.
Comment by Zachriel — December 31, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Pixie:
The mechanism isn't atelic for the yeast, which last time I checked is a legitimate life form. What use humans get out of it is second-generation telic, and that can involve genetically engineering the yeast too. Still, even genetically engineered yeast digest sugar on purpose.
You have known for years that I favor an EAM-like model of evolution, where the development of complex systems and adaptive form/process changes come about through the telic agency of the organisms involved. For the survival, reproductive and adaptive purposes of the organisms and their offspring. And that this sort of model embraces the many known and unknown epigenetic mechanisms that serve the process – "unknown" being a derived prediction that many more such mechanisms will be found, and that genomes are much less dictatorial of form/function than the current model allows. Why, an EAM-like model would even be open to the possibility that cumulative information processing complexities in organisms reached a threshold during a certain period of life's evolutionary past on this planet, which led to the 'birth' of intentional consciousness (as opposed to programmed habit), and the subsequent 'explosion' of EAM-guided biodiversity.
You can claim that makes me a "Theistic Evolutionist," but since my reasons for suspecting an EAM-like process are not theistic, you would be wrong. I support EAM as a framework for intelligent design, and that makes me an IDer, not a TE. Your inability to accept that ID isn't a theistic point of view is your problem, not mine. You WANT ID to be about theism, just as TE is clearly labeled to be about theism. That doesn't describe me, or Mike Gene, or many of the other IDers here at Telic Thoughts and you know it.
Some neuronal processes are automatic, some are triggered directly by intent and/or focused awareness/consciousness. You make a blanket generalization that doesn't apply, since internal processes are as valid in a telic frame as external processes. YOU think teleology must be about external agents and their manufactured tools. I do not. So it's not valid for you to keep telling me 1. what I must believe, and 2. what I must call what I believe, just to salve your own mind and internal purposes.
Comment by Joy — December 31, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
I hope you are having fun, because I am enjoying your conversation.
If you are a religious apologist, you are the first one I know of who argues for the existence of free will in yeast!
What makes it more humorous is that with my current understanding of Orch OR, I have to agree with your assessment.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 31, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Since noone is making the claim why do you continually use it as an example? For all the claims that ID is unscientific I would think it would be easy and more relevant to attach a real example used by a real IDist who has a name and a point of view.
Comment by Bradford — December 31, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Hi Pixie,
The Pixie (emphasis mine):
How do I "discover" that, exactly? Assume I'm familiar with the mechanisms already, how do I go about determining whether or not external agency was involved? Either in their origins or operation. If (e.g.) Demski's filter is too subjective to be useful scientifically how is it that its antithesis is not in the same boat? If you're of the opinion that the question – agency or not – is superfluous scientifically than I can understand, but it seems that you're saying that not only is the question scientific [as many ID theorists would argue] but its already been answered. In the textbooks even. My understanding is that the question is treated as if superfluous/subjective and/or philosophical. I.e., textbooks and science in general have (should have?) an agnostic stance and not an atheistic one. Is there an online resource that you could maybe point me towards. Thanks in advance.
The Pixie:
Well I still don't agree that those MET models are [predicated on] atelic[um... ism], but I do get your point. Would you characterize your position with regards to teleology as something akin to, "the designer most probably doesn't exist" And you arrived at that conclusion via the scientific method, correct? [Sorry I couldn't resist that "most probably" qualifier
]
I still disagree (or maybe just misunderstanding your position still.) But, if I remember you from ARN correctly you're a PhD level chemist, which means (I believe) you're also expert in Philosophy of Science issues. I'm certainly in no position to argue with you. However, it still seems (to me, at least) that using science to say if something is telic/atelic is like using it to say that some thing/mechanism is good or bad. I guess I'm more comfortable with the position that, so far as science goes, it doesn't really matter much.
Dawkins and Dembski are equally pseudoscientific, if you will. Or, MikeGene's nascent proto-science style ID is the proper way to proceed, currently. Maybe I should read that book first, though. He got the guys over at Uncommon Descent POed and Matzke hated it too. I couldn't think of a better reason to read it.
I try not to take all this 'culture war' hoopla too seriously and it's these philosophy of science issues that really interest me the most. Are the Laws of Motion, Calculus, Big Bang Theory (etc…) telic because of the assumptions or worldview(s) held by their authors. Nope, but it did seem fruitful with regards to hypothesis generation, though.
Me quoting nullasalus:
"Mechanism is one question, non/intentionality is another."
The Pixie:
I'm really having trouble understanding the disconnect here.
We would have to be more specific I think, but sure, for conversation's sake, yes.
That's the rub aint it. I say, intuitively, no. However, I've no clue how to approach that scientifically. Without understanding (their) origins how could you say? Demski's 'filter,' subjective as it may be, is the only (rigorous, non-philosphical/theological) attempt to answer that question that I'm aware of. How did you determine its antithesis (chance not design) without philosophy?
I don't believe that you are correct in calling the models atelic. And, "my ID" is somewhat lukewarm and easily spat out, if you will. No worries, mate.
Regards,
-Rob
Comment by Rob R. — December 31, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
The Pixie:
Is that not a word? I know I've heard that somewhere before… but I'll take it. Dibs!
Regard,
Word creatin' Rob
Comment by Rob R. — December 31, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Because it's a well-known example of a process with a robust non-telic scientific explanation. We could suppose that there is evidence of agency in the orbit dynamics of planets, but for the vast majority of our readers, they are quite aware that telic explanations of planetary orbits are scientifically superfluous.
One can always *claim* there was outside telic intervention in any process. There is no way to eliminate the possibility. However, there is no such evidence with regards to evolutionary biology or orbital dynamics. Hence, such claims are scientifically vacuous.
Comment by Zachriel — December 31, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Rob R. illustrates the need for an examination of the known case.
We can provide a robust scientific explanation for planetary movements, but someone can still ask "how do I determine whether or not external agency is involved?" The scientific answer is that there is no evidence of agency, and substantial evidence of a mechanistic process that provides a reasonably sufficient explanation of the complex planetary movements we observe. Still, we can't eliminate all possibility of agency. Perhaps someone moved Mars a couple of inches at the time of Christ. There is no way to discount the possibility. But there is no such evidence either. Such a claim is scientifically superfluous.
Comment by Zachriel — December 31, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
I couldn't pass that one up. As you requested…
Name: Dembski
Point of View:
"The problem is not that evolution implies God does't exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility"¦" link
Name: Wells
Point of View:
"The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion "“ especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.
This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.
If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid
link
Name: Behe
Point of View:
"So let me emphasize: Kenneth Miller is an intelligent design proponent. He believes that the laws of the universe were purposely set up to permit life to develop. Miller thinks that, to accomplish the goal of life, the universe had to be designed to the depth of its fundamental physical constants. I agree with him as far as he goes, but, on the other hand, as I write in The Edge of Evolution, I think design extends further into the universe, past physical constants, past anthropic coincidences, and well into biology. Yet, with respect to design, he and I differ only on degree, not on principle." link
Name: Bradford
Point of View:
"Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?"- William Dembski… Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind: "Why are you using your ignorance to deny my providence?"- Job38:1-2 (Blog Heading)
Name: Gene
Point of View:
""¦the mechanism I propose is front-loading. I have currently been exploring the plausibility of such a mechanism and the results are encouraging." link
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation." (Blog About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 31, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Zachriel:
So,… Let's Do Philosophy? Sorry TP.
PS,
I threw an "ism" at the end of atelic up there in my post. I'm calling that one too. Also, the study of atelicism, atelicology is mine as well.
PPS,
Where the heck are Stunney and keiths!
PPPS,
'Cause every PPS should have one.
Okay, I'm done clogging the blog (Dibs again!) now. Really.
Regards all and Happy New Year!
Comment by Rob R. — December 31, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
TP, I believe Zachriel was attempting to show how science differs from non-science. You are providing me with quotes who the authors themselves would say are directed at non-empirical matters.
Dembski is talking about a debate.
A non-empircal matter as are the statements of antagonists the statement is made in reaction to.
There is an anti-ID movement too. This too is removed from the points discussed between Zachriel and Joy.
Behe's unscientific point is what?
The first quote gets to the heart of what ID is about- empirical signals or evidence. The second one is not intended as an empirical statement.
A good start on a scientific approach in my view.
A laudible goal.
Comment by Bradford — December 31, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Hi Rod R,
You wrote…
No apology necessary. I think we have established that I am, indeed, a political animal like everyone else.
I like debating science more because people don't get as offended when I back up my assertions with evidence. However, I am not afraid to argue philosophy/politics/religion/etc.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 31, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
atelic, 37100 references on Google. However, you are first of 1520 for atelic AND evolution, though not listed at all for "atelic evolution". {You've just lost your first place position. You're now fourth. Such are the mysterious ways of Google.}
clogging, commenting on blogs.
Comment by Zachriel — December 31, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
TP:
Naw, I doubt it's free will. Though it is intentional agency, more along the lines of programmed habit. Free will is a higher order product of consciousness in my view, even though all life forms are arguably conscious of a self-other divide, and will intentionally strive to survive. Or, at least the ones with the mechanisms of consciousness. Some might just be molecular machine machines, which arguably conscious life forms can either invade to use for themselves, ingest to provide nutrients for themselves, or engineer to produce useful substances for themselves. Or maybe it's all machines, mere tools for intentionality/consciousness to use for its own purposes. These often conflict, one life form to another.
Comment by Joy — December 31, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Hi Bradford,
Previously you wrote…
Tell me, were you asking for examples of IDists' Points of View that were purely scientific in order to show that "ID is unscientific"!?!
Nice Catch-22
However, the quote-mining dump has provided us with something to talk about.
Of course Mike Gene's point of view that I quoted is a "good start on a scientific approach" with a policy that is a "laudable goal".
That is why I included them, as a compare and contrast to the approaches and goals of other IDists, including yours.
Let's start with the "innocuous question". This point of view is clearly begging the question. In the opening post, Mike Gene was talking about a woman having a reason to be suspicious. The evidence may not have been strong, but there was evidence that caused the suspicion. The innocuous question POV would be the equivalent of a woman wondering, for absolutely no reason, whether her husband was cheating on her. And going further in her paranoid state to wonder if it was possible for her to reliably detect her husband cheating even if nothing is known about how or when he cheated. And, o yeah, discussing the husband's motivations (either for or against) is also off-limits from consideration.
Sorry, but to me, the innocuous question is an ID marketing tool intended to provide cover for a religious agenda.
Mike Gene may or may not have a religious agenda but when he starts out with "the mechanism I propose is…" that is science.
When he follows it up with a recognition of the politics surrounding the issue and a promise to separate his science from his philosophy that is more than a laudable goal, it is how critical thinking is done.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 31, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Hi Joy,
Yes, I got sloppy in my attempt to be cute.
I agree, there is a distinction between consciousness and free will.
However, I think that is one of those NOMA monsters lurking in the shadows you have warned me about previously.
Right?
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 31, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 2:58 pm
TP:
Oh, I dunno. If there is a truly scientific quest to quantify consciousness – and there is – then all applicable aspects of consciousness come under its general purview. There is rudimentary self-other consciousness that allows 'primitive' life forms to seek food and avoid dangers. That is a form of self-awareness, which is a quality of consciousness. Awareness that you are not the environment and the environment is not you. Obviously there's a whole range of degrees of that.
Other qualities of consciousness are intent, desire, and awareness of the future. Which can be as simple as moving from here to there for whatever purpose the organism desires to satisfy, or as complicated as figuring out how much to put into your 401-k over the next year, for the purpose of being able to eat and have a roof over your head when you're 70.
A more developed quality of intentionality is focused awareness and formal thought processes – like critical thinking, analysis and ideation. Close to these capabilities we'll likely find freedom of will, the power to formulate a plan and act it out when we could as easily (or more easily) not bother and get along just fine.
Yeah… it's a fascinating subject, not nearly so dismissible as the Dennett/Churchlands would have it be. But maybe that's just the unavoidable product of their programmed robot-brains and they really don't have higher capacities of consciousness. In which case maybe we'd all be better off if they'd just learn to live with their own handicaps and leave the rest of us to our seeking after truth. Since they tell us they can't change our non-existent minds about anything anyway and all…
Comment by Joy — December 31, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Actually I was hoping for something like "irreducible complexity is scientifically unsound because… or front loading is erroneous because…" rather than angels standing on pins stuff.
All of that from: "Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?" I don't see the connections but maybe the anti-ID movement comes with special lenses I have not been supplied with.:grin:
On a deeper level science is about linking causes to effects. The mechanisms you see as essential are nowhere observed doing what is claimed for them. For example, note a prominent mechanism for generating life- a self-replicating molecule. That's a mechanism? The reason it is proposed and then debunked is the causal issue. It does not live up to its billing and cannot based on scientifically known causes and effects. It is a mirage in an intellectual desert.
What is the major mechanism behind evolution- RM + NS. So we see the mechanism living up to the hype right? Of course not. What we see instead is molecular sequence evidence produced to support the argument of the mechanism. Get beyond the mechanisms to the real meat and guts of the issues discussed.
Indeed. Separate the wheat from the chaff. Sounds good to me.
Comment by Bradford — December 31, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
It is times like this that I feel embarrassed for you. When Salvador Cordova gets backed into a corner he defiantly admits to trusting in the word of God. Walt Brown doesn't even need to be backed into a corner. He honestly and rigorously defends his scientific/religious opinion.
By contrast, you reduce your opinion to nothingness. You provide no hypotheses. You defend nothing other than your belief that OOL researchers are wasting their time. I just challenged your main tenets from the header of your blog.
The best you can do is downplay the significance of your own positions and add a smiley face?
Do you actually expect us to believe ID is a minor musing for you?
Maybe "yes", maybe "no". Just an "innocuous question"…
…just enough to question the meaning of life and the universe…
…but, oh no, this isn't religion, it's science…
…yea…
…sure"¦
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 31, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Joy
Yes, that is a good summary of what I said.
Actually I had forgotten, so my previous posts were more about ID with a designer. EAM suffers from being relatively specific (which is good, as long as the specifics are right, but…) and completely unsupported. It should be possible to identify mechanisms by which an organism can identify a need, can modify its own physiology in a novel fashion based on that need, and to pass that on to its young. We see none of that. One might suppose that more intelligent animals would evolve faster than less intelligent ones; primates should evolve very much faster than trees, for example. People should be able to direct their own evolution. We see none of that.
I do not. I gave theistic evolution as just one example of a telic evolution process, an example that happens to be on my side in this Culture War. I assume none of my opponents are Theistic Evolutionists.
Your inability to accept that I accept that ID is not a theistic point of view is your problem, not mine, Joy.
Yes, Joy. I do know it. Now if you can just accept that I know it…
What you need to do Joy is read what I wrote. I spent some time defining what I mean by telic. And I went on to say why I think that is the useful definition in this debate. If you have a different definition, then we can go with that.
So you think there are telic (by your definition) processes, such as fermentation by yeast or some guy going to work. In both cases the action is towards some goal for the organism. But the thing is Joy, we all know that! No one is going to argue against such an obvious and trivial claim. But if that is the best you can do…
Rob R.
Read each sentence of the description, and see if an external agent is mentioned. If not the mechanism is atelic in operation.
Science accepts the mechanisms that are supported by evidence. If those mechanisms do not involve an external intelligent agent, then it is the atelic mechanisms that go in the textbooks.
Try Googling for "evolution mechanism" or perhaps "fermentation mechanism" and see what you can find. Read the step-by-step descriptions, and take note of any mention of an external intelligent agent. Or look at the article I linked to in my last post. You will find the external intelligent agent is never invoked; hence atelic.
Good way of putting, yes.
No, I do not think there is any science that supports my position, and I am doubtful there could be. Denton's ID is so similar to the atheist scenario that I suspect it would be impossible to detect between the two.
Just an amateur philosopher of science (like Mike).
Yes, I think both have already reached a philosophical position, and are trying to bend science to support it.
And that is fine. Plenty of scientists are religious, and maybe have similar inspirations. Note that the Laws of Motion, calculus and Big Bang Theory all fail to invoke an external agency, so despite the inspirations, they are all atelic.
In each case someone has devised a mechanism that explains the observation and presumably makes predictions too. And in every case the mechanism has no external agent involved. I think that makes them atelic.
For those where an origin is proposed (probably not most), I think you will find the same: Their origins are equally devoid of external agents.
Comment by The Pixie — December 31, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 5:22 pm
TP,
And I explained what that difference was: Dembski attempted to do more than assume and argue his assumption should be the default view – he provided what he argued was a scientific measure. How many times can I highlight my skepticism of being able to scientifically discern between design and lack of design at a grand scale before you're willing to believe it? I'll say flat out that I personally don't think Dembski succeeded – then again, I'm not a scientist, and I base this on philosophical grounds.
And while you argue 'well it's still smoke and mirrors just with effort', I'll say that I see a difference between Dembski's attempt and Victor Stenger's attempt at injecting views on God into science. If you want to argue they're fundamentally the same, go for it – it's not really an argument that's important to me. This is the sort of thing that really is "mere opinion" for my money.
The Pixie,
I'll be blunt. The problem I have with the simple debate on what should be called telic and what should be called telic is not only that it's arbitrary. But it's related to statements like this:
Which, really, comes across as nothing but a cheap debating tactic. Let's arbitrarily define a class in a bracketed way such that the definitions of class members have to be atelic, then mention that absolutely none of the members of that class are telic. In a debate about teleology in MET.
That would be akin to my defining 'process' as something that requires initiation by an agent, then arguing 'Sure, maybe the universe is telic and maybe it isn't. But we can both admit that every natural process is telic, yes?' There's more going on there than agreement about arbitrary definitions for the sake of eased communication.
Well, now you're mingling process and mechanism. But even with that aside – when it comes to a discussion about teleology on a grand scale, arguing the possibility that said grand scale can be telic/designed, then bringing up defined processes as being 'definitely atelic', simply confuses the issue. Back to rand() – you can define it as atelic if you want. Or telic. Your reponse is that you want to define something as atelic only for clarity of communication. My response is, considering the discussion is centering entirely around scientific viability of ruling in or out agency (and thus teleology), bracketing concepts and referring to them as 'atelic' or 'telic' helps no one, unless they're actually trying to confuse the issue.
And my response is that an Agent/Designer could have intentions and primary purpose(s), in principle, with every mechanism, organism and process that is in place, even if they unfolded by a natural plan. Or maybe an A/D's intentions could be bounded, and certain things are unintended but allowed. Or even unforeseen. At that level of discussion, talk of telic/atelic with certainty is misguided, and left to philosophy. Even below that level it's dangerous, because it can be used in a descriptive shell-game.
Comment by nullasalus — December 31, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 6:01 pm
All of that from: "Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?" I don't see the connections but maybe the anti-ID movement comes with special lenses I have not been supplied with.:grin:
I trust in God's word too and freely admit to it. What I will not do is engage in a phoney, politically correct compromise and pretend that "pathways" to life are legitimate, that it is ridiculous for anyone to think that the symbolic coding systems found in cells are anything but manifestations of reductionist causes devoid of intelligent design and that the anti-ID movement does not exist. Nowhere in scripture are we told that God's creative hand is hidden from view.
Have you read all my comments at TT and everything I have written elsewhere? If not then do not make silly allegations which can make you look like a liar.
I never downplay my own positions but I will not go along with the thug mentality prevalent among EAs which demands that IDists must have ulterior religious motives while their opponents are purely objective.
ID is a fascinating subject matter.
Life arises. Pure science. Yeah sure.
Comment by Bradford — December 31, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 6:06 pm
TP, here is a question for you. Is front loading a concept or a biological mechanism and can you explain the difference?
Comment by Bradford — December 31, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
The general term "front loading" is a general concept, IMO. This is because there isn't an agreed to definition of the term.
I believe Mike has one or more mechanisms that he thinks of when he says "front loading". I have a mechanism I think meets the general concept.
You are not going to get me on the qualifier "biological" since I suspect you have a more restricted definition of "life" than I do.
An example of a front loaded hypothesis is that life was preloaded into the universe at its creation. The mechanism of OOL on Earth is that life came from space. By "preloaded", I mean life was front loaded to evolve.
There are other hypotheses/mechanisms I could think of, but hopefully you get the idea.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 31, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Hi Pixie,
This strikes me as a cop-out, as we all know about predictions and making predictions. It's time to move beyond this generic point. You originally wrote:
1. Does the hypothesis of the presumed guilt of the husband lead us to predict that she should be able to find the phone number of the mistress in the husband's wallet?
2. If no such paper was in the wallet, would this failed prediction falsify the suspicion?
3. If the hypothetical woman answers, can the husband still reasonably deny the allegation?
On the contrary, the book is about finding ways to move beyond the level of suspicion. But find out for sure? Are you claiming that we can be certain when it comes to beliefs about the origin of life? Do you know "for sure" that life was not designed?
Sometimes, I envy those which such a sense of certainty.
Comment by MikeGene — December 31, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Definitions of life do not change natural realities. One can call nanobes a life form and I'll not spend a lot of time discussing the issue one way or the other. The point remains that pathways must come to cells as we understand them. That in turn requires more than vague descriptions.
Comment by Bradford — December 31, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
nullasalus
But that is not what MET is, no matter what the ID leaders would like you to think. MET is defined as a set of mechanisms that best model what actually happens. Sure, the DI want you to believe that MET excludes telic mechanisms because they are telic. The truth is that no one has offered any telic mechanisms that can beat the atelic ones. MET excludes telic mechanisms .because the atelic ones are consistently better.
Your "cheap debating tactic" seems to be: Okay MET only consists of atelic mechanisms, but that is only because MET only allows atelic mechanisms.
How so? It might help the debate if you could tell me what you understand these words to mean, rather than just saying I have it wrong.
I hoped I had made it clear that atelic mechanisms do not necessarily imply an atelic process – over several posts now.
No. I want to define what I mean by telic for clarity of communication.
I have no idea why trying to be as clear as possible about what telic means can be construed as confusing the issue, but I suspect we are misunderstanding each other here, and I am not sure where.
And I said that several posts ago, and then quoted myself twice in the subsequent post because you people are still not getting that I agree.
Then let me try to be clear:
1. MET includes a collection of mechanisms that represents scientists' best models of evolution, whether telic or not.
2. It turns out that none of those models invoke an external agency.
3. Nevertheless, the overall process might still be telic, for example as in TE or Denton's ID.
4. For non-scientific reasons, I strongly suspect not.
Now, where is the pea?
Mike
Is it? Many ID arguments here and elsewhere seem to come down to people not knowing about the role of predictions in science. How can you be so sure we all know about it? Why is it a cop out to reiterate something that we supposedly all know about?
It is an analogy, so it is not going to be perfect. And it is an analogy you invented, not me. I just had to make do with what I had. But I am sure the point was understood by everyone, as we all understand about predictions, right?
Find out for sure in an analogous sense to the husband, which is to actually do some investigations yourself, instead of waiting passively to see what comes along.
Comment by The Pixie — December 31, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 10:24 pm
The Pixie,
I don't take my views from the DI – otherwise why would I say that I think Dembski failed, even if I'm saying it due to philosophy?
You yourself said that where the line is drawn on those definitions is arbitrary. I've said repeatedly that I don't question the mechanisms, but consider any 'telic' or 'atelic' description of them to be either pointless, or deceptive and arbitrary.
Because you first talked about how process was distinct from mechanism, and then in your definition of mechanism you described it as a process. It's pretty straightforward.
And I'm saying that the reasons a process may or may not be atelic are the same reasons a mechanism may or may not be atelic.
I'll skip ahead to the point:
And my response is that using 2 as the basis to describe them as atelic is pointless, as well as undesirable because it easily leads to misunderstanding, and implies a ruling out of secondary causes – which, again, is philosophy.
In other words, the philosophical argument doesn't just relate to the 'overall process', because if it's an open issue whether the process was guided or intentional, then it's an open issue whether the mechanisms and events were, down to the most minute details. They could be secondary causes. There would be a trail of the intentional all the way back to the source.
If you're granting that, and still are saying the mechanisms should be classed as atelic because you define the mechanism purely as a procedure with no reference to agency ("Fermentation occurs as a function of yeast acting on starch/sugars, and it does this without conscious agents [cells ruled out as agents]"), then at that point 'atelic' as an adjective is as close to meaningless as one can get. It's akin to saying locomotion is atelic because the description is an idealized depiction of force operating on matter, and people walking or moving are employing a telic process that makes use of atelic mechanisms. Wonderful, there's no need to call upon angels to describe a rock falling. But that's not the question, and hasn't been the question for quite awhile.
Not only that, defining 'agent' is a whole other trick itself – and again, it's back to philosophy. Are humans and the human-like the only agents? All animals? All things that are alive/evolve? Constructs? Atoms? What ends can they have, even in principle? What are the thresholds for different ends? These things aren't necessarily clear-cut. Even in the traditional sense you still have to grapple with intention through secondary causes.
So when it comes to describing a mechanism as atelic, I still object. Unless the concepts agency and teleology are given along with the description and awareness to the complexity surrounding those issues is made. Which, really, is a tall order.
Comment by nullasalus — December 31, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Hi Pixie,
Yet you initially reacted to my posting (without really addressing the major points). The topic has nothing to do with "the role of predictions in science." Because, as you know, I do not think ID is science nor is my OP an argument about science. Rather than retreat into the realm of science, why not address the points I raise?
Then why not answer my questions?
Where do I argue that we should wait passively?
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 7:03 pm
nullasalus
This is what I do not understand. Those mechanisms you accept, none of them involve an external agent. That would seem to make them atelic.
So you still cannot tell me what you mean by those words? Oh, well.
A mechanism is a description of how a process happens. Fermentation and evolution are processes; basically something happening over time. The mechanisms are how they happen, what is going on inside the cells, or what ever.
Ah, so it is the labelling. You accept that there is no external agent involved in any mechanism in MET, you just do not wanted them labelled as atelic. Have I got that right?
Then we need to be clear about the distinction between a mechanism that involves an external agent, and a mechanism that was set up by an external agent. That is what I was trying to do that with the process versus the mechanism.
Excellent, let us focus on the real question. The question is whether life was designed, right? So whether or not the cell is a conscious agent is irrelevant, right? Whether or not a person is a conscious agent, that is irrelevant, right? People walking is certainly purposeful. But does it help the discussion to call it telic? If we are discussing the question of whether life was designed, the most useful definition of telic would be serving some purpose or goal of that designer. That is how I have been using the word, and I have tried to be very clear about that (is there any point asking you to define how you use it?).
Let us focus on that question again: was life designed? Now it all becomes clear. The only agent we are concerned with is the supposed designer. We do not need to worry about whether humans or atoms are alive or are agents; it is irrelevent. The only agent we are interested in is the big one, the one that created life.
Mike
I was responding to the first two sentences: "The debate about evolution and intelligent design eventually comes down to demands for evidence. Yet evidence is simply data that are interpreted in the light of previous experience and belief." Evolution has a whole load of scientific evidence supporting. The various claims make predictions, and those predictions have been tested and found to be good – as we all know, because everyone around here knows howe science works. ID is not science, as you readily agree. ID does not make predictions, ID has not been tested.
For scientists, the debate about evolution and intelligent design comes down to demands to follow the scientific methodology. Evolution does. ID does not. Really, it is as simple as that.
For non-scientists, perhaps it is demands for evidence. Reading this thread, it seems likely.
And for the ID leaders it is about framing the question so the non-scientists never cotton on to the issue about scientific methodology. Like you seem to be doing on this thread.
I did not believe it will help the discussion, but just for you, I will do so.
So we have this hypothesis, that the husband is being unfaithful. If she assumes the hypothesis is true, then it is highly likely (but not certain) that the husband has the phone number somewhere, perhaps on his mobile phone, perhaps in his wallet. Failure to find the number will not falsify the hypothesis. And the husband can still deny the allegation (depending on what the mistress said).
I guess this does raise some important points afterall. In real science, a failed prediction should falsify the hypothesis (all else being equal). And the predictions should be bold, that is, they should predict a different outcome to the competing hypotheses.
The absence of reports of laboratory investigations.
Comment by The Pixie — January 1, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 7:33 pm
The Pixie,
And as you said, the bracketing of those definitions that 'make them atelic' also has the effect of making 'atelic' meaningless for any conversation about agency or teleology. It's deceptive.
I did. You're the one who said that processes could be telic, and mechanisms were atelic. You gave a definition of mechanism that used 'process' in its definition. Do you really not see how that can be a source of confusion?
I accept that there is no 'external agent' in any mechanism in MET insofar as the 'mechanisms' have been defined in such a way that they simply describe an action. Just as 'eating' and 'killing' and 'climbing' could all be defined as atelic, because they are actions – there's no one in the definition 'doing' anything, because they are actions – what agents do. Labelling them as "atelic" is meaningless, accomplishes nothing. You know this as well as I do.
In which case, every process can be a mechanism, and every mechanism can be a process.
No, it's not irrelevant, because the boundary of the agent or act of agency is another fight. If life was designed, the question becomes how it was designed. What are the secondary causes? What may have not been designed? Were other agents involved in the process – and those 'agents' can be cells or other life forms employed mechanistically as secondary causes.
Here it is: If the definition of 'mechanism' is given without reference to agency, positive or negative, what changes? If the question "does this mechanism involve an external agent?" is answered with "that is a philosophical question – the definition of this mechanism is clear and performs as described" what breaks? The answer is nothing. Call it telic (because you believe secondary causes are involved), call it atelic (because you think it just plain happens), call it neither. The definition stays clear. That much is undeniable.
Comment by nullasalus — January 1, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Pixie:
Supporting evidence gets reported weekly, sometimes more often than that. The mechanisms are primarily epigenetic. You do know about epigenetics, don't you? That's the means that organisms use to 'mark' genes for expression (having been found favorable) regardless of whether one parent has a different version. Histone coding for expression suiting, based primarily on selective stress (such as heart tissue remodeling when given the opportunity via mechanical ventricular pumps) and such. Shuffling of genomes and marker segments and expression bits. All about expression, based upon need, organized by the organism. Were evolutionary biology not so stuck on RM-NS, development and epigenesis would factor much more broadly than they do now. Voles have radically divergent genomes. They all look alike…
…but you knew that, as we've talked about such things before.
Yet several critics here have in recent weeks and months attempted to get us to redefine ourselves in some way. So your "side in this Culture War' won't have to feel so threatened by what has become (and is increasingly becoming) apparent to researchers the world over. Take-away point being that we shouldn't call ourselves "IDers" but something more palatable to those who are terminally reluctant to admit defeat. The "Theistic Evolutionist" reference looked a lot like another one, a way to keep the religious labeling even if biology's paradigm changes. That religious labeling that never applied to me. Whether it applies to Dembski, Behe, Miller and others is of exactly zero pertinence to what turns out to be true. I'm glad you're willing to admit that up front, right now.
Comment by Joy — January 1, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:08 am
Hi Pixie,
I see. I should have wrote, "The debate about intelligent design eventually comes down to demands for evidence." Congrats. Rather than address the major points of my essay, you found something to nitpick.
That's fine. So it means that scientists aren't the ones who claim "there is no evidence for ID." Or, those who claim "there is no evidence for ID" are not being scientific.
So the "prediction" becomes a "perhaps." Interesting, eh?
Indeed. So she should not bother to look?
Indeed. And is the woman thus rationally obligated to embrace this denial and abandon her strengthened suspicion?
I'm glad you now realize that. It's why I asked the questions.
Yep, in "real science." But the woman isn't doing "real science," now is she? Does that mean she should not bother to follow up her hunches? That her efforts are doomed to fail? That her efforts can be nothing more than subjective nonsense?
In other words, if the woman fails to hire a PI to get some photos, everything else she does is passive waiting? Reality exists on a continuum, and there is plenty of room between passive waiting and a laboratory investigation.
Comment by MikeGene — January 2, 2008 @ 12:08 am
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 am
Presumably if there is adultery, it is not with an unidentifiable disembodied entity at some unidentifiable time at some unidentifiable place. Rather, from the tentative hypothesis, we can infer that there is an actual person involved, and that the adultery happens at some place and at some time. Even though the purported principals are attempting to hide the evidence, there would still be a link of causation. We've discussed this before.
Comment by Zachriel — January 2, 2008 @ 8:29 am
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 am
nullasalus
Fine, so we will not label them atelic. I originally said: "The mechanics of modern evolutionary theory, how natural selection happens, what it achieves, how various types of mutation occur, all these are science, that is people have made tested predictions from the numerous claims. And none of those claims involve agency." Let us forget telic, I am becoming convinced it is only confusing the issue.
Instead, concentrate on the absence of an external agent. We have a good model for how evolution happens in MET, and that model requires no external agent. So why suppose there is one?
Where?
I said the mechanisms of MET were atelic (I would now say do not invoke an external agency), not all mechanisms.
Look in a dictionary, all the definitions use other words. My definition of "mechanism" used the word "process" to highlight the difference.
But eating, killing and climbing do not involve an external agent, and that is what we are concerned with (this is a good example of where telic and atelic are confusing us).
No, the mechanism is the step-by-step description of how the process occurs.
I do not understand how this relates to what I posted. I said we need only to worry about one agent, the supposed designer. Does it matter if we label the cells as agents? How does affect are argument? Surely it is only labelling?
The definition? I would not expect the definition to give any reference to agency. I would expect any specific mechanism that invokes agency to reference the agent. If you are describing the mechanism that changes the channel on a TV, you would reference an external agent.
Joy
From Wiki:
Epigenetics is very limited; the vast majority of genetic information is in DNA (hmm, perhaps you do not think DNA is used for genetic information?). Can you tell me how the organism identifies the need to evolve? I have not heard of that in epigenetics. Can you explain, once the organism has noted that it needs to evolve some new function, it devises the biochemistry that is required? Is there any evidence of information that is passed on epigenetically getting incorporated into DNA? If not, then how does DNA change? If so, how does the organism decide when and how to do this? Where does a daffodil or an E. Coli bacterium do the mental processing required to plan out these biohemical changes?
I had not noticed that. Who were they?
Creationists and IDists have been predicting the demise for Darwinism for about a century, so I will take this claim with a pinch of salt.
Imagine a post-Gene world… Modern evolutionary theory now says that life was first created by an ETI 4 billion years ago, with all sorts of information front-loaded. Pretty much all the mechanisms of MET are still there, as is common descent. What is the state of the "Culture War" Well the creationists still reject MET as it is still entirely naturalistic (or materialist, as they still call it), and it still says people are related to apes. So the creationists continue to campaign to get MET out of schools. Meanwhile, the atheists are still pro-MET. The post-Gene version does not threaten their position one bit, and are excited that no we have positive evidence of extra-terrestrial life.
Mike
Actually that was not my point, but yes, that would be better. Rather than try to have ID competing with MET, just ignore MET; pretend it does not exist. This will work for the faithful, because for whatever reason, they are already convinced it is wrong, and will believe what you say.
Sorry, but based on your mistake in that first sentence, I honestly thought you were trying to compare the evidence for ID to the evidence for MET. Boy do I feel foolish. In my defence, I was debating what seemed a very similar issue at ARN when I first posted on here.
It means that scientists will reject ID until there is an ID hypothesis, there are predictions logically derived from that hypothesis, and those predictions are better than the ones from the competing hypothesis. I have yet to see any such predictions. Perhaps you can show me some?
Of course not! Pretty clearly this was just an analogy. You did realise that?
The woman can either sit back and hope for evidence to fall in her lap, or she can actually do something about actively finding evidence (hiring a PI to get photos is one option). IDists can sit around waiting for real scientists to publish relevant papers, or they can actively indulge in science. I do not see that as a continuum.
Comment by The Pixie — January 2, 2008 @ 11:09 am
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Suspicion is a human emotional response. Suspicion may be based on reason or on non-reason. It may be well-founded, a hunch or completely unbased. She may just be a suspicious sort, or overgeneralizing from past experience. Or she may be having the wool pulled over her eyes and overlooking obvious clues.
A suspicious person, whether that suspicion is justified or not, will tend to be sensitized to evidence. Sometimes irrationally so. But regardless of the source of the suspicion, valid evidence links the purported activity through a chain of causation; secretiveness, communications, assignations; entailed in the purported act itself.
Down the rabbit hole, of course.
Comment by Zachriel — January 2, 2008 @ 11:12 am
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:31 am
The Pixie,
I have a feeling we're both talking past each other here. Alright – you say the model requires no external agent. Now you're bracketing the entire process. If the process was started by an external agent – if the agent was the start of quite possibly everything – the 'does not require an external agent' falls. Back to philosophy. Or legitimizing a model that has everything MET does plus a hypothesized designer.
Sure, but you're the one defining your own terms here. I'm not accusing you of being foolish or anything – now you're saying you meant only the mechanisms of MET are atelic, and other mechanisms can be telic, and then there are processes.
This is getting pointless. 'No need to refer to a designer, and no need to rule one out.' It's probably just a point we'll both disagree on.
Depends on how you're categorizing them.
And if you had a mechanism that automatically changed the channel? Or designed a program that would try frequencies and combinations until it changed the channel? You could bicker about it. I mean, obviously.
All I'm saying here is that there's no need to reference agency either way. Or to put it another way – when you're communicating the ideas of MET, it's best to be honest and careful when it comes to the philosophical and theological end. Judging by your other exchanges, you may think the only people who are sensitive about the topic are YECs, but honestly, that's far from the case. Saying 'MET has no need for any designer' is loaded, encroaching on philosophy, and even people like me who are rather at-home with biological MET start choosing sides once we see what's being smuggled in with (as in, distinct from) the science.
Comment by nullasalus — January 3, 2008 @ 2:31 am
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:20 am
nullasalus
No, I am definitely not bracketing the entire process. Back on the 30th I said "The process of evolution could be telic; that is what theistic evolutionists believe.". On the 31st, I repeated that twice.
How? Can you tell me the mechanism of climbing so that it invokes an external agent? I guess you could for killling if it is by a hitman, hired by an external agent.
I was thinking of the usual channel changing process, which very obviously involves the user.
You want to invent a TV that automarically changes channel, without the input of the user? Well, I think that mechanism would not invoke an external agency.
But your counter examples are of different processes, processes you have contrived to not involve an external agent. If it does not involve an external agent, then, no it does not involve an external agent. If the mechanism to change the TV depends on the user, then an external agent is involved. If it does not, then no external agent is involved. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
Comment by The Pixie — January 3, 2008 @ 5:20 am
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:55 am
The Pixie,
Ah, good. Luckily I think I've found the heart of this.
Which means you and I are considering agency in different ways. If a TV automatically changes channel without user input and it was designed to do this, I'd call it telic. And if I wrote a program to design a TV to change channel without user input – end result, the mechanism, is still telic. It's a question of secondary causes and primary/secondary goals.
Let me ask – do you know what a secondary cause is? Do you understand how an agent can employ one? If you do, maybe you'll see why I'm saying telic in a case where you're not. You don't need an agent immediately involved in the mechanism for the mechanism to be telic.
Comment by nullasalus — January 3, 2008 @ 5:55 am
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:21 am
Hi Pixie,
Since you did not quote these sentences in your initial reply, I did not notice your knee-jerk reaction to them.
I'm sorry. I thought you meant something when you said, "For non-scientists, perhaps it is demands for evidence. Reading this thread, it seems likely."
Of course it's an analogy. Yet the analogy involves realities that are experienced a thousand times over every day on this globe. You speak as if anything less than Science should be pooh-poohed and dismissed.
That's silly. So a woman who suspects her husband is cheating should get into a laboratory?? Like I said, you speak as if anything less than Science should be pooh-poohed and dismissed.
Yet you speak as if hiring the PI to get photos is the only option, not merely one option.
Then you should learn from a Nobel Laureate, who wrote:
To publish a relevant paper, you first need a rigorous, testable hypothesis. To develop a rigorous, testable hypothesis, you first need some rough, preliminary idea. To come up with such ideas, you need a certain way of viewing the world.
If we're dealing with a nascent proto-science, we're not going to get to the relevant, published papers with impatience and a snap of the fingers. I'm sorry, but the belief that anything less than laboratory work is passive waiting is absurd. It's just chest-thumping.
Comment by MikeGene — January 3, 2008 @ 7:21 am
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:24 am
Hi Zachriel,
You forgot one thing "“ suspicion is the foundation of an investigation. That's why you don't approach ID as an investigator.
All fine and dandy. But none of this means that our woman should necessarily be able to produce a photo. Reality is not always so tractable.
Of course.
Comment by MikeGene — January 3, 2008 @ 7:24 am
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
Go for it.
Scientific hypotheses have historically come from almost any source, including deep-thought or vast experience in a field of study, but also from a hunch, a dream, serendipity, an inspiration, a Muse, from fanciful thought-experiments, a lucky guess, or even while playing cards. Most hypotheses are naturally derived as extensions of existing theories.
Though there are an infinitude of possible hypotheses, the vast majority are redundant, vacuous, or just plain wrong.
Indeed. However, any 'scientific' investigation is based on the chain of causation. Following the husband. Searching for communications. Scent of a woman. The analogy is that the claim of ID implies the same chain of causation between the artifact, the art and the artist.
There are many wondrous things to discover.
Comment by Zachriel — January 3, 2008 @ 8:43 am
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:33 am
nullasalus
This is why I decided telic and atelic were bad terms to use a couple of posts ago, and started to be more specific about invoking external agents.
Mainstream ID could be characterised as the rejection of "goo-to-you" evolution. A lot of ID arguments are based on why that could not happen (eg, Behe's IC or Dembski's CSI), and most of the DI IDists reject common descent. So I started just wanting to understand what sort of ID you find attractive if you accept the mechanisms of MET; when in the process you insert the intelligent agent, and what leads you to that position. I am afraid Rob R. then dragged us off into the telic/atelic mire.
Mike
"Knee-jerk reaction" What leads to to infer that my reaction was knee-jerk? Please try to refrain from psychoanalysing your opponents, Mike.
The whole opening post was about evidence, and from the first sentence it seemed to be comparing ID to evolution. There was also this paragraph:
Again, misleading me to think you were comparing ID to, well, real science. I did not quote the first sentence originally simply because I was responding to what appeared to me to be the main thrust of the whole post.
Ah, I see the problem. I was talking about non-scientists when I said "For non-scientists, perhaps …" Sorry about the confusion.
Sorry if it came across like that; I certainly do not believe any such thing.
Remember, I was under the mistaken impression that you were comparing the support for evolution with the support for ID, where the former has all the science behind it, and the latter does not.
Because it is merely an analogy, I really I could not care less how she goes about doing the investigation.
I am going to stick my neck out and guess that this Nobel Laureate, once he has some observations, went on to do some science – you knowe, like in a laboratory or in the field.
So how does an ID scientist sped his time, if not in the lab; what does he actually do?
ID has been around about 20 years. When will it move on from nascent proto-science to fully-fledged proto-science do you think? How many more decades do you need until you start the laboratory work, Mike?
Comment by The Pixie — January 3, 2008 @ 9:33 am
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Then the human, with his or her presumptions on how observed data points best fit hypotheses, determines whether these observations currently support or falsify the theory. Since there is no direct logical connection between the data and the hypothesis, the role of the human becomes enhanced.
Comment by Doug — January 3, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Pixie:
Genes are inert (but specified) raw information. How, when and why those genes are actually expressed, and in concert with what other genes expressing at the time, produces 'living' processes – DNA isn't worth a darned thing unless it's expressed in a functional way.
Expression of the information – translating it for use in the processes of life – is far more important to biological processes and evolution than the raw information itself. Epigenetic mechanisms are largely responsible for expression. Such mechanisms probably account for the strange phenomenon of voles all looking alike even though they have widely divergent genomes and even different numbers of chromosomes within the same species.
IOW, the library of raw information is useless unless it is expressed, and its expression has more to do with what an organism *is* than the library of raw information does – which is shared to a large extent across life's diverse landscape. This is entirely evident. The same genes are in the nucleus of a liver cell as are in the nucleus of any other cell in the body. It's the design of the expression suites that determines their form and functions in relationship to the whole organism, and thus what the organism *is*. Many of the mechanisms of this expression are epigenetic. They include:
Paramutation, bookmarking, imprinting, gene silencing, X chromosome inactivation, position effect, reprogramming, transvection, maternal effects, regulation of histone modifications and heterochromatin, plus roles in development of chronic disease states and cancer. Epigenetics determines the expression suiting for cell differentiation, and the study of the "epigenome" is a bioinformatics playground. I hardly think these mechanisms and processes qualify as "limited" when describing life. Without them a genome is just a collection of funny, twisty molecules that don't have a job.
Doesn't have to be encoded into DNA, as the voles also demonstrate very well. So long as the necessary genes for making a 'vole' are present and expressed, it's a vole and not something else. No matter how many chromosomes it has or how untidy its overall genome may be. And no matter how many of its genes and attendant sequences are shared with a tuna fish.
Lick that salt all you like, I don't mind. Just don't insist that my position in this 'Culture War' is religious so you can dismiss pertinent causal processes as if they don't count.
Of course the Creationists and Atheists will continue their ideological culture war no matter what happens in science. Who cares?
Comment by Joy — January 3, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
The Pixie wrote:
What does a theoretical physicist actually do? Develop abstract ways of thinking about and viewing the data collected by practical scientists.
What does a ID theorist actually do? Develop abstract ways of thinking about and viewing the data collected by practical scientists.
I think it would be helpful if you were to differentiate between "ID scientists" and "ID theorists".
Comment by chunkdz — January 3, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
That is incorrect. The hypothesis may come from any source, including inspiration, but the validity a hypothesis is determined by its fit to the data and its ability to make novel observational predictions.
Though it is quite possible to conceive of a mechanical scientific process, significant progress still depends on human genius.
Unless those "abstract ways of thinking" lead to novel observational predictions, then it isn't science.
Comment by Zachriel — January 3, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
And the 'fit to the data' is a subjective decision made by the human; since no logical connection exists. The human decides which is the 'best' fit.
I have to disagree. Would you mind making a case for this? I will genuinely consider the points you make.
What about providing explanations?
Comment by Doug — January 3, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
There are a variety of objective means of determining the best fit, but making novel predictions is an essential component of the scientific method. That is the very definition of a scientific hypothesis.
In limited domains, computers can use various processes to create and test hypotheses. Typically, this is done with data sets. The hypotheses can then be tested against new data.
hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.
Consider some historical examples. Einstein used "abstract ways of thinking", but it wasn't enough that the math was pretty. Einstein dreamed as a boy of racing a beam of light on his sled, but his theories were used to estimate the mass of molecules, predict a longer half-life of unstable elements moving at relativistic velocities, and foretell the bending of light beyond the limb of the Sun.
Mendeleev played Patience and predicted the existence and properties of new elements. While comets were once thought to portend events on Earth, Halley used Newton's theories of motion to predict the return of a comet.
And when Halley sailed to St. Helena and measured the retardation of the pendulum, he was not only confirming Newton's prediction. The rotation of the Earth wasn't just a pretty model, but something that led to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. Eppur si muove!
So how did Gingerich know that he would find a cetacean with hind limbs in the middle of an Egyptian desert? How did Darwin know that people would one day find fossils of not quite human apes in strata dated within the last few million years? And how could biologists be so sure that the great physicist Lord Kelvin was wrong about the age of the Earth?
Comment by Zachriel — January 3, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Hello Zachriel,
A couple of thoughts worth exploring if one aspect of science is strictly "the ability to generate novel predictions."
1. If evolution is an unguided process, then we can not make predictions based upon it. If you disagree, then please make a prediction of future evolution, based on any model you choose. Even if evolution is a guided process, can we make predictions based on a model?
2. Since our understanding of evolution is based on past occurrences, we can only make "postdictions" … ie: where to find a specific fossil.
3. What postdictions are consistent or inconsistent with a teleological version of evolution and what postdictions are consistent or inconsistent with a non-teleological model?
4. Without the ability to make future predictions based on evolution, is evolution a scientific theory?
Comment by CJYman — January 3, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
The Pixie,
I believe Behe has said that he doesn't see the need for any miracles in the process of evolution, even if he were correct (or, I suppose, incorrect) about the edge of evolution. I see ID growing and spreading as a concept, so I don't see Dembski, Behe, or even MG as the last word on ID. I'm not sure of the DI's proportions on that issue – could well be. Or maybe not.
If you're wondering what ID I find attractive – it's mostly the philosophical and social/political end I find attractive right now. Which I keep distinct from the scientific end, unless I see a crossover (And frankly, I often do; If I saw as much criticism of Victor Stenger style books as I do of ID books (for example), a large part of my concern would go away.) I do think there are possibilities for ID to advance beyond what MG calls 'nascent protoscience' – in principle I admire the attempt at design detection, though I have philosophical skepticism about how it can succeed. But it truly does come down to what I see as institutional unevenness, and a belief in idea potential.
Comment by nullasalus — January 3, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Joy
Most scientists believe that DNA also includes the information that determines the systems that control what genes are expressed when, or at least most of it. Is this news to you Joy?
And how does EAM account for differences in DNA? Does does EAM explain how that raw information gets accumulated?
Excellent that you are willing to make an EAM pediction. We shall wait and see how that one turns out. But where do all those vole species get their genomes from according to EAM?
So the big question is where those "expression suites" are? In the DNA as well (as most scientists believe) or exclusively epigenetic? I say exclusively; perhaps you have some mechanism for an organism to reprogram its own germline DNA?
That is really interesting. Here is a news article I was prompted to read about paramutation in mice. One thing that struck me is how surprised the scientists are at this most unusual effect in which it is not DNA determining everything. Makes me think that there is a load of science supporting the idea that DNA determines a heck of a lot of what gene gets expressed.
But they still have vole DNA (of various sorts). How did voles come to have unique DNA? Why did they come to have that "library of raw information" rather than the daffodil's "library of raw information" Do you think the vole would flourish equally well with either?
Great, we agree the voles need vole DNA. MET says they evolved by changes in their DNA, so voles really by definition must end up with vole DNA. EAM says the DNA does not have to change. You have the animal choosing to evolve into a vole morphology; what is happenig with the DNA? How does that work?
Of course not, Joy!
A lot of people care enough to post here.
chunkdz
From Wiki:
In short: science.
nullasalus
Really? His arguments seem to all come down to evolution cannot work without intervention by the designer.
Okay. I am glad we eventually managed to communicate!
Comment by The Pixie — January 3, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
CjYman:
So the weather is obviously a guided process, since we can make weather predictions?
As the earth warms up in certain places, birds will start to lay their eggs earlier in the season.
The breeders' equation: R=h^2S.
Moot.
Back to lurking from Ukraine…
Comment by Raevmo — January 3, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
The Pixie,
I'm not an expert on Behe's claims or books, so take my own words with caution here. But I did follow his amazon blogging and heard his interviews – and he did say that he saw no need for immediate miracles. It could be mechanisms that are unknown, it could have been entirely planned out from the beginning (which, conceivably, could have meant an extremely unlikely physical coincidence, but physical all the same.) I doubt he ruled out a miraculous intervention either – but then again, miracles are another hard thing to define.
He has a nuanced case, considering he definitely affirms common descent – usually it's other people accusing him of not (on the grounds that, if there was an intervention or a planned manipulation, there would be a particular divide in the tree of life. Which strikes me as a dangerous argument to make for people opposed to ID.)
Comment by nullasalus — January 3, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
It's not really correct to say that science is strictly about making predictions. Science includes many aspects; collecting data, thinking, testing, proposing, communicating ideas. And sometimes there may be a lag between theoretical ideas and practical observational confirmation. However, making and testing empirical predictions is an *essential characteristic* of science.
If by guided, you mean intervention by a Telic Agent, then planetary orbits are unguided but predictable in many respects. If by guided, you mean by natural non-telic processes, then evolutionary adaptation is guided just as are planetary orbits.
Scientific predictions refer to novel observations. With historical sciences, that may mean the observation of a fossil. Finding a fossil cetacean with hind limbs is a novel observation, but is not a prediction about the course of future evolution.
Nevertheless, absent human intervention, we expect that biological processes that applied historically will continue to apply. That means evolution, extinction and divergence will continue.
Every day. We can directly observe evolutionary processes, both on the microbiological and the macrobiological scales.
Again, if you can predict the content of 40 million year old strata and pull out a heretofore unknown organism that fits the nested hierarchy of cetacean descent, then it is a bold and powerful prediction of a novel empirical observation.
But we can make all sorts of predictions concerning the course of evolution in the future. The most important characteristic of future organisms is that they will be descendents of extant organisms.
There's no evidence of teleology and substantial evidence of non-telic mechanisms.
Start with the evidence for Common Descent. If you have problems with Common Descent, then it will be difficult to rationally discuss the mechanisms that led to the divergence of species from common ancestral populations. We should attempt to establish Common Descent first.
If you accept Common Descent, then we can show that each new organism is an incremental modification of its ancestor species. We can then make the testable prediction: rates of evolutionary change observed in the world today must be at least as rapid as rates observed over historical periods. This has been confirmed in many ways. Indeed, the observed rates of evolution are much, much faster than required to explain the fastest historical rate.
Scientists predicted they would find a cetacean with hind limbs in the wastelands of the Egyptian deserts. Then they spent years digging in the rocks. In science, that's called a prediction. If you can do something similar, then scientists will listen.
The Lederbergs took clonal (genetically identical) bacteria and showed that they would evolve in front of their eyes, something repeated in universities every day.
The Grants studied generations of Darwin Finches, and discovered they could actually watch the populations adapt in response to the local environment, as predicted by evolutionary theory.
Comment by Zachriel — January 3, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Hi Zachriel,
I did "“ it's called The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues. And I went for it, mostly during the time you were getting a good night's rest.
Indeed. Yet the correct ones were still spawned among this sea.
Yes. But the challenge is the tractability of such a chain and how one moves from one step to the next. Someone who needs a photo will not bother with the clues you mention. In fact, they will likely not see these clues as "evidence." It pays to be aware of pseudo-investigators.
Comment by MikeGene — January 3, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Hi Pixie,
Because you forced the essay into the tired, old, ID vs. Evolution template. You'll notice Joy and TP did not have this initial reaction.
But Pixie, when you psychoanalyze me, I view this as an invitation to return the favor. Perhaps next time, instead of assuming something about me, why not simply ask for a clarification?
Yes, the post is about evidence and its different meanings in the context of an investigation.
I made a sociological observation about the polarization of the two sides and the common claims they both make. Your perceptions were flawed because you come to the table as a culture warrior.
I wrote: "Of course it's an analogy. Yet the analogy involves realities that are experienced a thousand times over every day on this globe. You speak as if anything less than Science should be pooh-poohed and dismissed."
You replied:
Ah, progress. So you acknowledge that not all non-scientific inquiries are worthless. Can such inquiries be rational and based on evidence?
But it can also be literal. We would not dismiss the woman because she was not investigating as part of science, now would we?
But what if someone complained that the woman was not doing science and had no photo? Based on that, should we agree she is passively waiting around in her state of delusion?
Indeed. But that lab work did not poof into existence; it required groundwork and and stage-setting. Check your history of science.
I never said anything about "an ID scientist."
I am not psychic. I think we're dealing with an extremely difficult issue in an ambigious reality, all made much worse by the political and metaphysical baggage associated with this topic. And then we are assuming non-human design amid biotic reality (if it exists) can indeed be detected and recognized across the board, an assumption that may be flawed. I've addressed some of this stuff before here and here.
When ID becomes science. BTW, do you do laboratory research on the origin of life?
Comment by MikeGene — January 3, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Does the new report from the National Academy of Sciences change any of your calculations?
Comment by edarrell — January 3, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
edarrell, what does any of this have to do with Mike's post?
Comment by Bradford — January 3, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
"Call fermentation atelic, but an agent can use it towards an end. Was the fermentation in that situation telic because an agent used it?"
A very potent statement if ever there was one.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 3, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Zechriel: "We can directly observe evolutionary processes, both on the microbiological and the macrobiological scales…There's…substantial evidence of non-telic mechanisms."
The kinds of mutations experimentally observed explain why some dogs are bigger than other dogs, and why some finches have bigger beaks than other finches, and how bacteria gain resistence to various antigens, however, the "directly observed evolutionary processes" you cite have not been demonstrated to be responsible for novel cell types, tissue types, organs or body plans.
Mutation rates are presently irrelevant because the mutations would have to be the right kind at the right time. Nobody knows what the right kind of mutations, and how many in parallel, have to occur in order to produce any particular novel cell type, tissue type, organ or body plan.
MET at present does not explain their existence.
MET is useless as predictive tool with regards to them.
Tell me, Zechriel, how many mutations, and of what kind, does it take to make a wasp learn how to suck the innards out of a worm, while leaving the organs intact?
How many mutations, and what kind, would it take to give a chimp the powers of language, mathematics, and musical composition, comparable to a human?
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 3, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
You seem to be conflating mutation with variation. Most cell types are deeply rooted in the phylogenetic tree. However, these cell types can be shown to have derived incrementally from more primitive ancestors. We can also trace incremental morphological changes from fish to reptiles to mammals. And these incremental changes are well within the known rates of morphological change.
Though genomics is still a very new field, and most genomes have yet to be sequenced, we know that the rate of genetic change is also sufficiently rapid to account for the known divergences, at least within coding sequences.
Comment by Zachriel — January 3, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Hi Mike
Ah, right, I see. If I read "The debate about evolution and intelligent design eventually comes down to demands for evidence" and "As we all know, the debate about evolution and intelligent design is highly polarized" as being part of the tired, old, ID vs. Evolution template, that is necessarily a "knee-jerk reaction". I guess we will have to agree tyo disagree on that one.
I apologise. I had no idea I was doing that. I just read what you wrote. You see "The debate about evolution and intelligent design eventually comes down to demands for evidence" and "As we all know, the debate about evolution and intelligent design is highly polarized" does sound awfully like being part of the tired, old, ID vs. Evolution template.
There is that psychoanalysing again. So hard to resist.
Yes, it does sound like you now have a better understanding of my position. Excellent.
Absolutely not. But then, she is not competing with science. If her claims involve something that contradicts the laws of science as we currently know them, that would be a whole different issue.
My apologies. I should have said nascent proto-scientist.
We are talking about a nascent proto-science that has an institute in Seattle promoting it, has dozens, perhaps hundreds of books published on the subject – including two texbooks. How much groundwork and and stage-setting does ID require? Check your history of science; can you think of any real scientific theory that required so much groundwork and and stage-setting before going into the lab. or field?
I am just an armchair philosopher. I freely admit it.
Comment by The Pixie — January 4, 2008 @ 5:29 am
January 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
The Pixie, quoting Wikipedia,
You apparently brought this quote as an attempt to contrast theoretical physics with theoretical ID. You summarized the quote thusly:
Yet The Design Matrix does all of the things that you seem to think constitutes science. Of course, Mike is operating in the theoretical domain of biochemistry, yet he:
employs an abstraction… (design paradigm)
to explain experimental data… (stability of nucleotides, assessment of optimal encoding algorithms, usage of mechanical terminology in biology, error correction in encoding, mechanics of gene duplication, PCP pathway, hydrophobicity effect, etc.)
and attempts to rationalize,… (the cell as a nanoscale fabrication plant)
explain,… (use of cytosine could be a positive design feature, optimal code reflects rational design )
and predict physical phenomenon.(proofreading in DNA transcription, analogy between biology and mechanical engineering should continue to trend stronger, hydrophobicity effect may be pivotal in macroevolution)
By your own argument, what Mike is doing is "in other words, science."
I guess what burns your biscuits is that Mike uses data found mostly by non-ID scientists, and interprets it in a way you don't appreciate.
Comment by chunkdz — January 4, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Zechriel: "And these incremental changes are well within the known rates of morphological change…Though genomics is still a very new field, and most genomes have yet to be sequenced, we know that the rate of genetic change is also sufficiently rapid to account for the known divergences, at least within coding sequences. "
You know no such thing. You could only know that the "rate of genetic change" is "sufficiently rapid" enough if you know exactly what kinds of mutations or variations are required at the right time to get a given feature. You don't know this, therefore the claim is groundless.
Beyond simple things like bacteria resistance, you don't the nature of the changes required to get novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans, neurological programming, etc.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 4, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
chunkdz
Perhaps you need to read the entire Wiki entry. Theoretical physics is about devising theories, drawing predictions and testing them.
I had no idea ID had predicted proofreading in DNA transcription before it was discovered. How close did the prediction match the mechanism that was later discovered?
And who was it predicted that the hydrophobicity effect may be pivotal in macroevolution? Er, wait; was that "may be". Anyone can predict a "may be". And how does that follow from the ID hypothesis?
Now I think about it, what ID hypothesis was used to generate these predictions? I must confess a suspicion that these so-called predictions are really just attempts to rationalize.
Comment by The Pixie — January 4, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Pixie:
It is not uncommon for someone to state that evolutionary theory predicted x. This is not meant to convey the idea that someone stood out and predicted x (although that can happen too) so much as that x fit in with the theory and flows logically from it. Events that flow logically from a theory can be considered predictions even in the absence of specific prophetic proclamations made by an individual.
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
As the human and chimp genomes have been sequenced, we know the differences. We know that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, that is, they started their divergence from the same place. We also know the observed rates of change. We don't have to know the exact route to determine that an automobile travels fast enough to cross the United States in less than a month. There may be unknown barriers, but my statement concerned being "sufficiently rapid".
Comment by Zachriel — January 4, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Pixie:
What "systems" of DNA are you referring to, Pix? Last I checked, there are genes and occasionally attached 'promoter' sequences (possibly viral insertion remnants now used to promote mutated-to-useful genes) enhancing expression, most everything else is still considered Junk. Organized expression suiting across genomes (multiple genes in multiple locations, unrelated to each other) appears to come primarily via histone coding, DNA packaging and chromatin dynamics – epigenetic mechanisms.
You might want to take a look at some of the not-so successful attempts of genetic engineers to "determine" expression via viral promoters shotgunned into genomes of foreign species. If you can get them (the industry isn't all that proud of its failures), though the FDA used to have some fun reads on that subject before the Bushies locked up the databases. Might have been a wise move on a national security level, given that so many of the good-looking cultivars of ubiquitous staples like corn and soybeans and potatoes turned out to be deadly. The not good-looking ones were a regular freak show.
This industrial remnant of Neodarwinist gene-centrism is one of the several things that convinced most real-life working biologists (as opposed to the academic door guards) that more must be going on. Leading to some interesting new avenues of approach as well as subsequent research findings in the fields of computational genomics and epigenetics.
There are several mechanisms for DNA alteration. In addition to the 'normal wear and tear' accidents, there's post-transcriptional reprogramming, transvection, methylation, etc. Now that we know the DNA – RNA – Protein hierarchy can run both ways (prions) and that the so-called "Weissmann Barrier" is baloney (gene therapy trials), we'll no doubt discover many more less than random mechanisms. They're working on it. I'm more patient than you are, don't expect all the answers or the Absolute Truth About Life yesterday.
Thanks for the link, Pixie. But you've got to understand that shock, horror, surprise and all those other emotive adjectives applied in any science news report are just added for effect. Just like the usual "challenge to current theory!" lede that has become so common it's boring. Just another indicator that these researchers aren't really using the Neodarwinist's RM-NS gene-centric paradigm to inform their research. Or they wouldn't have gone looking for what they were looking for in the first place, since there's nothing to look for if NDS tells you all you need to know. Again, not that many working scientists these days are in it just to confirm the status quo.
Do a search on the term "Epigenome" and look at some of what comes up. Researchers have known for awhile now that there's a record somewhere – but not in the DNA – of ancestral expressions (form and function) that can supercede any transitory or transitional DNA mutation 'experiments'. Thereby allowing offspring generations down the line to 'revert' to ancestral forms when newly mutated DNA proves not to improve fitness. While neither parent has the ancestral genes in their genome anymore.
Like I said, it's looking like expression has way more to do with what an organism *is* than the library full of data. That's "Paramutation," an epigenetic mechanism.
What is "vole DNA?" DNA codes for proteins, and proteins are shared across kingdoms and phyla to a very large extent. That the evidence for common descent, remember? The programs for coordinated expression do not appear to be in the DNA, though some promoters are found amidst the Junk. The programs for coordinated expression increasingly look to be epigenetic, not genetic.
I did a search on "unique vole genes" and there don't appear to be many (or maybe any, though there are nucleotide variations in lots of genes). Most of the DNA researchers consider unique to voles consists of microsatellite sequences and tandem repeats, but those also account for the radical diversity in genome size and chromosome number among all species of rapidly-evolving but completely indistinguishable (by eye) voles.
There's quite a lot of variation in individual genes, as there are among humans for, say, the PrP prion protein – 40-something as of the year 2000 when the research went private. But that doesn't in any way indicate that there are 40-something different species of humans, you know. Do keep in mind that variation does not equal speciation, even though NDS insists speciation occurs that way. If your useful PrP brain proteins are a variant that doesn't flip to beta Prion even after you've eaten a Mad Cow, it doesn't mean you're a new species of primate. It doesn't give you extra arms and legs, it doesn't make your mouth open sideways, and it doesn't move your heart to the right side of your chest. Protein genes are not form regulators, they're functional determinants.
Where did I say that? I said voles are morphologically the same, across myriad and rapidly diverging species with radical differences in genomes and chromosome numbers. Obviously there is an epigenetic *vole* program that no species of vole has managed to escape for all their radical attempts to evolve into something else entirely. What is happening with the DNA is that it's seriously unstable and prone to multiply itself for no reason at any time. That has thus far not affected what makes a vole a vole one bit. Thus what makes a vole a vole can't be in the DNA (beyond whatever unique protein groups/classes voles have that no other life form has). I can't find any information that they have unique protein groups/classes, though they have variations in genes just like all other species of life have.
If you can find that information, please link it. I find these critters fascinating!
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
The Pixie,
Shifting goalpost alert – But even if you want to shift the goalpost you have to make sure that there is a hole to stick it in.
What you've just described is the scientific method, not theoretical physics. Take your own advice and read the whole entry. Here are the salient points.
To this last group we might consider adding Front-Loaded Evolution, Directed Panspermia, Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, et. al..
Say what you want about it – but your requirement for testing and laboratory experiments is not only premature, it's simply not how theoretical disciplines work.
Comment by chunkdz — January 4, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
chunkdz:
Of course testing is part of this but ID critics seem blissfully unaware of the history of science. It has been the case in the past that theories that eventually came to be accepted were not conceived of and tested all within a matter of years or even decades. What we often find is that theoreticians were inspired by ideas that preceeded them sometimes by many decades. Ideas have a way of evolving and the process often takes some time before reaching the testing phase.
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Bradford
Hopefully. But it's certainly not a prerequisite, or a requirement.
Yes, but I haven't heard The Pixie complaining about the fact that brane theorists haven't produced a way to conduct lab tests in the eleventh dimension.
Comment by chunkdz — January 4, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
chunkdz
On the contrary. Let us be quite clear what the goalposts are here. You said "What does a theoretical physicist actually do? Develop abstract ways of thinking about and viewing the data collected by practical scientists." Given the context, I understood your point to be that not all scientists work in the laboratory (or field). I believe you are wrong; theoretical physicist do go into the lab., do do experimental work, wherever they can.
Well spotted. I did that because theoretical physicist follow the scientific method. They are scientists, remember. The Wiki entry neatly reflects the scientific method. First you formulate a hypothesis, then you derive predictions (moving to fringe theory status), then you determine how to test the predictions (moving to proposed theory status) and then you actually test the predictions (moving to mainstream theories).
So we look at the whole Wiki entry. We find mainstream theories. As you quoted they "possess a usual scientific quality of the tests of repeatability, consistency with existing well-established science and experimentation." So that certainly involves laboratory work, and basically the scientific method.
Proposed theories; we see "means for determining the validity of models", so there is that testing of predictions. I will also note "some proposed theories … have eluded methods of discovery and testing" so there are cases where theoretical physicists have done lab. work, but so far it has been inconclusive, and they have yet to prove their theories. You emphasised "Proposed theories usually have not been tested." No, they have no got that far yet; they are at the stage of determine how to do that.
Then we have fringe theories. "This includes physics fields and physical theories presented in accordance with known evidence, and a body of associated predictions have been made according to that theory." So the predictions are there; they are awaiting testing in the lab. to move in to the proposed theories league.
Give me a body of associated predictions have been made according to any one of those theories. Then perhaps we could try to think about you could test those predictions and get the theory propomoted to "proposed theory".
I think you will find that when you do most predictions has already been tested (and so you should be advocating putting the theory in "mainstream theory" already), but it will be interesting to see what you can come up with.
I think you have missed the point of the word "theoretical" in this context. It means you generate "theories". To be science, you generate a "body of associated predictions", then go to the lab. and test them, according to the scientific method. It does not mean the opposite of practical.
Okay, ID is a nascent proto-science. But it has been that way for 20 years. As I said before, there are dozens perhaps hundred of books on the subject, and three textbooks (I erroneously said 2 before). How many more decades until ID makes it to proposed theory? How many more books will be written before someone ventures into the laboratory to test that "body of associated predictions"
Comment by The Pixie — January 4, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
The Pixie,
Well, pg. 175 of The Design Matrix:
The Pixie
Plenty of papers have been published on brane theory. How many more will be published before someone ventures into the eleventh dimension to run some tests?
I'm curious why you are so impatient with the progress of a relatively obscure fringe theory of biology.
Comment by chunkdz — January 4, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
chuckdz
Well not exactly a "body of associated predictions", but it is a start. I just ordered Mike's book today, so I will have a read about what that means exactly. It has to get shipped to the UK, so could be a week before I get it.
Brane theory could be dated to the mid-eighties if you include string heory, so is about as old as ID. A search at Amazon found five different books with "brane theory" in the title. "Intelligent design" threw up over 400 (some will be repeats, some will be by ID opponents, but there are plenty of ID books that do not have "intelligent design" in the title, such as Mike's). As far as I am aware, no textbooks on brane theory. That is quite a difference. And yet, I wonder who will get in the laboratory frst, the brane theorists or the ID theorists? I know where I will put my money.
You say it is obscure, and yet people are trying to get this "obscure" "nascent proto-science" taught as real science to school children (see here, for example, to see a UK organisation doing that). At its most general, my interest is to stop that happening (something Mike agrees with me about, of course).
Comment by The Pixie — January 4, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I suspect you, Aagcobb and others would still be arguing against ID even if the school issue did not exist.
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
The Pixie,
Yet a search for published peer reviewed papers shows a different trend. And not one laboratory test.
I'll take that bet.
I submit that some smart cookie could start BLASTing for evidence to support or not support Mike's hypothesis tomorrow.
As for finding the eleventh dimension, well… how much money are you talking about betting?:smile:
yes,… the children…
So anyway, it will be interesting to see if the evidence bears out the predictions of front-loaded ID. Looking forward to hearing your analysis of the book.
Comment by chunkdz — January 4, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Theorticians working in string theory are quite aware that their efforts will be judged by their ability to make novel observational predictions. However, there is as yet no complete and consistent theory to be tested.
The difference is that many 'ID Theoreticians' claim far more than what the evidence supports.
The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat. There is no set time that each step will take, or that a single person must complete the cycle. Speculation certainly has a place, but scientific credibility comes through empirical testing of entailed predictions.
"Developing abstract ways of thinking about and viewing the data collected by practical scientists" is not sufficient to make the thinking scientific. Otherwise, an angry sky-god hurling lightning bolts at the wicked in the Vale of Témpi would be a scientific explanation for stormy weather. The proposal has to fit the available data and in principle lead to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
Comment by Zachriel — January 4, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
January 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Did I claim otherwise? A post on the historic steps that led to some major scientific breakthroughs would be instructive and would put to rest some of the whining about ID progress.
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
January 5th, 2008 at 12:06 am
The unattributed quote on "abstract ways of thinking" is from chunkdz.
I actually agreed with your statement that "the process often takes some time before reaching the testing phase". However, the vast majority of 'ID Theoreticians' grossly misunderstand the scientific process, often claim far more than what the evidence allows, and have produced nothing of scientific value. Just because people think they are doing science doesn't mean they are.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Comment by Zachriel — January 5, 2008 @ 12:06 am
January 5th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Hi Pixie,
You write:
Indeed. Since we agree that investigations can occur outside of science, and even arrive at the truth, why do you keep retreating into the realm of science?
There are those stereotypes again. So hard to resist. I've long explained there is a difference between the concept of ID and the socio-political ID movement. I am able to make this distinction while you cannot.
That's easy, as there are so many. One obvious example is the Theory of Evolution.
LOL. So the armchair philosopher rests in his armchair and philosophically points his finger at others and accuses them of passively waiting. There is something wrong with that picture.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2008 @ 2:02 am
January 5th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Yes. How shameful of ID critics to shirk their duty promoting the "nascent proto-science" of Intelligent Design. After all, if they don't do it, who will? The supporters?
Imagine if the Catholic church had refused to promote heliocentrism, or if creationists hadn't done their duty in developing evolutionary theory.
Comment by valerie — January 5, 2008 @ 2:49 am
January 5th, 2008 at 2:52 am
Hi valerie,
I think you missed the context. I had originally asked The Pixie if he/she was doing lab research on abiogenesis.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2008 @ 2:52 am
January 5th, 2008 at 3:11 am
Okay, but The Pixie doesn't (to my knowledge, anyway) have a website promoting abiogenesis and hasn't just published a book stressing the importance of the abiogenetic perspective. And there are already hundreds of researchers doing work in abiogenesis, so there is no gaping hole to be filled.
Who will do the ID work?
Comment by valerie — January 5, 2008 @ 3:11 am
January 5th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Hi Valerie,
In other words, The Pixie hasn't even done as much work as I have. But I'll betcha he/she believes the Earth spawned life.
As for me, my website does not "promote" ID. The web page was formed when several people on the ARN forum (from both sides) suggested I put up a web page to better present my ideas. Originally, it served as an appendix for my arguments there, but then took on a life of its own. It's just a warehouse of essays where I "progressively explore origins through a teleological filter." And it took some work to put together 70+ essays, many which raise (in my biased opinion) original points and provoke thought.
The book, of course, was a LOT of work. And it doesn't really "stress the importance of a teleological perspective." It outlines a different approach to this topic, one that is both positive and investigative. It spells out, in some detail, the hypothesis of front-loading evolution. And it outlines a new, open-ended method for scoring whether or not things are designed. If vol 2 ever materializes, that will take even more work. And much of it was done, and will be done, while you (and The Pixie) are sleeping restfully.
So what has been the pay-off from 60 years of such work and a glut of abiogenesis researchers? It would seem to me the scientific community could indeed use some help in that field.
I have already done a whole lot of "ID work," all in my spare time. Luckily, this stuff is an enjoyable intellectual hobby, as that can help motivate a person.
Look, if I was pounding the podium and proclaiming that ID was science, you'd have a point. Since I am not, you don't.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2008 @ 3:48 am
January 5th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Mike
Because you appeared to be setting up this thread as a competition between mainstream evolution and ID. The evidence for mainstream evolution is firmly rooted in science. Also, if what you propose contradicts mainstream science (and that may not be true for FLE) then you need scientific evidence.
So you think the DI is merely a socio-political institute? I would agree with that. But how many of the hundred of books would you guess are about the socio-political movement, and how many do you think claim to be scientific or about the concept of ID? I would guess Dembski and Behe would say their books were about the concept of ID rather than a socio-political movement.
And three textbooks. Are they about a socio-political movement do youi think? Or about the concept of ID? I thought the latter, but maybe that is just my stereotyping.
Darwin did a load of field work before a single book was published on the Theory of Evolution. Google for "darwin beagle".
As Valerie said, I have not published a book about my theories, I have not set up a web set promoting my theories. Indeed, they are not my theories as such, they are theories other people have proposed, they have ventured into the lab, into the field.
My comments were not specifically about you, Mike, but about all ID. Afterall, you only wrote one out of hundred of ID books. Clearly there are score of ID authors. When is one of them going to actually do lab. or field work?
Comment by The Pixie — January 5, 2008 @ 5:57 am
January 5th, 2008 at 10:39 am
The Pixie,
You wrote…
Pardon the interjection.
Pixie, I would agree that ID (science and/or movement) has gotten more than its fair share of visibility without providing something more substantial than repackaged Creation Science.
However, you will be going too far if you are implying that Mike's The Design Matrix is just "…one out of hundred of ID books."
I am not saying the Mike's output is the pro ID book that once-and-for-all makes the case for ID. In fact, I suggest Mike's book might be the only pro ID book that does NOT make that claim.
Of the pro ID books I have read, Mike's is the only one that provided something substantial to think about other than wondering what and how much of it is quotemined and how much of it is twisted, hand waving logic intended to deceive.
Trust me, when I first saw the subtitle, "A Consilience of Clues" I half expected the book was going to be a Gish Gallop with a conclusion that a preponderance of evidence spells… well…. you know.
I was pleasantly surprised by Mike. Not by his overly convincing arguments, but by Mike's earnest efforts. Mike and I have argued over his carrying water for the ID Movement and what I see as a bias towards presuming human-like intelligence.
However, as I have indicated before, if you aren't arguing chances are you have fallen victim to Group Think.
For What it is Worth,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — January 5, 2008 @ 10:39 am
January 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I think you've got the wrong guy. Perhaps you forgot that Darwin sailed around the world collecting evidence nearly thirty years before he published Origin of Species. One of the greatest scientific adventures of all times! Then he spent years collecting and publishing additional evidence to support and develop his nascent theory, long before he was willing to put the theory before his peers. Darwin's incremental approach allowed him to build and refine his argument, on a solid evidentiary basis.
Darwin's intensive, multi-year study of barnacles was sufficient to establish his reputation among scientists, while his study of earthworms was sufficient to establish his public reputation; and the sheer volume of his scientific studies, including observations of moths, orchids, bees, beetles, coral reefs, as well as related studies of geology, made him one of the most important scientists of his age"”even without including Origin of Species.
Without the Theory of Evolution, Darwin was one of the greatest scientist of his age. With the Theory of Evolution, he revolutionized biology, a revolution which is still spawning entire new areas of research today. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has thus far been a sterile dead-end. Sorry.
Comment by Zachriel — January 5, 2008 @ 10:47 am
January 5th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Thanks!
Comment by Zachriel — January 5, 2008 @ 10:55 am
January 5th, 2008 at 11:29 am
The Pixie:
Zachriel:
It really would help if you guys might at least make some effort to understand my points in context. I've spoken about this topic and this example before.
But your replies do help us to see your demand from another angle "“ you are asking for ID's Darwin! Am I that guy? LOL. Heavens, no. For years, I have been up front that my views do not qualify as science and I am just a big mouth on the internet. Your error is in thinking that this means I am just "passively waiting" around and that my work is worthless. The OP, and my successful defense of it, shows otherwise.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2008 @ 11:29 am
January 5th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Hi Pixie,
So in other words, not only have you not done as much work as I have, you have not given these issues as much thought as I have. Yes indeed, I have come up with my own theories, arguments, and methods. I have even come up with Table 10-1: Research Questions from the Design Matrix. And as far as I have been able to determine, I'm the first one to see the pattern between cytosine deamination and the genetic code (see Figure 7-3).
My website does not "promote" ID. The web page was formed when several people on the ARN forum (from both sides) suggested I put up a web page to better present my ideas. Originally, it served as an appendix for my arguments there, but then took on a life of its own. It's just a warehouse of essays where I "progressively explore origins through a teleological filter." And it took some work to put together 70+ essays, many which raise (in my biased opinion) original points and provoke thought.
The book, of course, was a LOT of work. It outlines a different approach to this topic, one that is both positive and investigative. It spells out, in some detail, the hypothesis of front-loading evolution. And it outlines a new, open-ended method for scoring whether or not things are designed. If vol 2 ever materializes, that will take even more work. And much of it was done, and will be done, while you (and valerie) are sleeping passively.
There are those stereotypes again. Which of those one out of hundreds of ID books was preceded by a web page with dozens of original web page essays after arguing with hundreds of ID critics? Which one of those hundreds of ID books acknowledges that ID is not science? Which of those hundreds of ID books was authored by a pseudonym in the hope that people would focus only on the arguments and evidence? Which one of those hundreds of ID books embraces evolutionary theory while at the same time outlining a tentative, but positive case for ID?
I have already told you I think we're dealing with an extremely difficult issue in an ambigious reality, all made much worse by the political and metaphysical baggage associated with this topic. And then we are assuming non-human design amid biotic reality (if it exists) can indeed be detected and recognized across the board, an assumption that may be flawed. I've addressed some of this stuff before here and here. It would seem to me that a fair-minded person would acknowledge this.
I don't know when, of if, ID will ever get its Darwin. In fact, after 60 years of lab research, abiogenesis is still waiting for its Darwin. But all of that is irrelevant. If I was pounding the podium and proclaiming that ID was science, you'd have a point. Since I am not, you don't. I suggest you take up your complaints with the ID folks who attacked me for not thinking ID is science.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2008 @ 11:55 am
January 5th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
And the atom, evolution and heliocentrism have roots in classical Greek philosophy. The interplay of ideas over history is certainly an interesting topic.
Groundwork and stage-setting includes the technology of circumnavigation, the copulation of Darwin's parents, Linnaean classification, and perhaps the quality of rum they served at the Captain's mess on the HMS Beagle.
But I'll take your point that evolutionary ideas were prevalent in Darwin's time, that many were poorly supported or even pseudo-science. And that you compare current Intelligent Design, warts, ridiculous claims, and all, to the period leading up to and partially inspiring Darwin. All I can say is
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Comment by Zachriel — January 5, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
January 5th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Mike
We were talking about the amount of groundwork and stage setting that is required before going into the lab. or field. I pointed out that ID has hundred of books, three textbooks. You responded by saying the Theory of Evolution was comparable, but give us no clue about what you are refering to. The Theory of Evolution had zero books published before Darwin sailed on the Beagle, though other theories of evolution had been published.
And I am not asking for ID's Darwin. It was you who brought up the Theory of Evolution, not me.
As I said last time, my point is not diurected at you specifically, but the whole ID effort. 20 years as a nascent proto-science has produced hundreds of books, but no one has yet dared go into the laboratory. I will ask again; can you think of any real scientific theory that required so much groundwork and and stage-setting before going into the lab. or field?
So? It is not a competition.
I think I said it promoted your theories.
Yes, good for Mike. But as I said last time, I was talking about the whole of ID, not just you. When I said hundreds of books and three textbooks, I was not think you personally had produced hundreds of books and three textbooks.
Er, Nature's Destiny?
Comment by The Pixie — January 5, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
January 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I'll let the reader decide which aforementioned groundwork and stage-setting counts as fieldwork.
Comment by Zachriel — January 5, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
January 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Hi Pixie,
You write:
Indeed. As Jacob noted:
Often times, a development and exchange of concepts and arguments is indeed needed to produce "that idea of what to observe, a preconception of what is possible." It's how you find that "different angle" that suddenly brings new meaning to old data. It's even how evidence is often realized.
We are not communicating here. I was not making a comparison; I was answering your question: "can you think of any real scientific theory that required so much groundwork and stage-setting before going into the lab or field?"
I provided a link to an example that answers your question and you chose to ignore it. Another example that also answers your question is the history behind the cracking of the genetic code.
Look, remember the scientific method. Before going "into the lab of field," you need observations (see Jacob) and hypotheses, right? Y'know, those are just as much a part of the scientific method as the actual experiment and you'll have a hard time designing a meaningful experiment without them. If ID ever does get to the experiment phase, then it becomes science, right?
My bad. I thought when you asked, "How many more decades do you need until you start the laboratory work, Mike?," you were directing things at me specifically.
Okay, you are just complaining about the ID movement. But since you have no valid criticisms of me, the OP, or my position, there is no need to continue. Let me know if you think you have a valid criticism of me, the OP, my position, or my book.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Hi Mike
Sure. What is odd in ID's case the amount of time and effort involved in these preliminaries; 20 years, hundred of books. How many other nascent proto-sciences have had three textbooks before the lab/field work?
Seems like we are still not communicating. You appeared to be saying that the Theory of Evolution required as much groundwork and stage-setting as ID – i.e., the publishing of a few hundred books – before going into the lab or field. I think that is wrong; Darwin did a load of field work before publishing anything. Yes, there were other theories of evolution around. If you want to include them, then I guess FLE, as a theory of evolution, can be dated back to the nineteen century. Over a hundred years and still FLE is a nascent proto-science? Personally, I would not do that.
I had a feeling that involved a fair bit of experimental work, for example X-ray crystallography. Are you thinking specifically of what Watson and Crick did? How many books did they publish before doing lab. work?
Sorry, I meant "you" in the plural, as in all ID (that is why I keep saying hundred of books, three textbooks).
Sure. My original objection to the OP was that you seemed to be comparing the evidence and suspicions for ID to that for mainstream evolution (when the latter, of course, is hugely better supported by scientific evidence). Hopefully, you can see why I might get that erroneous impression from the OP.
Comment by The Pixie — January 7, 2008 @ 6:20 am
January 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Hi Pixie,
I don't think it is all that odd. I have already told you I think we're dealing with an extremely difficult issue in an ambigious reality, all made much worse by the political and metaphysical baggage associated with this topic. And then we are assuming non-human design amid biotic reality (if it exists) can indeed be detected and recognized across the board, an assumption that may be flawed. I've addressed some of this stuff before here and here.
Given this response follows where I clarify that "I was not making a comparison; I was answering your question," we indeed are not communicating. I provided a link to an example that answers your question and you chose to ignore it.
Look, remember the scientific method. Before going "into the lab of field," you need observations (see Jacob) and hypotheses, right? Y'know, those are just as much a part of the scientific method as the actual experiment and you'll have a hard time designing a meaningful experiment without them. If ID ever does get to the experiment phase, then it becomes science, right?
Indeed. And a huge amount of conceptual work (spanning several decades) was also involved. The role of the experiment is not to substitute for the conceptual work, but to help pick and choose and guide it.
Look at it this way "“ why is there no Theory of Abiogenesis? Is it lack of experiments? No, as thousands of experiments have been done over the last six decades. So what's missing? Why hasn't someone simply repeated what Darwin did to give us the Theory of Abiogenesis?
So it's a very awkward sentence. Hopefully, you can see why I might get that erroneous impression from a question that looks like is directed at me specifically.
As we have seen, that was a faulty impression. You should have simply asked for clarification. Have you figured out yet that I do not view "mainstream evolution" and intelligent design as being in competition?
Look, since you are interested in pursuing this thread, why not get back on topic? Yes, we both agree that ID is not science, but is it your position that "there is no evidence for ID?"
Comment by MikeGene — January 7, 2008 @ 11:03 am
January 7th, 2008 at 11:51 am
{Nitpick}
Watson and Crick determined the structure of DNA. The genetic code, the relationship between the nucleic acid base sequence and corresponding amino acid sequence, was first deciphered by Nirenberg, Matthaei and others.
{/Nitpick}
The role of conceptual work is not to substitute for experiment, but to help pick and choose and guide it. They are both required. With respect to the determination of the structure of DNA, the experiments were crucial. Watson knew as soon as he saw Photo 51 that the answer was in reach. He also knew that if Pauling saw it, he would also have the answer.
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 11:51 am
January 7th, 2008 at 11:51 am
The Pixie
I think it's worth pointing out that the bulk of Darwin's field work was not done in the interest of supporting The Theory Of Evolution. As Shermer points out in "Why Darwin Matters" Darwin was still looking at nature from a creationist paradigm even after he returned from the Galapogos. None of his research up to that point was "Pro-Evolution Research".
So all this goading and taunting and wondering out loud when ID is going to get some lab time and start doing research is moot. The research is being done. This is how we found biochemical machines in cells, this is how we found out about cytosine and deamination and hydrophobicity and horizontal gene transfer and protein folding and DNA and RNA etc. etc. etc.
I'd say ID is in the "just got back from the Galapogos" stage and is looking at the evidence collected and saying "What if we were to look at this evidence differently".
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2008 @ 11:51 am
January 7th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Darwin observed and published his entire life. That includes before he developed his Theory of Evolution; during the period where he refined his Theory of Evolution through additional observations; and also after he had proposed his Theory of Evolution as he continued to refine and support his Theory of Evolution.
Nor did Darwin work in a vacuum. Though no one else had a complete theory until Darwin's Origin of Species, many scientists had investigated various related areas leading up to that time, including natural selection, hybridization, etc. And on the publication of Origin of Species, huge efforts were invested in confirming and extending the Theory through additional observations.
But you are correct that Darwin scientific theoriers were driven by evidence. On his visit to the Galápagos Islands, he had thought he had collected wrens, mockingbirds, blackbirds and finches, but when he returned to Britain, the great ornithologist John Gould determined they were actually all species of finches, a case of adaptive radiation.
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Zachriel,
Thank you for sharing those historical tid-bits, but did you miss my point?
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Zach:
{Nitpick}No, Rosalind Franklin did the work that determined the structure of DNA. Watson and Crick stole it from her (thanks to Maurice Wilkins) and took credit for it.{/Nitpick}
Comment by Joy — January 7, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Well, you had indicated that "the bulk of Darwin's field work was not done in the interest of supporting The Theory Of Evolution". We can agree that substantial field work was done before the development of the Theory. Collecting and cataloging evidence is an important aspect of the scientific method.
It's always a good idea to have a fresh view of the evidence, but there are far more invalid theories than valid ones. Drawing that sort of analogy doesn't distinguish the validity of ID from other such claims.
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Franklin deserves great credit for her work, and not only with helping resolve the structure of DNA. (I had mentioned Franklin's famous Photo 51, but it's worth pointing out explicitly. Thanks, Joy.)
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Zachriel,
Then it seems that you missed the point, which is that the research for ID has been going on for years, albeit not in the name of ID.
Pointless, but correct. It simply lumps ID in with all the other claims that either were forgotten or later went on to great acceptance. I'm left wondering why you refute a claim I never made.
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
By that standard, research into invisible pink unicorns has been ongoing for some time, too.
You drew the analogy with "ID is in the 'just got back from the Galapogos' stage." But I am open to evidentiary claims.
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
This type of tripe detracts from otherwise knowledgeable comments made by you. Minimal genome research (there are multiple research projects ongoing) fits more easily within an ID conceptual overview than mainstream alternatives. With an historic perspective that is exactly how they could come to be viewed. Chunkdz is right on target. The name applied to research is far less important than the data generated by it.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
It was relevant and meant to illuminate the vacuity of the claim by showing how it can apply to just about anything. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
It has nothing to do with the appellation, but hypothesis-testing. Unless and until a valid hypothesis is provided, ID will continue to be scientifically unnoteworthy. Anyone can say they are on the verge of great discoveries or that the evidence supports their claims. That includes claims about invisible pink unicorns. Of course it supports your claims! How could it not?
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Funny, that's exactly how I feel about 'evolution proves you don't need a designer'.
The argument has been that you don't need to call ID research 'ID research' for data very relevant to ID to be gathered. That much stands. Others have already illustrated the different standards of 'valid hypothesis'.
Besides, we know that designers – and therefore design – do exist. That much is basic. The question is whether design/designers exist at the levels ID proposes. It's not the stuff of utter fancy, this idea of 'clearly some things are designed'.
Comment by nullasalus — January 7, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
And they laughed at your ill disguised attempts at mockery. There is nothing vacuous about exploring whether or not functional genomes can come about through a gradual incremental process or whether a minimal level of genes correlates to minimal function. What is vacuous are attempts to relegate the question itself to the realm of mythology.
Very simply. A gradual process, shown to exhibit selection outcomes from a molecular starting point to a minimal genome, would not support my claims. Not very difficult after all.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Or that life arises in the absence of such invisible pink unicorns.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
The difference is that we can form and test specific hypotheses concerning evolution, but not invisible pink unicorns or a nebulous and undifferentiated claim of ID.
Except that without a way to distinguish valid claims from invalid claims, there is no difference between that and saying data very relevant to unicornology is being gathered under another guise.
A valid scientific hypothesis has to entail specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
Yes, and the evidence strongly indicates that those designers did not exist 4 billion years ago, but descended from more primitive and decidedly less intelligent forebearers.
Not at all.
Precisely. There is no distinguishing empirical prediction that can be made to differentiate the case of invisible pink unicorns and the case of the absense of such unicorns.
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Good we're making progress. Unlike invisible unicorns, purpose and intelligence are real aspects of a real universe. We impute purpose and measure intelligence. Therein lies the difference with an analogy to mythological entities.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Progress is good.
Unicorns *are* intelligent. But we can't empirical distinguish between a world with invisible pink unicorns and one without. Hence, the claim of their existence is without scientific merit. We can't even form a valid hypothesis"”they're invisible! (This despite all the evidence scientists unwittingly collect every day about invisible pink unicorns.)
But we can indeed scientifically investigate intelligence. But to do so, it is important to have a good working definition of what is meant by the term. We don't have to understand every philosophical detail of the problem of mind. We just have to be able to objectively determine by some agreed rule whether something has this property or not.
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
An outcome that data indicates is attributable to reason and purpose as opposed to forces of nature that are devoid of these qualities. Erosion can lead to irregular formations on mountains but detailed visages are not attributed to erosion by reasoned analysis.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
We can't perform tests that rule in or out a universe that excludes design, whereby fine tuning and OoL events just happen by Mega-Awesome Luck.
And there's no way to discern whether we're dealing with the design of a powerful creator or whether aw-geez-it-just-happened-for-no-reason.
No, evidence indicates that for 4 billion years life may have been able to unfold according to a process that would have required either tremendous foresight on behalf of a designer, or holy cow we are really, really lucky.
Swallow the bitter pill, Zach: by your standards it's as (un)scientific to rule out design as it is to rule it in. You provide examples of what you think is evolution unfolding purposelessly, I provide examples of evolutionary principles being employed intelligently. Your best spin is to give any potential intelligence as demeaning a name as you can manage politely (invisible unicorns!), but in the end it's just a smirky label (Omg! We won the intergalactic lottery!) or worse.
We have enough of a working definition of intelligence to realize that what it is conceivably capable of is tremendous. Just like Newton expected. What're the odds?
Comment by nullasalus — January 7, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
That appears circular. You are inserting other terms that then need to be defined, "reason", "purpose" and "nature". The whole point of a working definition is something that is specific and objective. We might find some utility with "purpose" if we can show that an action somehow anticipates a future state.
The dictionary might not always be the best source for a technical or utilitarian definition, but may be a good place to start.
intelligence, (1): the ability to learn; (2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment.
We can test the ability to learn by testing the ability to manipulate the environment. For instance, the mouse in a maze test.
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Forces of nature. Too ill-defined huh. OK. Take the reductionnist approach and trace it down to strong and weak forces, electromagentism and gravity. It is easy enough to be pedantic and perhaps more of that would be helpful in addressing what currently passes for evidence of life's causes.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
There is no test for a universal negative. But there is no inherent barrier to a test concerning mechanism, telic or atelic, concerning the origin of life.
Depending on the exact claim, they probably are not valid scientific hypotheses.
You may be unaware, but the term "evolve" implies an unfolding. There is very strong evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution. There is significant evidence that life arose spontaneously on the primordial Earth.
When it comes to evolution or orbital mechanics, design is *scientifically* superfluous, hence vacuous.
You have? I suppose it depends on what you mean by "intelligence". On this forum it usually refers to telic agency.
No, that comment has to do with the nature of vacuous claims. Not with the definition or detection of telic agency.
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Indeed. Open questions are closed off to approaches that do not guarantee in advance a desired outcome. That's the real invisible unicorn- arguments that serve as props for philosophical naturalism.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Events unfolding once biological mechanisms are in place. How they got there in the first place is the open question.
Which could also be used as an argument against gradual, incremental processes.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Re: design, there is no test for a universal positive or negative. And telic/atelic mechanisms have no scientific bearing on that question – whether teleology can be identified in the OoL, I defer that to Bradford.
Unaware? I'm counting on it, Zach.
As is the lack of design. Science doesn't need to touch on those questions for the understanding to go through. And further, design is rapidly becoming an (even more) pertinent question within evolution – it may not be grand scale, but our awareness of our genes and our science is allowing us to 'tinker' and bypass the NS process.
If you don't think there are intelligent agents identifiably employing evolutionary principles in design, you really need to read more. Don't you work with computers for a living?
If the claims are vacuous, they run in both directions – oh boy, we're just the luckiest folks in the universe. Or maybe we're just in the luckiest universe. You know, whichever ledge you gotta retreat to.
Comment by nullasalus — January 7, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
This is premature as Mike's cytosine deamination concept illustrates. If this and other processes biased outcomes in favor of a specific direction of change then there is nothing superfluous about it.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
You have a problem with circularity: You have defined intelligence as that which isn't non-intelligent. In addition, most researchers believe the seat of intelligence is the brain, a product of natural forces.
I specifically avoided pedantry. I asked for a working definition. One we can apply to most cases and come up with reasonable and consistent results. Try some examples.
* Human
* Marketplace
* Ant
* Ant colony
* Beaver building a dam
* Rat running a maze
* Computer AI
Which are intelligent?
I wasn't sure if nullasalus was referring to abiogenesis or evolution. Rereading it, he seems to have been referring to evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
No. I have defined effects as to their likelihood of being determined by nature as in erosion and mountain visages. Those forces could still owe their genesis to purpose or intelligence but that origin is superfluous to the question at hand. What is not superfluous is a determination of both the inadaquacy of the erosion explanation and a correlative linking of effects to known effects of agency.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Your definition.
"The forces of nature that are devoid of these qualities". Either that phrase is circular or superfluous, perhaps meant as a clarification.
"An outcome that data indicates is attributable to reason and purpose". I suggested that "purpose" may have some utility. But what data would indicate "reason" How are you defining the word "reason" And what happened to learning? Is that not important?
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Since that was written prior to this:
and this:
Why would you omit two subsequent comments intended to delineate what is truly superfluous, basic forces of nature and the relevance of discounted natural force alternatives? Why not instead admit that no telic alternative would be acknowledged by you or if this is not so then specify requirements satisfactory to you.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
"Known effects of agency". What are those?
Why would you think that? Humans are intelligent. They learn. They exhibit purpose. I think we could test for learning and purpose.
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
The same thread has the illustrating example I have repeatedly used and you have repeatedly ignored- detailed visages. Variations of this are easily conceivable by those so willing.
Bradford: Why not instead admit that no telic alternative would be acknowledged by you or if this is not so then specify requirements satisfactory to you.
You're being obtuse. What astronaut, upon finding a detailed visage in another part of the galaxy, would insist on evidence that the causal agents could learn prior to deducing intelligent causality?
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I don't get it. Scultors are intelligent, but lumberjacks and dogs are not.
I asked for a working definition. One we can apply to most cases and come up with reasonable and consistent results. Try some examples.
* Human
* Marketplace
* Ant
* Ant colony
* Beaver building a dam
* Rat running a maze
* Computer AI
Which are intelligent?
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I'm not surprised you don't get the self-generated sophistry.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
You didn't disagree with this, but you have been unable to provide anything close to a definition. I suggested learning and purpose may comprise aspects of such a definition, but that is not without its own problems.
I note you didn't try the examples.
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
To avoid wasting my time you need to first give an unequivocal answer to a question. If astronauts on a distant planet, not before visited by humans, encountered a detailed mountain visage with features resembling but not identical to humans, the astronauts can accurately conclude an intellegent agency as the cause. Yes I agree or no I do not.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 10:43 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I've already answered this several times. Without specifics, we can't give any definitive answer, but it is quite conceivable that one could reach a valid conclusion of design in the case of a human-like artifact found on another planet.
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Bradford: If astronauts on a distant planet, not before visited by humans, encountered a detailed mountain visage with features resembling but not identical to humans, the astronauts can accurately conclude an intellegent agency as the cause.
You've never answered the question directly.
Why not? Because you feel an answer weakens the anti-ID movement?
A human-like artifact like a detailed mountain visage. I take the answer to the above statement is "Yes I agree." Correct?
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Sure I have, e.g.,
No. Because without a careful scientific investigation, you may end up with false positives.
Yes, as already answered previously, and with the appropriate caveats.
Comment by Zachriel — January 7, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
January 8th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Good. There are instances when intelligent design is so manifestly obvious (even when the design is not human) that instant recognition is possible. We can start with what we observe and infer from that point. Identifying features of intelligent design and finding them in objects of unknown cause would at the very least raise a suspicion worth further investigation. A useful strategy could be to distinguish between patterns signaling instant recognition from those requiring further evidence. Mountain visages would fall into the former category and coding biological mechanisms in the latter category. Do you find any problems with this so far?
Comment by Bradford — January 8, 2008 @ 12:06 am
January 8th, 2008 at 8:54 am
If we find a Mars Bar on Mars, then we might very well suspect design. But even the "manifestly obvious" requires careful investigation. I mean everyone knows that heavy stones fall proportionally faster than lighter ones, don't they?
It's because a Mars Bar resembles a human or human-like artifact that we suspect design. We know lots of things about humans and their artifacts. But no matter what our initial conclusions, we would then subject them to further hypothesis-testing.
Yes, those things that more closely resemble human artifacts are more likely to lead us to suspect human or human-like manufacture. Without specifics, we can't give any definitive answer, but it is quite *conceivable* that one could reach a valid conclusion (albeit tentative) of design in the case of a human-like artifact found on another planet. (The scientific hypothesis should be obvious, but a human-like artifact would be conjectured to be manufactured by human-like organisms, something we could then test for further confirmation.) As most such examples won't be as obvious as a detailed lith of Roddy McDowall in an ape suit, without a careful scientific investigation, we might end up with false positives, such as a detailed lith of an organism we know from careful scientific examination was *not* designed.
Well, there's your problem right there. While we should tend to withhold agreement awaiting further specifics (admitting that it is *conceivable* to reach a valid conclusion of design), you want to leap right to the conclusion, file it away, and say you're done. Instant recognition is a very poor (and certainly not a scientific) strategy. It leads to false positives and substitutes preconceptions for careful investigation.
A detailed lith of Roddy McDowall in an ape suit has been discussed previously. There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that the genetic code is the result of intelligent design, and significant evidence to the contrary. That's just your human-centric view that is causing you to see what you want to see"”just as the Earth appears fixed and the center of cosmic events. That's why with even the most "obvious" claims, we have to subject them to scientific investigation.
Comment by Zachriel — January 8, 2008 @ 8:54 am
January 8th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
There is no significant evidence to the contrary.
No, that's the application of logic and the reasonable proposition that if something talks like a duck it might be one. Using placeholders to represent abstract entities is a distinctly intellectual exercise and while we can hold the position that an unknown and unidentifed series of chemical pathways mimicked a process having earmarks of intellect, maintaining that this had to happen is manifestly stupid and unscientific.
Comment by Bradford — January 8, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
January 8th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
No indirect evidence? Now that's silly. The indirect evidence is plentiful and growing. Now, direct evidence to the contrary? Oh no. Direct evidence in favor? Not really.
Comment by nullasalus — January 8, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
January 8th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I was referring to a valid *scientific* hypothesis. E.g., the retardation of the pendulum is indirect scientific evidence of the Earth's rotation as it is reasonably derived from the hypothesis.
Comment by Zachriel — January 8, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
January 8th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
By evidence, you meant hypothesis? The thing formed by reflecting on evidence? If you say so.
Comment by nullasalus — January 8, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
January 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
The testing of valid scientific hypotheses. A scientific hypothesis must entail a specific and distinguishing empirical prediction. There are other methods of acquiring knowledge. We can collect facts and catalog them. We can stumble around in the dark bumping into things. Or we can propose and test empirical hypotheses. The last of these is integral to the scientific method.
Comment by Zachriel — January 8, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
January 10th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Zechriel: "As the human and chimp genomes have been sequenced, we know the differences. We know that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, that is, they started their divergence from the same place."
I suspect you assume they share a common ancestor because of your world-view. They could very well share a common designer. Your assumption amounts to nothing more than evolution-of-the-gaps.
"We also know the observed rates of change."
Observed rates of change of what? Nucleotides?
"We don't have to know the exact route to determine that an automobile travels fast enough to cross the United States in less than a month. There may be unknown barriers, but my statement concerned being "sufficiently rapid"."
Invalid analogy. We know automobiles are capable of making cross country trips, via various routes. The terrain is well travelled. (I have plenty of personal experience in that area.) It is empirically unknown if mutations can achieve changes in species to the degree you assert. Mutation rates could be a billion times higher than what exists, and this would still be unknown. Position and timing are vital, and it is impossible to know if the right locations at the right time occurred, or even they can occur. In order to know if one can get from point A to point B, one has to know the terrain. You don't know the terrain. There may be mountains there no automobile can traverse. It's an open question.
I suspect there is an added ingredient in your confidence that I do not share. Namely, philosophical materialism. In your mind, something like blind mutational evolution has to be responsible for the difference of species. It's a philosophy of the gaps argument. You're welcome to it. I'm an empiricist. And I'm not convinced.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 10, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
January 11th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Common Descent is a strongly supported scientific assertion.
The nested hierarchy pattern in biology does not resemble design, but is entirely consistent with Common Descent. But to understand that, you would have to be willing to understand what we mean by a nested hierarchy. (For instance, if an organism has tits, it also has three ear bones; and this is true whether it swims, flies, runs, ambles or climbs. This striking correlation is a natural consequence of divergence from a common therapsid ancestor, but unexplained by common design.)
Genetic change. (Yes, genes are known to consist of nucleotide polymers.) The rate of genetic and morphological change is more than sufficient to transverse the distances required to explain the known biological record. Indeed, observed rates of evolution are much, much faster than required.
I'm not a philosophical materialist, so your suspicions are misplaced.
Comment by Zachriel — January 11, 2008 @ 1:29 pm