Tell me who the designer is!
by MikeGeneIn the comments section, a physicist and ID critic asserted the following:
I think what you're about to say know is something like "but if ID is a matter of fact then I'd need to talk about it even if it can be exploited". Well, my stance on this is: If you'd really try to approach ID like any science does approach any idea then you'd have to ask who the designer is.
Critics commonly insist that ID focus on identifying the designer. They do so because they think the refusal to take this step is motivated purely by political considerations. While I have shown the error in this demand, there is another way to appreciate such demands are themselves motivated by politics and not logic or science.
Richard B. Hoppe is an ID critic who regularly contributes to Pandas Thumb. He originally introduced his Multiple Designers Theory on the ISCID's Brainstorms forum. He has since elaborated on this hypothesis on the Panda's Thumb.
There are some simple observations to make:
1. Hoppe says, "I am known to be an ID critic, and readers may therefore believe that Multiple Designers Theory is presented as a parody of ID. It is not. It is a logical extension of the dominant stream of thought in mainstream ID." Hoppe treats the MDT as a valid research approach.
2. Hoppe's theory does not focus on the identity of the designer nor does it tell us who the designers are. It's a designer-centric approach that simply attempts to count designers, thus, if anything, amplifying the identity problem.
3. As can be seen from two links above, not one ID critic criticizes Hoppe for failing to identify the designers. On the contrary, they give the MDT a warm welcome.
Hoppe thus shows us that there are others ways to approach ID apart from identifying the designer and the critics of ID concur.
When it comes to identifying the designer(s), there is nothing inherently wrong with such a quest. The problem is that we need a method to do so. An investigation can only answer certain questions if it has the tools to do so. Demanding that ID theorists identify the designer is simply a political ploy. If the theorist doesn't answer the demand, the critic can wink and note how convenient such silence is against the political backdrop of some trying to get ID in schools. If the theorist does try to answer the question without the use of an investigative mechanism, the critic can accuse the theorist of confusing an investigation with personal beliefs. But as I have now shown, as with all political tactics, this demand for the identity of the designer is selectively employed.
November 24th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
My assertion was not that you need to have an answer to the question for the designer. My assertion was that you need to ASK it!
Comment by surfguard — November 24, 2005 @ 1:16 pm
November 24th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
SG,
A couple questions:
1) Why? It is an interesting question in itself. Yet it may not be a question answered directly by the data of any particular biological objects. So why does he need to ask it?
2) Furthermore, we do ask it. In light of this, and in light of the fact that you are not asserting that we need to answer the question of the designer's identity, what is your point?
Matt
Comment by matt_nadler — November 24, 2005 @ 1:54 pm
November 24th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Well said! I should point out Stephen Meyers answer:
Indeed, IDists like Meyer are accused of being dishonest because the ID hypothesis does not identify the designer. IDists are free to define the theory so that it does not identify the designer. It does not preclude exploration outside the theory of ID.
The critics frame the issue as if IDists are being dishonest. I think Meyer's answer is quite honest and straightforward.
Creation Science might formally be seen as an attempt to go one step further and explore the identity of the designer, but that is outside ID theory proper, and I'm quite happy for that distinction.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 24, 2005 @ 2:52 pm
November 24th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Life designs itself, intelligently and purp0sefully—not randomly with respect to fitness The designers are each and every biological system and substystem that produices a rational response, and "natural selection" contributes nothing to making those responses appropriate.
Comment by Bert — November 24, 2005 @ 2:59 pm
November 24th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Hi Mike,
Did you catch this? Multiple Designer Theory "is also something we take particular pride in having proposed right here at The Panda's Thumb."
Comment by Krauze — November 24, 2005 @ 3:19 pm
November 24th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
MikeGene,
If you don't identify the designer, then you run into two problems.
First, you can't make any predictions. It is by the limitations of the designer and the limitations of manufacturing that you make predictions from ID. Without predictions, you don't have evidence, you only have gaps in EVO. CSI is measured only by gaps in naturalistic explanations.
Second, if you don't say anything at all about the designer, then you can't be said to explain anything. Pick any ID claim. You can't say that the claim provides any illumination. There's no prediction, there's no taxonomy - you add nothing to the understanding of biology whatsoever. The claim has only political and religious utility. It has zero scientific utility. Only when you have a specific theory about the designer and the manufacturing process can you really claim to be explaining things.
Comment by doctor(logic) — November 24, 2005 @ 7:50 pm
November 24th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
DLogic,
This is another case of a double standard. Can you identify the utlimate causation of natural law? It is well known in the hard sciences that what science does is talk about relationships, not intrinsicality. So if you can't identify the intrinsic nature of the cosmos, by your standards, you can't do any testing, prediction, etc.
Comment by Steve Petermann — November 24, 2005 @ 8:48 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 12:01 am
Dr. Logic,
Did you bother to read my blog or just the title?
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 12:01 am
November 25th, 2005 at 12:02 am
Surfguard,
Did I ever say you CAN'T ask the question?
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 12:02 am
November 25th, 2005 at 7:48 am
Hi Mike,
May I post here at Telic Thoughts on this thread a critique of RBH's MDT? Perhaps it will add something to the discussion. It is about 2000 words (plus quotes), mainly critical of RBH's MDT, but also expressing positive comments and suggesting how it challenges certain features of ID or Single Design theory. After all, the idea of a Single designer is what RBH mainly opposes with his theoretic attempt. The writing follows the logic or illogic of Hoppes' contributions at ISCID and Pandas, Pandas.
As you know, I am an 'ID-critic,' though not one who follows the way of politicized anti-ID-isms that are often displayed on this board. So I wanted to ask if such a position is welcome before simply posting it here in two parts. As I mean, only if it could somehow contribute positively to MG's thread on RBH's identity problem - Tell Me Who the designer is!.
One thing we can know; the designer of this thread, and its only moderator (i hope), is Mike Gene.
Regards,
Arago
Comment by g arago — November 25, 2005 @ 7:48 am
November 25th, 2005 at 10:17 am
On the Panda's Thumb link that Krauze provided, Wilkins describes MDT as something that teaches every organism and every feature has its own designer. I don't recall this element of MDT, but RBH comments in that thread, and never takes issue with this characterization. Tsk, tsk.
And yes, G. arago, feel free to post your stuff (although I can't promise any replies on my part).
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 10:17 am
November 25th, 2005 at 11:28 am
MikeGene said:
Don't know who confused who. But I didn't say that I couldn't ask the question. I said that you don't, because you claim it was irrelevant, and that I think you should.
Not asking this question obviously refuses to ask for the origins of life/intelligence in the first place.
Comment by surfguard — November 25, 2005 @ 11:28 am
November 25th, 2005 at 11:35 am
Steve Petermann:
I agree you have point there. Now that we've established that ID can in fact make predictions: Can you help me out with one?
Comment by surfguard — November 25, 2005 @ 11:35 am
November 25th, 2005 at 11:44 am
Steve,
What does identifying the limitations of the designer have to do with ultimate causation or intrinsicality? Aren't you admitting here that your designer is God?
If you don't specify the identity or goals of the designer, you can't predict relationships at all! It is by those very goals and limitations that the relationships arise. If the designer can do any thing for any reason without limitation, you have no grounds to predict anything.
Comment by doctor(logic) — November 25, 2005 @ 11:44 am
November 25th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Surf:
I do. Who is the designer? Answer: I don't know. I raised two issues in the blog that you completely side-stepped:
1. "Hoppe thus shows us that there are others ways to approach ID apart from identifying the designer and the critics of ID concur."
2. "When it comes to identifying the designer(s), there is nothing inherently wrong with such a quest. The problem is that we need a method to do so. An investigation can only answer certain questions if it has the tools to do so."
Why did you purposely choose to ignore these two points that a) constitute the central part of my blog and b) are extremely relevant to your argument?
Without a method to answer the question, the intellectually responsible answer is simply "I don't know." What do we do next becomes the question. Should I focus all my attention on trying to come up with an identification method before proceeding to any attempt at a design inference (i.e., identifying the designer without knowing there is design)? Or do I explore alternative approaches that can address other relevant points?
As for origins "in the first place," I am not seeking Ultimate Causes or Ultimate Explanations. I simply learn from the scientific approach and focus on proximate causes/explanations. It's an investigation, not a metaphysical treatise.
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 11:53 am
November 25th, 2005 at 11:59 am
Surf:
Here.
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 11:59 am
November 25th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Mike Gene,
I read this line:
I explained why your statement was inaccurate.
Pick any ID claim and tell me how it deepens our understanding of biology. Without identifying the limitations of the designer and his/her/their/its manufacturing process, you can't make any predictions and you can't explain anything. You would be reduced to saying that such and such a biological structure simply is that way by the grace of God/Q/The Squire of Gothos/V'Ger who made it so.
As I've said before, you can't build an explanation out of gaps in other peoples' explanations. So far, you only detect CSI by the absence of EVO explanations.
Comment by doctor(logic) — November 25, 2005 @ 12:02 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Hey Mike, another question worth asking is, how much do you need to know about the designer before the designer can be considered "identified" Is knowing just a name enough? That doesn't really tell you anything about them though, does it? How about what they look like? Does that tell you what they will do? Or maybe you need to know their personality. But just how much do you need to know about their personality before you've identified them? Is their a bright line between knowing them and not knowing them?
The point is, there's no single point at which a person has been "identified". Rather, identification comes in degrees. And you don't just start out with a person's identity. You piece it together bit by bit by observing the outcomes of what the person does, and inferring that they intended certain things. This can give you expectations about what other things they might intend. Identity is always derived, gradually, by inferring intentional activity (ie, design), not the other way around.
Comment by Deuce — November 25, 2005 @ 12:11 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Mike Gene,
You observed a system that performed a specific function, transferring information from one place to another. After one of the transfers in the system, there is a proofreading step. Since there are other transfers within the system that might equally be subject to errors, you theorized that there was another proofreading step in the system.
This has absolutely nothing to do with ID whatsoever. You know that the transcription works, and you're just finding out how the cell does what it does. None of this has anything to do with the origins of the cell. If the cell was evolved, it would have to do the very same things. This is not a test of any ID hypothesis. Neither is it a test of an EVO hypothesis. It's a physics/information theory model of a working cell.
By analogy, if you found a hot spring, you would think "If I were designing a hot spring, I would include a source of water." You would then boldly predict that there was a source of water for the spring. Yet a geologist only needs physics to come to the very same conclusion.
Comment by doctor(logic) — November 25, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Deuce:
When I said that ID advocates should ask who the designer I possibly wasn't accurate enough: I don't want to ask for his/her/its name or passport number. I'd want to ask how he came into existence.
Comment by surfguard — November 25, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Surf,
Sure here's a few that would follow from human design with a few possible candidates where the prediction might have been verified although since I'm not a biologist I may not have the biology right.
If design is in play one would expect it to:
Provide a means where the intellectual property of the design is preserved(i.e. drawings, documentation, schematics, software, etc.) DNA
Provide a means where the design can be accurately replicated. DNA and mitosis
Provide a means for detailed checking of documentation prior to fabrication. Proof reading
Design to utilize existing fabrication facilities and techniques. Internal cooption
Provide for mass production. DNA and mitosis
Design for parts interchangeability. DNA ensures accurate replication of parts and subsystems
Design special tooling where needed(speed of fab, accuracy, etc.) Example: protein folding tools, transport tools, etc
Provide for quality control. Inspection and test prior to assembly and release. Proof reading
Provide a means where changes/corrections can be readily made. Mutations, gene expression
Design to enable ease of future upgrades or enhancements. Point mutations, gene duplication, junk DNA, redundant components, genetic drift, etc.
Design so the design could be used as a subsystem in larger systems. Coevolution and coopting mechanism
Design for contingencies.( changes in environment or function, modes of failure, …) Gene expression, point mutations
Design to use available materials whenever possible.
Use existing, tested technology, as is, whenever possible. Coption, gene duplication
When existing technology is close but not quite right, make the minimum modifications necessary. Mutation of coopted components
Design for quick implementation of options in case problems of the design occur. Gene expression, mutations
Design in fault tolerance. Design for wear, drift, out of tolerance parts, environmental variation, etc. Gene expression, feed back systems, self healing mechanisms
Include built in test equipment("bite" in the vernacular) for critical systems. This is provides for the ability to discover problems and self correct. Cellular feedback systems
For changes to complex systems, make small changes and wait to see the effect. Point mutations, mutation rates
Design for compatibility and symbiosis with adjoining systems. Utilize natural selection
Provide for tweaking the design after implementation or when conditions change. Gene expression, point mutations
Test, test, test. Natural selection
Test prototypes thoroughly before full implementation. Natural selection
Test to determine design stability beyond spec limits. Natural selection
Be prepared to redesign/fix when the design is implemented in the real world. Mutations
Tweak individual systems for maximum function and stability. Gene expression
Build in sequencing adjustments and tolerance. Gene expression
Adjust system parameters, in-situ, as environments change. Gene expression
Comment by Steve Petermann — November 25, 2005 @ 12:26 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Deuce,
You are making an analogy to forensics. The analogy doesn't work here. We have plenty of evidence that a) humans exist, and b) that they commit crimes. Creating a model of a crime scene based on abundant evidence is fine.
Here we're talking about identifying whether or not a crime was committed before there were any known intelligent agents to commit it. ID doesn't have any evidence of intelligent aliens circa 3.8 billion years ago. Until it can say something about the limitations of those agents (name is irrelevant), ID can't predict a thing.
Comment by doctor(logic) — November 25, 2005 @ 12:32 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Not much to add to what doctor(logic) comments on the alleged prediction that MikeGene claimed ID makes.
Your prediction is simply a deduction from what can be observed today. So far, so good. Thing is: It is not a prediction that at any point relies on the concept of a designer. So it doesn't prove or disprove either theory.
ID would need to predict an observation that can be explained by ID but not by evolution. That's what for example Einstein did: He predicted a certain observation should be made during a particular eclipse of the sun which could be explained by his theory of General Telativity but not by Newton's classical law of gravity. That's how proving a scientific theory works. That's how convincing open-minded people works.
Comment by surfguard — November 25, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Steve Petermann: Very impressive list. Only, where's the prediction? You know, "prediction" as in "has not been observed today (and could be explained by ID but not evolution)"
Comment by surfguard — November 25, 2005 @ 12:39 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
Steve,
You have supplied a long list of known features in living things written in engineering lingo. They are not predictions of ID. If you see a machine working, and you know the physical constraints of the system, you can deduce that there must be mechanisms that allow the system to operate within those constraints. None of this has anything to do with ID (or EVO for that matter).
Comment by doctor(logic) — November 25, 2005 @ 12:43 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
dlogic,
Sure they are. I've been in design engineering for over 30 years. These are the features of design commonly present in human engineering. If I had no knowledge of biology these would be the predictions I would make. I can't help it if we already know about them.
Comment by Steve Petermann — November 25, 2005 @ 12:59 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Got things to do now, but I will enjoy exploring some of the claims in this thread later tonight. Nevertheless, I am truly annoyed by the way Surfguard (who claims to be a Christian) and Dr. Logic have disrespected me in my home. Both of them have completely ignored the arguments I raised in the blog and instead feel entitled to use this comments section as their own private soapbox.
If they would like to continue participation in this thread, then they need to first satisfy me with their answers to this question "“
Why did you two purposely choose to ignore the central points I raised in the blog?
Sorry guys, but after arguing with hundreds of critics over many years, I have lost patience for this type of tactic.
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 1:09 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Can either surfguard or the doctor tell me what predictions I can make about light bulbs by knowing Edison? How about predictions I can make about airplanes by knowing the Wright brothers?
How does knowing either the Wright brothers or Edison help me understand their inventions unless they explicitly explained them to me?
OK how about this- Can either of you tell us what predictions can be made by invoking unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes?
Comment by Joe G — November 25, 2005 @ 1:58 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
dlogic,
I don't get your logic, so called doctor of logic. So, by your criterion, how does science make predictions if it doesn't know the ultimate source of causation? And how does it determine ultimate causation without doing science? No, science makes observations and tries to formulate a theory of causation such that it can make inferences to ultimate causes. What do you think QM or string theory or quantum loop theory are attempts at? If you have to identify the ultimate cause of things first how would you go about that?
Comment by Steve Petermann — November 25, 2005 @ 2:21 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
Back to Mike's blog…
1. Hoppe says, "I am known to be an ID critic, and readers may therefore believe that Multiple Designers Theory is presented as a parody of ID. It is not. It is a logical extension of the dominant stream of thought in mainstream ID." Hoppe treats the MDT as a valid research approach.
The dominant stream of thought in mainstream ID being intelligent causation exists and is empirically detectable. Nothing in that stream of thought excludes multiple designer. Also MDT is one extension, but its being a "logical" extension is pushing it quite a bit.
How can we tell one designer with one vision working from one plan from multiple designers working with a common plan from one designer delegating to other "workers" who then impose their own interpretation (Time Bandit style) from multiple designers working against each other, each with its own vision and this is the result given only the data we do have?
2. Hoppe's theory does not focus on the identity of the designer nor does it tell us who the designers are. It's a designer-centric approach that simply attempts to count designers, thus, if anything, amplifying the identity problem.
This is the fun part:
How many designers?
Which designer did what?
When did each designer do it?
How did…..
Were the vertcally challenged designers in charge of the bushes? (another Time Bandit reference)
3. As can be seen from two links above, not one ID critic criticizes Hoppe for failing to identify the designers. On the contrary, they give the MDT a warm welcome.
Hoppe thus shows us that there are others ways to approach ID apart from identifying the designer and the critics of ID concur.
The real sad part about this is when this fact is brought up to anti-IDists they go on to claim the MDT is a parody, then poke me with a stick…
Comment by Joe G — November 25, 2005 @ 3:50 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
If, by some very slim chance, MDT wasn't intended as a parody, it might just as well have been. I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking it were a parody. It has all of the failures of ID with some very amusing comments about information-carrying infinite wavelength radiation. If you really think there's any chance ID critics endorse MDT, maybe you should conduct a survey.
Joe is definitely swaying me to MDT, though. Now… tell me about… video cassette recorders…
Comment by doctor(logic) — November 25, 2005 @ 4:23 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Mike Gene,
Speaking just for myself…
MDT appears to be a parody. It is not endorsed by ID's critics, except, perhaps, those who's ideas are even more out of the mainstream of modern science.
So your argument that mainstream scientific endorsement of MDT proves something about the political motivations of ID critics is a non-starter.
Comment by doctor(logic) — November 25, 2005 @ 4:28 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
doctor:
If, by some very slim chance, MDT wasn't intended as a parody, it might just as well have been.
Are you saying someone is lying? Observe from the OP:
1. Hoppe says, "I am known to be an ID critic, and readers may therefore believe that Multiple Designers Theory is presented as a parody of ID. It is not. It is a logical extension of the dominant stream of thought in mainstream ID."
Comment by Joe G — November 25, 2005 @ 4:28 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
Oops- I get the link to Time Bandits…
Comment by Joe G — November 25, 2005 @ 4:29 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Doc,
It helps if you actually read the topic before commenting. Please read the Comment Guidelines. RBH, the author of MDT, doesn't regard MDT as a parody.
Comment by Guts — November 25, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Steve,
In what way are they predictions?
We look at a system that successfully performs a task. Physics imposes constraints on that system, so we propose mechanisms that explain how the system meets those requirements. This has nothing to do with ID. It's just physics.
"Ultimate causation" is meaningless. Physicists propose mathematical models that relate observables. We give pretty names to mathematical structures and to observable patterns. At first we did basic atomic theory without knowing that atoms were made of protons and electrons. We did basic nuclear theory without knowing that protons were made of quarks and gluons. It's like a Russian doll. We may never find the innermost doll, and, if we did, we might never know we had found it.
All we can do is provide mathematical models that match the existing data, and which predict future observations. A model that matches all previous data and predicts nothing is, at best, a shorthand way of writing down all previous observations.
A proper scientific theory is like fitting a curve to points on a graph. There are an infinite number of curves that pass through any finite number of points (observations). A theory must be consistent with existing points, and predict new data points (with at least some level of precision). However, without an infinite number of observations, you can never know if your curve is the theory of everything (the innermost doll).
Comment by doctor(logic) — November 25, 2005 @ 4:50 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Guts,
I did read the MDT article and did see RBH's comment.
I wonder why RBH had to add a footnote to the effect that this wasn't a parody. Perhaps because it looks like one?
Joe G,
I don't know anything about RBH. RBH may take MDT seriously. Mainstream science doesn't.
However, if RBH intended MDT as a joke, then he wouldn't be lying, right?
Comment by doctor(logic) — November 25, 2005 @ 4:56 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
DocLogic:
Richard Hoppe explicitly states that it is not a parody. It is disrespectful to have you insinuate that he is a liar.
It is disrespectful to misrepresent my point. I never said it was endorsed by ID critics. I noted that Hoppe has offered another way to explore ID that does not involve identifying the designer and no critic has complained that his method fails to identify the designer.
More disrespect, as I said nothing about mainstream scientific endorsement of MDT.
You dismiss Hoppe's theory as a parody, implying he is a liar. You disrespect me by misrepresenting my argument. And you continue to disrespect me by failing to explain why you chose to ignore other elements of the original blog.
Because of this persistent pattern of misbehavior on your part, consider yourself banned from this thread.
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 5:30 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Dr. Logic:
And you failed. In addition, you failed to address the points I raised after that statement. And before that statement.
Currently, ID, IMO, is simply a nascent proto-science. Thus I do not claim that it does indeed deepen our understanding of biology. I think that it has the potential to do so.
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
You confuse the utility of the designer-centric approach with its necessity. Not all critics agree that knowing the identity of the designer is an essential first step in a design inference. For example, Christopher Wills is a professor of biology from UCSD who notes that ID is "in principle testable." He offers a couple of tests and I have commented on them here. Nowhere does he argue that he first needs to identify the designer. Thus, you can all see that DocLogic's argument is his own personal hobby horse.
As opposed to the superior explanation of "it just happened?" Sorry DocLogic, but you're only a debunker and naysayer with a vested interest in discrediting ID. This means you are not in a position to advise about an ID investigation.
Your opinion is noted. And if we detected CSI in the presence of EVO explanations, let me guess "“ that would mean CSI evolves!
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
DocLogic:
I notice it took you a whole 19 minutes, at most, to read my essay and write up a reply. This clearly indicates your response was reflexive and therfore explains why you have just offered a faulty representation of the argument I made.
Sure it does. I explain how in the essay. You might have missed it when you skimmed it.
The prediction did not have anything do with transcription "˜working.' It went beyond what "˜works.'
The prediction arose from the working assumption that the cell was designed.
Wrong. When it was not known that RNA pol can proofread, evolution was used to explain the lack of this ability.
I didn't view it as a test of an ID hypothesis. In fact, I have never held it up as evidence for ID. It was a test of the ability of ID to generate testable hypotheses. In that essay you skimmed, I noted, "Those who loudly proclaim that ID is useless often share one defining trait that is common among all, namely, they all have no experience in trying to seriously employ ID to better understand the world. Thus, their accusation is based entirely on ignorance and their inability to think of ways to employ ID becomes confused with the notion that ID cannot be used to guide research." My money says that this applies to you.
I never said it was. The EVO hypothesis nicely explained the lack of RNA pol's proofreading ability and now it explains the existence of RNA pol's proofreading ability. And you want to preach to me about rigorous predictions?
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 6:16 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
Deuce:
Excellent point. And the critics have side-stepped it. If someone maintains that an identification of the design is necessary to carry out a design inference, it is their burden to address Deuce's question. What kind of data do we need to make an identification? At what point can we declare the designer "˜identified?" How much of this "identity" is needed? Those are questions the designer-centric proponents must answer.
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 6:20 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Surfguard:
Now you are moving the goal posts. It turn out you want a prediction that proves ID. Why expect ID to be proven in one giant leap?
Only if we wanted to prove ID over an evolutionary explanation. First of all, there is no reason to demand that ID predict something that evolution cannot explain. ID may very well co-exist with evolution and "˜evolution' can be, and has been, used to "explain" things that did not exist. The other side of this approach is that you need something that evolution precisely predicts that cannot be explained by ID. Do evolutionary scientists typically come up with their predictions like this? Of course not. Or consider the people who believe the Earth spawned Life. Do they predict observations that can be explained by the non-teleological perspective but not by ID. Nope.
That's one way. Another way is to follow the lead of the Darwinists or Abiogenesists "“ develop a track record of success.
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 6:29 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
This is like watching a rerun. Whenever a Darwinist demands a prediction from an ID proponent, and it is given to them, the Darwinist wiggles around it, moves the goal posts, changes definitions, adds ridiculous requirements, etc. It's as if they are so surprised by the fact that ID can in fact make useful predictions that they don't know how else to respond. It's quite a predictable phenomenon, pun intended.
Comment by Guts — November 25, 2005 @ 7:05 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
G. arago,
As you can see, this thread has gotten quite long. Feel free to post your stuff, but if you like, I can cut-n-paste it to make a new blog entry (i.e., host your essay) so you can devote attention to it in the comments section. Let me know.
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 8:44 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 9:49 am
This is a re-post for surfguard and doctor(logic):
Can either surfguard or the doctor tell me what predictions I can make about light bulbs by knowing Edison? How about predictions I can make about airplanes by knowing the Wright brothers?
How does knowing either the Wright brothers or Edison help me understand their inventions unless they explicitly explained them to me?
OK how about this- Can either of you tell us what predictions can be made by invoking unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes?
Let's see if their arguments hold water…
Comment by Joe G — November 26, 2005 @ 9:49 am
November 26th, 2005 at 10:11 am
Joe,
Please don't taunt these two. DocLogic was thrown out of this thread because of his persistent disrespectful behavior (as documented above). Surf can rejoin the thread after he first explains why he chose to ignore the points I laid on the table. Surf is the one who said "you have to ask who the designer is." While I went the extra mile to address his claim, he chose to ignore my arguments.
Comment by MikeGene — November 26, 2005 @ 10:11 am
November 26th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Wow, never thought this could get so ugly so quickly. From just a handful of comments I've contributed to this blog I've been called to be "defined by fear", not a Christian (or, at least, possibly just a self-claimed one) and a censor, if one would let me. Strong stuff, but let's forget that now, assuming that it all just evolved naturally and was not done by design (Sorry for the cheap joke
).
I said: ID would need to predict an observation that can be explained by ID but not by evolution, on which MikeGene replied:
Seems to me we're getting to the point: If you don't want to prove ID, fine with me. But not wanting to prove a new theory over an established one wouldn't exactly make it scientific. And I understood that's what ID advocates wanted?
Well, it could - as creationism, as a religious concept. But it couldn't if it wants to be a scientific theory explaining the same phenomena as evolution.
As a matter of fact, probably well known to this blog, evolutionists predicted that, if the flagellum was indeed the result of an evolutionary process, stand-alone parts of its mechanism should be found in nature with a selective advantage to them. This prediction was made in the 90s when no such stand-alone part was known and the flagellum was ID's prime example of IC. A little later those missing parts were actually found.
Another prediction that evolution makes is that one ore more "missing links" should exist that connect apes to humans in the evolutionary process. This examples demonstrates that evolution does make predictions even despite the risk that those predictions could fail for reasons not connected to the theory being right or wrong: If the missing link ever existed it might simply have been destroyed or not preserved over the millennia. (Just as a remark: Some evolutionists say that the missing link was already found, some say it wasn't.)
And on the original topic of this post: Why would the (alleged) fact that no ID critic criticized MDT make it true? Even if it was true that MDT wasn't criticized (which I admit I took no effort to check), couldn't it simply be that no-one focussed on it because disproving the single designer theory would be enough to disprove MDT right along? And if MDT was given the "warm welcome" you claim, well, I take pride to be the first one to dismiss it.
Comment by surfguard — November 26, 2005 @ 12:38 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
My apologies Mike.
OK then:
surfguard:
Another prediction that evolution makes is that one ore more "missing links" should exist that connect apes to humans in the evolutionary process.
That is a "prediction" of common descent. The mechanism is absent from that prediction. This debate is all about the mechanism. Just thougt I would let you know.
I am sure others will clue you in as to the insignificance of the type III sec. system in conection with the flagellum. Dr. Minnich did a great job explaining this during his testimony in the "Dover" trial.
Comment by Joe G — November 26, 2005 @ 1:27 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Joe G:
Even if no proof of the reducible complexitiy of the flagellum were found until today (which I deny), then the existence of a stand-alone part of the flagellum would at least remain a prediction that evolutionists make. It is a prediction that can be proven right or wrong. ID seems unwilling to accept the same challenge. I don't think you would want to focus on weaknesses in the proof of evolution because this would in no way prove ID. And if you don't want to prove ID, as Mike says, then what is it that you want at all?
Secondly, you feel that finding the "missing link" wouldn't prove evolution. I can accept up to a point (and really only up to a point, but let's neglect that now). So I understand that you think only the *very basic* biological mechanisms were designed.
I'd wonder, then, why stop at biological mechanisms? Why would you accept that atoms were not designed? Nobody would deny that a hydrogen atom is irreducibly complex. Would you consequently assume that it must have been designed? This would certainly imply a literally meta-physical designer. But why would a meta-physical designer be a bigger problem than a hyper-biological designer?
Comment by surfguard — November 26, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
I challenge the IDers to either predict or deduce anything that I cannot interpret as perfectly consistent with the existing paradigm!
It's a little silly (not to mention disingenuous) of me to expect anything from the IDers when I will accept nothing from them.
Comment by Rock — November 26, 2005 @ 2:05 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
surfguard:
Even if no proof of the reducible complexitiy of the flagellum were found until today (which I deny), then the existence of a stand-alone part of the flagellum would at least remain a prediction that evolutionists make.
But the type III sec system isn't a stand-alone part. Sure some (10?) proteins of the bac flag are homologous with the 10 that make up the TTSS but the config and function are all wrong. IOW the TTSS does what you say only if you sprinkle it with a lot of imagination.
An experiment as the "evolve-ability" of the bac flag has been put on the table. NDEists insist it is not their position to substantiate their claim that the bac flag can and did evolve. Rather they want IDists to conduct the experiment. I guess that way when no bac flag evolves they can say the IDists messed up. All it really shows is they are unwilling to put their claims to the test- the best people to attempt falsification are the ones who want to falsify it.
surfguard:
And if you don't want to prove ID, as Mike says, then what is it that you want at all?
First science is not and never has been about proof. What we want is to be able to look at something, say "hey this looks designed", and then carry out an investigation in that light. Experience tells us that the design inference makes a huge difference in how an investigation proceeds.
IOW we want the "luxury" of being able to follow the evidence/ data to where it leads.
As for the rest of your post- did you read my essay? You said that you did but if you had then you wouldn't have posted that last paragraph. Bad form indeed.
Comment by Joe G — November 26, 2005 @ 5:47 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
Joe G:
And who keeps you from doing that? I certainly don't. I'm here to discuss your concepts with you, if you like to.
Ahem… For the sake of the argument I actually *did accept* your claim that no proof has been found. And all you do is reiterate that no proof has been found? I'd have expected more from a man who in his next line accuses me of "bad form" for not reading the contents of an article he linked. I mean, can we stop getting personal in every second post?
I tried to say this: Evolutionists take the risk of making (distinguishing) predictions. IDists don't. Why?
Pardon me? If a theory was not accepted by everybody anway a fulfilled prediction was always the way to go. Galileo started this little tradition: He proved a prediction right that had been made by Copernicus, thus establishing the heliocentric system over the geocentric.
So if ID should be correct you'd at least make it too easy for your opponents by not trying to convince them in a way that they'd be forced to accept: predict something that evolution would not be able to explain.
Comment by surfguard — November 26, 2005 @ 7:35 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 8:47 am
What we want is to be able to look at something, say "hey this looks designed", and then carry out an investigation in that light. "¦ IOW we want the "luxury" of being able to follow the evidence/ data to where it leads.
surfguard:
And who keeps you from doing that?
Just about all anti-IDists.
surfguard:
I tried to say this: Evolutionists take the risk of making (distinguishing) predictions. IDists don't. Why?
IC and CSI are distinguishing predictions that ID makes.
First science is not and never has been about proof.
surfguard:
Pardon me?
The Nature of science
"Most scientific thinking, whether done while jogging, in the shower, in a lab, or while excavating a fossil, involves continuous observations, questions, multiple hypotheses, and more observations. It seldom "concludes" and never "proves.""
If a theory was not accepted by everybody anway a fulfilled prediction was always the way to go. Galileo started this little tradition: He proved a prediction right that had been made by Copernicus, thus establishing the heliocentric system over the geocentric.
surfguard:
If a theory was not accepted by everybody anway a fulfilled prediction was always the way to go.
As long as it is a valid prediction, it would help.
surfguard:
predict something that evolution would not be able to explain.
NDE cannot explain the origin of life, IC or CSI.
Comment by Joe G — November 27, 2005 @ 8:47 am
November 27th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Surf:
You're talking about this thread. You actually believe ID represents a threat to science and democracy. Yet you cannot make a rational case that convinces me or others why we should likewise feel afraid. You are then left with your fear. This fear defines you in the sense that you probably feel the need to debunk/discredit ID - the reason for your being here. It's the "˜fight-or-flight' response, the body's typical reaction in a state of fear.
Here you expect to see ID proceed from a speculation to a proven theory all in one giant leap. Any investigation is going to start off an shaky grounds and it takes time and a series of small steps to see it through. You want something that proves ID and disproves evolution because of your fear. If you allow for a less demanding and less extreme state, you are allowing this thing that you fear to flourish. An investigation will be perceived as part of the conspiracy plot to overthrow democracy and replace it with a theocracy.
Wrong. ID can co-exist with evolution in many forms. Evolution can be designed, such that design exploits the evolutionary mechanisms. Evolutionary mechanisms can be designed. The world can contain a mosaic of things that were designed and not designed. You come to the table with black-and-white vision, lumping all of biotic reality into "˜designed' or "˜just happened.'
The TTSS was not found because of any prediction. People working with this mechanism of disease isolated and sequenced the genes and, at the time, noted the possible evolutionary relationship. They did not declare they found what evolutionary theory was looking for.
Since then, the question is whether the TTSS (the "stand alone part") is more ancient or more recent than bacteria, as the evidence leans toward the latter. Since evolution cannot travel back in time, the TTSS only becomes relevant if it existed prior to or concurrently with the origin of the flagellum. So let's see if your prediction is really all that risky. Are you saying that if the TTSS turned out to originate after the origin of the flagellum, the evolutionary hypothesis would be falsified? Or does your prediction not assign any weight to the failure to find "˜stand alone parts?'
Furthermore, you failed to address my argument. The existence of "˜stand-alone' parts can also be explained by ID. I suggest you familiarize yourself with my hypothesis of front-loaded evolution. Remember, you need to use evolution to predict something that also cannot be explained by ID.
The issue of not whether evolution can be used to make predictions. We're applying your standard and demanding you use evolution to predict something ID cannot explain. I'm pointing out that this is not how evolutionary biologists typically make their predictions.
As for the whole issue of predictions, we also need to remember that the use of evolutionary theory has a history of faulty predictions. People tend to forget the failed predictions and recall only the successful ones.
Like DocLogic, you misrepresent me. I never said MDT was true nor made true by the lack of criticism. I simply point out that MDT has been proposed as one way to explore ID and no ID critic has raised the identity issue with it. This supports my contention that the identity issue is not a necessary first step in any design inference. There is no need to box yourself into such a narrow-minded approach. But again, this may be where you fear defines you. I also raised the issue of required methods for identifying the designer and noted the political smell of the demand. You side-stepped all that.
Finally, Surfguard, you never did explain why you chose to ignore the points I made in the original blog. How is this supposed to work? You ignore my original points. When I ask you to explain why you ignored my original points, you ignore that request (effectively giving me the middle finger). Now, you want me to believe you are being fair and objective about all this, right? Why should I?
Comment by MikeGene — November 27, 2005 @ 12:09 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
Regarding transitional fossils, it's instructive to remember that before Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, adherents of the Chain of Being expected to find intermediary forms between humans and apes. In other words, this wasn't a prediction that couldn't be explained by any other view.
Comment by Krauze — November 27, 2005 @ 12:58 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Must be because of the irrepressible fear that defines me. (Boy, my mother will be glad to learn this.) Sorry, but I don't like web discussions being led on such a personal level. (There you go, the fear issue again!)
Sad thing. I'd really liked to discuss ID with you.
Bye.
Comment by surfguard — November 27, 2005 @ 1:11 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
O.k. Mike,
thanks for the heads-up. Yeah, this thread is getting crowded, probably too much so for such a semi-review that I wrote some time back about RBH's MDT. But I'll submit it here (the first part to start) and you can put it where you like. It seems that RBH has visited TT's before, so perhaps he would be willing to visit a 'roped off' thread about his theory.
Arago
~~
Why would RBH be a prime detractor of intelligent design (ID) or in particular, of the brand of ID theory that infers a Single designer? Is it purely politics or is there an actual theoretical foundation on which he is building? We can try to discover this by reviewing RBH's Multiple designers theory (MDT) with a brief analysis.
It is not appropriate to critique or even comment directly about ID theories. Instead, what has been called Multiple Designer's Theory (MDT) by e-poster RBH (Richard B. Hoppe), a Panda's Thumb Member is on the e-chopping block. All quotes are taken from RBH's MDT paper which can be found on-line where Mike Gene referenced it above in this thread.
Let it be agreed between RBH and I and some others who visit here, that, after more than 10 years have passed to address and clarify its theoretical foundations, ID (c. 1993) needs to be changed in crucial ways if it is to have anywhere near the success its originators have said it will or should have in natural sciences. We are thus testing the futurism of the ID crew. An adapted, neo-ID theory (which may even be neo-evolutionary somehow) would look very different than ID does now. An actual "˜revolution' in ID would be required for it to gain legitimacy as a "˜science' and not only as it is now already considered (and accepted loosely by some TE's and EC's), as a philosophy of science and/or religion.
Here is one admission from RBH's paper about evolution:
An alternative to evolution, are we hearing this right??
First, in regard to evolutionary theory RBH doesn't disagree, in principle, with the "˜teach the controversy' idea of the ID movement. If there is a controversy, teach different sides if priority demands it. He appears instead to disagree that any alternative to evolution is currently available (or even perhaps that one can be found). RBH however, emphasizes that ID is not a suitable alternative to evolution. Therefore what alternatives to evolution in RBH's competent spheres of knowledge are we given to consider?
RBH's fields of wonder apparently include disciplines such as psychology, cultural anthropology, social philosophy, political science and ethics, where evolution theories are taught and studied, by professionals and by amateurs. RBH is likely more qualified than most IDists to speak in these areas about evolution and what challenge or lack of challenge exists from it's usage in theory. Such multidisciplinarity must be taken into consideration when analyzing and critiquing RBH's MD theory.
Evolutionary theory in natural sciences, as RBH realizes, is only part of the evolutionary story. Non-natural sciences offer yet another arena in which to investigate and/or explore evolution; scholars in these areas should not be declined attention to draw upon their reflections, tools and observations about evolutionary theory, though IDists rarely speak about them. IDists often come from engineering, computing or biotech research backgrounds and interests and they prefer going into philosophies of biology, ecology, information theory and self-organization, than giving much attention to the role of evolution in non-natural sciences. Likely RBH knows this, realizes some of the shortcomings in ID knowledge and wishes to exploit them as weaknesses of the IDM. His MDT views serve up such a situation.
The facts do obviously go in RBH's favour about the IDM's focus on a Single designer (or Designer), which IDists in the IDM often won't address when speaking publicly. The "˜don't talk about the designer' aspect of ID is quite exasperating for those scientists who like to make analyses that include the designer(s), builder(s), or constructor(s) of physical and non-physical action and events in the world. It may not be necessary, but it helps the case of ID sufficiently if IDists can speak in areas other than mathematics, statistics, engineering, information theory, jurisprudence and philosophies of science, particularly biology. Theologies which lead to the conclusion of a Single designer are what mainstream ID generally restricts itself categorically to and this cannot be conveniently removed from consideration of the ID paradigm.
MDT, says RBH, is meant to stimulate thinking and discussion, and to provide a "˜real alternative to evolutionary theory.' He doesn't call his views anti-evolution, though he attacks ID theories exactly when ID proponents suggest their theory as an alternative to evolution. Most IDists, however, are actually evolutionists (in one form or another) anyway. For example, W. Dembski, M. Behe and S. Meyer all accept evolution in micro- form; just not when it turns into a worldview that promotes materialism, secularism or naturalism.
RBH would perhaps prefer to distinguish himself from his ID opponents by saying exactly when his theory presents an alternative to evolutionary theory, that is, when he disagrees with evolution and how MDT fills a need that evolutionary theory hasn't yet or can't. What exactly are some "˜things that don't evolve,' according to RBH?
Whether in parody or genuine self-interest, as far as it depends on ID, MD appears to be almost an entirely reactionary theory. Let's observe this through what RBH says about it:
Comment by g arago — November 27, 2005 @ 7:58 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
G. arago,
I beleive you said it was a two-parter. Did you condense the two or do you have another one? I'm just asking so I can post the whole thing.
Comment by MikeGene — November 27, 2005 @ 8:44 pm
November 28th, 2005 at 6:28 am
Though he goes into more theoretical detail about "˜agents' than many IDists have done, RBH's theory will have the same difficulty as IDT in pointing to "˜designer(s)' if he doesn't distinguish his subjectivity (self-reflection) from his supposed scientific knowledge of design-reflecting a designing agent. With MDT, RBH appears to be caught in a hermeneutic circle that does not allow enough distance between the object under study and the "˜scientist' (or philosopher/theologian) who undertakes the study. A double hermeneutic appears to be inevitable, even for the natural scientist.
Instead, RBH levels weaker criticism at his own theory than he does at SD-ID theory RBH seems to realize that if there are a "˜finite and limited number of intelligent agents,' then he will somewhere down the way potentially arguing against an infinite, unlimited Intelligent Creator as the case of mainstream IDt's often protests. Notice that he has written about a "˜research program' that "˜will be,' and which we should supposedly wait for. We can perhaps also assume that the final formulation and actualization of such a program is not yet complete. MDT is thus still in a process-of-formation, that is, it is still evolving, not yet having arrived at its destiny as a credible theory, rather than a parody.
There is no need to equate philosophers' work with thin-air thinking when RBH's MDT clearly includes its own philosophical speculation. RBH underplays philosophy in his bid to appear scientific, a tactic often taken by IDists who abide to the "˜scientific revolution' tack. Especially obvious are those who will not concede that perspectives opposing their ID theory should be given respective space and fairly considered. Personal views of science, philosophy and theology are clearly being forced upon others in the names of each other, by people on all sides of this debate. This situation is also visible in RBH's MDT.
What can be expected of RBH's MDT version of empirical pragmatism is that it should help uncover the burden of pressure on evolutionism and potential alternatives to it. Only in doing so, he also implies that MDT is nearly as universalistic, or perhaps even more universally applicable (read: accurate) than ID theories. "˜All things are designed by evolutionar(il)y intelligent agents' would be quite a universal statement.
Following his attacks on SD-ID, RBH moves into what may be one of the strongest aspects of MDT, it's insistence on recognizing the human-ness of typical theories of design (i.e. not the specific theory called "˜intelligent design' promoted by the IDM). RBH notes that "one of the classes of designers is: human." Who could disagree with him that humans do sometimes "˜design' things? This move shows how important the field of anthropology will be in RBH's MDT and how different this approach is from ID's which is predominantly in biology and genetics.
Following this approach, he uses the terms "˜human-designed,' "˜human designers' and "˜teams of designers.' The IDM apparently does not agree (yet) with such language. As such, they appear unable to distinguish between human "˜designers' making human "˜designs' and un-embodied designers who may or may not be designing (or have designed) biological information. There is no theory currently in the IDM according to SD-ID that includes human designers or that has elaborated upon (the role of) anthropological theory, which would help guard against the anthropocentrism of design. RBH's MDT is not shy and is unashamed in trying to fill this gap in ID.
The charge of anthropomorphism against MDT also seems legitimate. RBH even resorts on occasion (later in the paper) to speak of (a) "˜human creator,' (but he doesn't capitalize it like Ayn R. did) perhaps revealing his generational inclinations to the older evolution vs. creation debate. After all, RBH was raised, as far as we may gather, in mainstream American thought where "˜evolution vs. creation' was elevated into a national spectacle or exposition, in show trials, school board hearings and even in the words of US Presidents (e.g. R. Reagan felt both creation and evolution should be taught, W. Clinton is almost pure evolutionist). Trying to untangle oneself from evolutionism, even in an effort to (non-biologically) identify multiple designers of life, is not a simple task.
Here is a place where RBH and I are in almost complete agreement. "˜Media' are important for this conversation and there are or must be constraints. The time and place, method and mode of designing or evolution(s) all involve media or they would be simply media-less. Physical, mental, emotional, material or immaterial media all deserve a place in our conversation.
RBH's MDT is also concerned with "˜interventions' and how to measure them; this may be news to those anti-IDists who don't often consider philosophy of history with a systematic approach. There must be intervention(s) somewhere or one probably lives in an "˜iron cage of rationality' in the absence of mystery and imagination. It is not quite clear, however, whether front-loading interventions in the universe by a Single designer or curious-interventionist agnostic deism is what RBH is really endorsing. Perhaps the thought of a "˜continuing creation' in which he himself is involved and thus responsible for his personal actions is deemed undesirable. Either way, an MDT view surely need not challenge the faith of IDists that there is more to the origin(s) of bio-physical things than merely the skin of substance. On the weaker side, RBH's MDT does nothing to counter the mainstream ID view that the origin of the universe is more than "˜merely' a material or physical event and that it does consist in a singularity.
(Part II of III)
Comment by g arago — November 28, 2005 @ 6:28 am
November 28th, 2005 at 6:33 am
Says RBH:
Surely RBH is not discounting peoples' focus on shapes and structures! This quote reveals RBH's belief that (post)-modern ID theories are a "recrudescence of Payleyist Argument from Design" However, it makes as much sense to call IDT's today "˜Paleyan' as it does to call evolution theories today "˜Darwinian.' The theoretical predecessors and forerunners of "˜evolution' and "˜design' are undoubtedly referenced in the contemporary versions of "˜evolution' and "˜design' theories. But that doesn't limit the current versions of ID and EVO to the views of those particular theorists. This has been said already by many people and it is no use faulting Behe for seeing weaknesses or unexplainable things in evolutionary, especially neo-Darwinian theory.
Dr. Behe is not (an) Evangelical Protestant, he is (a) Roman Catholic, though that doesn't seem to affect his ability to conduct good experiments, write papers and to coin (a) scientific vocabulary (IC) that points to definitive problems in neo-Darwinian evolutionary accounts of origins and processes in micro-biology. The record does read that he nonetheless participates in an evangelical political-cultural, mainly-Christian movement in the US that has become known under a broad guise as "˜ID.' RBH is against all of this and even against non-theists who would like SD-ID without his MDT.
Well then, good wishes to RBH for his continuing research on "˜empirically-based inferences about the intentions of"¦unembodied designers!' In such a case, everybody involved wins and "˜teleology,' re-implied in the intentions of the designing (agent), is admitted into the scientific picture where it was previously or recently absent. A teleological dimension had been disallowed in the wake of Darwinian and Spencerian dys-teleological evolution, which became absolutized in the disciplinary forms of neo-Darwinian evolutionary models. RBH's possibility seems to play right into the IDM's agenda and would appear to contradict any notions of parading materialism, naturalism or scientific neutrality.
The fact that RBH puts theology "˜way down on his list of concerns' displays an alienation from contemporary needs, trends and concerns. Spirituality (as opposed to mere empiricism) is welcome in today's new epoch of discovery and religious re-invigoration, ask the Dalai Lama or the Pope. Science and religion, regardless of what RBH claims, are ultimately not enemies, but rather potentially cooperative partners in global discussions and practical research toward understanding and enabling greater human flourishing.
It appears that MDT, though posed as a kind of alternative "“ if sometimes a compliment "“ to evolution and ID, has nothing much relevant to contribute in humanitarian arenas dealing with meaning and purpose. If MDT does try to become philosophically coherent it would likely be through applying some kind of methodological individualism. Likewise, this would make the "˜designer' of a theory responsible for contextualizing his or her relationship with the discourse in which they are writing/communicating before pretending to foist a "˜scientifically neutral' and objective theory on people which is anything but neutral or objective.
The research program of the IDM is indeed either non-existent or apparently kept secret, probably even to some of the people inside of the IDM's big tent pseudo-synthesis! But so is RBH's theory about MD's, since we are expected to wait for it. Why the IDM doesn't wish to solve some of its current theoretical/political quagmire by involving the social sciences and humanities, as RBH at least tries to do with MDT, is somewhat strange to this author. However, on the other hand, why RBH would wish to reduce the value of philosophy/theology in connection with his scientific investigation is also hard to fathom.
Perhaps RBH's MDT offers a much-needed solution or perhaps it doesn't. But at least it should provoke pause for reflection upon some of the problems inherent in ID theory and in evolution for today's scientists, scholars and philosophers to consider.
Comment by g arago — November 28, 2005 @ 6:33 am
November 28th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
Hi g arago,
I actually find a lot of merit in RBH's MDT, but I also think it has some problems. The one thing I really appreciate about it is RBH's commitment to formulating his theory around empirical evidence, following the evidence where it leads. Of course, prominent ID proponents have also made that commitment. While the focus of ID is on design detection, RBH broaches the subject of the designer(s). I myself have an interest in this but not so much as a support for ID but rather as form of natural theology. Of course once one ventures off into this territory the speculation begins and inferences are made. Since RBH incorporates metaphysics into his inferences, they must be open to a full philosophical critique. This is particularly where MDT may be found lacking.
The primary premise of MDT is that multiple designers make more sense than a single designer. This leads to the first metaphysical foundation the RBH seems to be employing. From all indications it appears to be a reaction to a classic theism where a single designer is perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent. From that paradigm one might expect a certain type of design pattern based on those attributes.
From here.
and
If, as it appears, MDT is only based on a critique of an ID stemming from classic theism, that critique may have merit but such a narrow focus renders it impotent against other prominent ontologies, in particular forms of panentheism.
Of particular note is the philosophical problem with MDT of infinite regress. It lacks a first cause, an uncaused cause. If multiple designers are causes then they must also logically be effects. In other words who designed the multiple designers? Philosophy and theology solved this problem by positing an uncaused cause, Aristotle's prime mover. That logic led to the eventual disenchantment with polytheism. More recently, although he did not initially plan to, Whitehead found that a concept of God was essential to his process philosophy. To be philosophically sound MDT would have to address this issue of infinite regress. It would seem that even if there were multiple designers, God would be necessary as a unifying principal, an uncaused cause. If that is the case then we're really back to God acting through secondary causes, albeit intelligent ones.
More to the point, however, is that the empirical observations upon which RBH bases his inference to multiple designers, already fit perfectly well within the well established philosophy and theology of panentheism. It is a theology that is finding more and more appeal both within religious traditions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc) as well as modern