The ID = Creationism Meme Continues to Unravel
by MikeGeneRecently, we have seen that some ID critics have effectively conceded that the demands for information about the designer, along with the demands that the designer's origin must come into play, have all been rhetorical smokescreens. Now we can put to rest yet another common criticism among the ID critics, the claim that ID = creationism.
In the last thread about front-loading, two TT members who are critical of ID, make the following observations about front-loading evolution (which is one ID view):
Hrun: As Mike Gene is fond of pointing out, all the little data snippets posted here are said to be 'consistent' with front loading. Yet, they are also consistent with evolution as most biological scientists understand it. So, what distinguishes one from the other. I don't know. Do you? Does Mike? Does anybody?
Salim: This is my problem as well: Every single bit of evidence ever put forwards for evolution is consistent with Mike Gene's formulation of front-loading. Every bit of evidence for front-loading can be explained more simply by more conventional evolutionary means.
If ID = Creationism, then Hrun and Salim are arguing that evolution and conventional evolutionary means are the same as creationism which, I suppose, means that Hrun and Salim argue that creationism is indistinguishable from their position. I have previously debunked the ID = creationism meme on several levels. We can now add this twist to the rest.
Previously we saw that ID was supposed to be falsified because no message in the genome has been detected, but if one was detected, it would not be evidence for ID. Here we see that on one hand, we are accused of being creationists, yet on the other hand, we are accused of being no different from conventional evolutionists.
Two questions remain. Are the critics willing to acknowledge that ID is not necessarily the same as creationism? Are they willing to acknowledge that ID evolutionists exist?
June 11th, 2007 at 12:40 am
So now we have reached the point where conventional evolution=front loading=ID=Creationism?
Nothing can be distinguished from each other anymore?
My comment was a question for clarification: front loading on the one hand has been associated with ID. On the other hand, all of the evidence that may be supportive of ID is entirely consistent with conventional evolution (because at no point does the evidence imply any sort of intervention by a designer). So, as long as front loading does not postulate the presence of interventions by designers, it is entirely consistent with evolution. However, as soon as it postulates such interventions it is not consistent with evolution anymore, but rather with ID (if that equates to creationism is a different point that I am agnostic about).
So, can you clarify? Does front loading imply intervention by a designer or does it not?
EDIT: I apologize for the partial cross post with the last thread. I realized only after posting there that part of my post was included in this topic. For ease of commenting, we can continue just in this thread and you can disregard the questions I posed in the previous thread.
I only have two simple questions about front loading. They are simple, but they are also fundamental:
1) Is front loading distinguishable from what's commonly understood as evolution.
2) Does front loading imply the intervention of a designer at any point in the genome of organisms?
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 12:40 am
June 11th, 2007 at 12:47 am
"…some ID critics have effectively conceded that the demands for information about the designer, along with the demands that the designer's origin must come into play, have all been rhetorical smokescreens."
wait…wait…I don't concede. I've simply been too preoccupied to make a proper fuss about it.
Comment by great_ape — June 11, 2007 @ 12:47 am
June 11th, 2007 at 12:51 am
great_ape, Mike said the SOME ID critics have EFFECTIVELY conceded. So, to make the statement correct, it is not necessary that you completely concede.
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 12:51 am
June 11th, 2007 at 4:14 am
hrun wrote:
One can, in principle, explain how the Empire State building came to be without mentioning any intervention by an intelligent designer. It's not that one must choose either a physical explanation or a mental explanation. It's that one can, without scientific error, opt for just the physical explanation and dispense with the mental one as not properly part of a fully mature scientific picture of the world. The same goes for my typing this post, or any other action by an intelligent designing mind.
If one insists that mental explanations are allowable but only if one can trace physical connections between the object to be explained and some brain or other, then one is not merely begging the question; one is rendering evolution, understood as the hypothesis that living species arose without benefit of the agency of an intelligent designer—-and let's face it, evolution isn't all that interesting a hypothesis otherwise—–unfalsifiable.
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 4:14 am
June 11th, 2007 at 5:28 am
If ID = Creationism, then Hrun and Salim are arguing that evolution and conventional evolutionary means are the same as creationism which, I suppose, means that Hrun and Salim argue that creationism is indistinguishable from their position. I have previously debunked the ID = creationism meme on several levels. We can now add this twist to the rest.
Once again, mike has deliberately misunderstood my position in order to make a blogging point. Well done, It's not every day that somebody constructs such a beautiful straw-man which purports to represent my opinion. Should I feel honoured?
I was trying to demonstrate that Mike, Krauze, Bradford that the proponents of Front-Loading have not yet presented a shred of evidence for Front-loading that is not already consistent with Evolution, an entirely natural process. Front loading is currently a redundant hypothesis because nobody has presented any evidence for FL that is inconsistent with what evolution would predict.
If you take the time to grep the previous thread for the word "Planning" you will see that I identified a method for Mike to actually find some actual front-loading evidence.
On the subject of ID=Creationism, my belief is that Old-Earth Creationism is a kind of ID.
Every argument for ID also supports OEC creationism, but not every argument for creationism supports ID.
I'd consider it hard to reconcile YEC with ID – YEC is such an oddball position it's hard to reconcile it with any other position that values human reason.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 11, 2007 @ 5:28 am
June 11th, 2007 at 5:46 am
One can, in principle, explain how the Empire State building came to be without mentioning any intervention by an intelligent designer. It's not that one must choose either a physical explanation or a mental explanation. It's that one can, without scientific error, opt for just the physical explanation and dispense with the mental one as not properly part of a fully mature scientific picture of the world.
If somebody claimed that the Empire State was a non-artificial structure, I could present a great deal of evidence to show them wrong:
I can show photos of the construction, identify individual builders, point to the firm of architects and their original plans and demonstrate that all are consistent. I could even take you inside the building and observe that the materials used are entirely consistent with technology that was available in the 1930s. I can even explain the odd spire (a mooring mast for airships).
In the case of the empire state building I can even name the architects; I can even give you a biography of his life and the purpose for which the building was built, and how this was reflected in it's design.
One of the reasons I can be so confident about the Empire State building is that I have all the who, why, where, when type facts. The Who, Why, Where, When questions are critically important if you want to understand the history of this building.
Now tell me, why is it that ID proponents think these same questions are unimportant or unnecessary when trying to understand the history of life. ID seems to be unique in that it claims to know the history of something but declines to state any of the essential details that would corroborate that history.
These questions will have to be answered before ID has a chance of mainstream science credibility. If these questions are never answered then ID will always remain as it is today.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 11, 2007 @ 5:46 am
June 11th, 2007 at 7:57 am
I have serious business to attend to today. So for now, you can consult my reply to Brayton and check out the set of replies in this thread. I'll try to get back to this thread later tonight.
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 7:57 am
June 11th, 2007 at 9:20 am
MikeGene,
Which version of ID are refering to?
186.04D?
326.65Fz?
Wait…don't tell me, it's the classic 437.95s?
Comment by BoZ3MaN — June 11, 2007 @ 9:20 am
June 11th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Mike Gene:
I think Brayton understands ID and it's many variants well enough to offer a valid critique from a strictly naturalistic point of view.
ID proponents claim that nobody who truly understands ID would ever find fault with it, but how do I as a bystander in this debate work out if this is a true statement?
I will acknowledge that Mike Gene and Michael Behe have contributed more to the body of texts supporting ID, however does it automatically follow that they understand it correctly? There seems to be substantial difference amongst ID supporters, for example Casey Luskin doubts common-descent, wheras Mike Gene feels that it is irrefutable. Whose version should Brayton be criticizing?
And what about that old chestnut of not being able to identify the designer?
Why I shouldn't care about ID's the big questions? Without a hypothesis about how the design was done and who did it, how on earth can we test ID's claims?
ID remains an untested, untestable hypothesis – in this regard, it is substantially inferior to Young Earth Creationism, which at least has the benefit of being very spesific about the age of the earth and the identity of the designer. This provides us with the perfect means to validate the theory…
The reason that ID can never advance beyond it's current status is because it's proponents are content to let it be a faith-based proposition. The only way you could justify a belief in this designer would be if you already had faith in his existence, and that is why it is quite reasonable for Brayton point out that ID has more in common with creationist theology than mainstream science.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 11, 2007 @ 9:36 am
June 11th, 2007 at 10:43 am
What MikeGene means by "ID" may not be the same as creationism, but what MikeGene means by "ID" isn't the same "ID" which was on trial in Dover v. Kitzmiller. For example, that "ID" purported to be science; MikeGene's does not.
You might as well point out that "ID", by which you mean Indian cooking, isn't the same thing as creationism, for all the relevance that it has. Saying anything about MikeGene's concept of intelligent design is irrelevant to what's referred to as "The ID = Creationism Meme", because the intelligent design he's defending is a different concept under the same name.
Comment by grendelkhan — June 11, 2007 @ 10:43 am
June 11th, 2007 at 11:12 am
grendelkhan :
Yes, that seems to be the case. There is a great deal of difference between what various species of IDists believe. For example, Mike Gene and Krauze seem to believe in Front-loading which is an attempt to reconcile ID with the realities of common-descent and the fact that evolutionary processes can produce apparent design. Mike Gene does not seem to have a problem with Common Descent.
Casey Luskin, who is the spokespodcaster for the Discovery Institute's "Center for Science and Culture", clearly does not as we can infer from this podcast quote:
It's clear that the only thing that clearly unites the pro-ID advocates is their rejection of what they vaguely call "neo-darwinism", and their inability to come to terms with exactly why mainstream science cannot accept ID as currently formulated.
By the way, can somebody point me to the web-forum where ID proponents argue it out with Creationists? Since these positions are allegedly different and people feel passionate about them, there must be a wild debate raging.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 11, 2007 @ 11:12 am
June 11th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Hi Mike,
You asked…
I have made no secret of my opinion of your habit of spinning the political aspects as merely a "response" to your critic's attacks (i.e. shield bashing).
Are you willing to give the critics evidence "…that ID is not necessarily the same as creationism?"
Dr. Dembski has stated on Uncommon Descent that…
"…time travelers, and telic organizing principles in nature are ID alternatives that don't require God" link
While you might be uncomfortable with speaking for all of ID, you should be comfortable with saying what is and is not a Front Loading hypothesis.
Would you consider my retrocausality hypothesis (ala Penrose-Hameroff) a Front Loading hypothesis by your definition of terms? If not, why not?
Regards,
TP
P.S. to Krauze, I would like to hear your ruling on this too.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 11, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Er, Salimfahdley, you do not understand the significance of the Empire State building example.
You cannot show me an intelligent, designing, conscious mind. Ever.
You can show me a bunch of material objects. You can show me brain matter, blood vessels, sound waves, electromagnetic waves, photographs of humans, film of construction activity, etc. For every such object, one could in principle explain its composition and motions entirely in terms of basic physical science. "This particle went here, that one went over there, this one bumped into that, that sent this photon going that way…etc". One need make no reference to or mention of conscious intelligent agency.
How the Empire State building came to be is how species of life came to be. The only difference is in the precise magnitudes and vectors of the various material motions involved. What we literally see when we look at an architect at work is an array of complicated material bodies in various states of mathematically intelligible motion. That's also what we see when we observe any life form or investigate its history. In other words, the cases of intelligent design that we 'know' about are no different in terms of physical observation from the cases in biology, except for the precise form and kinds of material complexity involved.
We do not literally observe the intelligent agency that we infer is responsible for making buildings or watches, even if we are standing at the shoulder of a master builder or watchmaker while they work. What we literally see when we're standing at the craftsman's shoulder is a complex series of material movements. Hands moving, picking up things, using things they have picked up to put other things together, producing in the end a building or a watch. Is this any more 'artificial' or 'complex' (other than as a matter of degree) than what we observe when we watch DNA at work, producing and reproducing cells? And if we opened up the craftsman's skull and looked at his brain, we'd see more of the same—complex, material, functional movements.
In other words, we never literally observe 'intelligent
agency'; that would be an abductive inference from complex material movements, even if we're watching a human being constructing the Empire State building or making a watch. All we literally see are bodies in motion. Nor do we physically observe even our own minds. We are, however, consciously aware of them, and of other minds too, thank God. (God is like other minds in this respect.)
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Do you have a working definition of "intelligence"
intelligence: (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria.
It seems that we can observe mice learn mazes.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
stunney:
Zachriel:
Zachriel, from your previous comments, I know you are smarter than this. All we can observe of the mice is their muscular movements, no matter what they are doing.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 11, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
-stunney
A mouse learning a maze is the product of an intelligent mind, not the intelligent mind itself. Just as macroevolution has never been observed, so actual intelligent minds have never been observed. We can only make inferences based what we observe.
Comment by russ — June 11, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Zachriel wrote:
Yes. Non-zachriel-like.:lol:
I've discussed this issue before, albeit in a different context.
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
learn: to gain knowledge or understanding of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience.
intelligence: the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations.
We can correlate the behavior of a mouse with its experience of the maze. We call that learning, and the ability to learn, intelligence.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Zachriel wrote:
[Emphasis added]
Does the 'Z' in your name stand for 'Zombie'?:mrgreen:
How do you know the mouse is experiencing anything? You can't observe a mouse's experience, even if it's having some.
The same goes for the experiences of bats.
By the way, since you never seem to learn or understand anything, may I take it you have no objection to my deeming you to be unintelligent?:smile:
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Experience in this case merely means time spent in the maze chasing after cheese. There is a correlation between the ability to quickly move through a maze and previous encounters with the maze.
experience: practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from … participation in a particular activity b : the length of such participation.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
What drew me into this, with the mouse flying planes showing intelligence, is that there is a problem with equating abstractions with material objects.
It's a like when Meno, in response to Socrates's request for a precise definition of virtue, began to give examples (a man able to run his affairs, a woman able to properly run a household, etc). Socrates finally says stop giving him a list of virtuous things, and instead show him the essence of virtue in its entirety such that it encompasses all virtuous objects.
This is precisely the sort of problem that Aristotle tried to solve with his new classification system, in which primary substances "partook" of qualities that could not be quantified, and which existed in reality only as definitions, like inteligence, that real objects could only imperfectly imitate.
I don't think stunney was asking to be shown intelligent things, but was asking Socraticly for an object which captures the essence and only the essence of intelligence. This is in the realm of the transcendental Platonic Forms. And there is not an easy solution when one is asked to show redness, or beauty, or virtue, etc.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 11, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Thank you for your kind explication. I am aware of the foundational difficulties of philosophy. Any consistent philosophy must ultimately be based on assumptions of some sort. That's why I find methodological definitions to be so fruitful.
Stunney, however, insists that he has found the one true way. Either solipsism or stunneyism.
It's stunney's all the way down.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I do not think I need to ponder the nature of conciousness in order to demonstrate that the empire state building is of artificial construction. If your attempt to prove that life had an intelligent designer requires a major diversion through the foot-hills of metaphysics, the obvious inference is a lack of any direct evidence to back up your claims.
You've taken a very long and circuitous philosophical journey, but since I do not jive with the supernaturalist world-view, it's kind of hard for me to follow you through the rugged terrain.
Yep, and if somebody was trying to do that in order to claim that human beings were not the constructors of a famous new-york tower block then we would have good reason to suspect that they are trying to philosophically dance around what might be a simpler issue.
So on the subject of the empire state building… How does the historian know it was built by men? He can find an amazing preponderance of direct evidence, any one item alone would be sufficient to confirm our hypothesis that "mendidit". The hypothesis is thus confirmed beyond the historian's wildest dreams, and can sleep safely at night.
No more philosophising is required – we have a causal link between the agent and the artefact. We know the motive and method and things fit together. This is sufficient for a historian, a discussion of metaphysics is not required to put together a meaningful narrative of the construction of this building.
If only that were so of ID and front loading. ID proponents argue that there is "overwhelming evidence", however it's odd that nowhere in that mound of evidence is any kind of direct evidence that backs up their claims. On further inspection, we see that the mound is piled-high with metaphysics and philosophizing, and utterly devid of the kind of what, why, how, when essential details that would cut this conversation short and end the argument.
I'm not going to try to prove that human beings are intelligent, but I have a strong causal link between human-beings and watches: I know which people make watches and I understand their purpose in society. The fact that people make watches on purpose is documented and well understood. I can even go onto youtube and watch a video that shows how a person can build a watch. I can see people wearing watches in the street. The causal link is established.
You claim to KNOW that this cell is a designed artefact, but you do not have any of the kinds of clues that allows you to know that the watch is a designed artefact. You do not know who purportedly designed the cell. You do not know what purpose the purported designer intended. You do not know how this designer designed an manufactured the cell, in fact all you really have is an unconfirmed suspicion that the cell might be a designed object.
***
Here is an idea … evolution may have random components, but it is quite intelligent in an utterly inhuman kind of way: Evolution is so intelligent it frequently outwits the very best drug and pestecide designers. The humble common-cold has bested the worlds's keenest scientists. I propose that evolution is a very specialized intelligent process.
So when you claim to be able to detect intelligent design, how do you know that you have not detected the product of a very real intelligent designing process called evolution? Is it possible that ID proponents have failed to notice the intelligence that's all around us?
Comment by salimfadhley — June 11, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Hrun stated:
It appears that we are all looking at the same evidence and interpreting it differently.
So then all we are left with are philosophical differences: materialism vs. belief in a designer. Materialism in my view is philosophically vacuous. Theism is not.
Furthermore, I can't help observing that materialists have a hard time recognizing the line between their scientific observations and their philosophy. This is why they accuse ID theorists of not doing science – for them, even their philosophical assumptions are science. Since ID does not fit with their philophical assumptions, ID is not science. This appears to be the only reason.
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Salim stated:
I don't think it is ID proponents that have failed to notice the intelligence around us. They make the point that the intelligence is indicative of design. Dembski calls it "specified complex information." the point being that specified complex information does not come from random processes of evolution. Furthermore, evolution by its very nature could not be intelligent. It does not think of an end to evolution, but continues on a random process – and leading to specified complexity via those random processes. Dembski points out that these processes are highly improbable. If evolution is itself inteligent, then it requires an inteligent agent to start the process of its intelligence. You are left then with an infinite regress of intelligent agents. This idea is philosophically illogical.
What makes a lot more sense is that an uncreated inteligent agent started the process, and that agent still exists, and can still affect the process.
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Hrun:
Nobody knows the answers to these questions scientifically. The proof of the pudding lies in rational philosophy. Which philosophical position is the more rational: the random processes of evolution, or the planned and purposeful processes put in place by a designer? (say that ten times real fast)
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Hi Randy,
What do you think of Gould's NOMA?
Do you believe scientific tools can be used to determine answers in the philosophical magisterium and visa versa?
Are you suggesting Theism is the one and only Truth for us all?
I have what I believe is a Front Loading hypothesis that neither presumes nor discounts the existence of a designer. It also describes a possible mechanism through non-deterministic, non-local quantum effects.
It has the interesting aspect of providing an explanation for why we will never be able to learn the philosophical Truth of whether a designer exists or not while providing an explanation for why things are "designed".
While I am waiting for MikeGene's and Krauze's ruling on whether or not this FL hypothesis is official, I would be interested in hearing your opinion of it.
If you need more explanation of my hypothesis, I will gladly provide it.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 11, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 11, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Salim:
I am not a YECer, but I don't consider it an "oddball position" at all if ID is correct. IF ID is correct, then nobody really knows the answer to the age of the earth question. I simply accept the evidence presently given that the earth is much older than that given by a literal interpretation of Genesis. "Yom" can mean something other than a 24 hour day, but it doesn't have to mean that.
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Salimfahdley wrote:
Do you have a quote of me saying I KNOW that cells are designed artifacts? You simply fabricated it, right?
I take it you don't claim to know they weren't designed, right? That's just your interpretation of the data, right? Your interpretation could be wrong, right? You're not dogmatic about it, right? You're not an airhead materialist fundie nutcase, right?
All sides in this debate rely on abductive inference. Evolutionary naturalism is an abductively inferred explanatory hypothesis. ID is an alternative abductively inferred explanatory hypothesis. The debate is about which one best explains the data.
Now, it's true I wasn't around when life got going on this planet. So I wasn't in a position to see material motions then that might have licensed an inference to rational agency such as I might make now on the basis of observing various physical things, like a computer, etc. As far as I know, no human (presumably time-traveling) observer was around then. And if there was an intelligent designer, I doubt it would have a human brain or body. Equally, if there are intelligent designers right now in the Andromeda galaxy, I would not particularly expect them to look or behave just like humans.
Now your side has never observed a code forming spontaneously and unintentionally from a non-code. My side claims that there have been cases of codes being designed by intelligent designers—for instance, programming languages. So ID has an important clue of which your side is bereft.
I dont know who built Stonehenge either. Are you saying Stonehenge wasn't intelligently designed?
I don't know what the builders of Stonehenge had as their purpose either. Are you saying Stonehenge wasn't intelligently designed?
I don't know how Stonehenge was built either. Are you saying Stonehenge wasn't intelligently designed?
I have an unconfirmed suspicion that Stonehenge was intelligently designed. Are you saying Stonehenge wasn't intelligently designed?
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Salim:
That is because, like evolution, those questions leave behind science, and involve philosophical speculation. It's OK to speculate, and it is interesting, but one has to eventually recognize the divide between one's philosophy and what can be known from scientific inquiry. I beleive that IDists do this better than do Darwinist materialists.
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Hello Hrun,
And don't forget that according to the #1 Science blog, TE = creationism too. Apparently, some people are so politically fixated on labeling their opponents "˜creationists' that they don't care about obscurely differences anymore.
Your comment was part of a day-long exercise of taunting.
Since design and evolution can clearly co-exist, there is nothing about the intervention of a designer that is inconsistent with evolution. I think you are conflating evolution with materialism.
I posit an act of intelligent intervention at the origin of life and as we know, this is a topic that is distinct from evolution (unless, of course, critics are going to start back-tracking on that one also).
It would not be right for me to reward your troll-like behavior on this one. You'll have to wait, which should not be a problem for one who is genuinely interested.
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Hi Salim,
If FLE is the same as conventional views of evolution, then conventional views of evolution are the same as FLE. Since FLE is a form of ID and, according to ID critics, all forms of ID are creationism, then your conventional views of evolution are creationism.
So creationism is consistent with evolution?
It's obvious he is rather clueless about front-loading and is relying on nothing more than a paragraph from Behe's 10+ year old book.
Can you document where I ever claimed this? Or are you relying on stereotypes?
I addressed that four years ago.
You can care all you want. But if you care so much, why do you expect others to think for you? Why do you ignore arguments that deal with your questions?
I think you said something about finding a message in the genome, remember?
And yet here you are, choosing to put everything else down to spend time on our blog. We must be doing something right.
"Justify a belief in this designer?" [sigh] More stereotypes. FLE has nothing to do with justifying a belief in a designer.
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Hi Salim,
No, it's not some attempt to reconcile. It stems from the suspicion that life itself is designed and then proceeds to contemplate the plausibility of this design influencing evolution.
Hate to burst your bubble, but neither of these apply to me. I don't reject neo-darwinism nor do I think ID is science and think the scientific community should accept it. Back to the drawing board for you.
I barely have the time to set the record straight and deal with all the misinformation and trolling from the critics, let alone pick fights with a gang of creationists. The time I have is limited and I have long decided that the best way to spend this time is to think for myself and defend/develop my own ideas.
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Hi TP,
As far as I can tell, your hypothesis is intriguing and could fit within a front-loading hypothesis. You'll be happy to know that your ideas moved me to get a hold of Davies new book.
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
MikeGene
It seems to me a better fit with a side-loading hypothesis. Retrocausality doesn't clear up the front-loading noise transmission problem.
Comment by chunkdz — June 11, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Yes, I agree with that.
I agree with all of the above apart from the "vacuous" bit. It all comes to naturalism vs super-natralism. You might even say materialism vs mysticism.
Vacuous or not, science is limited to a process of methological naturalism. It's very good at understanding natural phenomena and stuff made of atoms and energy. Science does not give us any tools at all to comprehend theological arguments, which is why much of what the ID proponents argue makes no sense at all from a strictly scientific perspective.
I agree with Steven J Gould; Science and theology are non-overlapping magesteria. An attempt to commingle them both will create nonsense science and nonsense theology.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 11, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Hi TP
NOMA – Nonoverlapping Magesteria. Though I am no expert on Gould, I have difficulties with this insofar as it seems to disallows religious implications to scientific evidence. On the other hand, it may appear helpful if we include all philosophical questions into the equation, not just "religious" questions. I'm not certain if Gould does this. Read Francis Schaeffer's work to get a better historical background from a theistic perspective on how Gould's (and others like him) philosophy developed.
Do you believe scientific tools can be used to determine answers in the philosophical magisterium and visa versa?
Absolutely. I believe that God created everything that exists. There is, however, a divide between the divine and the creation. The scriptures tell us, however, that "the heavens declare the glory of God."
Insofar as theism is true, it has to be the only truth. If God exists, then we all have to answer to Him as our Creator. This view may appear narrow in light of today's acceptance of postmodern ideology, but it is a logical conclusion to the realization of God's existsnce. If God does not exist, then we are free to believe what we choose. Or are we? If He does not exist, then we are slaves to the evolutionary process, and there is no real choice in the matter. Our feelings, our philophy, our religion, are all "constructs" of the evolutionary process. Even our development into "higher" or more enlightened philosophical perspectives (such as atheism) are constructs of the random evolutionary process, so we cannot know for certain that even evolution is true. If God does exist, on the other hand, then as the scriptures state: "the heavens declare the glory of God," and we are free to believe this or not to believe it. But weather we do or do not believe it is important.
I would like to understand your perspective.
I don't believe that we could discover that the designer exists through science only. I believe that the designer has to communicate to us through revelation for us to be certain of his existence. I believe He has done that.
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Hi MikeGene,
You wrote…
Why did you use the word "could" instead of "would" or "does" "Could" implies a possibility only if something changes. What needs to change?
By "Davies" I assume you are talking about the Author of God and the New Physics who just came out with About Time, right?
[sighs]
How come I get the feeling that if I was a born again Christian with nothing more than a feeling that some unnamed designer front-loaded life on Earth at the same time he/she/it designed Earth itself that would be a Front Loading hypothesis?
I ask again. What aspects of the hypothesis are causing you to hold back? Surely, it isn't the possibility that it might be incorrect. Hypotheses are made to be falsified.
Provoking
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 11, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Consider my bubble truly burst (or as Bradford likes to say "eviscerated").
Are you saying that you do not consider ID and Front-loading to be scientific propositions? Is this because you do not believe that science provides a sound framework for any valid inquiry, or do you believe that you are making some kind of argument that can only make sense outside of a limited purely naturalistic framework.
There are many valid philosophical and theological questions that are utterly meaningless in the context of science; The existence of God is a famous example. Questions of morality are another. Natural science just does not provide any framework for deciding these. I think that the ID proposition is also in this category that are really philosophical questions upon which no material evidence will ever be conclusive.
I've never met an ID proponent who denies that ID is a scientific proposition. Is that really what you think?
???
Comment by salimfadhley — June 11, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Randy:
Do you believe that the process or philosophy of science should accomodate revealed knowledge, and if so how?
Comment by salimfadhley — June 11, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Hi TP,
I would need to do my own thinking about it. Y'know "“ chew on it, mull it over, think about it, read up on some relevant material, etc. You are supposed to be a thought provoker, not an agreement provoker, right?
I don't know. Why do you get that feeling?
It's probably because I have a cornucopia of ideas myself that I want to more fully explore before chasing after someone else's ideas. But I am completely open to your ideas and will continue to read your comments that more fully express them.
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
The Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory. By contrast, Intelligent Design (as put forth by Behe, Dembski and others) is a false claim of significant and telling scientific evidence in support of their position.
In stages, by humans, starting several millennium ago.
As we discussed, there is scientific evidence that humans are intelligent.
Well, if all you have is a suspicion, then you should be cautious in reaching a conclusion. However, there is substantial evidence that Stonehenge is one of many lithic monuments built by humans.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
salimfahdley wrote:
Looking at it from our current epistemic situation, I think ID could become scientific, in principle. (Compare it with string theory, which nobody knew anything about 40 years ago.) I see the ID issue as asking very similar questions to those posed by Artificial Intelligence.
AI, by asking the question, what degree of complexity in material movement or functional performance requires us to posit intelligence, it forces us to consider this as a scientific issue. Well, if the (Strong) AI folks are right, then there is some finite degree of that kind of thing which does require us to posit intelligence, and they're making this claim as a purportedly scientific statement. Yet oddly, they are not targetted for the same degree of hostility as ID theorists are. I say 'oddly', because ID can be construed as doing the same general sort of thing as AI is doing. It can be construed as asking, what degree of complexity in material movement or functional performance requires us to posit design. Both AI and ID are in the business, or trying to be
in the business, of investigating what thresholds exist for there to be a reasonable scientific inference from observed complexity and order to intelligence and to design. One is celebrated as cutting edge
science (AI), the other is denounced as a load of anti-scientific gibberish (ID).
But if you think about it hard and deeply enough, I suspect you'll see that they are both formulating a type of question that science ought to be able at least to address, and possibly answer. If science cannot say anything about intelligence, or design, then it would appear that science is not even in principle a complete account of reality. But if it can make warranted statements of the form, "such-and-such = evidence of intelligence", and "such-and-such = evidence of design", then it seems to me that ID should be given a hearing within the scientific community, at least in principle.
"Does anything observable in the world of biology ever count as evidence of intelligent design, and if so, what exactly?" If the first and general question is legit, then so is the specific one concerning species of life . And what worries me is that Darwinian biology might be trying to answer the second one negatively, not on scientific grounds, but on a priori philosophical
grounds, by simply ruling out of court in advance the possibility that anything found in biology will suggest a threshold of intelligent designhood.
Go back to the AI comparison. Suppose someone designs an intelligent computer or robot. Then we all blow ourselves up in a nuclear war, or die out through global warming. But these robots survive, and are so intelligent that they can make other robots. Etc. Now along come humanoid-type aliens, and they see the robots all over the planet Earth, engaged in complex material movements and functional behavior. Would the aliens be 'unscientific' in positing that these robots as a species originated through the action of some intelligent designer(s)?
I think it's that kind of issue that ID essentially addresses.
Moreover, it's a mistake to think that ID is illegitimate
in that it attempts to come "to the conclusion before the facts, and then tries to bend the facts to fit its own preconceived notion." No. It's asking the questions—"Is there ever any scientific evidence for
intelligent design? Yes. Ok–What is it? Ok, and do we find any such evidence in data we observe in the biological world?" To me, it looks like the Darwinian naturalists are the ones trying to close off these questions by worldview fiat.
We think we know that there is intelligence, and we think we know that there is design. What makes us think this in general? And could whatever makes us think this in general be applicable to an understanding of the biological world? I don't see what is unscientific about that in principle. Nor do I see any questions being begged about the answers. Rather than ID coming to the conclusion before the facts, it strikes me that it is Darwinian evolutionism that's determined to come to the conclusion before the facts, namely the conclusion that "No, there's no intelligent design–it all happened without that."
As regards living species, Darwinian naturalists say the data has not been provided by Intelligent Design theorists, and can all be explained by mechanisms other than intelligent design. But what about the logically prior question: "What sort of data would it
have to be?"
A lot of DE runs along the lines of, "Assume only genetic variation and natural selection….we don't know *exactly* how that by itself would have produced all these data…..but it might have… we're just not sure of all the details". In other words, it says that species *could* have been produced solely by Darwinian mechanisms. It doesn't show that all species actually *were* in fact produced in that manner–that is, that they weren't in fact intelligently designed in any fashion. But what properties do complex bodily motions, actions, and products have to possess in general in order to license an inference to the existence of an intelligent designing consciousness being actively responsible for some effect? And the evidence can't be tied just to human brains, for that would rule out the existence of intelligent designers elsewhere in the universe.
Artificial Intelligence is a young science that suggests we could design an intelligent and, in some versions of AI, conscious physical structure. This idea in turn suggests that there must be some scientific way of deciding whether some physical structure is a) living (since I take it that if something is intelligent and
conscious, it is living), and b) artificially and intelligently designed and produced. If that idea is on the right lines, then there must be some scientific answer to this question. Let's say there is such an answer. Ok, let's take that answer and apply it to the realm of pre-human biological history. I don't see anything unscientific about such a project in principle.
And I don't believe these issues, in our current epistemic boat, can be neatly separated from central issues in the philosophy of mind, which is why I don't find Gould and Thought Provoker's OMA/NOMA ideas particularly helpful.
By the way, I'd like to get your response to this post about the evolution of buildings.
Provided your response is thoughtful and intelligent, of course.
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Unless you show us a pattern that constitutes a message, then you have not proposed a valid scientific test. There are an infinite number of possible encoding schemes. There are an infinite number of possible false postives depending on the search alogorithm. No possible search method is entirely general, though there are a variety of statistical tests that can be considered general by any reasonable definition. And despite extensive testing, no such message has ever been detected.
MikeGene: No, it's not some attempt to reconcile. It stems from the suspicion that life itself is designed and then proceeds to contemplate the plausibility of this design influencing evolution.
I'm curious as to why you have adopted the moniker of "Intelligent Design". While you rightly admit that yours is but speculation, the ID Movement (as put forth by Behe, Dembski and others) is convinced they have significant scientific evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Zachriel wrote
:
[Emphasis added]
Do you have their names?
And if not, doesn't that mean knowing the identity of designers is not a necessary condition of an ID inference?
By the way, a cell is a lot more complex than Stonehenge. But you seem to be addicted to begging the question by assuming that in the whole cosmos, only big-brained organisms living on Earth can intelligently design anything, when the human body is vastly more complex than anything humans themselves have ever designed.
Why are you so anti-Copernican? Is it Fermi's Paradox?
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Not at all. Science is more than capable of studying manufacturing and design. However, the evidence of the robot world would probably look much, much different than that concerning biological organisms on Earth.
It's fine to ask that question. Reasoned speculation can often yield insights. And imagination is a wonderful thing. But the ID Movement (as put forth by Behe, Dembski and others) is not a social club of thinkers. It's a political movement that wants to effect social change.
The Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory. Speculation aside, the truth should be defended.
The usual. Hypotheses that imply predictions of specific and distinguishing empirical observations. And if you hypothesize design, then the obvious empirical implication of that claim is a designer and a process of effecting the design. Absent that, the claim would be considerably weakened.
"All species" That's a universal negative. Not everything is known about the history of life. Maybe a monolith changed the human genome. Maybe a magic carrott gave rabbits the gift of gab. But there is no evidence of that, and there is ample evidence of other mechanisms.
intelligence, the ability to learn.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.
When someone proposes a hypothesis of design, the claim has the implicit consequence of a designer and a process by which the designer effected the design. If we can't confirm the most important causal inference of the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is suspect.
We may not have absolute knowledge of the designer, but we may be able to determine some of the designer's characteristics, culture, motivation, and the process of effecting the design. Each bit of knowledge adds to our overall understanding and our confidence in our conclusions.
With Stonehenge, there is ample evidence in the way of artifacts of human involvement, including the Beaker People. With ID, we just don't have any such evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Salim:
I'm not sure. I haven't really considered this question enough to give a reasoned response. I would assume that this is being done at colleges that teach from a biblical perspective, but am not certain of this. I have on my bookshelf a textbook by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig entitled Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview. It is primarily a Philosophy text, but it delves substantially into qustions of science and theology. I would guess that it is a standard text at schools such as Biola, where Moreland and Craig teach.
I think certainly that these questions should be considered in any good study of philosophy. I think that a considerable education in philosophy should be mandatory territory for a study of the sciences.
So ultimately someone studying science should have a good grasp of the questions and objections that theists have in relation to science as it is now taught in higher education. I'm not certain that this is the case in this country.
Incidentally, traditional theology, the "Queen of the Sciences" has understood revelation on two planes: natural, or "general" revelation being that which is revealed about God in nature and "the heavens," and "special" revelation being that which is revealed about God in the scriptures alone. Most traditional theologians reject a third plane (at least in this century) of revelation:that which purports to speak for God from a self-proclaimed prophet.
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Zachriel wrote:
What is not supported by science is that evolution was not the result of intelligent design. So tosspots and fuckwits who put forward the claim that there was no intelligent design of life on Earth as a scientific proposition should be held in intellectual contempt by the scientific community, since that is most certainly not a scientific proposition.
That's right. And it's false to say that science shows that life on Earth wasn't intelligently designed.
What empirical predictions does evolutionary science make that would turn out false if life on Earth was intelligently designed?
Absent a way for DNA to form spontaneously, evolutionary naturalism's claims wouldn't just be weakened. They'd be fucked.
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your response.
I am not overly surprised by it, but I wouldn't want you to feel too complacent.
For example, when I asked…
How come I get the feeling that if I was a born again Christian with nothing more than a feeling that some unnamed designer front-loaded life on Earth at the same time he/she/it designed Earth itself that WOULD be a Front Loading hypothesis?
You responded with…
So I went looking. Do you remember writing this?
I think this may be one of the reasons why I have the feeling that you are biased towards hypotheses that point to designers with "human-like intelligence."
I suggest that I am following the evidence wherever it leads regardless of my preconceived notions. So my question remains…
What, if anything, disqualifies my hypothesis from being considered a legitimate Front Loading hypothesis?
I will gladly answer any questions needed to clarify my position.
Can we get Krauze's ruling on this?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 11, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
There is no scientific justification for a claim of intelligent intervention in the history of life on Earth. All the evidence strongly indicates spontaneous natural processes.
The claim that there is scientific support for intelligent intervention in the history of life on Earth is false. There's still enough room for speculation, though.
To examine the evidence for the Theory of Evolution, you need to have an understanding of Common Descent as it applies to most taxa, and most potential falsifications will be found there.
Not knowing everything doesn't preclude knowing anything. The Theory of Evolution is strongly supported. There is no complete theory of abiogenesis, but there is substantial evidence that this too was a spontaneous occurrence. But anyway, RNA enzymes can evolve into DNA enzymes.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Hi Salim,
You'd have to define a "scientific proposition."
It's because when I read the journals, ID is not there. How could it be science if the community of scientists don't use it or take it seriously? Does science consider the design of life to be an extraordinary claim?
You'll have to tell me what you mean by a "scientific proposition."
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Hi TP,
And what was the next sentence?
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I also gave the reasons why that will never happen. But if you have found a message despite my predictions, please reveal it!
Zachariel:
I'm curious as to why you have adopted the moniker of "Intelligent Design". While you rightly admit that yours is but speculation, the ID Movement (as put forth by Behe, Dembski and others) is convinced they have significant scientific evidence.
Yes, I'm curious too. Do the ID proponents consider ID to be something that has been substiantially proven scientifically, or do they see it as a philosophical argument that exists outside of science… or something else?
There is no scientific justification for a claim of intelligent intervention in the history of life on Earth. All the evidence strongly indicates spontaneous natural processes.
I predict that Stunney will respond with something other than a purely scientific justification to back up his interventionist theory… what are the odds that we will see another long and difficult to follow metaphysical argument?
Goodnight all!
Comment by salimfadhley — June 11, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Zachriel:
I'm not certain what you are inferring here. I think that Stonehenge is a better comparison than the Empire State Building analogy. We know very little about who created Stonehenge and why. But even before we knew anything about Stonehenge, we knew that it was created by someone. This would have been a design inferrence. Stonehenge contains the specified complexity that ID requires for a design inferrence. On the other hand, the "Garden of the Gods" in Colorado does not contain specified complexity. We know that it was caused by geological forces. Yet there is a striking similarity between Stonehenge and the Garden of the Gods. Both contain rock formations that are perpendicular to the ground. Yet it is the complexity of stonehenge that points to a designer.
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Hi Zach,
Because I became interested in this topic as a consequence of Behe's DBB and its discussion on the internet. My views were inspired by Behe's ability to accept both ID and evolution and have since built upon his concept of IC and taken the one paragraph that Brayton/Miller try to debunk and have gradually fleshed out the hypothesis of front-loading. Simply put, if Behe had not written DBB, I would not be here.
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Hi Mike,
You are mkaing the usual mistake of assuming that "evolution" in the context in question is anything other than a pseudo-religion in which no teleology is allowed to play any part.
You can't be an ID evolutionist because "evolution" requires no teleology.
Which is why such an ill defined and slippery term and "evolution" is so useful.
Comment by thesciphishow — June 11, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Has the meme for unraveling the ID = Creationism meme been identified? Wouldn't it be ironic if it itself evolved from the ID = Creationism meme? Has anyone done any sequence comparisons? Are they homologous? Are there highly conserved regions in each? Let's do memology!
Comment by Mung — June 11, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Hi Mike,
You asked…
Putting into context you wrote…
This was your answer to the question you posed to yourself in an attempt to respond to "ID critic Steve Reuland". It was consistent with your standard modus operandi, shield bashing.
Your tactics keep you from having to commit and exposing too much. However, please note you talked about "the identity of the designer", not "the identity of a designer" or even "the identity of a designer which may, or may not exist".
Your qualifying statement was pure rationalization bordering on meaninglessness. Why assume a designer in the first place? However, it provided you a convenient out when someone calls you on your first statement.
Mike, you are so busy protecting yourself from your critics, I don't see how you can possibly keep track of your own position. So what if you believe in God?
I'm handing you a golden opportunity to show your critics that your beliefs aren't affecting your scientific search. You can make a positive statement instead of hiding behind your shield.
"Look, here is a Front Loading hypothesis that has absolutely nothing to do with God"
What is holding you back?
Do you, yourself, even know the answer?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 11, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
People once 'knew' that angels pushed planets on crystals spheres and that their movements changed the course of human history. People knew that disease was caused by demons. People knew that lightning was hurled by an angry Sky-God onto the wicked below. People knew that fairy rings were made by fairies.
But science involves a specific methodology of confirmation. Any such hypothesis must yield specific empirical predictions that can be tested. Mechanisms of planetary motion, disease and lightning have been identified and tested.
In the case of Stonehenge, there is ample evidence of human involvement, including other lithic monuments built by humans, and specific evidence of the builders.
So do planetary orbits.
You do realize that no one calculates the specified complexity of anything in archaeology.
Geology is a scientific endeavor. Imagine that.
–
Let me add, that it is certainly conceivable that some lightning bolts really are hurled by an angry Sky-God onto the wicked below. But there is *no* scientific support for such a claim.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
YoungCosmos is a such a forum. If you have something of scientific substance to contribute, fine, contribute that there. However, be advised, YoungCosmos is not Telic Thoughts where these sort of comments are common:
Such discussions are of little interest to the target audience of YoungCosmos.
This forum is for YECs to consider the scientific merits of:
1. Old Earth
2. Common Descent
I welcome first-rate scientific criticism of YEC. You'll see I've even invited one of the signatories of the DI list to that discussion to criticize YEC. But the criticisms must be of high quality, not off the cuff dismissals and ridicule.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 11, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Hi Randy,
You wrote…
Even though I disagree with you on multiple levels, I respect your ethics in being forthright with your opinions.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 11, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Steven J. Gould – "Nonoverlapping Magisteria"
Gould's narrow view of Creationism is a case in point for why teleological ideas ought to be taught in any philosophy of science curriculum.
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Zachriel wrote:
No it doesn't.
So I can only assume that you're a despicable liar, or a moronically ill-informed troll.
Take your pick.:grin:
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Zachriel:
However, archeologists do make design inferrences all the time. This is how they distinguish between a fragmentary 3rd century BC clay pot and a lump of earth.
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Randy,
What is your point if both were designed?
(one by a 3rd centry BC human, the other by God)
Provoking
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 11, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Zachriel:
Zachriel, I have had many discussions with materialists online, and the above is a typical strawman. I said nothing about Sky-Gods or lightning bolts. My argument was about how we recognize Stonehenge as a designed artifact as opposed to a naturally generated rock formation such as the Garden of the Gods. I would appreciate a response that does not resort to strawmen.
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Quite a tour de force of reasoning.
NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested.
American Association for the Advancement of Science: The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry.
Statements from Scientific Organizations
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
TP:
Good point. The lump of earth is a material part of a larger system that may have a purpose, but we cannot know that it is, without looking at the larger system. But yours is a good point. It is not, however, incongruous with ID. The original point is in dealing with design inferrences we make by observing human design. Non-human design is an altogether different undertaking. But we can make such inferrences.
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I promise you it was not a strawman.
You claimed you *knew* that Stonehenge was designed. You said it was because of "specified complexity", but I pointed out that no one calculates specified complexity in the archaeological sciences, and they certainly haven't done so to demonstrate the human origins of Stonehenge. What they have done, what they always do, is try to find evidence linking the artifact to the artisan.
People are often wrong about what they *think* is designed, as the examples I provided demonstrate. There is nothing wrong with forming a tentative speculation. But in order to make a scientific inference, you have to be willing to submit your ideas to scientific verification. And that means forming a testable hypothesis. In the case of Stonehenge, we might suspect design, but then we collect actual evidence. In this case, evidence of humans. And the more evidence we have, the more confidence we have in our conclusions.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Hi Randy,
You wrote…
I continue to be impressed with your consistency.
However, I don't see how you can distinguish a specific "Non-human" design in a universe full of "non-human" design.
Detecting retroscausality would be a different story. But finding design would be like trying to find a needle in a pile of needles.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 11, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Archaeologists determine that a piece of clay is designed by comparing it to all the other pieces of clay that have been categorized. An experienced archaeologist can look at a small pottery shard and often know the culture and the date within a few years, hence dating the other artifacts found with it.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Zachriel, "We can correlate the behavior of a mouse with its experience of the maze. We call that learning, and the ability to learn, intelligence."
We can likewise correlate the behavior of DNA with the experience of "it's" environment on this planet. By your definition of intelligence, DNA is intelligent since it can "learn to survive" in seemingly endless ways in it's environment.
(The question that intrigues me the most is how this molecular system of learning and execution of it's learning, we call DNA, got it's start. Obviously the system didn't learn to become a learning system. What kicked it off?)
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 11, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Zachriel: "People once 'knew' that angels pushed planets on crystals spheres and that their movements changed the course of human history."
No. They didn't know this. Some people merely believed it. And they may have been be right or they may be wrong. (As if our models of physical reality actually explains the actual causes of things we ascribe to "forces of nature", such as gravity.)
At any rate, some day people may laugh about the fact that people believed that life arose and progressed by "unintelligent forces." Some of us may be laughing about it right now.
What amazes me is how so many so-called scientists think that an unproven story, existing only in human imagination, is an actual factual explanation for a particular event or feature. Go figure.
Some of us just ain't convinced.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 11, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Believe what you will, but the Theory of Evolution remains a strongly supported scientific theory, while Intelligent Design lacks empirical support. Understand that my statements only go so far as to what is a valid scientific assertion. It is certainly conceivable that the occasional lightning bolt really is hurled by an angry Sky-God. But there is *no* scientific support for such a claim.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Hi TP,
ID critic Steve Reuland was using the popular pages of PT to tell everyone else what all IDers believe. Given that critics tend to lap up these stereotypes and use them to filter my own words and positions, I thought it a good idea to use this blog to clarify my own views.
Bullshit. It was an honest attempt to communicate my position and I supported it with a strong point. Since you cannot put a dent in this position, you unethically skip around it and spin it as "shield bashing."
More bullshit. I'm not a True Believer about this stuff and thus I don't come with deep convictions and ready-made answers for all possible criticisms. I approach this subject with an open-mind and with caution. You unethically spin this as some "tactic" because your stereotypes have your believing that you know me.
Now we get some promiscuous teleology, where there is deep and great meaning in "the" instead of "a."
Bullshit.
Because I associate design with a designer. Because I like to speculate about whether or not another form of intelligence has shaped our biotic reality. Are you trying to tell me how to think, TP?
You don't make any sense here.
TP, you think you know me, but you are hallucinating. You don't know me, TP. In fact, you are rather clueless. But I thank you for showing your true colors, as I was starting to respect you.
Exactly! Are you under the dime-a-dozen impression that my interest in ID is all about propping up my belief in God? Think so? Believe so?
Huh? Are you angling for my endorsement?
Look, here is a Front Loading hypothesis that has absolutely nothing to do with God. Look, I offered to cut-n-paste your position summaries into a posting to give it wider exposure and you declined. Remember? So what is it that you want from me?
Yes, it looks like you demand that rather than thinking for myself, I am supposed to think like you.
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
TP:
Unless perhaps that the universe consists of design in all areas of its makeup, with different levels of design: a clump of earth being a part of an ecosphere that was designed. But the clump of earth not necessarily containing complex information. But it is when these non-information-containing parts of the creation form a larger complex system that does, that we can also make a design inferrence.
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Hi Mike,
I only give you are hard time because I care.
Too bad Krauze missed all the fun, I really would like to hear what he has to say.
How am I supposed to know? You are hiding behind too many shields. Does Front Loading necessarily imply a designer. Yes or no?
Yes I am.
Either that or a clear understanding what it would take to get an endorsement.
Was that an endorsement?
Barring that, was it at least an acceptance that my "hypothesis is intriguing and [DOES] fit within a front-loading hypothesis"
I do remember. You have been more than tolerant of me and my ideas. I am embarrised to take you up on your offer at this time. It needs more work.
As for what I want. I think I just got it. Thanks.
Regards,
TP
P.S. If you think that was bad, just wait to see how I act when a want an even bigger favor from you.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 11, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Zachriel:
You don't have to calculate complexity to know that it is there. When someone makes a piece of pottery, they don't necessarily think that they are creating complexity, but this is what they are doing. So when we unearth a piece of pottery, we know that it is designed because of the complexity that exists in it apart from the randomness of the dirt around it. You made a point that archeologists then compare the artifact with other artifacts in order to date it. This does not detract from the argument that the archeologist must first make a design inferrence based on complexity in order to distinguish the artifact from the dirt around it. Otherwise no archeology could be done in this case.
As far as Stonehenge is concerned, there is complexity beyond what we might find in a clay pot. There is arrangement of the stones in a circular pattern, and there is specific positioning of the stones. I'm not certain if this counts as "specified complexity" in Dembski's thinking, but it is certainly complexity. And it is that complexity by which the observer makes the inferrence.
Comment by Randy — June 11, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Hi TP,
Well, you are such an expert on me. Why the sudden burst of uncertainty?
More bullshit. Why not use your powerful insights to speculate about what I am supposedly hiding? Or better yet, are you afraid to ask questions?
Yes, I'd say that front-loading entails foresight coupled with an objective, which speaks to a mind.
So does the world revolve around you? Is it supposed to stop for you? Are you aware that your demands come across as narcissistic? Do you see me visiting all sorts of blogs, looking for endorsements?
I told you, "I would need to do my own thinking about it. Y'know "“ chew on it, mull it over, think about it, read up on some relevant material, etc." Is there some part of this that is difficult to understand? I thought you valued people thinking for themselves. You err in thinking that I am going to rearrange my life around your need for my endorsement.
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Hi Randy,
I have to make this quick because it is bedtime.
Dembski attempts to detect design by eliminating all chance hypotheses for a given occurrence. The problem with that is an assumption that there is such a thing as "natural" randomness.
In a universe controlled by God, there is no such thing as "natural" randomness.
I think the physicist Penrose is on track to providing evidence that Quantum Mechanics is NOT random. Thus there is no such thing as natural randomness. God is very tricky. He/she can control everything and we can't prove God does it.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 11, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Hi Mike,
Is that worse than being arrogant?
No, but then again, I spend practically all my time at Telic Thoughts.
At this time, all I was looking for was an agreement that my hypothesis qualified as an ID Front Loading hypothesis. But based on your implication "…that front-loading entails foresight coupled with an objective, which speaks to a mind." then it looks like it does not qualify.
That is a shame.
Either way, I got my answer. Thanks
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 12, 2007 @ 12:02 am
June 12th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Zachriel wrote:
Right. Where does it say that science supports the claim that evolution was not the result of intelligent design?
I conclude that you are a despicable liar or a moronically ill-informed troll.
In fact, probably both.
Comment by stunney — June 12, 2007 @ 1:46 am
June 12th, 2007 at 2:38 am
salimfahdley wrote:
Where's your 'purely scientific justification' for your hypothesis that 'no intelligent design was involved in the formation of species of life'?
I predict you'll respond like a 'bright'—-with a crock of your usual shit.:mrgreen:
Comment by stunney — June 12, 2007 @ 2:38 am
June 12th, 2007 at 4:52 am
Where's your 'purely scientific justification' for your hypothesis that 'no intelligent design was involved in the formation of species of life'?
As Randy says, this is about theism vs materialism, or as I would put it: naturalism vs supernaturalism.
No ID proponent has ever been able to formulate ID in a way that makes sense in a strictly naturalistic sense. As Judge Jones pointed out, there is no scientific proposition that requires a rejection of naturalism, which is why ID sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.
My position is that there may be some kind of philosophical or theological truth in ID, however as a purely naturalistic proposition its invalid and utter nonsense. As a historical proposition it lacks any evidence of the kind that could corroborate a causal link with the purported designer. No matter how powerfully you argue, there is apparently no way to prove ID or Front-loading using the normal scientific process.
This is why some misguided ID proponents try to re-define science to accommodate what it an inherently theistic position. ID at it's worst (e.g. as proposed by Casey Luskin) is an inept fusion of bad science and bad theology. The more IDers attempt this fusion, the more this fact will be manifestly apparent.
IMO, Mike Gene's position seems to be the most mature compromise:
If I understand Mike correctly, he seems to be claiming that ID is not (as currently formulated) intended to be a valid scientific proposal because it cannot be stated within the limitations of naturalism. That does not mean ID cannot have a degree of truth in some other sense, e.g. philosophy or theology.
Indeed, it seems that mainstream theology (particularly the Catholic church) has long been aware (about 500 years before Stephen J. Gould) of the concept of non-overlapping magesteria:
Randy:
So where do y'all stand on this? Is ID scientifically justified or is it something else?
I personally think that ID is a fascinating and consistent theological position which has been inspired by recent developments in science. I do not think ID is a scientific proposition, nor could it ever be without a redefinition of science or by gutting ID of it's essential theistic content.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 12, 2007 @ 4:52 am
June 12th, 2007 at 7:13 am
The claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. It is certainly conceivable that the occasional lightning bolt really is hurled by an angry Sky-God, or that planets are pushed by angels in such a way that it looks just like gravity. But there is *no* scientific support for such a claim.
Another tour de force of philosophical reasoning.
Comment by Zachriel — June 12, 2007 @ 7:13 am
June 12th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Zachariel, you are a typical materialist; judging Stunney according to your own vacuous naturalistic standards. According to Stunney's philosophical system this is a perfectly sensible inference. It is not Stunney that is wrong, but you and the whole of science that systematically rejects Intelligent Design who are the wrong-headed fools.
Call me a relativist… go on, I dare you.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 12, 2007 @ 7:31 am
June 12th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Except I'm not a materialist by any means. I am more than happy to concede that planets could conceivably be pushed by angels, but we do it in such a way that the result is indistinguishable from gravity.
Comment by Zachriel — June 12, 2007 @ 7:53 am
June 12th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Zach:
Except I'm not a materialist by any means. I am more than happy to concede that planets could conceivably be pushed by angels, but we do it in such a way that the result is indistinguishable from gravity.
If the angels are not pushing the planets then what ARE they doing? Materialist philosophy has failed to provide a credible answer to this question.
Scientists have long proposed absurd theories about the nature of gravity, such as the graviton – but has anybody actually seen a graviton? Even if you were somehow able to detect one, since we do not fully understand intelligence, how could you be sure that your observation supports your position?
No materialist knows the fundamental nature of gravity therefore all of the purported knowledge on the subject is suspect. The entire theory of gravity rests upon so many assumptions and unsafe inferences, it is philosophically worthless and needs to be replaced with something that is a better explanation:
Any time we see something moving in a complex way, we know that something must be pushing it or controlling it's motion. We know that planets and other celestial objects move in an ordered pattern, far to complex to to be an emergent property of mundane-matter. By inference we know that something intelligent must be controlling the motion of the planets.
Since all the evidence for your your so-called "gravity" also supports my angel hypothesis, you have effectively conceded your position. You admit that you have no spesific empirical evidence that disproves my angel theory.
Furthermore, my angelic explanation has the obvious benefit of being completely consistent with my own spiritual world-view which amongst other things affirms the existence and critical importance of angelic intervention.
Please do not annoy me by claiming that my angel theory is redundant and that your materialistic theory offers a simpler and better explanation. What right have materialists to make a value judgement when your own philosophy cannot help us decide the simplest moral proposition.
Your world-view is so limited whereas my world-view is an all-encompassing philosophy. Materialist science has achieved nothing of any value in comparison to the brilliant and worthwhile achievements of people who share exactly my world-view.
Now do you see how vacuous your silly claims are?
Comment by salimfadhley — June 12, 2007 @ 9:14 am
June 12th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I counted around 10 recent theories of gravity. It gives me the impression that science does not know what gravity is. I think I'll keep my silly notion that it has something to do with magicman until some better explanation comes along.
Comment by WedgeHead — June 12, 2007 @ 11:59 am
June 12th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Hi, salimfadhley,
ID means a lot of things to a lot of people. I would say that people who see design in the universe are naturally sympathetic with ID, but there is no one lockstep litmus test. I could probably be considered an IDist, in that I see evidence of design in matter, starting with the periodic table of elements, which shows no favoritism to organic matter over inanimate.
In some of these comments, there was some discussion concerning pottery and natural formations. This analogy doesn't quite fit the situation, and can result in a misleading inference about evidence of design. To distinguish between unworked clay and pottery, we can observe the difference and infer design.
However, where in organic matter can there be an observance that distinguishes between evidence of design and evidence of non-design? Of entire living organisms like humans and birds, or entire internal organs, or cells, or molecules, right down to the atoms, which of these does not show evidence for design, if design encompasses structure and function? What particle of matter at any scale does not fit into some scheme which aids a function?
So I see evidence of design in organic matter (and inorganic also). However, if you ask me who the designer is, I'll tell you that that goes one step further than my logic will allow. There are a limited number of possibilities for how there is a universe, and they all break the law of cause and effect. Which is insane. So I call the universe magic. To speculate about a designer would be speculating about the magic's properties, which for me would be an illogical endeavor fraught with problems.
It might seem like a copout when IDists won't speculate on a designer, and only say that the universe shows evidence for design. I can't speak for all, but now you have my reason for not speculating on a designer. I don't see it as a copout, but as simply going only so far as logic and rationality will allow. Once I get to the point where logic points to magic, all rationality and logic stops at that threshold.
Materialists obviously dispute a designer, but they do themselves no service when they deny evidence of design. There should be a huge overlap of agreement between the IDists and materialists in this area at least. The disagreement about a designer is philosophical, and I think things would be able to move foward much less contentiously if people realized that they were arguing philosophy and not science.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 12, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I counted around 10 recent theories of gravity. It gives me the impression that science does not know what gravity is.
Yes, materialism is fragmented. If the so-called scientists cannot decide which way is up, then why should we entertain their preposterous theories?
As I explained before, the theroy of angelic planetery motion states that there are some aspects of planetary motion which are best explained by angelic intervention. I have reviewed all of the other theories, and have determined none of them to be as consistent with my own world-view as the angelic theory.
I challenge any of the materialists in this forum to present a wholly complete explaination of gravity that works as well as the theory I am advocating today.
I think I'll keep my silly notion that it has something to do with magicman until some better explanation comes along.
I resent this blatent caracature of my most dearly held beliefs. Angels are nothing at all like "magicmen". Why is it that materialists have no respect for my most dearly cherished religious beliefs?
Comment by salimfadhley — June 12, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I do not think that any materialist denies the existence of design outright; If you strictly follow Will Dembski's definition of intelligence then evolution is sufficiently intelligent to produce all of the variety of life we see. In a sense neo-darwinists believe in intelligent design, but that the designer is not a god… it's evolution; one of the many amazing properties of replicating matter.
Nature as a whole is a very intelligent thing. It's an intelligence utterly unlike human intelligence, but perfectly capable of design.
If you think nature is dumb, then you try to outwit the common cold!
Comment by salimfadhley — June 12, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
salimahdhley,
I find your witty characterization of ID to be immensely entertaining, but you have drifted far from the foundational question of ID, namely:
Comment by chunkdz — June 12, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I believe the IDers understand this. Most others believe they can separate science from philosophy/metaphysics/theology and that they take the rational/passionless/pure scientific high road and I think it is demonstrated with almost every post that this is impossible.
Comment by WedgeHead — June 12, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Zachriel, "Believe what you will, but the Theory of Evolution remains a strongly supported scientific theory, while Intelligent Design lacks empirical support."
I don't recall having mentioned the "theory of evolution." (I, personally, am quite comfortable with common descent and an old earth.) I explicitly mentioned "unintelligent forces" and that's what I was addressing. If what you mean by "theory of evolution" includes blind forces and excludes all intelligent ones, then are you simply wrong: there is no evidentiary support whatsoever that blind forces assembled the tissue types, cell types, organs and body plans that exist. There is evidence of progress in the fossil record (such as it is), but progression does not necessarily indicate blind forces at work. Only an a priori commitment to non-intelligent causation would lead to such a "conclusion", but then that's no conclusion at all, but merely a presupposition masquerading as a conclusion.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 12, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I think that is a sensible question, that deserves more than a yes or no response. If you feel that complex objects like an elephant can arise without intelligence then you would obviously need to suggest a mechanism that would make this possible. If you fail to state a mechanism then you have mere conjecture.
Likewise if you suggest that an intelligent cause is likely in order to make a convincing case, we should be able to say something about this intelligence, how it works and what it did.
So we form a hypothesis:
As things stand there is only one clear candidate which satisfies Dembski's criteria of the intelligent agent and is a well documented everyday phenomena which has been shown to drive all kinds of inventive adaptations including speciation. That's evolution.
Mike Gene is perfectly right to point out that there is no essential conflict between ID and Science. In fact the neo-darwinist view of evolution is a highly inventive, intelligent phenomena that is relentlessly designing all the time.
So whoever posed that question is onto the right track, they just asked the question 200 years too late and failed to take note of the overwhelming natural intelligence that surrounds us all.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 12, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Salimfadheley
Now you are just being ridiculous.
Comment by chunkdz — June 12, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Zachriel, "Believe what you will, but the Theory of Evolution remains a strongly supported scientific theory, while Intelligent Design lacks empirical support."
I don't recall having mentioned the "theory of evolution." (I, personally, am quite comfortable with common descent and an old earth.) I explicitly mentioned "unintelligent forces" and that's what I was addressing. If what you mean by "theory of evolution" includes blind forces and excludes all intelligent ones, then are you simply wrong: there is no evidentiary support whatsoever that blind forces assembled the tissue types, cell types, organs and body plans. There is evidence of progress in the fossil record (such as it is), but progression does not indicate blind forces at work. Only an a priori commitment to non-intelligent causation would lead to your "conclusion", but then that's no conclusion at all, but merely a presupposition masquerading as a conclusion.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 12, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
No joke… Evolution is smart. Evolution can work out a way to survive the strongest herbicide, adapt to the harshest conditions. Thanks to evolution, nobody has worked out a way of ridding ourselves of the common cold. Evolution explains adaptation, it explains speciation and it allows every sucsessive generation to build on the potential of the previous one… it's an amazing phenomena that can out-design Steve Jobs.
And what about the AIDS virus… evolution is redesigning that virus so fast the best biologists in the world cannot keep up with it.
If you go by Dembski's definition of intelligence, Plain-old evolution checks all the boxes. We've found the intelligent designer, not in a holly scripture but in every replicating structure in all of nature.
Like I've always said – if you want to show that life is intelligently designed, all you have to do is identify the designer, propose a credible, testable method and establish the causal link. That's what I just did.
I've just come round to your way of thinking… ID is real!
Comment by salimfadhley — June 12, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
please let us know the minute it evolves into something besides a virus.
Comment by WedgeHead — June 12, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
That question would be best asked on "Uncommon Descent" where you would no doubt be hailed as an intellectual master and awarded some kind of trophy.
Wedge, are you trying to tell me that you do not think evolution is intelligent, or are you saying that it cannot design? Do you dispute that is adaptive or do you deny that evolution can cause species to diverge?
I tell you, Evolution is intelligent. Evolution produces apparent design. I believe in Intelligent Design.
I tell you, the designer cares as much about you as it does a the most insignificant protist, but you will be the one who will suffer if you do not take this designer seriously! You will be plagued with disease and your crops will fail… that is my prophecy, ignore it if you will!
You lack faith in the intelligent designer – I suggest you ponder it's awesome design skills next time you catch a common cold.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 12, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
salim
Comment by chunkdz — June 12, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
You referred to "so-called scientists". That means your statements are being made within a scientific context. The Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory that makes empirical predictions in a variety of different fields of study, from geology to genetics.
You are not required to be convinced. You can say that God has a hand in every lottery winner, every sparrow that falls"”but there is no scientific evidence of this. Blaming scientists for honesty reporting what they have discovered undermines the truth.
The Theory of Evolution doesn't *exclude* intelligent forces, it doesn't *include* them because there is no evidence of such a mechanism. For all anyone knows, maybe human evolution was manipulated by an alien monolith. But there is no such evidence.
You are misinformed. Like most such ID arguments, you point to events at the most distant historical epochs where the evidence is hardest to discern and the most difficult for a layperson to understand"”but even then, there is substantial scientific evidence of how these structures evolved.
There is substantial evidence of a number of natural evolutionary processes, and no evidence of intelligent agency. Furthermore, it is not just a record of progression, but a nested hierarchy, and such a nested hierarchy is strongly indicative that intelligent agency was not involved. Do you know why?
Well, we're in luck. Science can and does study intelligent causation.
Comment by Zachriel — June 12, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
salimfadhley, "We've found the intelligent designer, not in a holly scripture but in every replicating structure in all of nature."
Let me know whenever you find evidence that the blind watchmaker has produced novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans.
This is another thing that makes us engineers wonder: how do the blind watchmaker devotees make the logical leap from things in evidence (various microevolutionary changes like antibiotic resistance) to full scale species design for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever? It's simply blind faith. Is the same system that can outwit antibiotics capable of creating bat echolocation, with all the physical and neurological hardware and sychronization to make it a complete coordinated functional system? If it can, nobody has been able to demonstrate that it did, or that it can.
You're free to believe if you want, but excuse the rest of us who are not impressed by what boils down to imaginative handwaving.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 12, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Zachriel, "The Theory of Evolution doesn't *exclude* intelligent forces, it doesn't *include* them because there is no evidence of such a mechanism. For all anyone knows, maybe human evolution was manipulated by an alien monolith. But there is no such evidence."
It depends on what you consider evidence. Subatomic particles are inferred from effects. It is possible that design may be inferred from what exists. It all depends on one's motivation and philsophical starting point. If you're committed against the very idea of intelligent causation, then I suppose nothing short of the designer showing up would convince you. If you're neutral, that's wonderful. I'm happy either way, to tell you the truth. If there is no designer and blind change led to it all, great. But so far, the Modern Synthesis has been very unimpressive with regards to macro level features of life on this planet.
Blindwatchmaker devotees claim that the Modern Synthesis provides a comprehensive theory that can explain biological evolution without resorting to intelligent causes. I say it does not with regards to novel cell types, tissue types, organs or body plans. At the end of the day, the "evidence" for large scale evolution amounts to extrapolation of micro level evidence, or lots of imaginative story telling, neither which are convincing with regards to macro level features.
As for the predictive power of the Modern Synthesis that you seem to be impressed with, let's try a specific example of your choosing and see how useful it really is with regards to the development of novel cell types, tissue types, organs or body plans.
"You referred to "so-called scientists""
Yes, I consider much of the what goes on in evolutionary academia to be soft science at best, on par with psychology or sociology.
"You are misinformed. Like most such ID arguments, you point to events at the most distant historical epochs where the evidence is hardest to discern and the most difficult for a layperson to understand"”but even then, there is substantial scientific evidence of how these structures evolved."
MET claims to explain it. Yet it can't. No use making claims that can't be supported with real evidence.
"There is substantial evidence of a number of natural evolutionary processes, and no evidence of intelligent agency."
Again, it depends on your predisposition to the evidence. I think the evidence strongly supports intelligent input.
"Furthermore, it is not just a record of progression, but a nested hierarchy, and such a nested hierarchy is strongly indicative that intelligent agency was not involved."
Blindwatchmaker devotees themselves can't exactly agree on that nested hierarchy. At any rate, I have no problem with hierarchies. I accept that one is probably real, although we may not exactly know which one fits the best. How they rule out intelligent causation would be interesting to hear. (I can see how they might be a problem to those 6-day Bible creationists would believe the universe began 6000 years ago. I can see how a lot of things might be a problem to them. But I'm not one of them. I see a very robust biological system, probably front loaded to some degree, perhaps tweaked on occasion (viruses would do nicely), with spendid process control and adaptive properties, very much engineered to roll with the punches of changing biosphere like Earth, and head toward a certain outcome, conscious entities with insight. But I digress.) Where is the evidence of intelligence? It's all over the place. It's in the tiny cellular factories and in the massive coordination that exists in physiolgy and nervous systems. Blindwatchmaker devotees extrapolate micro level adaptations to all of this. But it's simply illogical to do so, unless one is already committed to the conclusion.
"Do you know why?"
But all means tell me.
"Well, we're in luck. Science can and does study intelligent causation."
Yes, we do.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 12, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
A scientific inference is supported by a specific methodology of investigation. It requires forming a hypothesis to generate specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. It doesn't matter "one's motivation and philsophical starting point", the inference to subatomic particles is supported, the inference to intelligent agency in biology is not.
You do understand that these "devotees" you refer to are the vast majority of scientists in everything from biology to paleontology to genetics to embryonics to microbiology.
Darwin could not observe microevolutionary processes. He inferred them from the evidence of macroevolution. But you have accepted macro-level changes, just not the mechanisms. Common Descent alone would make Darwin one of the greatest scientists of the age.
Genetics is inherently mathematical and statistical. Population dynamics is mathematical. There are entire research divisions dedicated to biometrics, cladistics and bioinformatics.
And it doesn't matter what you consider "soft". What matters is being able to make specific empirical predictions. When scientists spend years in the Arctic digging in ancient tropical streambeds looking for a fish with limbs, and then find such a fossil, it increases confidence in their hypothesis. When scientists spend years in the Egyptian wastelands digging in specific strata dated at 40 million years ago and finds a cetacean with hind limbs, it confirms their hypothesis. How did they know? Whose opinion is substantiated?
Of course it can. Let's start with some definitions: Evolution Defined.
It has nothing to do with your "predisposition". It has to do with being able to make specific empirical predictions that distinguish your claims from all the other competing claims.
Virtually all scientists agree that Common Descent applies to nearly all taxa. Of course, some rapidly diverging or very ancient nodes are difficult to discern, including the origin of cellular life. But this is not unexpected due to the difficulties of resolution.
But let's be clear on this. You accept that mice and men share an ancestor, that this ancestral line diverged, then diverged again and again, with each lineage being modified over time, with most lineages going extinct.
I said "strongly indicative". As I have repeatedly stated, there is no way to rule out some vague notion of intelligent intervention.
However, the nested hierarchy is a very specific type of structure. The key point is that information only travels from ancestors to descendants, never across lineages. A designer, as commonly construed, would mix-and-match across lineages. But the "designer" of the bat never saw a bird (though it did have information of their common tetrapodal ancestry). This crossing between lineages is an important hallmark of design. That's why artifacts can't be sorted into a unique nested hierarchy, with the hierarchy varying depending on the traits chosen for sorting.
The nested hierarchy strongly implies Common Descent, diverging descendancies of uncrossed lineages. However, we can't rule out MikeGene's Front-Loading Speculation this way. But it does strongly limit intelligent involvement. No mixing-and-matching. Set it up, and maybe throw in a few lightning bolts now and again.
If you mean scientific evidence, then form a valid scientific hypothesis, and make specific and distinguishing empirical predictions that could fail if your hypothesis is wrong. That's what it means to be scientific evidence.
–
Gee whiz.
You accept that humans and cabbages share a common ancestor. We're good to go. So as long as we are clear up to this point, I would be happy to discuss the mechanisms of this vast process of divergence from common ancestors.
Comment by Zachriel — June 12, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
That refutation would surely warrant an honorable mention at UD. I'm enjoying the comedy bit, though. Keep the day job, as they say.
Comment by WedgeHead — June 12, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Zachriel, "A scientific inference is supported by a specific methodology of investigation. It requires forming a hypothesis to generate specific and distinguishing empirical predictions."
Correct.
"It doesn't matter "one's motivation and philsophical starting point", the inference to subatomic particles is supported, the inference to intelligent agency in biology is not."
Of course it does. If one is committed to non-intelligent causation (a philosophical view), then interpretation of evidence will never be allowed to guide one outside of that framework. For example, consider your statement:
"And it doesn't matter what you consider "soft". What matters is being able to make specific empirical predictions. When scientists spend years in the Arctic digging in ancient tropical streambeds looking for a fish with limbs, and then find such a fossil, it increases confidence in their hypothesis. When scientists spend years in the Egyptian wastelands digging in specific strata dated at 40 million years ago and finds a cetacean with hind limbs, it confirms their hypothesis. How did they know? Whose opinion is substantiated?"
It seems to support a progressive evolutionary model. Now where is the confirmation of the blindwatchmaker hypothesis (BWH) in that evidence?
"You do understand that these "devotees" you refer to are the vast majority of scientists in everything from biology to paleontology to genetics to embryonics to microbiology."
Right. The consensus view is often wrong, and I don't put a lot of stock in the claim without addressing specific evidence. At any rate, I think they are justified in their acceptance of common descent with modification. It is their belief in and assertion of the BWH that is wrong. That 95%+ members of NAS are declared atheists is no surprise. I'm not surprised they would "conclude" that the BWH has "explanatory power."
"Genetics is inherently mathematical and statistical. Population dynamics is mathematical. There are entire research divisions dedicated to biometrics, cladistics and bioinformatics."
Yep. And still no clear blow by blow accounts of novel tissue types, cell types, organs and body plans.
"It has nothing to do with your "predisposition". It has to do with being able to make specific empirical predictions that distinguish your claims from all the other competing claims."
Of course it does. For example, my current position is that intelligence agency was involved in the production and progression of life on this planet. Several predictions could be made based on information theory and process control theory, for example, mechanical/digital components at the micro level which gives rise to "smooth" of the macro level; positive use for so-called "junk DNA"; lots of reuse of the protein based machinery from species to species; virtually irreducible sybiosis of parts and their temporal sequencing.
You've probably heard of the alledge "god spot" in the brain where "spiritual experiences" are suppose to be generated. This finding was hailed by many as evidence that spiritual experiences are all an illusion of the brain's machinery. I was a little surprised by this "conclusion" because years ago, when I was a mere 20 something, I thought that if human consciousness really is "supernatural" in some way, there would have to be some kind of area in the brain related to supernatural experiences. I figured this should be obvious to anyone giving it a moments consideration. Otherwise, we'd never remember having such experiences, even if they were real, given that memory is a dim reliving of an actual (or imagined) occurance. So then, how is the "god spot" evidence more in support of a naturalistic paradigm? It isn't, unless one is already is ensconsed within an ideology that eschews intelligence causation.
So given that NAS is chock full of atheists, it doesn't surprise me that they "conclude" physical evidence supports the BWH more than competing views.
"You accept that mice and men share an ancestor, that this ancestral line diverged, then diverged again and again, with each lineage being modified over time, with most lineages going extinct."
My working view accepts this. But it does not accept that it was *merely* blind, not where tissue types, cell types, organs or body plans are concerned. I would expect all sorts of reuse of components from one end of the life spectrum to the other (just like the systems I design have.)
"I said "strongly indicative". As I have repeatedly stated, there is no way to rule out some vague notion of intelligent intervention."
And there is no way to rule out the vague stories of the BWH mechanism either.
"A designer, as commonly construed, would mix-and-match across lineages."
Perhaps. Perhaps not if life was modified periodically from the outside by virii and/or frontloaded toward a certain end.
In case you haven't noticed, a lot of people are quite upset about ID being a backdoor attempt by religious fanatics to get creationism back into respectable dialog. Many of those folks don't even want the concept of ID mentioned, or MET questioned in public schools. It seems rather obvious that Gonzales, a splendid scientist, was refused tenure partly (at least) on his involvement with the production of Privledged Planet. So much for presuppositions and ideology having no effect.
"Gee whiz. You accept that humans and cabbages share a common ancestor. We're good to go."
I'm not sure I go that far. I haven't seen too many missing links between vegatables and animals, except for a few of my relatives. I think the Cambrian age poses a great problem for a simplistic tree with myriad of bifurcating limbs. But for the sake of discussion, I will commit to a common ancestry of all animal life, say, from slugs onward.
"But it does strongly limit intelligent involvement. No mixing-and-matching. Set it up, and maybe throw in a few lightning bolts now and again."
Why can't it be both? Why can there be a front loaded system, and genetic manipulation periodically via, perhaps, virii?
"If you mean scientific evidence, then form a valid scientific hypothesis, and make specific and distinguishing empirical predictions that could fail if your hypothesis is wrong. That's what it means to be scientific evidence."
Sometimes the evidence has to come in before a more valid hypothesis is made. For example, DNA had to be discovered first, before mutation by nucleotide substitution could be proffered. The machinery of the cell was not something Darwin could forsee, and couldn't begin to make guesses as to how variation really might occur. The protein machinery of the cell, it's properties, and sequencing of construction, process control, energy production and management, are astounding, and have the hallmarks of modern engineering, and even better. If we had all the modern techological understanding that we have without any knowledge of the inside of the cell and DNA, it would be a very plausible guess that something like a computer code, and discrete processes in micro factories would be occuring as they indeed do. Indeed, this is hindsight talking, but it is difficult to get past the "space age" design of the cell and DNA. Darwin didn't guess this, and neither did anyone else. The BWH, prior to the MET redux, was useless toward this end.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 12, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
That is far more of a commitment than I usually get. I would have settled for land vertebrates. People still get upset by the notion of being related to a monkey.
Those aren't specific or distinguishing.
That's fine. That leaves you with unsupported speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculation. Meanwhile, we can examine the evidence for natural evolutionary change.
Let's start with typical hypothesis testing. If organisms evolved from a common ancestor, then the observed rate of evolutionary change (measured in darwins) must be greater than or equal to that necessary to bring about those changes. And, in fact, it is possible to measure the rate of morphological change and the rate of genetic change and confirm that the rate of observed change is more than sufficient to account for these evolutionary differences. Reznick 1997, Gingerich 1983
Comment by Zachriel — June 12, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Salim:
What IDists have recognized, however is that evolution as it is interpreted and theorized by materialists is not purely scientific either. There is philophy going on there, and pretty archaic and misinformed philosophy. Archaic, because any problem with evolution is answered by evolution. Misinformed, because materialist evolutionists for the most part fail to look at the arguments against evolution, and they choose to ignore for the most part, the arguments from design. They do this by demonizing ID proponents as unintelectual, backwards fundamentalists. The two most promienent evolutionists, the late S.J. Gould, and Richard Dawkins would have nothing to do with the "fundamentalist creationists" as they call ID proponents.
Their failure to listen to the arguments that are brought forth by ID theorists will have a negative effect on evolution as a theory in the long run – warrented or not.
Again, if ID is merely a theological argument, then the same goes for Darwinist evolution. One argues theologically for the existence of God, and one argues theologically against the existence of God.
Consider for example what David Stove said about Sociaobiology:
from Darwinian Fairytales, p 248 (c) 1995 by Judith Stove – Encounter Books.
Apparently religion still exists in the biological sciences. Why then should ID be excluded from the debate?
Comment by Randy — June 12, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Zachiel, "Meanwhile, we can examine the evidence for natural evolutionary change. Let's start with typical hypothesis testing. If organisms evolved from a common ancestor, then the observed rate of evolutionary change (measured in darwins) must be greater than or equal to that necessary to bring about those changes. And, in fact, it is possible to measure the rate of morphological change and the rate of genetic change and confirm that the rate of observed change is more than sufficient to account for these evolutionary differences. Reznick 1997, Gingerich 1983 "
So far so good.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 12, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Note that this tells us an anti-ID position is determined by definition. This makes non-supporting evidence irrelevant because conclusions must fall within predefined outcomes.
Comment by Bradford — June 12, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 1:32 am
chunkdz:
Foolish mortal! You claim to know the mind of the designer? You are but a mere child compared to the intelligent designer who has existed long-before the most primitive primitive proto-replicator, and will exist long after your planet is a speck of super-dense matter being hurled into a black-hole.
I have told you – the designer does not think as you do. It does not have your petty human desires, and it has no need for human reasoning. And yet it is intelligent.
If you doubt me, please try to reason with the common cold and tell me where it gets you.
In the name of the Designer,
Sal
Comment by salimfadhley — June 13, 2007 @ 1:32 am
June 13th, 2007 at 5:17 am
Do you have a way of detecting design and apparent design, and a test to distinguish between the two?
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — June 13, 2007 @ 5:17 am
June 13th, 2007 at 8:06 am
This is meant only as a short outline:
Natural Selection: Differential reproductive success due to heritable variation. Natural Selection can be observed at work in nature producing detectable adaptations. A famous example is the decades long study of Galápagos Finches by the Grants. Of course, Natural Selection is an analog to Artificial Selection which is known to have brought about significant changes in organisms as diverse as corn and dogs.
Natural Selection is sometimes subdivided into Environmental Selection and Sexual Selection. Sexual Selection often acts as an amplifier, e.g. some animals use their complex brains to evaluate potential mates for fitness, and this then leads to its own types of adaptations for attracting mates.
Sources of variation: Detailed observations of genetic mutations indicate that they are random with respect to environmental need. It can be shown that these mutations can result in detectable adaptations. A common demonstration, replicated daily in university labs around the world, is the Lederbergs' Experiment. An interesting case is how a genetic frame shift resulted in plastic-eating bacteria.
Even small changes in developmental genes can lead to profound changes in the resulting organism, e.g. a single gene may cause an increase in brain size.
Adaptive radiation: If evolution is a stochastic process, then we would see adaptive radiation from nodes whenever a new niche opened up. This is what we see, for instance, on the Galápagos Islands. When these islands formed, they were invaded by a limited number of animals species, such as finches and turtles, which rapidly filled the available niches. Turtles moved inland and adapted to take the place of grazing animals; finches evolved so much so that Darwin didn't even recognize some as finches, ground finches, warbler finches, even woodpecker finches.
Pruning: If evolution is a stochastic process, we should see adaptive radiation followed by extensive pruning. This is because evolution can't "see ahead", but merely puts forth variations that are then environmentally selected. Again, this is what is seen. We see relatively modest changes with most such modifications going extinct.
Species instability: Another stochastic process, species boundaries are not inviolate, but should occasionally be seen to grade into one another, with varying degrees of reproductive isolation. Again, this is what is seen. Lions and tigers can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but this rarely if ever happens in the wild, and there is little gene flow between these clearly distinctive reproductive populations.
Rates of change: If organisms evolved from a common ancestor, then the observed rate of evolutionary change (measured in darwins) must be greater than or equal to that necessary to bring about those changes. And, in fact, it is possible to measure the rate of morphological change and the rate of genetic change and confirm that the rate of observed change is more than sufficient to account for these evolutionary differences. Reznick 1997, Gingerich 1983
Other mechanisms: Though Natural Selection is the most important mechanism of adaptation, there are many other mechanisms, such as drift, fixation, hybridization, founder effect, extinction, contingency, etc. Many of these are explained by modern mathematical techniques. Statistical analysis is an important aspect of all modern biological sciences.
Theory of Complex Systems: Though no complete simulation of biology is possible, the salient aspects of evolution can be shown to be a member of the class of evolving networks. These networks can be shown to exhibit complex adaptations to even simple simulated environments.
Diversity of Evidence: Evidence for evolution spans many fields of study, including geology, genetics, embryonics, microbiology, paleontology, biology, cladistics, informatics; each field with its own peer journals, each with its own unique methods. Yet, they all reach the same conclusion. Life on Earth has evolved from humble beginnings through a process of natural evolution.
Evolution Defined
One can never rule out some aspect of agency in the history of life on Earth; however, evolutionary mechanisms are sufficient to account for the observed diversity, and there is no evidence of such agency. Most lightning bolts, as anti-entropic as they seem, can be shown to be natural occurrences. Most comets can be shown to be icy bodies following the laws of gravity. Maybe a few really are sent by God to guide the course of human history. But there just isn't any scientific justification for this belief.
Comment by Zachriel — June 13, 2007 @ 8:06 am
June 13th, 2007 at 8:21 am
No, there is simply no way to tell the difference between apparent design and design, for the obvious reason that stuff that is apparently designed appers to have been designed!
(Yes, I know that is a tautology.)
Comment by salimfadhley — June 13, 2007 @ 8:21 am
June 13th, 2007 at 9:57 am
please let us know the minute it evolves into something besides a virus.
It is a good question. The inability to answer indicates just how much of what passess for sound theory is in fact speculation.
The design is already there prior to adaptations. What we observe are design modifications.
Comment by Bradford — June 13, 2007 @ 9:57 am
June 13th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Neither Intelligent Design, nor any origins theory that I am aware of predicts that viruses will evolve into something radically different from a virus within the medium term future.
The question implies an obvious straw-man, and the fact that the asker has neither read nor understood ID or Evolutionary literature.
Bradford, I think you misunderstand the proposition of Intelligent Design, specifically that those adaptations are not mere random noise, but the direct consequence result of an intelligent process.
I'd like to refer you to William Dembski's definition of intelligence, and Dembski's musings on how this intelligence acts to gradually add information into a system.
The original replicator need not be a fully-formed modern cell with all the genetic design required for the whole tree of life. This is the straw-man of front-loading ID that Mike Gene was specifically trying to address in his previous blog post.
The original replicator only had to be sufficiently complex to replicate in order to benefit from the information that an intelligent design process can provide.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 13, 2007 @ 10:34 am
June 13th, 2007 at 10:59 am
salimfahdley wrote:
What is the scope of the term 'self-replicator'? In particular, if something is a self-replicator, is it ipso facto 'living' in some sense?
I'm asking because it seems possible to conceive of self-replicating physical systems that we do not normally regard as living.
According to modern cosmology, space is expanding. The self-expansion of space can, I think, be conceived as space copying or replicating itself. And according to physics, radiation propagates as waves of various determinate wavelengths through space. If a self-propagating wave is in motion through space, one way to think of this might be to regard a wave at one location as subsequently producing copies of itself at other locations. Modern communication technologies seem to depend on such a conceptualization, thus enabling, for instance, television. The idea, of course, is not that a figure on a TV screen is a literal copy of, say, our late friend Cho Seung-Hui (thank goodness), but rather that the radiation emanating from him self-copies through spacetime and then produces the TV image of Cho Seung-Hui.
Another candidate for being a self-replicator might be an asteroid which hits a much larger asteroid in such a way that the larger asteroid shatters into many pieces, a subset of which are very similar to the impacting asteroid; and the members of this subset shatter other asteroids in just the right way to produce yet more asteroids of the right sort to continue the process. Obviously, this scenario would strike us as being extremely unlikely. But it contains no logical impossibility, as far as I can see. What's interesting to me at least, though, is that while I wouldn't call a system of self-replicating asteroids 'life', I would, upon discovering such a system, immediately infer that it was intelligently designed.
Now consider this statement:
P1 If something is a product of evolution, then it's not a product of intelligent design.
Now consider this one:
P2 The Empire State building is a product of evolution
From the conjunction of P1 and P2, it follows that:
C The Empire State building was not intelligently designed
Question, would Richard Dawkins accept C? And if not, would it be because he rejects P1, or P2, or both; and for what reasons?
If he rejects P1, would he accept that adducing evidence of biological evolution is therefore quite consistent with the belief that biological species are a product of intelligent design?
If he rejects P2 (and given that he would presumably, as a naturalist, accept that living human bodies and buildings in New York city are both fully natural entities), by what precise criteria does he distinguish between entities which are products of evolution and those which are not.
My guess is that he would deny P2 on the grounds that the Empire State building is not subject to selection pressure and is not capable of self-replication with variation. But I'm not sure this is the case, or at least obviously or necessarily so.
Biological organisms self-replicate using various catalysts and micro-agents. Let's say humans are the catalysts/micro-agents for replicating buildings with variation. And let's say humans are purely physical entities, completely governed by physical laws. The extent and nature of building replication and variation is subject to various 'competitor' entities (like termites) and the pressures and constraints generated by the physical environment at large. Buildings may be more or less adaptive, sending feedback signals to human and other catalyzing micro-agents (such as robotic cranes and their operators) and 'competitor' entities. Human micro-agents find better ways to make buildings by trial and error, using whatever natural resources are at hand or which can be productivley harnessed.
Looking into a future of millions of years from now, might it be the case that, as built structures of astonishing variety and 'ingenuity of design' proliferate through the galaxy, some intelligent race will be able to declare, the (by now 'fossilized') Empire State building was indeed an early product of natural evolution (and not of design), rendering P2 true after all?
If this story is even somewhat plausible"”I don't know what Dawkins himself would think of it"”then P2 could be true. And if P1 is also true, one would have to accept C; which seems, at least, a rather counter-intuitive result.
N'est-ce pas?
Comment by stunney — June 13, 2007 @ 10:59 am
June 13th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Or that the questioner knows very well that remarks about evolution being observed in viruses are nothing more than genomic changes within a specified range.
Dembski and I know very well that an analytical intelligence is capable of gradually or non-gradually adding information to a system. The trick is to get a biological system to do the same from ground zero.
No, this is your strawman. Of course you can readily prove me wrong by citing empirical references for the imaginary precursor cell. If there are none then you are entitled to your own philosophical views.
Sounds exactly like an existing cell.
Comment by Bradford — June 13, 2007 @ 11:00 am
June 13th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Zachriel,
Thanks for posting that basic intro information for those who here who may be unaware of such.
At any rate, nothing you've posted thus far addresses my insistence for evidence that unintelligent natural processes alone are capable of producing novel tissue types, cell types, organs and body plans.
"Evidence for evolution spans many fields of study, including geology, genetics, embryonics, microbiology, paleontology, biology, cladistics, informatics; each field with its own peer journals, each with its own unique methods. Yet, they all reach the same conclusion. Life on Earth has evolved from humble beginnings through a process of natural evolution"
Please, by all means, use and quote from as many of these sources as you like to make a case that unintelligent natural processes alone are capable of producing novel tissue types, cell types, organs and body plans. Bald assertions aren't going to convince anyone around here, I'm afraid.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 13, 2007 @ 11:03 am
June 13th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Let's start with the divergence of land vertebrates. We can directly observe the posited mechanisms, and these mechanisms can be shown to be reasonably sufficient to account for the biological diversity of land vertebrates. If you have specific questions, please refer back to my original post.
Addendum: We have evidence of a stochastic process, divergence with extensive pruning. We have evidence of the mechanisms of the engines of variation and selection. These are exactly what we would expect from a spontaneous evolutionary process. This is sufficient to form a reasonably complete explanation of how evolution occurs. And every new discovery increases our confidence and extends our understanding of these evolutionary processes. There is certainly more to learn, though, if that is your point.
Comment by Zachriel — June 13, 2007 @ 11:44 am
June 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Zachriel: "We can directly observe the posited mechanisms, and these mechanisms can be shown to be reasonably sufficient to account for the biological diversity of land vertebrates."
You're going to have to get specific.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 13, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
The Theory of Gravity posits a simple mechanism to describe and predict the complex movement of planets across the sky. I could provide you a copy of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, yet, you could make the same answer.
I have provided a brief description of the mechanisms of evolution and how they relate to the divergence of land vertebrates. Science does not claim to know everything about this process, nor have I provided a mention of every known mechanism. However, most scientists agree that these mechanisms, including Natural Selection, are reasonably sufficient to account for this diversity. You apparently disagree, but won't explain why.
Comment by Zachriel — June 13, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Zachriel, "The Theory of Gravity posits a simple mechanism to describe and predict the complex movement of planets across the sky. I could provide you a copy of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, yet, you could make the same answer."
I can test everything written in that volume to verify the claims.
"I have provided a brief description of the mechanisms of evolution and how they relate to the divergence of land vertebrates. Science does not claim to know everything about this process,"
Agreed.
"…nor have I provided a mention of every known mechanism."
It doesn't matter what you provide unless you provide something that demonstrates that unintelligent natural forces can produce novel tissue types, cell types, organs and body plans.
"However, most scientists agree that these mechanisms, including Natural Selection, are reasonably sufficient to account for this diversity."
They may believe it for various reasons, but they cannot demonstrate it. Otherwise I would fall in line. At an rate, I suspect there are a lot more people in the biological sciences who are more skeptical of the BWH than you might think. I know a few a myself.
"You apparently disagree, but won't explain why."
Lack of evidence. When someone makes a claim I expect them to back it up with a verifiable demonstration. Newton and Einstein invent theories of gravity that can be verified by atheist and idol worshipper alike. Based on my perusal of the evidence and the interpretations of others, while I accept the conclusion that life has progressed over eons of time on this planet, I disagree with the consensus regarding the Blindwatchmaker Hypothesis. So touting a consensus isn't going to convince skeptics like me. (The consensus has often been quite off track anyway.) The BWH may end up being true (and that would be OK by me), but it hasn't been demonstrated.
In short, I reject the BWH hypothesis for lack of evidence. And so far, you have not provided any to demonstrate that it can produce, well, you know.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 13, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Kornbelt, the "blind watchmaker" is a metaphor, not a hypothesis.
Comment by JAM — June 13, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Jam, "Kornbelt, the "blind watchmaker" is a metaphor, not a hypothesis."
It's both. Just ask Richard Dawkins. Now, if "blindwatch maker" didn't actually refer to a hypothesis, then what was the point of naming his book such? Don't be silly, now.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 13, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Then how did Darwin correctly hypothesize the mathematical relationships between the sequences of those components in The Origin of Species?
How do you know this? Would you mind answering an engineering question to illustrate?
We know that the molecular motor kinesin walks hand-over-hand (that's a metaphor) along microtubules and is powered by harnessing the energy from ATP hydrolysis.
If you engineered such a machine, to what step in the hand-over-hand cycle (binding the MT with the front "hand," releasing the rear hand, thrusting the rear hand in the direction of motion, and binding the MT with the formerly rear hand) would you couple the energy released from hydrolyzing ATP?
Comment by JAM — June 13, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
JAM, "Then how did Darwin correctly hypothesize the mathematical relationships between the sequences of those components in The Origin of Species?"
Please cite the page(s) to which you refer and I will comment on them.
"We know that the molecular motor kinesin walks hand-over-hand (that's a metaphor) along microtubules and is powered by harnessing the energy from ATP hydrolysis."
Actually, "we know" is overstated. There is some uncertainty regarding whether the Kinesin proteins walk "hand over hand" or in a worm like fashion, although the former seems to be getting more support.
At any rate,
"If you engineered such a machine, to what step in the hand-over-hand cycle…would you couple the energy released from hydrolyzing ATP?"
I don't know. It is uncertain that ATP hydrolysis is the actual source of power.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 13, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Yes, it's very hard to imagine them, that is why I gave an example of the simplest possible thing that self-replicates. We would never count it as a living thing, it lacks the cellular machinery that the simplest protist has. All I was suggesting is that for an intelligent design process to be worth something, it has to act on something. That something could be very simple, something that would be within the bounds of Dembski's probability limit to have occurred naturally and by chance.
Bradford:
Not really, the simplest possible replicator (one step up from ground zero) would hardly be worthy of the name biology. All you need is a replicator with some means of establishing beneficial adaptations, and then you have a sufficient pre-biont for an intelligent design process to act upon. As I have explained, such a chemical would most likely be a single, small molecule, the kind of thing that could occur by chance.
If it were enriched by a billion years of an intelligent design process adding specified complex information to it, it might approach the complexity of a protocell, but for now lets not confuse ourselves by calling a mere molecule the same thing as "life".
It's not a strawman, it is a hypothetical example. I know that you can tell the difference.
I'm not insisting that the first life worked this way. I am trying to demonstrate that very simple organic chemistry can create a replicator, a molecule upon which an intelligent design process can act upon.
The purpose of this is to argue that the first replicator need not have been a whole cell complete with DNA. The Intelligent Design process need only to wait until a single suitable molecule existed anywhere on earth, and set about it's relentless work of designing.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 13, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
No, I'm being properly conservative.
You're grossly understating the relative amounts of evidence. Basically, the inchworm mechanism was demolished by these data:
Kaseda, K. et al. (2003) Alternate fast and slow stepping of a
heterodimeric kinesin molecule. Nat. Cell Biol. 5, 1079"“1082
Or can you somehow explain them in the inchworm context? Is anyone in the field hanging on to it?
Then how can you make such a sweeping claim about whether these things have the hallmarks of human engineering?
Do telic hypotheses usually hold up, or is nature more interesting?
Do we know the evolutionary pathway by which kinesins were derived from proteins that no one describes as motors?
Not being certain has nothing to do with my question. I am testing your claim that these mechanisms have the hallmarks of modern engineering. If you're not certain, how can you make the claim? Kinesins share a mechanism with an enormous (and therefore representative) group of eukaryotic proteins.
Comment by JAM — June 13, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
The page would depend on the edition. It's easier to simply point you to the only figure in the book.
Comment by JAM — June 13, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
JAM: A question about Kinisn proteins:
I read on Wikipedia that there are two general types, and each can walk in only one direction along a charged micro tubule. Wouldnt we therefore expect a super-abundance of kinisns at either end – these would be proteins that had reached their destination and were unable to walk back.
Surely there must be a method of recycling these proteins once they have walked their walk, otherwise a cell would become packed full of useless kinisins.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 13, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
salimfadhley,
These motors are passengers as well as movers.
A telic perspective will not work well in this field.
Comment by JAM — June 13, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Is the rule by which cargos are allocated to their carriers known? For example, if a great many things need to be carried in one direction, might this result in a temporary shortage of motors to carry the goods in the other direction. Im just guessing, but the there must be a very subtle system to ensure that this does not happen.
I agree.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 13, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
"Is the rule by which cargos are allocated to their carriers known?"
We understand this only in a very sketchy way. It's all very, very fuzzy, unlike designed systems.
Comment by JAM — June 13, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Gravity: The Solar System of today has the appearance of being under the influence of gravity as described by the Theory of Gravity. But how do we know that the observed mechanisms of today worked in the past? Is it reasonable to make inferences concerning the effect of gravity in the Solar System from 10,000 or a million years ago?
We base our conclusion on the direct observation of the mechanisms in today's world, the adequacy of the mechanisms to account for the historical evidence, reasonable extrapolations, and confirming scientific evidence from other sources. (Nevertheless, the further back in time we look, the less sure we are of the exact configuration of the planets. Gravitational systems are inherently chaotic.)
So, sure. Maybe angels used to push planets around, but the evidence has all the appearance of a history of natural gravitational processes.
Evolution: You say there is a "lack of evidence". But there is plenty of evidence. We can directly observe the process of evolution, including its mechanisms of adaptation such as Natural Selection. We can show that these mechanisms can cause changes at rates greater than necessary to account for the pattern of divergence. And we have confirming evidence from other sources, such as the stochastic pattern seen in the pattern of descent. Sure, maybe someone manipulated the genome somewhere somehow, but the evidence has all the appearance of a history of natural evolutionary processes.
Comment by Zachriel — June 13, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Zach:
Zach, you probably haven't been participating here long enough to know that I'm really, really NOT fond of the standard sound-byte of ID critics who don't know more than they read on TO, to wit: "Evolution is as empirically-based a scientific theory as gravity!" There are a couple of reasons for my dislike -
First, our progressive (and currently stuck) understandings of gravity are based on the regularities – a.k.a. "Law" – that we observe on our planet and in our solar system and in our universe. Inverse square, turns out that's scalar and it works for all sorts of interactions. It says nothing whatsoever about the fundamental nature of any force or field, or about the cause of the interactions (other than proximity in space-time).
Second, we still have no real idea of 'what' gravity is or 'what' causes it, or even 'what' it acts upon, other than it reliably operates as an attraction between masses, and that mass for some unexplainable reason tends to accumulate matter around its point-space. That would be enough if it weren't for the fact that mass can exist in space-time entirely sans any matter at all, and some of these non-matter masses are the most spectacular gravity wells in existence.
Even worse, if Penrose has his way, all gravity wells are safely 'hidden' from observation by an event horizon. Upon which light freezes to form an impermeable (from the inside out) barrier. Why, for all we know matter itself might be nothing more than illusion, light frozen or deflected from the event horizons of micro-holes in a constantly dynamic, interacting energy field. Cause unknown at all scales.
One might hope that our basic understanding of biology and evolution could strive for more than that, given FAPP definitions of matter and energy from our own perspective. I mean, it is US we're talking about, right?
They're not so much chaotic as difficult to formalize in 3-body systems. Try to wrap your head around the micro-hole model outlined above, and calculate the precise interactions in a single mouse or cockroach! Impossible… You should consider that Thought Provoker may be on the right track here – it might all be mere illusion of chaos (or randomness), based only upon our limitations. Not based on nature itself.
We may be able to apprehend an FAPP situation, and that's all that science was ever designed to do. We should not lose track of the fact that it's mostly habit and may not be random at all. This actually justifies our reliance on generalities, on statistical mechanics for complex systems, and on probability distributions. They work, FAPP, more often than they don't.
But they sometimes don't. Anomalies are real too.
Angels might very well be pushing the planets around. Powers, principalities, it's all about forces we do not know the true causes for or the true manner of their effects. We can measure their influence. So far, that's been enough. FAPP. It was never about Absolute Truth.
Comment by Joy — June 13, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
June 14th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Zachriel, "Gravity: We base our conclusion on the direct observation of the mechanisms in today's world"
Agreed.
"Evolution: You say there is a "lack of evidence". But there is plenty of evidence. We can directly observe the process of evolution, including its mechanisms of adaptation such as Natural Selection. We can show that these mechanisms can cause changes at rates greater than necessary to account for the pattern of divergence."
You cannot demonstrate that they make the right kind of changes to produce novel cell types, tissue types, organs or body plans. This simply has not been observed. Since it is not observed now, there's no logical reason to extrapolate to the past.
"And we have confirming evidence from other sources, such as the stochastic pattern seen in the pattern of descent. Sure, maybe someone manipulated the genome somewhere somehow, but the evidence has all the appearance of a history of natural evolutionary processes."
Only if you accept the premise in the first place that changes seen today are capable of producing novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans.
Lots of words, Zachriel, but no demonstration.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 14, 2007 @ 10:10 am
June 14th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Demonstration? The I never see a bumblebee turn into a lion argument.
You keep repeating the same mantra. Do you consider the posited mechanisms sufficient to explain the common descent of birds and toads? Mice and men? Wolves and dogs?
Comment by Zachriel — June 14, 2007 @ 10:12 am
June 14th, 2007 at 10:25 am
kornbelt888,
On the gravitational front, sure we observe the effects of microgravity, apples falling and whatnot. But let me know when you can observe the blind watchmaker causing nebula to collapse into new solar systems, or planets form from chance collisions, or planetary rings form.
Comment by Zachriel — June 14, 2007 @ 10:25 am
June 14th, 2007 at 11:37 am
kornbelt888: Only if you accept the premise in the first place that changes seen today are capable of producing novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans. Lots of words, Zachriel, but no demonstration.
Zachriel: Demonstration? The I never see a bumblebee turn into a lion argument. You keep repeating the same mantra.
And you keep refusing to demonstrate your claim. I haven't mentioned bumblebees and lions. Novel cell types, tissue type, organs and body plans will do.
Zachriel: Do you consider the posited mechanisms sufficient to explain the common descent of birds and toads? Mice and men? Wolves and dogs?
If I did we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Well, Zachriel, I'm done with this thread. Time to move on.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 14, 2007 @ 11:37 am
June 14th, 2007 at 11:50 am
You're asking for a demonstration of something that takes millions of years. We can't show it to you. But you can see the mechanisms involved, and the evidence that these mechanisms are reasonably sufficient to account for the diversity we see. There are probably other mechanisms. But there is no evidence of intelligent agency.
Just consider your next statement:
I am yet unsure of your position. Your mantra is "novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans". As most cell and tissue types are very ancient, and as they naturally leave few fossils (other than bone), this pushes your assertion back to the beginnings of bilateria, or perhaps chordata. "Body plan" is often a strawman having to do with the Cambrian Explosion, but I was probing to determine exactly what *you* meant. Birds and toads have very similar body plans and organ types.
I'm surprised you reject wolves to dogs. Some dog breeds have originated in modern times, and specific mutations that have led to novelty in domestic plants and animals have been identified. We know the mechanism of these changes, and we have enough history to actually observe substantial changes in body plan and other significant features.
Comment by Zachriel — June 14, 2007 @ 11:50 am
June 14th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
JAM, I am sure you know, but probably don't care to acknowledge on this forum, that there is esentially no math in The Origin. Darwin's only figure in the book, which you seem to be alluding to, has no mathematical basis, but is rather nothing more than an exceedingly vague allusion to a general idea that life begins at a certain point and branches like a tree. (Incidentally, this has proven, unfortunately for Charles, to be utterly false, based on what we know of the fossil record.) One of the main problems with Charles' theory is that it is not at all quantitative (i.e., no math, no way to calculate probabilities, no way to make predictions). It is nothing more than a hunch, or as he himself stated "one long argument."
BTW, I hate to post and run, but will not have time to comment again for several days. I just wanted to jump in quickly and correct a blatant misrepresentation in your discussion with kornbelt888.
Comment by Eric Anderson — June 14, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
June 14th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Eric,
You seem to have missed my point. Are you claiming that set theory isn't mathematics?
That we don't use mathematics to rigorously test Darwin's prediction with sequences?
How is this derived?
http://xrl.us/2dg5
Comment by JAM — June 14, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
June 15th, 2007 at 6:42 am
A tree… that's set-theory and graph-theory in one figure.
Darwin may not have been mathematically inclined, but this one drawing has spawned more mathematics than Eric can possibly imagine!
By the way, I note that Eric's posting does not include any mathematical notation. Does this mean that it is invalid and "nothing more than an exceedingly vague allusion to a general idea".
What's the old proverb about throwing stones in glasshouses.
Sal
Comment by salimfadhley — June 15, 2007 @ 6:42 am
June 15th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Eric:
How pathetic. Like rejecting modern physics because Aristotle didn't use maths in his physical theories. Darwin's theory has been thoroughly mathematized and extended in many directions for over a hundred years.
Eric is projecting his own need to worship superheroes (e.g. the mythical Jesus). Scientists do not worship Charles Darwin (who certainly existed) and have no problem admitting that Darwin made mistakes.
Comment by Raevmo — June 15, 2007 @ 8:14 am
June 16th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Others have pointed out that the nested hierarchy is a mathematical structure found both in geometry and in set theory. But let me answer the general criticism about evolution and mathematics.
Pick any issue of the journal Evolution. It's practically all math.
Comment by Zachriel — June 16, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
June 17th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
TP,
Somewhere in this thread (I can't find it) you stated that in a universe controlled by God, there is no "natural randomness."
I wanted to comment on this:
There is then, a difference between that which has the "appearance of design," and that which "appears random." I think that this depends on the perspective from which one is looking at the randomness or the design. For example, my skin is a part of a complex human body. However, there are certain parts of my skin that look random – blemishes, bumps, and whatnot (No, I'm not that ugly). So when we think for example, of the sand on the beach, it appears random, but it is not beyond us to see it as part of an ecosystem that has the appearance of design as well. So I think you are right, there is no such thing as "natural randomness" in a world controlled by God. However, this is assuming that given that such a God exists, He chooses to control everything. I am a theist, but I am not certain that God controls every little thing. I think He experiments, and wants to see what happens – even though as God, He already knows what will happen – being omniscient and all.
When you think theistically, you have to think in terms of the paradox. This is an example of that. If you are familiar with Judeo-Christian thought, then you must be familiar with the paradox. A paradox offers an explanation for how two opposite propositions can both be true. There is design in the universe, and there is randomness at the same time, because the Creator is capable of allowing such.
Comment by Randy — June 17, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
June 17th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Hi Randy,
You wrote…
May I suggest you look at the other thread where I am the guest poster?
Here is a relevent comment to your question.
You may want to make sure your favorite headache remedy is close at hand.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 17, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
June 17th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
TP
I read most of the posts in there, but I must have missed that one. If I take Ibuprofen, then, it ought to help me with the information….er,…inflamation.
Comment by Randy — June 17, 2007 @ 10:46 pm