The Rabbit's Eye View of the Duck
by MikeGeneTo appreciate why I am a lonely bunny, let's consider the core assertion of David Zeigler's argument:
In our science, there is no mention of, or mechanism for achieving, any long-term metaphysical or teological goals of form, complexity, or intelligence"”as Gould has argued so eloquently. Most of the other known mechanisms of evolutionary change such as genetic drift, neutral mutation, gene duplications, transposons, horizontal gene transfer by plasmids, and others have no direction or goal at all and are in fact random (which natural selection is not) and therefore could not possibly give a particular direction to evolution.
Okay, this is the mainstream, non-teleological perspective that is so well explained to a new generation of scientists in the writings of Gould and Dawkins. So how have the teleologists responded? Largely by questioning the accuracy of the claim.
One popular approach is to deny a central role for randomness (or even question its existence) and advocate for non-random mechanisms for evolution. From this angle, teleologists appeal to variations on Lamarkianism, vitalism, etc.
The other popular approach is to deny evolutionary change, arguing these mechanisms cannot account for all the changes that have occurred over time, especially the major changes. This approach acknowledges the mechanisms, apart from natural selection, are indeed random, thus focuses on the power of natural selection, since it alone is said to create the appearance of design. This approach is commonly perceived as a variation on Creationism.
What makes me the lonely bunny is that I find neither the non-teleological perspective nor the two basic teleological responses satisfying. Instead of arguing the non-teleological account as inaccurate, I see it as superficial. Yes, I see the random mechanisms of genetic drift, neutral mutation, gene duplications, transposons, horizontal gene transfer by plasmids. Yes, I see the non-random power of natural selection. Yes, I think these all played major roles in major evolutionary changes. But where I part company with the Goulds and Dawkins is that I think our understanding of evolution is still at a primitive level. I suspect there is a deeper logic and rationality to evolution than random changes captured and propagated by selection. Just as biochemists had to learn the cell is far more sophisticated than they ever imagined, so too might evolutionary biologists one day appreciate that evolution is far more sophisticated than Gould or Dawkins ever imagined. So let us nibble on Zeigler's description…..
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:00 am
Hello Mike,
I've skimmed through the archives here in order to get some bearing on your point of view, but frankly I haven't been able to get a clear picture.
In general you appear to agree with the scientific consensus regarding evolution, but then you make a possibility argument for teleology afterward. But sure, anything is possible. The question is, What are the positive evidences for it? It's possible that rabbits enjoy using their powers of levitation to divert themselves when nobody's looking and when no recording devices are present. We can't rule that out. But what is the positive evidence for it?
Negative evidence directed against one position does not count as positive evidence for the opposing position. When we find a rabbit out of its cage with no apparent explanation of how it got there, that does not count in favor of the rabbit-levitation hypothesis.
Dawkins and Gould (if he were alive) would most certainly agree that there is a "deeper logic and rationality" than what is understood at present. Namely, we expect to continue to gain understanding of the details of selection, and in particular predictive techniques. All scientists are aware that no matter how much we know, we still know very little.
In a way you are taking a stand against ID in this blog entry, as I see it. You are saying, "That is not the end of it, there is much more to learn!" And all scientists will agree. On the other hand, IDists tell us that certain things cannot be explained without an intelligent designer, which effectively means that is the end of it.
Comment by JackT — April 3, 2008 @ 2:00 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 am
Well, the 'no mechanism for achieving complexity' assertion seems to have taken a hit recently.
Though Zeigler's assertion falls flat for me right from the start. No mechanism for achieving teleological goals? Not possible to give direction to evolution? Nonsense. Especially when you consider that the ends that teleology is invoked to explain the existence of are things which do, in fact, exist - humans, minds, etc. The only way you can utterly rule out the possibility for there to be a teleological force at work is by arguing there's no way for a mind - any mind - to truly understand all of the forces at work in natural history. That's not just a declaration of faith, but it's one that would be odd to hear coming out of a scientist. Asserting it all because (among others listed) 'horizontal gene transfer has no goal' is doubly odd - he may as well be saying that there's no way for sculptures to come about through naturalistic processes, because it's not like hammers feel like making art.
In other words, the 'mechanism for achieving long-term metaphysical or teleological goals' is simply mind/intelligence (which we have to strive to understand anyway). Everything else is a tool that could be rallied in orchestration of that goal. Whether we can discern purpose (or lack thereof) in evolution is a question I think is going to be forever cast to the realm of philosophy - but the more we learn about principles of evolution, development, and even randomness, the more we're going to understand how to arrange and orchestrate those things. We're already using evolution to design things, situations, etc. It's only going to get better. And simply realizing that is enough to stir thoughts of what could be achieved by a being (or beings) of supreme intelligence, or in a somehow 'rigged' system.
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2008 @ 5:19 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:28 am
Jack T to Mike Gene:
Why would that be the end of it? It could simply be the start. We find digital information in our genes coded within DNA by means of a four "letters." There is certainly information stored within our brains and whether it is processed digitally or in analog form is not settled. The generation of life amidst analog signals on prebiotic earth could be viewed as the challenge of understanding a transition to digital processing. But then why would anyone intent on gaining that understanding rule out intelligence as a possible factor a priori?
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2008 @ 6:28 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:00 am
No offense, Mike, but the above quote would earn you 10 points on John Baez's Crackpot Index:
Comment by olegt — April 3, 2008 @ 8:00 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:17 am
"In our science, there is no mention of, or mechanism for achieving, any long-term metaphysical or teological goals of form, complexity, or intelligence"¦"
Other than evolution itself.
Try to design anything w/o variation and performance based criteria for selecting amongst those variants and perpetuating them.
Immediately preceding the quotation provided by Mike Gene is this lit bit on nonsense:
"[Adaptation] is the only evolutionary goal or purpose for which science for which science has found objective evidence."
"It is a peculiarity of Darwin's theory, that it relies only on causes demonstrable independently of their evolutionary effects [My emphasis for Ziegler's sake.]."
http://digital.library.adelaid...
Fisher also had this to say about "teachers" like Ziegler:
"The History of Science has suffered greatly from the use by teachers of second-hand material, and the consequent obliteration of the circumstances and the intellectual atmosphere in which the great discoveries of the past were made. A first-hand study is always instructive, and often … full of surprises."
R.A. Fisher, 1955
(p. 6, Experiments in plant hybridisation / G. Mendel. Edinburgh : Oliver & Boyd, 1965)
http://digital.library.adelaid...
Comment by Rock — April 3, 2008 @ 9:17 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
Maybe you should have done more than just skimming.
The rest of your post highlights the fact that your skimming yields you an insufficient understanding on the matter.
I'd say blame your skimming, not Mike, for your confusion.
Comment by Doug — April 3, 2008 @ 10:26 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 am
I'm not convinced Gould or Dawkins would disagree with that statement. I certainly agree. I just don't see how that lack of understanding points to a teleological conclusion.
Because it has not been demonstrated that saying "God did it" or "an Uber Mind did it" has any predictive power. Even if it is "Absolute Truth" it cannot help us advance our understanding if it has no predictive power. Since a mind seems capable of doing any arbitrary thing and follows no known law the output of a mind is fundamentally non-predictable.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 3, 2008 @ 10:31 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
Since I mentioned nothing about God why did you inject God into a dialog over the origin of biological digital processing systems? Because it it so obvious how such systems are explained by reduction right?:wink:
Baloney. A mind can be the distinguishing factor allowing us to differentiate between an effect generated by underlying laws of nature and an effect that would occur only through intelligent guidance.
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2008 @ 11:03 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
Replace God with teleology and it still holds. As for reductionism, there are working reductionist explanations that have held up very well over the years and have demonstrated predictive power.
But ONLY by process of elimination, no other method of detecting "intelligence" has been demonstrated. We detect intelligent agency by eliminating all natural explanations. Thus we must first have complete knowledge of natural law (which is impossible) before we can absolutely detect the actions of a mind. In other words saying "a mind did it" is no different than simply saying "I know of no natural process that could do it." Which is basically like saying "my lack of knowledge proves a mind did it." You can't gain knowledge by simply saying "my lack of knowledge provides knowledge."
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 3, 2008 @ 11:16 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
No it does not. The issue I cited is open ended. You may wish to eliminate teleological explanations for unknowns to satisfy your metaphysical preferences but I prefer an open ended search for causes.
Of course there are. They simply do not include the origin of either life or the universe.
Bradford: A mind can be the distinguishing factor allowing us to differentiate between an effect generated by underlying laws of nature and an effect that would occur only through intelligent guidance.
Nonsense. We only need observe an effect for which we already have knowledge to differentiate between an intelligently generated outcome and a strictly natural one. That will be one of the guiding principles behind space exploration and encounters with objects whose source is in doubt.
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2008 @ 11:27 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
If I understand correctly what you just said boils down to "we only need to draw an analogy between unknown X and existing knowledge Y to gain understanding of X." How can you expect to gain new knowledge when your only tool is to say "X is the same as Y by analogy?" That's very limited and is only valid if we already know the complete set of natural laws against which to draw analogies (i.e. all possible values for Y). Otherwise its impossible to rule out some better analogy Z that would have better matched X. If you only have a limited and incomplete knowledge base from which to draw analogies you cannot hope to explain all unknowns in this manor. You would never discover a new possibility like Z by that method. The use of analogy is fundamentally based on a process of elimination against all known possibilities to select the closest match. Analogy alone cannot extend our understanding.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 3, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Todd B:
This type of analysis screams of ideological motives. If SETI receives an electromagnetic burst, an apparent signal, decoded to give a readout of mathematical formulas describing natural phenomenon, we are to pretend there might be some natural explanation based on something not yet understood. So let's not think this could originate from an intelligent source and contravene some unwritten rules. Is Orwell still alive?
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
In the SETI case they are looking for life in the universe that is analogous to our own life here on Earth. They are searching for a known thing in an unexpected location. They are not trying to find all possible forms of life but rather one assumed form of life in a new location. They are searching for certain signals based on knowledge of the sorts of signals that natural phenomenon can create verse the sorts of signals that we humans create. Its possible that intelligently generated space alien signals are bombarding the Earth all the time but they go unnoticed simply because that assumed analogy is incorrect. Even if SETI did find a signal that seemed "artificial" you can rest assured that there would first be an effort to explain that signal as a natural phenomenon. Only after such a process of elimination would the conclusion of alien intelligence be reached.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 3, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
They are searching for intelligent life. They have no way of determining whether such intelligent life forms are analogous to humans. The signal implies intelligence. It could be a source vastly superior in intelligence to humans. We could not tell from the signal. Why do anti-IDists dance around these types of things?
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
There's nothing to dance around. They are looking for a kind of signal which is analogous to signals generated by humans and antithetical to known naturally generated signals. That is not a generic search for "intelligence" but rather a specific search for a life form analogous enough to humans that they would communicate using similar signals. The fact that their search is dependant upon analogy to human signals and analogy to signals known to be naturally occurring seems obvious. They don't have any magical mathematical "finger print" for intelligence, they simply have a bunch of complicated heuristics based on analogy.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 3, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Another example of "Darwinian dyslexia": The inability to think of teleology without a mental lisp. Teleology => Theology
Comment by Rock — April 3, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Todd B wrote:
Todd also wrote:
Therefore, SETI could never eliminate natural explanations for the signal. Therefore SETI is pointless.
Comment by Bilbo — April 3, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Jack T wrote:
Jack, the best way to get some bearing of Mike's point of view is to read his book, The Design Matrix. I realize it is unfair to ask you to shell out $20 or so on blind faith, but I think you will be well rewarded.
Comment by Bilbo — April 3, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I did not say ID should be ruled out a priori. I said that lack of positive evidence rules it out. But not permanently. Pending positive evidence.
This is part of why I find Mike's position confusing, and maybe your position too. It has been suggested that I buy his book, but heretofore I'm unconvinced that the arguments would be useful or meaningful.
As far as I can tell there is an acceptance of mainstream evolution. Mike has said that he doesn't believe ID is science (I don't know your position). So I wonder what the hubbub's about. We are asked to consider the possibility of a designer. Well, it's possible. But there hasn't been positive evidence brought forth, so it remains a philosophical question.
In other words, I don't see a conflict here. What should scientists be doing differently?
Comment by JackT — April 3, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
I've yet to see a strong enough argument to convince me that Theology is not an adequate replacement for Teleology as used by 99% of ID supports. The closest I've seen to it truly having its own meaning is Mike's usage, but I doubt even he really thinks space aliens are the designer. Hehe, I like that, "teleology = theology + space aliens."
Personally I agree SETI is pointless, but that is just an opinion. Any sufficiently advanced civilization to generate the sorts of patterns SETI looks for would have already developed encrypted digital communications. There is no reason to believe that such a signal would look like anything other than noise after the attenuation of crossing interstellar space. SETI is still looking for 1970's level technology from space aliens.
I'm right there with you Jack. ID as philosophy is certainly a possibility but one without sufficient warrant to believe in it. But Mike's approach is very much to play the "what if" game, or "chase the rabbit" as he might say. He's got a good point that there will never be enough data collected to really say for sure whether its a feasible unless some people are willing to examine the possibility just to see where it leads. That's certainly not how science works, but its a valid intellectual pursuit. Even though I disagree with Mike's standards for what counts as evidence, and thus I disagree with most of his conclusions, I respect Mike's methodology.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 3, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Hi Todd,
Just to be a troublemaker I would be interested in your reaction to the following…
"I believe the purpose of the Telic Universe is to exist and be consistent with itself."
Add to that the observable evidence of interconnected quantum effects as the mechanism by which the purpose is realised.
teleology = theology + space aliens + quantum quackery?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 3, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Jack T,
And there's a lack of positive evidence for the opposite claim of ID - that there is no design behind nature. All the evidence in either direction is circumstantial at best, and the stuff of philosophy. Personally, I'm fine with that. One problem has been that the explanation has typically been one sided - one lack is trumpeted, the other whispered. Depending on who you talk to.
That really depends on the scientist, doesn't it? What should Dawkins be doing differently? Paul Davies? The NAS? The DI?
They're humans. Individually, or even in groups, they make mistakes - and not just scientific ones. Which means there's naturally going to be plenty to criticize.
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
You're asking for positive evidence of a universal negative. With induction, demonstrating a universal negative requires searching the entire applicable universe. With the hypothetico-deductive method, we have a robust non-telic Theory of Evolution, and no evidence to support the contrary claim.
Comment by Zachriel — April 3, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I'm not asking for anything - I'm stating the facts of the matter. There's a lack of positive evidence for a designer, there's a lack of positive evidence for the lack of a designer. The latter doesn't become more credible merely because it's practically impossible to investigate, anymore than the former could become more credible merely because (in the case of God(s), or any being(s) with powers vastly outstripping our own) it too is practically impossible to investigate.
Casting the ToE as non-telic (or even as telic, since within the scope of it there are beings achieving goals which contribute to the process) is as useful as referring to hammers as 'atelic'. In a sense, it's true - a hammer is inanimate. It simply sits there. In a sense appropriate to the question 'Is there a being using the hammer to create something, or is it just there by happenstance', it's a pedantic description at best, deceptive at worst.
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
There's a lack of positive evidence for the lack of teacups orbiting other stars. That's not a credible argument for orbiting teacups.
You can apply induction"”which requires an exhaustive search. Or you can apply the scientific method"”which requires carefully devised hypotheses and entailed predictions.
Comment by Zachriel — April 3, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Todd B wrote:
For the sake of argument, suppose SETI researchers found radio signals similar to those produced by 1970s technology. If I understand your previous argument, until they can rule out all possible natural explanations (and it is impossible to do that), they cannot reasonably conclude that the signals were produced by intelligent causes. Correct?
Comment by Bilbo — April 3, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Hi Jack T,
Welcome to Telic Thoughts. Unfortunately, I am coming down with a nasty head cold or flu, so I'm not up to writing a detailed response to your questions. But to understand where I am coming from, a good place to start would be this posting.
Comment by MikeGene — April 3, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Jack T wrote:
In his book, The Design Matrix, Mike Gene presents a lot of what he considers to be positive evidence that would at least make us suspect ID. And he presents a way to evaluate the evidence. But what would you consider to be "positive evidence"
Comment by Bilbo — April 3, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Hi Nullasualus,
The problem with your chain of logic is that you need to identify and address those who, in your words, are making the "opposite claim of ID - that there is no design behind nature".
Theistic Evolutionists aren't making that claim.
Even Dawkins indicates God might exist (just like fairies in the bottom of gardens might exist).
The burden of proof is on the ID proponents.
For example, I think I can make an argument for evidence of a Telic Universe and interconnected Quantum Mechanics.
That is a specific claim.
Now, if someone comes along and claims that Quantum Mechanics is evidence of an atelic universe, then we can have a grand old time along the lines you described.
However, until someone actually does try to use Quantum Mechanics (or a hammer) as evidence for non-telic, it is just another strawman bashing (or shield bashing) exercise.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 3, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I write, "I suspect there is a deeper logic and rationality to evolution." Some say Gould and Dawkins would agree. Others say it score me 10 points worth of crackpot. Go figure.
As for the crackpot stuff, I'm afraid John Baez's is missing another indicator, one I have learned from much cyber-experience. That is, if you don't agree that ID is Dangerous Nonsense, you get 1000 pts on the crackpot index. So what's another 10?
Comment by MikeGene — April 3, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Anyone who's ever been to a casino knows that randomness is "sculpted" to certain ends: of making the casinos lots of money. Like certain "dead end" features of evolutionary history, casino patrons can sometimes hit a streak of good forture, apparently defeating the "telic purpose" of the game, but over time the house always wins due to the structure of the game.
Is biological evolution structured along lines analogous to this? That is the question, isn't it. The good thing about people asking serious questions like this, is that very often positive gains are made as a result. While I cannot endorse all the motives of the "ID movement", I think MikeGene and people like him are on the right track.
The whole topic feels like one of those fertile things getting ready to burst forth with some astounding breakthrough, like QM was to Newton. But that could just the intuition of a demi-ape in his dotage.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 3, 2008 @ 10:43 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Well, at least he could have spelled Einstein's name correctly. (I guess I get 20 points for acknowledging this, as per item 20, although I didn't actually email him about it. I wonder if I should email him for a clarification.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 3, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Zach,
Who said it was an argument? I said there's a lack of positive evidence for both a designer and the lack of a designer. Science can't settle the question. I'm not sure why you're arguing against this - what, you think detecting the work of God is something that can be done in a laboratory? If so, we part company.
Again - you can apply the 'scientific method' to Design Detection on this scale? If so, by all means - bring me the carefully devised hypotheses ('God created and sustains the universe'?) and entailed predictions ('Bad things wouldn't happen to good people'?) And show me how it isn't philosophy.
I'm not arguing that, in a philosophical argument, scientific discoveries can't be rallied to provide examples on both sides of the debate. I'm saying that arguments, even strong philosophical ones, ultimately are not science. And you don't suddenly get scientific evidence by awkwardly referring to the ToE as 'non-telic' and pointing out that proving what you'd like to prove is a negative, and therefore really tough.
TP,
TEs and IDs have more in common than they'd like to admit - and frankly, I probably end up more on the TE side of things, though I encourage theoretical investigations of design in nature. Are they science? Maybe not. Maybe so. Even if they're declared not to be, I'm not too concerned - I see too much value in the work.
As for identifying - let's start with Victor Stenger, author of "God: The Failed Hypothesis". And let's continue with plenty of remarks, some casual (Steven Weinberg talking about how the more we investigate the universe, the more it seems pointless), some more formal (Stenger himself, PZ Myers talking about science showing that the chance of God existing is extraordinarily low, etc).
I'm not an ID proponent in the sense you're using. I've very sympathetic to the view, I'm very interested in their ideas, I have great hope for what the movement can turn into and eventually accomplish. But I think questions of God cannot be settled in a laboratory. I go one further - if God somehow assumed bodily form and appeared in front of me right now, and I had an army of scientists at my command, I could scientifically demonstrate nothing about God. A considerable philosophical gap will always remain, faith will always be required.
Really though, I've been over this. Not every person who's skeptical of what ID can accomplish has to be like Ken Miller.
I'm sure you can. And, as much as I frankly dislike the drama I see, I remain interested in QM, Penrose, and the rest.
You claim I'm strawman/shield bashing - I wouldn't care if I was. It's fun, now and then. But this time, what strawman? What shield? I'm saying science can inform the philosophical debate, but that the debate is not settled by science - that, no matter how someone delicately phrases it, science gives us no positive scientific evidence for or against. Since day one on TT, I've said outright that I'm skeptical whether design can be detected by any measure rightly called 'scientific', even if it's actually true.
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
What if one, because of one's philosophical views, sees everything as teleological? What would your statement mean then?
Your statement contains a hidden philosophical assertion: nature is a-telic. How did you arrive at that view?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 3, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Mike,
I don't think ID is dangerous nonsense. It's mostly harmless. Their own pet journal (PCID) couldn't sustain itself. YECs are doing much better in comparison.
Comment by olegt — April 3, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
Good, now we have something tanglable to argue for or against. From here…
There is much more at the link, but this gives the idea. Note, this is not an argument "that there is no design behind nature". It is an argument that God does not exist. Nature could still be designed by interconnected quantum effects.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 3, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Is that how you detect your own thought processes?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 3, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Are you willing to apply this sort of analogy to the internal machinery of biological cells viz modern human engineering productions?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 3, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
TP,
Honestly, TP - who cares? I'm not interested in arguing with Victor Stenger, either philosophically (I consider this list of 'proofs' hilarious) or scientifically (Where he makes assertions about what can spring out of 'nothingness', where 'nothingness' is defined to have certain traits, etc.) That you somehow believe there can be true design without a designer is of no interest to me at the moment.
I pointed out that science itself cannot settle the question of God or ultimate design behind nature, and that there's a habit of chastizing some ID proponents for asserting otherwise while ignoring that others make the same violation in the opposite direction. You called me on it, implied I was erecting a strawman and asked for evidence, I provided the evidence asked for. Let's not pretend you were really asking if we could have a grand ol' discussion about God - I have no shield, you were wrong to suggest I did. Deal with it.
Or you can go on about Orch-OR one more time, despite several guest posts including 'Look at this email I sent'. I wish you'd give that a rest until there was an actual new development. Even Hameroff's own site hasn't been updated since 07.
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Come on, Zach. Now you're getting just plain goofy. As if the idea of a designer and orbiting teacups are on the same level of consideration. What, no mention of the tooth fairies and the FSM?
We have good reason to believe designers exist and that they can design things. Just for giggles, just think of humans as the product microevolution and the designer as a product of some macroevolution from some huge warm pond in the sky. See how easy that is? Just use your imagination.
Do you accept the plausibility of a multiverse? Or would you mock the idea as being on par with orbiting teacups merely because there's no evidence for it yet? I think you're bias bag sprung a leak on that one.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 3, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Hi Nullasalus,
You asked…
It appears that you care, since you identify a "problem" of one sided treatment.
If you think the Orch-OR hypothesis is a weak argument for ID, do you have a better one?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 4, 2008 @ 12:09 am
April 4th, 2008 at 12:30 am
TP,
I'm just plain not interested in discussing Orch-OR again. I'd be thrilled if Penrose/Hameroff were correct, for a number of reasons. Hell, I'd be thrilled at a mere new development. I regularly check Stapp's site to see what he's added, what he's developed, etc. If you were merely reporting on new work from Penrose/Hameroff, new discoveries that relate to the theory, I'd be interested. But I'll pass on a rehash.
As for Stenger, it was enough for me to point out his book title, his book aims, and his view. If, say, Dembski is 'harming science' by suggesting a designer not only exists but can be detected in nature through science, Stenger is outright molesting science by presenting his views as 'science disproves God'. Doubly so considering the views he highlights most are largely philosophical - and passing off philosophical conclusions as science is hard to outdo.
Comment by nullasalus — April 4, 2008 @ 12:30 am
April 4th, 2008 at 1:18 am
But no such claim is being made by science. That's not even a well-defined statement: what is meant by "design?" Scientists speak of evolutionary design; chapter 2 of The Blind Watchmaker is titled "Good Design." We recognize that it means something different when Dawkins uses the word, which only illustrates that the original statement isn't well-defined.
To my knowledge, formal scientific journals do not spend time discussing vague notions of "purposefulness" or "design behind nature" or whatever. You will find individual opinions among scientists, however, which is a different matter.
But surely you must have some sort of gripe with "the establishment" in general? Or, can you define exactly what the conflict is?
Comment by JackT — April 4, 2008 @ 1:18 am
April 4th, 2008 at 1:56 am
JackT,
Of course not - 'science' doesn't do anything. Individuals do. They make claims, and (at least attempt to) speak for science. I threw out the example of Victor Stenger as a great singular example of what I'm talking about with the unequal responses.
I'm very hesitant to refer to establishments like that - I don't like to pretend things are so simple and clear-cut. Again, Stenger and those like him (And the general silence or contradictory support many react with) are one point of criticism for me. The strange attitude many have towards the Templeton organization is another, which often crosses the line from 'I disagree with their philosophy/their views' to 'They're a threat to science'. With the latter meaning the former, but adding some zest and urgency - as if there's something more noble at stake than opposing politics.
In the end, my attitude is 'either fairly defend and define the boundaries of science, or get used to many other people choosing where to draw those lines'.
Comment by nullasalus — April 4, 2008 @ 1:56 am
April 4th, 2008 at 7:37 am
TP,
I should point out that I have replied to you on Penrose here.
Comment by olegt — April 4, 2008 @ 7:37 am
April 4th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Hi olegt,
Be careful, as you too have now earned 1000 crackpot points.
Comment by MikeGene — April 4, 2008 @ 7:52 am
April 4th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Of course, it is. You made an argument to credibility saying, "I'm stating the facts of the matter. There's a lack of positive evidence for a designer, there's a lack of positive evidence for the lack of a designer. The latter doesn't become more credible merely because it's practically impossible to investigate."
We can presume that you using that words "evidence" and "credible" as if they are supposed to mean something. But you don't appear to want the responsibility of their implications. I also notice you used the word "designer", a vague word such that we are left to guess as to its intended meaning. However, if you are making a theological statement, then I withdraw my objections.
Indeed, it's (a variation of) a famous historical illustration of the problem of the unevidenced universal negative, an important problem in induction.
(Nullasalus, you might see from kornbelt888's use of the word "designer" why I took issue with your statement. But instead of invoking "evidence", kornbelt888 argues to "good reason".)
I have no problem with imagination or speculation. However, you just said there was "good reason", but your support is giggly.
Multiverses are speculative at this time, though based on and consistent with important symmetries in physics. The intent is to make some distinguishing empirical prediction.
Comment by Zachriel — April 4, 2008 @ 8:13 am
April 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Mike,
For viewing ID as harmless crackpottery? You've got to be kidding.
Comment by olegt — April 4, 2008 @ 11:31 am
April 4th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Human designers are evidence that designers exist. Scaling that to a level of an entity or entities capable of designing life on earth is hardly worth mockery by analogies to orbiting teacups. The former is worth investigating. The latter isn't.
My point is that I doubt you mock the idea of a multiverse with analogies to orbiting teacups but have no problem mocking the idea of a designer of earth life with such. That's just unscientific bigotry.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 4, 2008 @ 11:49 am
April 4th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Except you immediately followed that with "just think of humans as the product microevolution and the designer as a product of some macroevolution from some huge warm pond in the sky".
I have no problem with speculation or spiritual beliefs. I do have a problem with claims of scientific support which do not exist. I also have a problem with equivocation and other confusions.
Comment by Zachriel — April 4, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Zachriel:
Then you should have a problem with the PZ Myers, the Dawkins, the Stengers and others of the world of science.
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Why should I have a problem with Dawkins?
Comment by Zachriel — April 4, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
"I've yet to see a strong enough argument to convince me that Theology is not an adequate replacement for Teleology as used by 99% of ID supports.""”TB
You blame your ignorance of teleology on the IDers theology?! (You IDers ought to be ashamed of yourselves!) Anyone heard that one before? "I don't know what I'm talking about and for that I blame you." LOL
For anyone just looking in, here @TT the IDers and their critics have this whole "twinspeak" (cosa nostra) thing going on. If I say "teleology," the IDers and their critics hear "theology." If I say "design," they hear "supernatural creation." If I say science they hear "atheism." If I say "evidence," they hear "miracle." It makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion to say the least.
I blame the TTers! I refreshed my memory
http://telicthoughts.com/about...
I don't know if the FCC is aware, but it is a bit of false advertising, isn't it? I don't see the "rectification." Nor even much of an attempt. As a "conscientious objector" to the Culture War (in twinspeak "conscientious objector" means "collateral damage," or "civilian casualty"), what I see is just about every topic, if not right from the start, inevitably degenerating into a crushingly boring rehearsal of the "politics at God's funeral."
Haggling over God's eulogy (or his premature interment!) bores me to tears. I'm never bored with teleology however, it's a subject as vast and endlessly fascinating as all of biology (as Jacques Monod wrote many years ago).
Mike Gene has lots of interesting essays @Teleologic (although he sometimes impresses me as a rather timid teleologist"”quite unlike Jacques Monod, e.g.), but I despair that the things that do interest me could ever really be discussed"”here in his own venue! (Is that why you feel like such a lonely bunny?)
Too bad for you, Rock! ("He never could quite "˜get it.'" My eulogy. LOL)
Just another "civilian casualty""¦
Comment by Rock — April 4, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Zachriel:
If you have a problem with claims of scientific support for spiritual issues then not x is as relevant as x if x is a spiritual matter.
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
This sounds like a naturalistic definition of purpose which makes it seem odd to me to use the word Telic. Biologist and other scientists, as its been pointed out in the DM, often use terms like "the purpose of X is Y" when they don't imply any sort of telic meaning. I find Hammeroff's notions of quantum consciousness interesting, in effect he posits consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe, but I think its too early to make any strong claims based on his theories. Still lack of knowledge tells us nothing so I'll leave the door open for "quantum quackery."
When you start talking about "reasonably conclude" then absolutes like "all possible natural explanations" are excessive. As you point out you cannot absolutely prove anything. But to "reasonably conclude" you must make a reasonable effort to eliminate all natural explanations. You cannot simply say, "oooh, we've never seen that sort of signal before, it must be space aliens!"
By default I think the human mind does instinctively see everything as teleological. However, my statement would mean exactly the same thing; it is not based on assumptions of telic or atelic defaults. It is based on the assumption that reductionism is valid. If you accept reductionism then "telic" is an additional complexity that must be justified and "atelic" is simply the absence of that complexity. I realize that the validity of reductionism can be genuinely debated, but I accept it due to its proven track record of success.
I'm arguing for the limited utility of "knowledge by analogy" and I most certainly apply that same reasoning the cell. I am saying that SETI's heavy dependency on an analogy that is likely wrong makes their work virtually pointless. I think the cell-machine analogy is weak to begin with, but even accepting the analogy as valid I don't think it provides us any tools to increase our knowledge of biology. And since the analogy is likely to be weak or incidental a heavy dependency on that analogy could easily lead someone astray.
Even after reading your rant I still haven't seen a strong enough argument to convince me. "teleology = theology + space aliens"
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 4, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
That's an interesting response in view of the fact that, unlike me, Rock is not a theist. But that's what stereotyping does- allows for automated responses that don't fit. Your response to every comment should be teleology = theology + space aliens, because anything else is superfluous. Your mind is closed. Current OOL theories strike me as foolish but unlike critics I'm willing to engage is discussions that address what critics are saying. OOL = Nonsense would be bad form. Point on responses are both more helpful and more respectful.
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Well, with the exception of Thought Provoker's "quantum quackery" what else do you think needs to go onto the right side of that equation? I have seen "time traveling humans" mentioned before, so perhaps I should more adequately catalog the possibilities:
teleology = theology + space aliens + time travelers + spaghetti monsters + pink unicorns + quantum quackery
Please, let me know what I've missed.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 4, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
What you missed are essential properties of biologically functional nucleic acids. Function is not explained by chemistry but by sequence and encoding conventions. Since you are big on ruling out options what natural processes are dependent on digital processing systems?
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I have no significant issue with marshalling scientific evidence to support a metaphysical viewpoint. I don't find such arguments particularly effective or interesting, though. I only have a significant issue with actual misrepresentations of science or argument.
Dawkins does discuss various types of god-concepts, saying that a universe where God directly intervenes should be observably different from one where He doesn't. Dawkins doesn't misrepresent science. He merely marshalls it to support his metaphysical view. If I have a problem with Dawkins, it's that I've already heard it all before, millennia ago.
Comment by Zachriel — April 4, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I do not know of many who believe God is continually intervening. Active at points of origin- yes, that's a common argument. Responsible for the forces underlying natural laws- also commonly argued. The continual intervention thing strikes me as a strawman.
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Zach,
There's no positive evidence either for a designer, or for a lack of a designer. You don't dispute that. I don't dispute that. You responded with your teacup example, and how 'the lack of positive proof for the lack is not a credible argument that', etc. But where did I say the lack was an argument in favor? Nowhere. I haven't been bothering with arguing the case for a creator. Sure, there are such arguments, I'd like to think I'm well-versed in them, but I'm not pursuing them right now. It's not the discussion's focus.
Accept the responsibility for what? I'm using them in an entirely reasonable manner here - I'm not stating what you seem to think I am. Are you saying there is positive scientific evidence for the lack of a designer? No - you've explained why that's simply not going to happen, and I agreed. There's no positive evidence in either direction - science cannot decide this one, and philosophy is all we're left with. If you want to disagree with that, go ahead, though I can't see why you'd want to.
As for designer - of course it's vague. I've stated my beliefs of the problem of proving God, even if God definitely exists.
It's a silly illustration, because the teacup and what it's supposed to be representing aren't anywhere on the same plane in a philosophical argument. You could rally the teacup example against, say, 'the belief that there is intelligent life on other planets'. The weakness there is obvious.
Then again, so is the many-minds interpretation of QM.
Dawkins also admits he is utterly ignorant of theology and theist philosophy, and that he's more or less proud of being in that state. Which could be why his arguments have been shelved in any discussion area that doesn't regularly host pictures of lolcats.
Comment by nullasalus — April 4, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
And I resent the fact that the IDers and their critics call each other "crackpots." I suppose every lousy, hack "scientist" has been called a "crackpot" at some time. But they have neither earned nor do they deserve the honorific implied; because every great scientist has been called a "crackpot" too. There is a group of scientists, the average workaday Joe Scientists, who never get called "crackpots." Average Joe Scientist does have much in common with the great minds of science, however, and for that he should be proud: He loves the labor of acquiring knowledge and removing the bounds of human ignorance, and for that effort, I dare say, Average Joe Scientist has done more for humanity than a stadium full of "Great Minds." But another thing Average Joe Scientist shares with Newton and Einstein and all those other "superstars," is that he is motivated by thrill of exploration and discovery, by the possibilities, and not by hackneyed antiquated notions and mindlessly repeated dogmata. He doesn't need to be constantly coaxed, cajoled, and challenged to test his pre-conceptions. He understands that's what ya gotta do to be doing science.
I see no evidence of such motivation in these discussions.
You are doing nothing but alienating (speaking of aliens) and marginalizing yourselves (IDers and critics alike) from all the current vibrant threads in science.
But these come up all the time in these discussions! Only to dissolve into shit!
Get a grip on reality! Get your head out of the clouds or out of your ass, wherever, but get your head in the "game"!
Comment by Rock — April 4, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Hi Rock,
I don't always understand your comments, but this last one is an exception and I might even suggest exceptional.
Here Here!
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 4, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Hi olegt,
You wrote…
Thank you for pointing it out since I had not noticed it.
And thank you for having the interest and taking the time to look into Penrose's book.
I will try to respond soon.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 4, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Biology, evolution, life as we know it. You assume digital == unnatural. I don't make that assumption.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 4, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
This blog is interesting because we appear to all be relatively on the same page regarding evolution. There is no debate about whether the decay rate of the moon proves the Earth is young, or whether the Nebraska Man proves that evolution is a con game, for example. And near the other end of the spectrum, I assume we all recognize the conclusive dressing-down Ken Miller gave to the bacterial-flagellum arguments.
The impression I have is that Telic Thoughts is about philosophical debate surrounding evolutionary theory, not the scientific theory itself. How far off am I?
Comment by JackT — April 4, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I'm assuming only that when there are no answers to questions avenues not be shut off because you and others hear theology whenever deviation from standard thinking occurs.
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Hi JackT,
Other than the spin of Miller's "dressing-down", I think you are close to understanding the TT ideal. Especially if you read the About Us.
Ducks and Rabbits looking at the same evidence in a different way.
I thought I would get this in before any negative comments.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 4, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
To each his own, I guess. Reductionism has a lousy track record for things that matter to me the most. Consciousness, for example.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 4, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I honestly meant no spin here; I felt at liberty to speak as if we already agreed. Perhaps we do not, however, in which case that could be regarded as an impolite ribbing. My apologies.
A summary of Miller's famous refutation of the bacterial flagellum arguments is found at
http://www.millerandlevine.com...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Are there objections to the scientific arguments presented there, philosophical positions aside?
Comment by JackT — April 4, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Subjective evaluations of "what matters the most" are exactly why I think religion and philosophy still have an important place. Science doesn't concern its self with such things but that does not mean such opinions are meaningless. I simply advise caution since you will always be able to point to whatever it is science doesn't know and say that is the most important thing. What you must ask yourself is whether you are simply rejecting mainstream science ad hoc or whether your philosophy truly supports that conclusion. This is purely a subjective matter so whatever your answer I will believe your opinion is genuine.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 4, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Rock:
What makes you think this is my venue? I'm just one of the contributors here.
Comment by MikeGene — April 4, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Hi JackT,
You wrote…
Hopefully, you noticed my previous comment explaining my diminished capacity.
Since you are new here, I will warn you that I have a reputation for being arrogant. I think I am a good debater. So good, in fact, I think I could make a compelling case for either side of any argument. So, let's do it…
OBJECTION!
Would Miller (or you) agree to anything being too complex?
Would even the proverbial 747 being assembled from random pieces from a junk yard, be considered too complex?
Miller assumes that the T3SS came before the flagellum. How does he KNOW that? It turns out that there is evidence that assumption was wrong.
Miller is now left with arguing fictional, just so, stories.
The similar techniques could, and would, be used to argue something as complex as a 747. The 747 design could be reduced to individual functioning pieces, especially if such a reduction is done with the one doing the analysis using his or her imagination for possible functions.
Imagination can "see" function in a lump of clay.
Behe may be guilty of exaggerating his claims for his popular audience but, eventually, he backed off his definition to allow for degrees of Irreducible Complexity.
Like Mike Gene's Duck/Rabbit continuum there are things that are appear to be reducible and there are things that appear not to be. And everything in between.
You, sir, are trying to hog the entire spectrum by defaulting to a presumption of reducibility. It is scientifically untenable to expect absolute PROOF of anything.
Yet that is what Miller expected of Behe.
SCIENTIFICALLY, we don't know what we don't know. We have speculations and hypothesis. Behe has a hypothesis. This hypothesis is being tested by Matze and others.
It is far too early to declare a definitive SCIENTIFIC answer when it comes to the bacteria flagellum.
Let's do science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 4, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Hi TP,
Like you, I'm under diminished capacity (in my case, it's a pathogen). As far as the bacterial flagellum goes, there are many aspects to that story that have not been brought out by Behe, Miller or Matzke.
BTW, The Design Matrix devotes a good bit of space to IC.
Comment by