The non-mattering of motives
by KrauzeIn the comments to this post, ID critic "Hrafn" is arguing mightily that the religious motives of people like Johnson and Dembski means that intelligent design must necessarily be theistic. I was reminded of this when reading this article by Jeffrey Koperski, philosopher at Saginaw Valley State University (HT: Paul Nelson). He has some potent remarks on some of the arguments that are popular with the ID critic crowd, which I'll be quoting beneath the fold.
Koperski points out that the practice of labelling ID supporters as "creationists" is merely a rhetorical strategy, not a logical critique in itself:
In my view, labeling those who doubt the efficacy of genetic mutation and natural selection "creationists" is a rhetorical strategy, what one logic text calls 'stereotyping.' Cable television provides ready exemplars for both the creationist stereotype and its cousin, the fundamentalist. Critics try to shape the debate by connecting ID to these templates. If successful, little work needs to be done. The labels tell us who represents the side of rationality over and against the side of ignorance. Having sorted "us" and "them," what "they" actually say matters little, whoever "they" happen to be. We must recognize that while this is a common argumentative strategy in talk-radio and presidential politics, it is not itself a logical critique. Placing the black hat on one's opponent is no substitute for an argument.
Later, he quotes Barbara Forrest's comments on The Wedge Document and on the religious motivations of the Discovery Institute. "[Granting] all this for the moment", Koperski says, there is one question that must be asked: "So what?"
I'm not trying to be flippant. Whether this information is relevant or not is vital to the rational assessment of ID. Consider an analogy. When I was a graduate student, one of my professors was a committed Marxist. As the faculty advisor for a socialist student group, he was admittedly interested in becoming a professor in order to promote his political views. He hoped to persuade students to do likewise. Moreover, he had a number of published articles in quality journals. Did the fact that he had a political motivation affect the strength of his arguments in those papers? Should the editors of those journals have taken his political agenda into consideration?
As every logic student knows, the answer is "no." One's motivations for presenting an argument have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of that argument. Evaluating a conclusion by questioning one's motivation is an ad hominem attack. Arguments must be judged on their merits regardless of the source.
Before anyone starts wondering what Koperski's "motivations" could have had for writing this, here's what he says himself: "Let me say upfront that I am no apologist for the Intelligent Design 'Movement.' I am not in favor of teaching ID in public schools, nor am I overly optimistic about its prospects as a research program." Now, I wonder what his motives for saying that was…
May 21st, 2006 at 10:35 am
Actually, I didn't argue this. What I said was:
I stand by this claim. These arguments show little difference from Paley's Natural Theology and Aquinas' Argument from Design — both explicitly theistic.
I also said they are theistic, because the authors of the arguments themselves say they are theistic. But funnily enough, Krauze was very leery about accepting their understanding of, and assessment of, their own arguments.
Krauze is just throwing a hissy fit, because in the same thread I boxed him into either admitting that ID is theistic or self-refuting.
Comment by Hrafn — May 21, 2006 @ 10:35 am
May 21st, 2006 at 10:58 am
Hrafn: The point remains that this has little bearing on the truth of the arguments. What seems to be happening is that you (and many proponents of darwinism) are effectively saying: "Because the conclusion of this argument is that there is a God it is a) religiously motivated and b) anti-science." The point made here by the philosopher - which has already been made by lots of proponents of ID - is that the motivation of the arguer has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of the arguments. There are other places where the point about ID being anti-science is discussed , but the heart of that issue is what constitutes science - specifically whether it is no more than methodological naturalism - and if so, what you do with multiverse theories and so on that also have no means of verification within science.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — May 21, 2006 @ 10:58 am
May 21st, 2006 at 11:51 am
Hrafn:
Still Hrafn has said:
Comment by Analyysi — May 21, 2006 @ 11:51 am
May 21st, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Did Aquinas make an argument from design?
I thought I read somewhere that Paley never once concludes that the designer is God.
Comment by Mung — May 21, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
May 21st, 2006 at 4:30 pm
I think it is helpful to distinguish between ID as a movement and ID as the bare hypothesis that life is (at least partially) designed.
The truth or falsity of the latter is, of course, independent of the motives of its proponents or of any theological implications it might have. Let's hope that it gets decided purely on the basis of evidence and reason.
The ID movement encompasses much more than this bare hypothesis, however. Much of the controversy stems from whether the movement as a whole is primarily scientific versus religious or political. The Dover trial was not about the truth or falsity of ID, as Judge Jones noted in his opinion. It was about the motives and effects of the Dover policy, as well as the scientific status of ID as practiced by its leading proponents.
I think Judge Jones was correct to find that ID is a primarily religious movement.
I would ask the many ID supporters who accept the cosmological fine-tuning argument: Do you really, honestly believe that the designer of the universe might not be God or another supernatural entity?
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
May 21st, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Hi Keiths,
"I think it is helpful to distinguish between ID as a movement and ID as the bare hypothesis that life is (at least partially) designed."
Indeed it is.
Comment by Krauze — May 21, 2006 @ 5:23 pm
May 21st, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Okay, why can't we discuss the truth or falsity of ID here then? I thought that was the whole idea of this blog.
I would say it is God and I would ask so what's your point?
Comment by samohth — May 21, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
May 21st, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Kieths said:
Depends on how you'd define "supernatural" in the context of that which is capable of designing a universe. Given that a good chunk of the fine-tuning argument arises from dimensional specifications in Hilbert [phase] space, the likelihood that other phase-spaces with other dimensionalities exist is almost a 'given'. And there's no reason at all to presuppose that there exist no-things and no-consciousness in any or all of them.
Would such be "natural" or "supernatural?" …a matter of definition. It would be "natural" in that it exists, "supernatural" from within 3+1 reality. Only if we arbitrarily assume 3+1 is all the reality there is would the existence of super-3+1 entities qualify as "supernatural." Most cosmology (both relativistic and quantum) these days already presumes there's more than 3+1. They could all be wrong, of course.
Comment by Joy — May 21, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
May 21st, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Who said you couldn't? Dover was about the public schools, not about this blog.
Regarding the fine-tuning argument:
The point is that many ID supporters accept the fine-tuning argument as part of ID, yet continue to deny that the designer must be God. Unless they honestly believe that our universe could have been designed by a non-supernatural intelligence, this is disingenuous.
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
May 21st, 2006 at 10:27 pm
I keep hearing this word "supernatural". This is a very problematic word, and in the context of this discussion I do not feel it has any meaning except as a disparagement of certain points of view as improperly scientific. What are you trying to say when you use the word "supernatural" to apply to ID?
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 21, 2006 @ 10:27 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:57 am
I have read through this post and comments and I like the fine spirit of debate I see here, but, not meaning to patronize, for that is not my nature, there seems to be a point here that is being missed, which I will try to address, but bear with me because I'm sort of thinking out loud.
A major issue in the EVO vs ID debate is "what should be taught in public schools?" Evolution is now being taught in public schools, unchallenged, undebated. It is being taught not only as theory, but as well established fact, accepted by virtually the entire scientific and academic community. And not only as fact, but as the one great over-arching fact, the great universal organizing paradigm for the teaching and understanding of all of science, all of life, indeed all of what is. So all-embracing and rammification-pregnant is this teaching that every other fact or idea taught in schools (whether mathematical, historical, linguistic, literary, sociopolitical, or otherwise) pales by comparison.
It would be difficult to exaggerate the influence of this teaching.
But what if it's all wrong? What if Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution can be rigorously and scientifically refuted? What, in fact, if even the possibility of such a refutation can be seriously entertained? Should then such refutation or the possibility thereof be proscribed from the science classroom because of some question of motive?
This issue of motive is a red herring. It is a diversionary tactic. I know it, and those who employ the argument know it. Unfortunately, though, the red-herring tactic can be enormously effective, and those now so vehemently opposed to the inclusion of ID in our science curricula are too desparate to scruple over employing a logical fallacy if it serves their purpose.
The issue of motive, if it is an issue at all, should be a two-edged sword, as potentially embarrassing to the one side as to the other. That is because so very very few, if any, in this debate are truly religiously neutral, howsoever legally convenient they may find it to wrap themselves in the mantle of the Constitution's "establishment of religion" clause.
The great debate here should focus on the validity or invalidity of evolution as a coherent theory for explaining all that it purports to explain. ID proponents, whatever their motives, are challenging that validity on exactingly scientific grounds. The anti-ID crowd chants "ID is not science, ID is not science," over and over. Why is it not science? Well, "because it's religiously motivated." This is a cop-out, clung to in desperation because they cannot mount an effective counter-case based on the merits.
Comment by Skeptico — May 22, 2006 @ 1:57 am
May 22nd, 2006 at 2:51 am
What Skeptico said.
Comment by BenK — May 22, 2006 @ 2:51 am
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:24 am
Hi keiths,
Well noboby seems to be able to talk about anything but ID except for the cultural political aspect which I came here hoping to minimize but the ID critics won't seem to allow it.
I would say you have a point. So how do you get irreducible complexity, genetic programs, and fine tuning without a designer?
Comment by samohth — May 22, 2006 @ 9:24 am
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:53 am
There's that 'supernatural'/'natural' thing again. An awful lot seems to boil down to these terms, so I for one would like to see more critical engagement with them.
At a glance, 'Supernatural' seems contextual; perhaps what it really boils down to is that if university officials have sanctioned the explanation of a thing it's 'natural', otherwise it's 'supernatural'. In any case it's hard to imagine a definition of either that doesn't beg the question at some level.
If we're talking about an 'intelligent designer' of physical constants and laws, what frame of reference would we ground our designation of the designer as 'natural' or 'supernatural'? We'd need to be able to observe 'outside' our own set of physical constants.
In any case, inferring design does not equal identifying the designer. If there is evidence that physical constants are designed, then we have reason to believe that physical constants are designed - we can't nescessarily, on the basis of that evidence, comment on the designer's status as 'natural' or 'supernatural'.
Comment by BenK — May 22, 2006 @ 9:53 am
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Are the ID critics arguing that bioengineering is unnatural? If not, then what does the supernatural have to do with ID? ID is being inferred because certain things in nature look like products of advanced bioengineering, not because they look like the result of magical, miraculous, incomprehensible processes.
Comment by Jack — May 22, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Hi Skeptico,
What school system are you talking about? Here in Kentucky, they downplay evolution so much in fear of the fundamentalists that the word was even banned from state standards, replaced with "change over time". As I understand it, evolution is given cursory study in many places for fear of backlash.
If modern evolutionary theory can be rigorously and scientifically refuted, then go ahead and do it; once scientists have recognized that evolutionary theory is invalid, then the motives of the politicians trying to push "critical analysis" of evolutionary theory will be irrelevant.
Its not a red herring, its constitutional law. When every science organization which isn't funded by religious fundamentalists say ID based criticisms of evolutionary theory are refuted, and everyone pushing to teach these same criticisms in public school science classrooms have transparent religious motives for doing so, you have a pretty clear 1st amendment violation, as was recognized in the Kitzmiller case.
Actually, the counter-case based on the merits has been made convincingly, which is why there is virtually no support for IDism in the scientific community. Its the fact that people continue to push to teach ID concepts in public school classrooms despite the fact they have been refuted, combined with the statements of the ID proponents themselves revealing their religious motivation, that leads plaintiff's counsel to point out that IDism is religiously motivated.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 22, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Hrafn is but a shadow of the true offenders of sound logic. Think: Nick Matzke's recent efforts on this blog to make the link: ID=religion. Of course, the NCSE has put most of its eggs into this basket, so it is critical to continue to market the stereotype.
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 22, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Hi samohth,
Imagine, if you will, that the ecosystem is a massively parallel computer (should be easy, since IDists often compare biology to computers), with trillions of organisms crunching as many different solutions to the problem of maximizing reproductive success at any given time for billions of years. That gives the ecosystem the opportunity to analyze a lot of different solutions. When you get past the rhetoric about evolution being "random", you can see its really quite goal oriented despite the lack of direct intervention in the process by God or any other ID.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 22, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Aagcobb wrote:
"Imagine, if you will, that the ecosystem is a massively parallel computer (should be easy, since IDists often compare biology to computers), with trillions of organisms crunching as many different solutions to the problem of maximizing reproductive success at any given time for billions of years."
Imagine is right. Sometimes it is good to plug in a little math — rather than just imagining things — then one's perception changes dramatically.
Further, Aagcobb has not proposed anything here that can rescue him from the randomness he despises. He imagines that he has succeeded, by focusing on the putative "goal" of "maximizing reproductive success." However, on closer inspection we realize that this term is nothing but a surrogate for the idea that the fittest survive, which means, of course, that those that have the greatest tendency to survive will have the greatest tendency to survive. There is no real goal; no direction; no mechanism. Just brute chance plus a tautology that provides the illusion of an explanation. Gotta love evolutionary logic.
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 22, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Hello Eric,
Strange that it hasn't changed the perceptions of scientists; why haven't they realized that evolution is mathmatically impossible, Eric?
IDists/creationist imagine they have somehow made an argument against evolutionary theory by saying "survival of the fittest is a tautology". Its as though I said, "Einsteinians say gravity is an attractive force, which means, of course, that matter attracts because matter is attractive; a tautology which demonstrates gravitational theory is an illusion of an explanation."
The fact that the fittest organisms tend to survive isn't an explanation, its an observation. Evolutionary theory explains that because the fittest organisms tend to survive, new variations which increase organisms' survival tend to persist and spread, resulting in changes in populations over time. Perhaps, Eric, you need to learn a little more than pet creationist slogans like "survival of the fittest is a tautology", which is an illusion of an IDist argument.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 22, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Eric,
I'm curious. If you believe natural selection is a tautology, what is your explanation for antibiotic and pesticide resistance?
Regards,
Keiths
Comment by keiths — May 22, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:33 pm
I surely see the persuasiveness of this argument. I would argue that time doesn't really address the IC issue except to assume that it doesn't exist and it doesn't explain fine tuning at all. And it still seems a problem to me how life got started in the first place in order to become "goal oriented". You mention a lack of direct intervention. Do you believe there is indirect intervention? Not trying to trip you up here. Just wondered.
Comment by samohth — May 22, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:45 pm
keiths:
Not asked of me, but I'd say the biggest problems in these areas came about by crude genetic engineering design and short-sighted deployment sans any form of meaningful testing or regulation. Transgenes are designed to encourage gene incorporation, defeat species boundaries, and come with antibiotic resistance built right in…
GM Microbes Widely Deployed
The other GM biopestides commercially released include a number of Pseudomonas flourescens strains that have been modified with Cry delta endotoxin genes from Bacillus thuringiensis then the transformed P. flourescens strains are killed before being marketed (13). The killed GM bacteria are more persistent used as foliar sprays than are the B. thuringiensis sprays. The main fallacy in the approval of these biopesticides is the fact that bacteria enjoy sex after death. Soil bacteria are easily transformed with cell lysates (squashed dead cells) and function in soil microcosms (14). P. flourescens and A. tumefacians both are transformed in soil(15). The soil Pseudomonas and Actinobacter also easlly take up genes from transgenic plants (16) so that combination of transgenic crops and GM biopesticides can create genetic combinations cabable of devastating the soil microflora and microfauna.
…and about antibiotic resistance being transferred to animal pathogens:
For example , a recent review showed that GM S. meliloti strains persisted in the soil for six years , even in the absence of legume hosts. Horizontal gene transfer to other soil bacteria and microevolution of plasmids was observed (4). Other studies showed that a soil micro arthropod ingested S. meliloti and rescience in the arthropod gut facilitated gene transfer to a range of bacteria (5). There is little doubt that the antibiotic markers of GM S. meliloti, streptomycin and spectomycin will be transfer to soil bacteria from which they can be transferred to a range of animal pathogens. For example, the resistance genes for streptomysin and spectomysin were found to be transferred from their insertion as transgenes in plant chloroplast into the infecting bacterium Actinobacter sp. (6) so the mobility of the transgnes are well established. It is clear that the antibiotics , spectinomycin and streptomycin , are used extensively in human and animal medicine. For example spectinomycin is used to treat human gonnnorhea (7) and bovine pneumonia (8) Streptomycin is used to treat human tubeculosis(9) and Meniere's disease (10) and it is used as a pesticide on fruits and vegetables (11). In conclusion, the commercial release of GM Sinorhizobium meliloti resulted in the soil establishment of the GM microbe in millions of acres of cropland and spread antibiotic resistance genes for antibiotics used extensively in medicine and agriculture.
Comment by Joy — May 22, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Hi samohth,
The IC issue doesn't exist; we actually expect evolution to develop IC systems through a variety of pathways. If by "fine tuning" you mean the earth is fine tuned for life, it would be more accurate to say life is fine tuned for the earth, which evolution would also produce; we haven't yet found extra terrestrial ecosystems to know if there are other conditions in which life can thrive.
God conceived the universe as a complete whole; it has to conform to his conception of it, and there is no need for him to intervene in it in a fashion detectable by us to make it conform. God doesn't just work through miracles.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 22, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Hi samohth,
That is a tough problem, for abiogenesis, not evolutionary theory, and scientists are researching a number of different hypotheses to explain how the first imperfect replicator appeared on the planet. That is more than professional IDists are doing, however. They are content to conclude abiogenesis research is pointless and say the ID did it, which is easy to do but not particularly useful to the development of research proposals.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 22, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Well, Aagcobb, Kentucky may be a fundamentalist stronghold, I wouldn't know. In the Volunteer State they just don't have much clout. I didn't know there were fundamentalist-funded science organizations. Thanks for that bit of intelligence. I do know there are taxpayer-funded organizations that, for example, are trying desparately to coach science teachers in how to deal with the ID challenge. ("Ridicule them," is at the top of one list of advice. Boy, there's the scientific method at work.)
I don't know any ID proponent who is a fundamentalist, BTW. Not that that will disuade you from waving the same old threadbare red flag though.
And yes it is a red herring, and yes you are hiding behind the constitution (which increasingly only seems to mean whatever the latest activist jurist wants it to mean), and no the counter-case has not been made convincingly. Who has answered Behe, for example? Surely not stand-up commedian Kenneth Miller in "The Flaw in The Mousetrap." I could play the devil's advocate with better logic than that and I'm not a scientist.
But thanks for taking the time to critique my comments.
Comment by Skeptico — May 22, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Hi Skeptico,
Ever hear of William Dembski? He teaches theology a Southern Seminary. You can't teach at a Southern Baptist Seminary if you're not a fundamentalist.
The fact that scientists have failed to convince an internet IDist who admittedly isn't a scientist that Behe's arguments don't hold water isn't very good evidence that Behe's onto something. If Behe could convince a significant portion of the scientific community that his arguments are valid, then you would have something that could arguably be taught in public school science classrooms.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 22, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:39 pm
"Natural selection" is not a logical "tautology" (it is a proposition), but "physical," [tautology] as long as it is nothing more than the statement that "things" (life forms or anything else) exist because the conditions for their existence exist.
What makes "natural selection" a meaningful statement (proposition)? Only the fact that life forms are not determined by their "physical" conditions. (!?) At least not solely or completely determined. What else is there?!
Comment by Rock — May 22, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I assume you mean "seemingly IC system" otherwise it is a contradiction in terms isn't it?. Are you claiming this is a prediction of evolutionary theory? I did not know this. From what I can tell, the "pathways" become more varied and complex everyday leading me to the general conclusion that nobody has a clue how evolution actually works.
When you find them, I'll be the first to throw in the towel.
If I were an ID leaning scientist I wouldn't spend my time in abiogenesis research, of course. However, that doesn't mean that an ID scientist couldn't find a cure for cancer. One of those guys at the hated Discovery Institute has pointed out that not many scientist use evolutionary theory in their research. Don't know if he's right or not.
Comment by samohth — May 22, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Keiths,
In theory, yes; in actuality, no.
Comment by Douglas — May 22, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 6:00 pm
My apologies, Aagcobb. When you said that your imaginary machine was crunching potential solutions to "the problem of maximizing reproductive success," and when you further stated that evolution is "really quite goal oriented" it seemed you were suggesting that maximizing reproductive success is the goal of evolution.
Oh, wait, that is what you said. Well in that case (leaving aside for a moment why anyone would believe that organisms strive for maximum reproductive success), we are left with the following:
Aagcobb wrote:
Let's see: "variations which increase survival tend to 'persist and spread.'" Of course "persist and spread" can only be taken to mean "survive" or some surrogate term, such as having "greater reproductive success." Thus, Aagcobb's evolutionary explanation boils down to this: (i) the fittest organisms tend to survive, and (ii) organisms that somehow increase their tendency to survive will tend to survive. It is fun to change the wording a bit and fancy up the language, but we can't quite seem to break free from the circularity of the whole proposition. (And, yes, yes, I am well aware that lots of folks, including evolutionary critics, are not enamored with word nuances around the question of tautology. Nevertheless, it is instructive to note how easily the tautology creeps back into evolutionary "explanations.")
Aagcobb wrote:
An "illusion of an IDist argument?" What does that comment even mean? My point has nothing to do with creationism or ID. My point is simply that this great engine of evolutionary development Aagcobb imagines exists only in Aagcobb's mind, without adequate evidence that it ever existed or that it could in principle even exist in the real world. We can fantasize all we want about some supposed "goal" of evolution driving organisms to maximize their reproductive success, and how this process (pause to insert miracle of chance and chemistry here) somehow leads to new organisms without guiding intervention.
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 22, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Hi Eric,
Not sure what point you think you just made. Do you think that organisms that increase their tendency to survive don't tend to survive? Can you explain why variations that improve an organism's fitness won't spread?
In your opinion. Which isn't worth a lot compared to scientists who actually study these issues and have come to the opposite conclusion.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 22, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Hi samohth,
He's not; scientists publish thousands of articles in peer reviewed journals based on evolutionary theory every year, vastly more annually than than entire output of ID based research in the history of mankind. You need to learn to take what you read at the DI's web site with a block of salt.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 22, 2006 @ 9:40 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Hi again, samohth,
No, "irreducible complexity" means that a system can't function for its current purpose without all its parts, not that it can't have an alternative purpose or it couldn't have evolved. Portions of the holy bacterial flagellum function quite well in different roles without all of the parts.
Scientists have a clue; they just still disagree about the relative importance of various agents of change. This is not surprising, since the history of life on earth involves a staggering number of actors over vasts periods of time, much of it hidden from us. this article may help explain to you why we expect to see IC systems.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 22, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:30 pm
I guess I have to concede this since I have personally never took count nor do I plan to. And I take what I read at DI's web site with the same quanity of salt that I take say, stuff I read here.
Comment by samohth — May 22, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Actually, most of those thousands of scientific articles have little to do with evolutionary theory. Although, with the rise of genomics, common descent is used more often these days as one guide to help make sense of all the data.
Comment by MikeGene — May 22, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Hi samohth,
Don't take anyone's word for anything; the best way to learn about a subject like evolution is to study it for yourself. And I don't mean just reading the ID and creationist literature; find out what the mainstream scientists who engage in biology research have to say.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 22, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
May 23rd, 2006 at 1:25 am
Aagcobb wrote:
"Do you think that organisms that increase their tendency to survive don't tend to survive? Can you explain why variations that improve an organism's fitness won't spread?"
Good grief, man! Who is suggesting that organisms that increase their tendency to survive won't tend to survive? It is self evident, and that is precisely the point. It is true not because it explains anything at all, but because it is definitionally true — it is circular. Despite your contempt for the very concept, you have fallen victim to the good ol' tautology. You are the one who said that evolution explains that organisms that tend to survive will tend to survive. I am simply pointing out that this is completely vaccuous and circular. Any explanatory power is illusory. In any event, since it is clear that the point is not being grasped on the receiving end, I will not spill further ink on this thread.
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 23, 2006 @ 1:25 am
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:39 am
Eric,
Before you go, please explain: If natural selection is a tautology, what mechanism explains the appearance of new, drug-resistant microbe varieties or pesticide-resistant insects?
Many ID supporters concede that natural selection is responsible for these phenomena. Since you hold natural selection to be a tautology, what is your explanation of them?
I'm genuinely curious. I've heard the tautology argument many times from ID supporters who in other contexts acknowledge the power of natural selection to drive microevolution. I have yet to hear how these two views can be reconciled.
Regards,
Keiths
Comment by keiths — May 23, 2006 @ 3:39 am
May 23rd, 2006 at 5:34 am
I don't really find the 'Natural Selection = Tautology' argument terribly engaging. However it strikes me that in the cases you've suggested someone might argue that nothing new has actually been created - there were always some antibiotic resistant bacteria and pesticide resistant insects. Now there's just proportionally fewer nonresistant bacteria/insects. Perhaps NS=T is pointing in that direction?
Comment by BenK — May 23, 2006 @ 5:34 am
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:09 am
Eric said:
Since Eric is done, this gives me the opportunity to once again explain why he is wrong in claiming that because survival of the fittest is self evident evolutionary theory has no explanatory power. As I said before, and Eric agrees, survival of the fittest isn't an explanation, but an observation. What evolutionary theory does is explain why survival of the fittest leads to evolutionary change. The reason is that variations generated by mutations and other alterations to genetic material which improve organisms' fitness tend to spread through populations.
What Eric is trying to do is claim that "survival of the fittest" is all there is to evolutionary theory; as I said before, its as though he claimed that gravitational theory is false because it is self evident that matter is attractive because matter attracts. Once put in that context, Eric's argument is self evidently silly; you don't look at just one portion of a theory to decide if it has explanatory power or not.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 23, 2006 @ 9:09 am
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:14 am
Hi BenK,
You are right; someone has made such an argument. However, scientists conducting research have found resistance developing in populations where none existed before, so that argument has been falsified.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 23, 2006 @ 9:14 am
May 23rd, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Hi aagcob,
I maintain that IC implies that some biotic things probably did not evolve in a small incremental step by step process and if they could evolve the improbability may challenge even cosmological time constraints. For now that is where I precariously hang my hat. You seem to be appealing to the Ken Miller refutation here and I think Behe and others have held their own against this and other critiques.
I think this only helps strengthen my assertion that scientist don't have clue. Okay, I'll grant a vague clue which is maybe all that Behe has. One thing I wonder about when I think of biological machines is how far we can take the analogy of human designed machines and those we find in nature. I will have to admit that I have read a lot of DI literature but I'm still listening. Just don't call me an IDiot or some such. I'm a little sensitive. Pardon me while I go revere my Icon of the Holy Bacterial Flagellum. Today we honor St. Philip, the Father of ID or is it St. Berlinski, the Incorrigible.
Comment by samohth — May 23, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
May 23rd, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Hi samohth,
I wouldn't do that; I get the impression that while your sympathies lie with the IDists, you haven't closed your mind and are willing to listen to other POVs. I also try not to be rude, anyway.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 23, 2006 @ 1:11 pm
May 23rd, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Hi again samohth,
According to this comment IC was predicted decades ago based on evolutionary theory. Also keep in mind that those with the background to be able to assess IDists claims concerning the improbability of evolution have found serious flaws in their calculations; IDists have not been able to convince the scientific community of the soundness of their math.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 23, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
May 23rd, 2006 at 7:05 pm
Aagcob,
You have a habit of responding to a few keywords in a post rather than the actual point of the post itself. It's clear that you're so wrapped up in preaching Darwinism that you're not engaging with the discussion that is actually taking place.
The issue here is whether or not natural selection is a tautology. I suggested that perhaps the argument points to the inability of natural selection to produce new biological information.
That bacteria develop resistances not originally present in their population is irrelevant; clearly if such novelty obtains then more is going on than natural selection.
Of course, the actual mechanism proposed by Darwin involves more than just natural selection, for him it was NS + simple variation, for Neo-Darwinism it's mostly NS+mutation. This is why I don't find the NS=Tautology objection terribly convincing; even if NS itself if a tautology RM+NS isn't.
Comment by BenK — May 23, 2006 @ 7:05 pm