What Have I Done to Deserve This?
by machtTwo people have pointed out this paper to me so I thought I'd comment on it. It's a paper by Neil Tennant.
No, not that one… this one. Tennant thinks it is a horrible state of affairs (an "absurd situation") that two people who graduated from the same prestigious university (Pennock and Fuller) could have widely differing views about the nature of science. He laments that philosophers of science can't agree that ID isn't science. This is true, of course, but this seems to be true about most things in philosophy - doubly so when the philosophers in question were hired to be an expert witness.
Tennant says that scientific language should be "cognitively significant." By that he means,
"its truth-value can be adjudicated by appeal to observation, aided by our exercise of reason (our inferential powers)."
And this is what the demarcation problem attempts to do - to help us find what theories are cognitively significant and what theories aren't. (Not for Tennant, though … his mind is already made up - he says that the demarcation problem is the "key" to helping us show that Darwinism (his word, not mine) is science and ID isn't. In other, for Tennant, demarcation is a sledgehammer for helping us fit Darwinism and ID into our preconceived notions. He, of course, may be right that Darwinism is science and ID isn't, but my point is that he is formulating his demarcation criteria in order to show this (as opposed to developing demarcation criteria and then seeing how ID and Darwinism turn out).
Tennant then goes on to say that people today say that demarcation is a non-problem mostly because they misread Quine. He quotes Judge Overton as saying,
While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.
And then Tennant goes on to say,
The judge was saying that creationists are not allowed, by the constraints of scientific method, to do that. Yet this is exactly what many readers took Quine to be saying they are free to do, if they so choose. Quine was read as saying that theory revision enjoys no rational guidance.
But the method that Overton is saying that scientists can't use has been rationally defended by many people. Lakatos (and Feyerabend), for example, has pointed out that science often does work like this - people defend theories that aren't supported by the evidence. But by being tenacious in their work they may find evidence that supports their theories. And given that we cannot tell beforehand what theories will be scientifically successful and which will not, it is a virtue for scientists to stick with their theories and try to develop them. Notice I'm saying this is a virtue of scientists. Hard work and sticking with something when the odds are against you is a good thing in that science has been helped by it. Science would be worse off if people gave up on their theories at the first sign of trouble. So, I guess, Tennant may be correct that this is not a rational methodology (although Lakatos thought it was). But that doesn't follow that it isn't a good thing to do.
Tennant then goes on to talk about the importance of logic and how if only we taught logic in high school, then all these problems would go away. I agree that logic is important and I would love to see high schools offer introductory philosophy courses. But I completely disagree that logic would help solve these problems. Tennant says that "observational" language is basic and thus already cognitively significant. But science also deals with theoretical terms. Theories give us laws which allow us to make predictions. These predictions are then open to falsification. But Tennant puts a restraint on this in order to make theoretical language cognitively significant. In order to be so, it can't merely be falsified, but must be falsified by something that is also cognitively significant.
Falsifiability has this logical form:
1) If P, then Q.
2) Not Q.
3) Therefore, not P.
It is the classic modus tollens, where P is some theory, Q is some prediction, and the situation in which "not Q" arises is cognitively significant. Then, given that 1) and 2) are true, so is P. The problem is that "not Q" usually isn't just an observation but it is some experiment. And this experiment may rely on other theories and it may rely on scientific instruments that rely on theories. So our observation of "not Q" may be the falsification of one of those other theories, rather than the falsification of P. Tennant tries to get around this by saying that the situation in which "not Q" arises must be cognitively significant but this seems like an impossible task to show for anything other than a trivial P and Q.
Another problem is that 1) may be mistaken. When I make a prediction "If P, then Q" what I'm really saying is "All things being equal, if P, then Q." There are a whole lot of background assumptions that are involved in making predictions. These assumptions may be brute assumptions about the universe that need to be made in order to do science (e.g., that we can represent reality using language or that reality is understandable). Neither of these is cognitively significant in the sense Tennant uses it and if either of these assumptions were wrong, things would certainly not be equal.
The rest of the paper then goes on to show what he set out to do in the first place - show that Darwinism is science and ID isn't, given the criteria he had put forth for that very purpose.
Steve Fuller's discussion of the problem of the criterion found in his expert witness report might be worth reading, too.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:47 pm
"But by being tenacious in their work they may find evidence that supports their theories."
But no ID proponent is looking for or finding any new evidence for anything. Therefore, that exception is completely irrelevant to ID.
You're also forgetting that the primary responsibility of a scientist is to look for new evidence that has the potential to falsify her hypothesis, not to support it.
Comment by Smokey — October 1, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
October 1st, 2006 at 6:03 pm
You would do well to forget that idea too, since it is false.
Comment by macht — October 1, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
October 1st, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Tell me, Smokey, which scientists are looking for new evidence that has the potential to falsify abiogenesis?
Comment by Krauze — October 1, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
October 1st, 2006 at 6:50 pm
I had to smile at the "absurd situation" of two philosophers reaching different conclusions from the same set of facts even though they received the same training.
No philosopher has ever been wiser than Socrates. That includes those practicing today.
I feel it is somewhat unfortunate that the 1987 supreme court ruling (Edwards) all but broke the back of Young Earth Creationism calling themselves scientists. In a way, what was happening up to that point was consistent with what Feyerabend and Fuller are arguing. Creation Scientists were working hard to build a case for their cause. They were free to do so, as long as they didn't try to force it into public education.
It is no use crying over spilt milk. So what now?
Philosophers will be searching for truth, which is what philosophers do. Scientists will continue their pursuit of knowledge, it is what they do. Unfortunately, populist movements will continue to rally the ignorant masses to do their bidding, because they can.
I fear ignorance is winning. Our only hope is to do what we can to provoke individuals, one by one, to think for themselves.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 1, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
October 1st, 2006 at 7:02 pm
TP:
Thanks for the plug.
Comment by MikeGene — October 1, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
October 1st, 2006 at 8:11 pm
[...] Demarcation problems are intractable for good Kantian reasons, and of all the attempts to organize scientific methodology Kant's is the most enduring, if only because it generated most of the descendants we now find in diverse modes of collision, Pennock, and Fuller… You know, Popper was as student of Schopenhauer… These demarcation criteria are an attempt to escape 'thing in itself' quagmires. Fine, but the result is wilful blindness. [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » Demarcation — October 1, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:27 am
macht:
You would do well to forget that idea too, since it is false.
In my experience, it's true. I've trashed hypotheses I've endorsed several times.
If you disagree, please enlighten me and identify dogma that was overturned without attempting to falsify the new hypothesis.
Krauze:
Tell me, Smokey, which scientists are looking for new evidence that has the potential to falsify abiogenesis?
These, for example. It's more that they are testing a particular mechanistic hypothesis for abiogenesis; "abiogenesis" itself isn't a hypothesis.
Comment by Smokey — October 2, 2006 @ 2:27 am
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Then how would you characterize abiogenesis? Cite the specific mechanistic hypothesis and how it could be falsified.
Comment by Bradford — October 2, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:06 am
Then:
Quite the shift from a bold declaration of a scientist's main responsibility to a comment on what you experience to be the case. I hope this isn't a consistent trend - stating that what should be obvious to all from what you tend to experience at an individual level.
Comment by Fred Haster — October 3, 2006 @ 9:06 am
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Hi Smokey,
Thanks for the reference, but as you say yourself, the scientists aren't really finding evidence that falsifies the concept of abiogenesis itself. If you went over to PT, claiming that the article contained evidence against abiogenesis, they'd laugh their panda butts off.
Which raises a question: How come the skepticism is only directed at particular hypotheses, not at the overriding idea of abiogenesis that acts as justification of the whole field?
Comment by Krauze — October 3, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Krauze asked…
If I understand what is being asked here, it is like asking physicists…
How come the skepticism is only directed at particular hypotheses, not at the overriding idea that the universe exists which acts as justification of the whole field?
Or asking mathematicians…
How come the skepticism is only directed at particular derivations, not at the overriding idea that the number 1 exists which acts as justification of the whole field?
IMO, a front-loaded biogenesis hypothesis may be an ID proposal, but it conflicts with neither "darwinism" specifically nor Evolutionary Biology in general.
Didn't Darwin say something about the origin of life coming from God in his book Descent of Man?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 3, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:22 pm
This was the Darwin passage I was thinking of…
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
And it was the closing sentence of Origin of Species (in all but the 1st edition)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 3, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Hi TP,
Are you saying that instead of being a finding of science, abiogenesis is an axiom, a metaphysic?
As for front-loading, yes, that is indeed close to what Darwin seemed to propose at the end of the Origin.
Comment by Krauze — October 3, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Hi Krause,
I was saying, yes, evolutionary biology presumes that living things came to be just as physics presumes the universe came to be.
This may be a semantic misunderstanding over the word "abiogenesis" because the thought of questioning the fact that living things came to be doesn't make sense to me.
Am I missing something?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 3, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Somebody is. The IDers among us believe the existence of life owes itself to a process entailing intelligent input. Standard theories of origin clearly exclude causal explanations invoking intelligence.
Comment by Bradford — October 3, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Bradford wrote…
Why?
No really.
If it is belief in God, ok. That's the reason.
If not, then why "intelligence" What does that get you?
From Webster's Medical Dictionary…
Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'tel-&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations b : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)
2 : mental acuteness "”in·tel·li·gent /in-'tel-&-j&nt/ adjective "”in·tel·li·gent·ly adverb
Why not assume some currently unknown organizing process?
Why not believe there must be a predictive process inherent in nature?
Organizing and predictive processes go directly to the issues you are raising, not intelligence.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 3, 2006 @ 10:27 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Why not assume some currently unknown organizing process?
Because that is not what is suggested by the data. The nucleotides conferring encoding capacity to nucleic acids acquire this property as a result of their sequential order. The order cannot be predicted based on bonding affinity. It is dependent on the selective value of proteins coded for by the nucleic acids. This is a problem for a starting point having no nucleic acids much less ones with encoding capacity. If the organizing process resulted from unguided forces of nature one might encounter extracellular formation of a particular nucleotide in specified conditions. Expecting a full complement of nucleotides and ribose to boot outside a cellular envirnoment would be unusual but it would be miraculous to find a sequence formation having functional genomic properties and more miraculous still to find a complementary synthesis mechanism.
Why not believe there must be a predictive process inherent in nature?
Organizing and predictive processes go directly to the issues you are raising, not intelligence.
Why believe this when no organizing processes capable of generating life are in evidence. If science is an empirical discipline then why base a belief in unseen organizing and predictive processes? If this is about faith in unseen processes then abiogenesis is a statement of religious commitment rather than a belief grounded in science.
Comment by Bradford — October 3, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Why not assume some currently unknown organizing process?
One more point that addresses Krauze's concern about "evidence that has the potential to falsify abiogenesis." If we assume a concept based on an unknown process then there is no point to looking for data that refutes abiogenesis. Abiogenesis has become dogma.
Comment by Bradford — October 3, 2006 @ 11:09 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:41 pm
I wrote…
"Why not believe there must be a predictive process inherent in nature? Organizing and predictive processes go directly to the issues you are raising, not intelligence."
Bradford wrote…
And around in a circle we go.
The universe exists.
Earth exists.
Life on Earth exists.
How any of these three things came to be is subject to debate. However, it is safe to say they all came to be. While it might be argued that the universe has always existed, I don't think there is much doubt on the other two.
Let me try to guess where your heartburn is. Is it possible that your definition of "abiogenesis" somehow doesn't include God creating life? If so, this is a semantics problem. For the record, I accept that God-creating-life is one of many possibilities of what I call "abiogenesis".
I just realized another possibility, do you think God is a living organism that has always existed?
At any rate, I noticed that you avoided answering the "why?" question.
I asked why have a belief in an unseen intelligence as opposed to an unseen organizing/predictive processes. Whether you call it "belief" or "faith" the question still stands. Why intelligence?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 3, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
October 4th, 2006 at 12:24 am
There is no heartburn on my part although judging from the personal insults coming my way in every forum I enter I would suspect there is considerable discomfort occasioned by those advocating a position whose secondary inferences have great theological implications. Dawkins is the poster boy for these types but by no means unique in his reaction.
I believed in God's real existence when I was a child and knew nothing about cellular biology. Nothing I've learned in the interim has lessened the belief. To the contrary the case for intelligent direction can be made based on physical evidence alone.
The why lies in the information storage and retrieval nature of DNA and accompaning transcription/translation mechanisms. To use the favored word of this blog these systems convey unmistakable telic properties but there is much more. The existence of molecular symbols and an encoding convention are clear indicators of intelligent causality. Sequential nucleotide patterns are not predictable based on biochemistry. Their sequence is logically deduced based on the functions of their end products. Ponder that when you try to invoke unguided natural forces as causes for an initial genome.
Comment by Bradford — October 4, 2006 @ 12:24 am
October 4th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Bradford says:
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
A 'molecular symbol' - what is that? Do you mean a symbol that is used to represent a molecule? In that case it would be a chemical formula. I don't think chemicals are 'clear indicators of intelligent causality'.
And 'encoding convention' seems to be a mixture of 'encoding' (transforming data from one form to another) and 'code convention' (used to describe the style in which a programmer writes code). Are you saying that the 'style' in which the genome is transformed from one form to another (whatever this style is supposed to be) is another 'clear indicator of intelligent causality'?
Are these things supposed to be your 'unmistakable telic properties' that provide the 'physical evidence to make the case for intelligent direction'?
I think you mean that the DNA sequence can be logically deduced based on the biochemical structure of its RNA and protein end products.
Comment by Odd Digit — October 4, 2006 @ 8:55 am
October 4th, 2006 at 10:45 am
A 'molecular symbol' - what is that? Do you mean a symbol that is used to represent a molecule? In that case it would be a chemical formula. I don't think chemicals are 'clear indicators of intelligent causality'.
UGC, AAG, UGG, UAC etc. Codons and their corresponding amino acids. It is not chemicals that are indicators but rather the sequential order of codons composing nucleic acids.
And 'encoding convention' seems to be a mixture of 'encoding' (transforming data from one form to another) and 'code convention' (used to describe the style in which a programmer writes code). Are you saying that the 'style' in which the genome is transformed from one form to another (whatever this style is supposed to be) is another 'clear indicator of intelligent causality'?
There is an arbitrary nature to the genetic code analogous to that of human language. Just as objects are arbitrarily matched to words so too are codons to amino acids. Of course the translation function is consistent with chemstry. The conveyance of the alphanumeric symbols of this message is consistent with natural laws too.
Comment by Bradford — October 4, 2006 @ 10:45 am
October 4th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Hi Bradford,
Odd Digit may have been coming from the same direction as I was with his comments on "intelligent causality".
Why intelligence?
Maybe the problem is, once again, in definitions.
Please note the definition of "intelligence" (I gave earlier) shows the main meaning is the ability to learn and adapt.
You mentioned "unmistakable telic properties" earlier. What does this mean to you? I don't equate that to mean intelligence.
A creator can be purposeful, without being intelligent
In fact, a creator that is omnipotent and omniscient has no need for intelligence, since there is nothing to new to learn or adapt to.
To review…
Organizing = needed
Predictive = possibly needed
Purposeful = arguably needed
Why intelligence?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 4, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
October 4th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Why intelligence?
In addition to obvious parallels to intelligently designed systems already mentioned there is one other feature that intelligently caused complex systems share. Natural forces of nature alone are insufficient to generate them.
Comment by Bradford — October 4, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
October 4th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
This statement is not consistent with the definition of intelligence. Any omnipotent and omniscient being would be supremely intelligent.
Comment by Bradford — October 4, 2006 @ 7:01 pm
October 4th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
I wrote…
"Why intelligence?"
Bradford responded with…
AAARRRRRGGGGGGG!
Don't you see you are assuming your conclusions?
Why "intelligently designed systems" and not just "designed systems".
Because humans are intelligent and they design things?
Intelligence = the ability to learn and adapt.
Go ahead and assume spider webs are designed, the solar system is designed, universal constants are designed, but why do you assume these things were intelligently designed?
What evidence do you have that designed-looking systems came from a designer who had the ability (or even the need) to learn and adapt?
Why Intelligence?
Edited to add…
I saw you posted this…
I think I finally got through. What is your definition of intelligence?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 4, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
October 4th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Don't you see you are assuming your conclusions?
Not so. This is a testable claim: In addition to obvious parallels to intelligently designed systems already mentioned there is one other feature that intelligently caused complex systems share. Natural forces of nature alone are insufficient to generate them.
Comment by Bradford — October 4, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
October 4th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
This assumes the conclusion that life came about through unguided natural forces:
Comment by Bradford — October 4, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
October 4th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
To Bradford,
I have earnestly tried to understand your thinking while explaining mine.
I believe your complaint about "abiogenesis" is misguided. I, and many others, are more than willing to leave open all possibilities of how life got started pending more evidence.
I suggest you think about your definition of "intelligence" and how is fits into your point of view.
It also wouldn't hurt to think about how other people's definitions can be different than yours, especially when they copy and paste definitions from dictionaries.
I won't be surprised if you want to get in the last word here. Don't be too surprised if I let you.
However, if anyone else would like to chime in, I would appreciate understanding how other ID proponents answer the question…
Why does the designer have to be intelligent instead of just purposeful and knowledgeable?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 4, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
October 4th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
You are deceiving yourself. The one possibility you and others will not leave open is an intelligently directed outcome.
Why does the designer have to be intelligent instead of just purposeful and knowledgeable?
I don't understand how knowledgable can be ascribed to an unintelligent source.
Comment by Bradford — October 4, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 4:05 am
Bradford,
I'm with Thought Provoker on this one:
So maybe you want to rethink this bit of projection:
Comment by Odd Digit — October 5, 2006 @ 4:05 am
October 5th, 2006 at 4:54 am
Bradford,
I'm still not getting this. Molecular symbols:
Are you saying that the fact that bases are organised into codons (groups of three) is a 'clear indicator of intelligent causality' or the fact that these codons are arranged in a sequence?
So we have an analogy between the use of the word 'tree' and an actual tree, and the codon AUA and the amino acid isoleucine. And your point is?
I mean, if you think about it, in many ways the genetic code is very inefficient. We have only 4 bases and 20 amino acids. So there needs to be 64 possible codon combinations in order to get to our 20 amino acids, so most amino acids have more than one codon (although some don't - why?). And most have a great deal of redundancy - CC* gets you proline, it doesn't matter what the * is. UC* does the same for serine, yet AGU and AGC also code for serine, and AGA and AGC code for arginine (along with CG*) - why? Why do most animal mitochondria use AUA to code for methionine instead of isoleucine? Why don't all?
Why aren't there 22 bases to correspond to 20 amino acids plus a stop and start? There would be if I had 'intelligently designed' it. It would reduce the length of every genome by a factor of three for starters.
All of these things are the exact opposite of 'clear indicators of intelligent causality'.
Comment by Odd Digit — October 5, 2006 @ 4:54 am
October 5th, 2006 at 8:18 am
How so? It seems that you and TP are saying that evidence for the OOL is irrelevant. If it exists- fine. If not then we can assume it exists and we have not yet found it. Where else in the world of science can one get away with this type of attitude?
So maybe you want to rethink this bit of projection:
You are deceiving yourself. The one possibility you and others will not leave open is an intelligently directed outcome.
I'll explain to you why it is you who is projecting. If experimental evidence comes about indicating that in an environment resembling that on prebiotic earth, a series of chemical reactions led to a viable genome with sequences enabling protein synthesis I and others would accept the results like we accept the fact that prokaryotic organisms have adaptation capacities enabling them to rapidly adjust to environmental pressures. You can see the results. No faith required. If you are the one not projecting then specify what data would lead you to believe that abiogenesis is not a plausible belief or simply acknowledge that your theory of origins is not empirically based.
Comment by Bradford — October 5, 2006 @ 8:18 am
October 5th, 2006 at 8:23 am
That's the usual- if it isn't perfectly designed then it cannot be the result of intelligence. It leads to the self-serving contention that a stochastic process is a better causal explanation for encoding systems.
Comment by Bradford — October 5, 2006 @ 8:23 am
October 5th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Bradford asked…
Ok, I will try to explain again.
Physics relies on the unknown origin of the universe.
Chemisty relies on protons, quarks, etc without understanding them.
Electronics relies on the interaction of electrical and magnetic fields without understand why they are so interconnected.
How about identifying any discipline in the "world of science" that isn't dependent on an unknown property.
As to the subject of knowledge versus intelligence…
How do unintelligent spiders know how to create webs?
I see three answers to this question…
1. Semantics - spiders don't "know" anything because they aren't intelligent. Assuming the conclusion through definitions.
2. Circular Logic - and intelligent design preprogammed spiders with knowledge. Directly assuming the conclusion.
3. Knowledge is not always based on intelligence
All polite debates leave open the possibility of a misunderstanding of definitions. I define intelligence as an ability to learn, i.e. to increase the level of knowledge. How do you define it?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Chemical properties and reactions were observed long before chemistry became a formal discipline. Forces of nature were observed prior to physics becoming the same. Investigations into the nature of these phenomenon were subsequently conducted without an a priori determination as to the outcome. Life arising from non-life as a result of unguided natural forces was not observed prior to abiogenesis becoming a formal area of study. There was a predetermination that it occured that way and what do you know- of the three only abiogenesis has been noted for being unproductive in yielding evidence. This should be a clue that the assumption behind it is faulty. If you wish to define scientific investigations as limited only to causes devoid of any possible intelligent interference then do so. This way you can attain your desired result by defining it in a way that makes an outcome predetermined.
Comment by Bradford — October 5, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Bradford:
Who asked for perfect? If I can come up with a better design for DNA in around 5 minutes of thinking about it then it doesn't say much for the 'intelligence' of the designer. 'Thick design' or 'Stupid design' doesn't sound nearly as catchy as 'Intelligent design'. You look at the genetic code and see 'clear indicators of intelligent causality', I look at it and see a cobbled together mess. Although I grant that it's not beyond the realms of possibility that someone (or something) with no previous design experience and only a vague idea about what they are doing 'designed' the genetic code…
Comment by Odd Digit — October 5, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
DNA and the transcription/translation mechanisms are marvelous examples of genetic engineering as witnessed by the versitility and adaptibility of life. Couple that with error detection and repair mechanisms and you have a system that is more than adaquate for the task at hand. The compression of information into this tiny stoage system is impressive by 21st century standards.
Comment by Bradford — October 5, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Bradford:
That's exactly what the abiogenesis researchers are trying to achieve. They haven't been doing it for long. It's quite possible that we will never be certain exactly how it happened - as it happened 3.5 billion years ago and the planet was a very different place back then.
I don't have a 'theory of origins', and neither do the abiogenesis researchers. They have a set of hypotheses, some of which are more plausible than others, and all of which are being explored in more detail. No 'faith' is required to do any of this, just a acknowledgement that by doing more research we are likely to understand and learn more about it.
There's nothing stopping you or anyone else doing abiogenesis research based on an 'intelligent causality'.
Comment by Odd Digit — October 5, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
That's exactly what the abiogenesis researchers are trying to achieve. They haven't been doing it for long.
Miller-Urey took place over 50 years ago and results are still limited to building blocks- no biological systems and no means of explaining the sequential order of functional nucleic acids.
It's quite possible that we will never be certain exactly how it happened - as it happened 3.5 billion years ago and the planet was a very different place back then.
A convenient out. We don't assume a hoped for outcome because of difficulties with initial conditions and time eras. Rather, the untestability limits reliable scientific claims.
Comment by Bradford — October 5, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Hi Bradford,
Earlier, I wrote…
What is your definition of "abiogenesis"
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
This is total gibberish.
But RNA viruses are adequate with no error detection and repair mechanisms whatsoever.
Even more impressive is the tiny storage system of RNA viruses. One of the most impressive examples is rabies, which, using only 12000 bases of RNA organized into 5 genes, packs enough information to change a complex mammal's (even Bradford's) behavior so that he better propagates it.
Did I mention that rabies accomplishes this feat without ANY error detection and repair mechanisms?
Bradford, your rant did nothing to rebut OD's point: it takes an intelligent human only minutes to offer unequivocal improvements in the design of these amazing systems. What does that say about the intelligence of your hypothetical designer? Please don't pull out the straw man of perfection, OK?
Comment by Smokey — October 5, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
This is total gibberish.
Your reaction is total gibberish. What's the matter Smoke- you want us to swallow the line that DNA is the result of chance occurences? Oh wait- it was natural selection right? The only problem is you can't explain what was selected and why.
Couple that with error detection and repair mechanisms and you have a system that is more than adaquate for the task at hand.
But RNA viruses are adequate with no error detection and repair mechanisms whatsoever.
As long as cells are around to help out with the little matter of replication.
Bradford, your rant did nothing to rebut OD's point: it takes an intelligent human only minutes to offer unequivocal improvements in the design of these amazing systems. What does that say about the intelligence of your hypothetical designer? Please don't pull out the straw man of perfection, OK?
Why do that when you can chant random occurence and natural selection? That explains OOL just fine right Smoke?
Comment by Bradford — October 5, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
"As long as cells are around to help out with the little matter of replication."
Dead wrong again. Cells are co-opted for packaging of the (mostly defective) viral genomes. No cellular proteins are used for the error-prone replication of the rabies genome. None. What does that tell you?
"Why do that [misrepresent showing that "design" can easily be improved as a claim that the design is imperfect] when you can chant random occurence and natural selection? That explains OOL just fine right Smoke?"
No, that explains most (not all) of EVOLUTION. Natural selection is inoperative without more than one living thing present. Try to keep up, would you?
Now, if your designer is supremely intelligent, why can we mere mortals see obvious improvements that can be made?
And why do you reply, "Why do that when…," when you did precisely that in response to OD's challenge, which you have yet to address?
How can you have a discussion with people when you so blatantly misrepresent their positions?
Comment by Smokey — October 5, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
"As long as cells are around to help out with the little matter of replication."
Dead wrong again. Cells are co-opted for packaging of the (mostly defective) viral genomes. No cellular proteins are used for the error-prone replication of the rabies genome. None. What does that tell you?
Are you claiming that no cellular apparatus is utilized in the replication of the rabies virus?
No, that explains most (not all) of EVOLUTION. Natural selection is inoperative without more than one living thing present. Try to keep up, would you?
Natural selection is inoperative without more than one living thing present and design is ruled out, so what is left to explain OOL, Smoke- pot luck? This can be your light bulb moment Smoke. It's not too late to convert and become a TTer. Join now. We'll work on your manners later.
Comment by Bradford — October 5, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Bradford wrote…
I thought Smokey and I were already contributing members of this blog. Is there some other initiation we have to undergo to "join"
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
October 6th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Are you having trouble reading what I wrote?
That and chemistry, Billy. BTW, I'm not ruling out design–there's just no evidence for it. Your induction, which starts from two false premises, is a joke, and would be even if your premises were true. At least Krauze and Mike have made a prediction that follows from a hypothetical mechanism of design.
Also, are you under the impression that the synthesis of oligonucleotides requires enzymes?
Comment by Smokey — October 6, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
October 6th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
That and chemistry,
Pot luck and chemistry. That's a helpful explanation. That's the best you can do?
Also, are you under the impression that the synthesis of oligonucleotides requires enzymes?
No. Are you under the impression that an explanation for functional nucleic acids exists? Or is chemistry and luck enough?
Comment by Bradford — October 6, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
October 6th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Smokey:
You mean there isn't anything you take to be evidence for design, which is a very different thing. Since you are so confident that there isn't anything that can legitmately be taken to be evidence for design, you must have a clear idea of what such evidence would look like, since nothing you observe conforms to your idea of what should be there. So, what would you take to be evidence for design and why?
Comment by DonaldM — October 6, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
October 6th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
TP:
Yes. There's the oath signed in blood, the secret handshake, the strategically placed needle ceremony and something involving a rabbit…but Mike will have to tell you about that!
Comment by DonaldM — October 6, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
No, that's not what I mean. That's what you wish I meant.
If you were trying to have a rational discussion with me, you wouldn't go to such ludicrous lengths as to claim that something I didn't write was something I meant, when in reality I wrote something quite different.
For example, if the nested hierarchies derived independently from functionally silent nucleotide differences and functionally significant amino-acid changes weren't superimposable, that would be striking evidence suggesting design.
But since you clearly didn't understand what those hierarchies were while pretending you did (i.e., claiming that tractors and their parts fit the criteria), I don't expect you to do anything but try and misrepresent my response as meaning something different.
Comment by Smokey — October 7, 2006 @ 7:34 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Smokey:
It is not a question of what I wish you meant, it is a question of what your statement actually does mean with resepct to science. Your claim is that you reject design because there is no evidence for it. Within the bounds of scientific inquiry such a statement means that no observation or phenomenon ( call these Y) can be legitmately attributed to X, where is X is some hypoithesis or other explanation for Y. Connecting some Y to some X isn't all that straightforward either because, unfortunately, Y doesn't come with a little label attached telling the scientist what it is evidence for.
Rather evidentiary status is attributed based on other considerations and logical relations between some Y and some X. And often those relations rest on metaphysical rather than scientific foundations. In areas of controversy, such as whether or not nature exhibits any features that could be attributable to actual design by an intelligence, it is not legitmate to simply assert that no amount of Y can ever be attributed to actual design.
Such an assertion is simply beyond the bounds of science, and is indefensible philosophically as well. Therefore your claim that there is no evidence for design, can only mean there isn't anything you take to be evidence for design. The only other option is to assert that such a claim is "just obvious" (which it isn't), or that it is a claim that everyone accepts as true (which they obviously do not), or that it is just a brute fact (which takes it out of the realm of science altogether).
Since I doubt you mean the latter, I can only assume you mean the former, and that there isn't any data or observations that you take to be legimate evidence for actual design. And that boils down to exactly what I said your statement meant. If you actually do mean the latter, then you've got some tough metephyscial sledding ahead of you to justify the claim.
Well, it might be the case that lack of superimposability would imply design because it could eliminate common descent, but it does not follow that because these NH's are superimposable that that eliminates design. If anything, I would view that as strong evidence for design under the complexity-specification criteria that Dembski discusses in his book No Free Lunch.
Comment by DonaldM — October 9, 2006 @ 9:55 am
October 9th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Dead wrong. Scientific INQUIRY (thanks for using the word) is about testing a hypothesis, not post hoc rationalization. This is why ID is not science–it has yet to be used to obtain a single new datum.
In INQUIRY, new evidence has much more value than old evidence.
ROTFL! Donald, you're clueless. I'm not talking about the superimposability of sequence hierarchies with, say, fossil hierarchies, but the superimposability of TWO INDEPENDENTLY-DERIVED SEQUENCE HIERARCHIES: one limited to functional differences, the other limited to functionally-irrelevant differences. Your response is utterly meaningless in this context.
Then explain how it is predicted by any design hypothesis.
That is howlingly funny! Please explain:
1) Why Dembski never mentions something you find to be "strong evidence for design." Are you smarter than Dembski?
2) Explain how you arrived at your conclusion in detail. Do Dembski's assumptions underlying his specification criteria have any basis in reality? IOW, do the spectra of sequences we find in nature represent constraints on protein sequences? This gets to the prediction that Bradford is afraid to make.
If I make a radical size substitution to a residue not found in nature in the active site of a member of a huge protein family,
1) Will it confer a new function on the protein?
2) Will it prevent the protein from acting on its original substrate?
3) Is it deleterious to an organism carrying this substitution in a homozygous state?
4) Is it lethal to the organism?
Comment by Smokey — October 9, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Smokey
Take a deep breath, Smokey, and calm yourself. Contrary to what you think, I think I do understand what you're talking about. Let's say we have data set A from which we derive a particular hierarchy we'll cal NH-1. Let's say the data set is morphological data and that NH-1 is a phylogentic tree. Now we have some other data set - B - say, molecular data, that produces NH-2. Then we find that NH-2 is superimposable on NH-1. You want to argue that this would be the case if and only if it were the result of evolutionary processes (ie. RM/NS). You further want to argue that if NH-2 were not superimposable on NH-1, then that would constitute evidence for design. Well, I'd grant that it might falsify an evolutionary hypothesis, but it wouldn't necessarily confirm a design hypothesis.
But you further want to argue that such superimposability would be impossible under a design scenario. But I see no reason to accept that as true. There's no logical reason why that would be the case.
And if we take your argument all the way through, I can't help but notice you're saying that design is both testable and (potentially) falsifiable…two characterstics you claim elsewhere design doesn't posses. In other words, you seem to want it both ways. Design isn't science, because it isn't testable; design is testable and falsified. Which is it?
Comment by DonaldM — October 9, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
October 10th, 2006 at 2:23 am
I'm quite calm, Don. I'm laughing at your desperate attempts to feign understanding.
No, you obviously don't.
No, Donald. Neither of the sets of data in this case are morphological. They are both sets of sequence data, so you clearly don't understand.
It is, but I was talking about a different superimposition. Perhaps you should read what I wrote.
Nope. You're a lousy mindreader, and evolutionary mechanisms aren't limited to RM+NS. In fact, one of the hierarchies clearly excluded NS, but you're blinded to everything but your own certainty.
However, if you're certain, you might want to address my actual premise of the superimposability of TWO INDEPENDENTLY-DERIVED SEQUENCE HIERARCHIES! Why would any honest and literate person assume that one of those two sequence hierarchies was derived from morphological data, when I clearly specified sequence data?
Wrong again, because you were spectacularly wrong in your specification of NH-1. But I know that won't stop you…
Since you couldn't be bothered to understand what I wrote, your conclusion is worthless.
No, since your description of the superimposability I specified was completely off base.
Sure there is! That's why you misrepresented my premise. Not that you'll be Christian enough to admit that you were bearing false witness.
You misspelled "Donald's blatant misrepresentation of Smokey's argument." In other words, you either can't read, or you can't understand what you read.
How would you get the premise that one of the data sets was about morphology when I specified that BOTH sets were from sequences:
I'm not talking about the superimposability of sequence hierarchies with, say, fossil hierarchies, but the superimposability of TWO INDEPENDENTLY-DERIVED SEQUENCE HIERARCHIES: one limited to functional differences, the other limited to functionally-irrelevant differences.
See the words "two" and "sequence" in that quote? How about explaining how your mind can be so clouded that you would interpret that as meaning that one of the hierarchies was from morphological, instead of sequence, data?
Comment by Smokey — October 10, 2006 @ 2:23 am
October 10th, 2006 at 2:34 am
Correct. However, the truth that you can't acknowledge is tha hypotheses regarding the MECHANISM of design are testable, which is why IDers don't test them. That's why babbling about "Detecting Design" isn't science.
This is why we point out that evolution is a fact, and MET is about MECHANISMS of evolution. The "E" is an adjective, not a noun. See the parallel?
Wrong. Mechanisms of design are testable, and there is no evidence for them. That's why ID proponents, with rare exceptions, don't advance hypotheses, and never test them.
Do YOU have a hypothesis to share pertaining to a mechanism of design, Donald?
Comment by Smokey — October 10, 2006 @ 2:34 am