[Note: The Washington Post has a article on the controversial decision by a Pennsylvania school board to include intelligent design theory into the high school science curriculum. As Hugh Hewitt points out the “extremely poorly written article” is “crafted to put proponents of intelligent design into a box marked "snake-handling yahoos," and to elevate their opponents to the position of rational science enthusiasts.” While I agree that the Post is engaging in an “exercise in agenda journalism”, they have only succeeded in knocking down a strawman. (To be fair, though, the school board members in Dover appear to be as confused about ID theory as its critics.) Many of the mistakes in the article are commonly held misconceptions about ID which I wrote about several months ago. Because the controversy has reemerged in the news, I've decided to revamp the old post and include new material.]
Should intelligent design (the theory that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process) be classified as science or pseudoscience? Advocates almost always assume that it should be regarded as a legitimate scientific research program while its critics often scoff at the idea of this “stealth creationism” being given serious consideration. The problem for the critics of ID is that they tend to rule out the possibility based more on prejudice than sound philosophical objections.
While I’m not qualified to determine whether intelligent design is an accurate scientific theory, I do think I can present a reasonable defense that it is at least as philosophically plausible as other approaches (such as naturalism). As Daniel Dennett says, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.” I hope to prove that the objections to the plausibility structure of ID are rather weak and based on unexamined “philosophical baggage.” Whether ID turns out to be a fruitful paradigm or a dead end, I think it can be shown that it is clearly a reasonable approach for scientific investigation.
Before I address the specific objections, though, we should clarify that the debate over ID is not a matter of science or religion but a dispute over philosophical presuppositions. Briefly stated, the dispute revolves around which of the following four positions is held:
Naturally, ID advocates subscribe to position A while most critics hold B. Only A and C, however, are based on science, B and D are purely held on “faith.” Position A may still be unverified but is still a scientifically viable claim since C has not been proven.
Now let’s examine some of the most common objections to the theory:
”ID is not science but pseudo-science.”
In the area of philosophy of science, the attempt to distinguish science (e.g., astronomy) from pseudo-science (e.g., astrology) is known as the demarcation problem. As a means of solving the problem British philosopher Karl Popper proposed the principle of falsifiability -- if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific; if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science. Popper’s criterion of falsifiability was used by Judge William Overton to determine that 'creation science' was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools.
One of the most significant differences between ID theory and “creation science” is that ID is falsifiable. In fact, this is one of the ways in which it can be distinguished from Darwinian theories of evolution. Proponents of Darwinism have made if effectively impossible for the theory to be falsified, making its inclusion in the pantheon of adequate scientific explanations rather suspect.
“Science relies on naturalistic explanations; ID requires supernatural explanations.”
This claim is often made by critics who have a limited understanding of both science and ID. A number of scientific hypotheses that are considered respectable invoke non-naturalistic phenomena. The multiverse theory, for example, appeals to the existence of a “multiplicity of universes” which may have completely different laws of physics. Another related hypothesis is string theory, which requires extra dimensions be invoked to explain features of the physical universe. Like Darwinism, though, the multiverse and string theories are not falsifiable.
While ID theory does require the existence of an intelligent designer, there is nothing inherent in the theory to suggest that the being has a supernatural existence. In fact, one of the most famous examples of ID was posited by Francis Crick, the scientist who won the Nobel prize for discovering the double helix. In 1973, Crick proposed the idea of directed panspermia as a potential explanation for the insurmountable problem of life on earth evolving from inorganic matter. His explanation included the idea that the earth was “seeded” by advanced extraterrestrial civilizations with small grains containing DNA.
”ID is a form of “stealth creationism.”
Resorting to this red herring is one of the most common arguments made against ID. While it’s true that ID could be used to promote a particular religious agenda, this is not a sufficient argument against it being a legitimate scientific research program. There is no a priori reason why a research program could not be completely in adherence to accepted scientific methods and yet be completely compatible with a particular religious viewpoint.
(Theists, however, should also keep in mind that this same argument applies to our position. Just because naturalism can be used to advance “stealth atheism” does not mean the method is invalid.)
”ID is an argument from ignorance.”
Example: "Insofar as the "theory of ID" is nothing but an argument from ignorance cloaked in unarticulated mathematics and undefined terms, it can include whatever you want it to include."
I suspect that most people who invoke the argumentum ad ignorantiam are mistaking it for a “God of the gaps” explanation. The ignorantiam fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true simply because it hasn't been proven false. If ID claimed that it was a true theory simply because it has not been falsified, then the critics would be right. To my knowledge, though, no serious ID advocate has ever made such a claim. Their position is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.
ID is a “God-of-the-gaps” explanation.”
This argument is one of the most common and, not surprisingly, the most misapplied objections against ID. The most obvious problem is that it is a strawman since ID theory only claims that intelligent design can be detected and never invokes a “god” as part of the explanation.
Just as some claim that atheism is implied by naturalistic explanations, it could be argued that the existence of God is what ID advocates believe is ultimately implied by their theory. But even if this were the understanding of ID advocates it does not affect the theory’s adequacy as a research program. ID theorists could be correct about being able to detect tangible evidence of design without being able to correctly identify the “designer.” Saying “a human must have designed this computer” is a different claim than saying “Tom Jones must have designed this computer.”
It should also be noted that while some "creationists" invoke a “God-of-the-gaps” explanation, it is not (or at least should not be) a tactic used by Christian theists. As Alvin Plantinga explains,
First and most important, according to serious theism, God is constantly, immediately, intimately and directly active in his creation: he constantly upholds it in existence and providentially governs it. He is immediately and directly active in everything from the Big Bang to the sparrow's fall. Literally nothing happens without his upholding hand. Second, natural laws are not in any way independent of God, and are perhaps best thought of as regularities in the ways in which he treats the stuff he has made, or perhaps as counterfactuals of divine freedom. (Hence there is nothing in the least untoward in the thought that on some occasions God might do something in a way different from his usual way--e.g., raise someone from the dead or change water into wine.) Indeed, the whole interventionist terminology--speaking of God as intervening in nature, or intruding into it, or interfering with it, or violating natural law--all this goes with God-of-the-gaps theology, not with serious theism. According to the latter, God is already and always intimately acting in nature, which depends from moment to moment for its existence upon immediate divine activity; there isn't and couldn't be any such thing as his 'intervening' in nature.
“The appeal to "irreducible complexity" is a "god of the gaps" argument.”
As we’ve already established, there is no such thing as a “god of the gaps” argument in ID theory. But the broader question is whether there can be “irreducible complexity” (IC). A feature would be considered to be irreducibly complex, according to biochemist Michael Behe, when,
a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
Since humans can produce irreducible complex items, the existence of such features is indisputable. The implied assumption is that such features do not exist in nature. But it ignores the fact that humans are a part of nature (unless we are supernatural beings). If one part of nature (humans) can produce IC features then we cannot make the a priori assumption that other parts of nature could not also do the same.
“ID isn’t science since it is not published or cited in peer-reviewed literature.”
This is a form of argumentum ad populum in which a research program is considered “legitimate” whenever it is recognized by a majority of practicing scientists. However useful the peer-review process might be for advancing research, it is not a valid method of discriminating adequate programs from pseudo-science. A review of the history of science, for example, shows that a large number of significant theories were not accepted by the “scientific community” when they were first proposed (i.e., Galileo vs. the Aristotelians).
The claim also relies on the assumption that the work of ID theorists is not sufficiently “scientific” to be worthy of inclusion in professional journals. But since there’s nothing inherently unscientific about such a research program, the reason for the paucity of publication would either have to be because ID advocates simply do not submit there work for publication or because the opponents of ID who control access to the journals prevent their work from being included.
There are many other philosophical objections, but rather than build strawmen to knock down, I’ll simply ask the critics of ID to present their objections themselves. I’ll update this post accordingly as each one is answered. If you have a contribution please try to keep it to one point that can be put into a simple statement. Almost all complex objections can be broken down into smaller parts, which, for the sake of clarity, are better dealt with individually.
Update: Glenn Reynolds adds: "I LIKE HUGH HEWITT'S BLOG BOOK, and I think Hugh understands a lot about blogs, but I think that "intelligent design" theory is, um, highly unpersuasive. Rand Simberg critiques a recent post of Hugh's on that subject."
So which of the four do you think he finds more plausible -- A, B, C, or D? Perhaps I'm missing something but why is the idea that design is detectable considered "unpersuasive?"
Update II: Jim Lindgren at Volokh chimes in with:
One thing that strikes me about Intelligent Design is that it must have been much more intuitively appealing before the failure of socialism. Socialism in the 1920s--1940s was in part based on the idea that the world had become so complex that central planning was necessary to deal with this complexity. Yet Von Mises was arguing just the opposite, that as the world became more elaborate, no one could plan it. ID seems to be based on an assumption that most conservatives reject in the economic sphere--that as the economy gets more elaborate, to work well it must be the product of the intelligent design of a master planner.
I assume that Mr. Lindgren's comment is meant to be humourous. Otherwise it would be hard to imagine how he could think that the rational decision making of millions of intelligent beings is more similiar to blind, undirected evolutionary processes rather to an intelligent designer.
Related:
1
ID is falsifiable.
No, it certainly is not, as I've explained elsewhere here.
Repeating a lie long enough does not make it so.
There are no externally obervables that indicated the presence of so-called "complex specified information," or "specified complexity."
he multiverse theory,...
An attempt at a "two wrongs make a right" argument, that falls flat, because, in fact there are ways of testing for these theories, except that some of them are not practically implementable, wherease in the "ID" case there are no tests.
Why do you have to keep repeating the same lies?
“The appeal to "irreducible complexity" is a "god of the gaps" argument.”
I hadn't thought of this, but it's a good point.
“ID isn’t science since it is not published or cited in peer-reviewed literature.”
This is a form of argumentum ad populum...
No, this is a form of argument from paranoia on your part. Really, there is no "conspiracy of scientists" to suppress ID or parapsychology or talking to the dead or any of any number of hokum pseudo-sciences.
If there were a shred of good science behind this nonsense, it would be published, but there isn't.
That's why Dembski has to resort to getting funded by quack healers.
2
Many scientific explanations are described as theories. For example, gravity is described as a theory. However, to equate "intelligent design" with the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution. This is just another attempt by evangelical Christians to impose their beliefs on others through the use of public institutions. How can one group of people so fanatically believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. They deny the existence of "ghosts", but then want people to believe in invisible supernatural beings.
I really don't think the evangelicals are very Christian. The proof is this: Christ said "blessed are the peacemakers". yet the evangelicals voted for Bush. Bush killed thousands of innocents in Iraq, allowed Americans to be killed by sending them into a situation without the proper wquipment, spent the next generation's money and failed to defend America on 9/11/2001. Now, how would Jesus vote for someone like that?
3
my goodness. More pseudo science and 100 percent horsecrap - the existence of emergent order and complexity DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE TOOTH FAIRY EXISTS.
These fairy tales would be a lot more charming if adults didn't REALLY believe in them.
posted on 12.27.2004 8:18 AM4
As a scientific theory, ID fails miserably. Imagine if Einstein published a book saying, "All things are relative, I truly believe this. I think eventually we will be able to prove this in a rigorous scientific way as well. It is simply inconceivable that things aren't this way." Imagine that was the theory of relativity pawned off on the scientific community in the early 20th century. Do you think that anyone would have accepted it as a valid scientific theory? Of course not. Yet this is exactly what you are expecting of science when it comes to intelligent design.
ID'ers want us to accept what they do as science, then they need to come up with something besides warm fuzzies. ID in and of itself doesn't try to turn the geological or fossil records on its head like the full blown creationists do. However they do claim that there is a way to detect intelligent design. The problem is they have yet to propose a successful mechanism for doing so. They are, lets say, in the very formative stage of getting their theory off the ground. Until they present a cohesive theory that can be repeatedly and independently validated and verified, they don't have a scientific theory, they have what I present as Einstein's relativity argument in my above example.
Comparing them to superstring theory and multiverse theory is similarly fallacious. Can these theories be seen in the known universe? Not now, and probably not ever. These theories however are being worked out mathematically. They didn't just put up a catch phrase, publish some books for sale to the general public and then claim their work was finished. These researches are rigorously working out the mathematical justification of their theory, and what they have is working out on paper. If you scoff at this idea, I will again remind you that black holes were purely a mathematical consequence of the theory of relativity that we only knew existed on paper until the 1980's. Scientists worked the math out independently, repeatedly for decades before the actual detections occured. The same is true for many of the discoveries in quantum mechanics who's mathematical validations for preceeded their physical observation.
Intelligent design is no where near this stage. In some cases where they have published potential mathematical foundations, it is discovered that their math is simply a rehash of already widely held positions in information theory. It therefore turned out they weren't converging on a mathematical mechanism for detecting design but the opposite of that.
Theistic evolution as an ID theory is worth mentioning for five minutes. It is a belief that evolution occured exactly as we see it in a process that was guided by god. It doesn't seek to determine the intelligent design mechanism because they believe it is undetectable. A seemingly random mutation here or a frame shift there and god manipulated us to our current state. The prinicples behind evolution are therefore untampered by their introduction of god into the evolutionary process. It therefore requires none of the religious baggage that the present day ID movement carries around in their attemp at pushing a scientific theory that they have yet to actually write.
posted on 12.27.2004 8:23 AM5
Joe --
If intelligent design is to be heard as a "science," its proponents must present a hypothesis that, if true, is consistent with intelligent design but inconsistent with competing forms of evolutionary theory.
Incidentally, in order for them to be useful, your examples A-D must be rewritten as follows:
(A) The universe exhibits certain features [that are consistent with them being] the product of an intelligent designer[, and inconsistent with them being the product of other mechanisms].
[B is meaningless and should be eliminated.]
(C) [The universe exhibits certain features that are inconsistent with them being the product of an intelligent designer and consistent with them being the product of other mechanisms.]
[D is also meaningless.]
[E. There is insufficient evidence to rule in or out the presence of an intelligent designer. However, the available evidence may, at present, be explained by mechanisms other than that of an intelligent designer.]
A assumes the existence of affirmative evidence against design and C assumes the existence of affirmative evidence for design. I'd respectfully suggest, however, that E describes the current state of affairs.
posted on 12.27.2004 8:27 AM
6
Erm, pre-coffee. Re-write that last paragraph as follows:
A assumes the existence of affirmative evidence for design and C assumes the existence of affirmative evidence against design. I'd respectfully suggest, however, that E describes the current state of affairs.
posted on 12.27.2004 8:29 AM7
The biggest con being perpetrated onto the lay public is that there is a scientific theory of Intelligent Design Creationism. There is no such scientific theory. Naturally, it's difficult to teach something which does not exist. The best theory of Intelligent Design Creationism is theistic evolution (See Glenn Morton ). It's not a scientific theory per se, but it is at least consistent with science in all respects.
Theories, in science, unite observations into a single explanatory framework, and they make testable predictions. Perhaps someday there will be a theory of IDC, one which explains the evidence for common descent, which does this. Currently, there is not. Deceiving one's fellow Christians into thinking such an explanation exists and is a legitimate scientific explanation is not only dishonest, it's doing harm to the integrity of science, of religion, and to legitimate research into ID. Because of the carnival atmosphere created by PR/marketing organizations such as the Discovery Institute, ID has gone from an interesting sub discipline of study with applications in Intel/Survelienece /Cryptography, and SETI, to the laughing stock of the scientific community.
posted on 12.27.2004 8:33 AM8
I've no objection to ID theory being taught in the schools as long as it is placed where it belongs, which is in the discipline of Philosophy. The branch to which it belongs is Cosmology, where the "argument [for the existence of God] from design" has been in play since at least Plato, and undoubtedly before. And in such a context, ID theory has to be brought into play against competing theories and subjected to debate, not taught as some authoritative and final answer to the problem of origins.
Christian philosophers and theologians are rather latercomers to the discussion, and current evangelicals behave as if they just came upon the idea, and as if it were some trump card in the discussion about the universe's origins.
But it's not, and here's why. Let's assume for a moment that so-called "ID theory" is true (and it may well be). Does that establish that the intelligent designer is omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, eternal, self-revealing, and particularly interested in one small race of peoples originating in a tiny region on a pinprick planet in this creation of (his/its)? It could be a god caught up in the space and time of his own creation, or it could be a god indifferent to its creation, or a god of limited powers, or Plato's demiurge, a few steps removed from the purely transcendent Good (not a typo -- I meant "Good").
Too much more of an argument needs to be mustered to establish that this "designer" is the Judeo-Christian God -- whom, by the way, I believe in and worship.
I have to wonder why Evangelicals have so wrapped themselves around this argument. It is tenuous at best because it relies principally on the logic of induction, which is the weaker and more suspect form of argument, and it is so far from authenticating "inerrantist" beliefs as to be useless as an apologetic.
The ultimate apologetic, as Jesus said, is for us to love one another, as he loved us. If we fail at that, it doesn't matter what theory of origins is taught in one county of Pennsylvania.
posted on 12.27.2004 8:52 AM9
ID is a “God-of-the-gaps” explanation.”
This is completely correct. "Wow, this sure is complicated, and if you can't tell me how it evolved to my personal satisfaction I'm going to assume it was made by super aliens" is precisely a gap argument. You can substitute ID'ers of the Gaps or Alien[s] of the Gaps, if you wish to help convey the lie that it is irreligiously motivated, but the confessions among the IDC Apologists, Johnson and Dembski to name just two, to the natures of the entity they advocate reveals in their own words exactly what kind of Designer they're referring to. It is the Christian Deity.
The appeal to "irreducible complexity" is a "god of the gaps" argument.
IRC is not an argument for IDC, it is an argument against Darwinian Gradualism, and a very poor one at that. One which ignores a tremendous body of evidence showing plausible pathways for such structures to develop in which each transitory step confers advantage. To refute IRC all we need show is a single possible pathway. Any evidence we have suggesting an actual series of events consistent with a proposed possible pathway is merely gravy for evolutionary biology.
The con used most often here is to claim it is impossible in principle, and when confronted with the steps that outline the process, to subtley switch from 'impossible even in principle' to 'show me exactly how it happened in any of the billions of organisms I happen to arbitrarily pick to 100% metaphysical certianty'. Also know as goal post moving ;)
posted on 12.27.2004 8:58 AM10
It is tenuous at best because it relies principally on the logic of induction
Unless you're a set theorist, virtually everything we deal with is largely inductive.
posted on 12.27.2004 9:16 AM11
However they do claim that there is a way to detect intelligent design. The problem is they have yet to propose a successful mechanism for doing so.
That's not what I see. I do see a succesful mechanism that hasn't been flashed out to work in most cases. It only works in a few special cases, and (like you said earlier) gives "warm fuzzies" in some other cases. I don't endorse warm fuzzies, but I do accept them as cues to keep searching.
There's a LOT they have to prove before they can claim ID is true -- but they already have some good theory, and an excellent platform for research.
They are, lets say, in the very formative stage of getting their theory off the ground.
Yes.
Until they present a cohesive theory that can be repeatedly and independently validated and verified, they don't have a scientific theory,
Wrong; they DO have a theory. It's just not elucidated yet. Once elucidated, it promises some very useful results; even if it doesn't refute any aspect of naturalism, it'll still provide useful information in court, archaeology, and similar endeavors.
IRC is not an argument for IDC, it is an argument against Darwinian Gradualism, and a very poor one at that.
I consider it a primitive and failed first shot at a specifically creationist intelligent design theory. The problem was that Behe didn't realise that just because something it's reducible doesn't mean that it can't be constructed. In other words, just because I can't remove a component and preserve the function doesn't mean that I couldn't have built it from something MORE complex and redundant, and then removed the redundant components.
I consider IRC thoroughly refuted.
ID will be useless if a no-free-lunch theorem can't be constructed for darwinian evolution. If ID manages to produce an applicable NFL theorem, then by definition random search is as useful as any unguided process (such as naturalistic evolution), so the complexity criteria in ID can be simply applied; all you have to do is calculate the conditional probability of the specification given a _random_ initial state (the nature of the initial state needs research, but the basics are here); this is relatively simple in concept. If no NFL theorem applies (the NFL theorem Dembski used in his beek of the same title applies to a specific class of optimizations, and some people plausibly speculate that naturalistic evolution isn't in that class, since it tends to change the fitness landscape at the same time as it changes the location on the landscape), then ID is impractical to apply, since calculating the computational complexity of the organism requires figuring out the shortest possible path to produce it, which is simply uncomputable, period.
As I said before, though, even *if* ID turns out to be impractical in that case, it's still possibly useful, and exploring it would certainly produce valuable mathematical results.
-Billy
12
Wrong; they DO have a theory. It's just not elucidated yet. Once elucidated, it promises some very useful results; even if it doesn't refute any aspect of naturalism, it'll still provide useful information in court, archaeology, and similar endeavors.
Where is the theory? Where is the math or the data confirming the theory? I agree with you when it says its a good cue that they are searching. The problem is that searching really doesn't count for having a valid theory or not. If you could point to me some of the data you say there is supporting the ID theory, as well as a good suscinct explanation of that theory, I'd be most appreciative.
posted on 12.27.2004 10:53 AM13
jpe, your point on induction is granted.
Induction is all we have to establish norms and assumptions and probable truths that allow the operation of deduction, which only functions within agreed-upon frameworks (e.g., set theory) between disputants -- y'know, "a priori" claims. It is such, I think, even within Toulmin's logic, where granted "claims" can supply "data" for subsequent inferences. Those granted "claims" only come from prior "data," which implies induction.
So I think I meant something other than what I said about the nature of the ID argument that makes it a low predictor of ID being a probable truth, and I will have to think a bit more about what that is. I appreciate your calling me on it; it was sloppy.
But to me I suppose it will be academic (so what if I am an academic?). These are matters of faith, and the possibility of faith necessitates the possibility of doubt, which puts at least some aspects of Christian cosmology beyond rational discourse. That's why I think the whole ID enterprise, like so many of its ilk before it, is in the end futile if interesting.
posted on 12.27.2004 11:00 AM14
I agree, by the bye, with John Eric's view:
I've no objection to ID theory being taught in the schools as long as it is placed where it belongs, which is in the discipline of Philosophy.
The problem with teaching ID as a scientific theory is that it's not yet a scientific theory by the ordinary definition of the term.
(Incidentally, schools should by all means point out the "gaps" in evolutionary theory, as well as encourage students to be skeptical. What schools shouldn't do is pretend that "ID" is what it's not.)
posted on 12.27.2004 11:13 AM15
William Tanksley:
Wrong; they DO have a theory. It's just not elucidated yet...
Elucidate is a synonym for "explain," which is itself a synonym for "define."
If it ain't defined it ain't a theory.
I know you really want it to be so, but that does not make it science.
posted on 12.27.2004 11:26 AM16
Michael: my goodness. More pseudo science and 100 percent horsecrap - the existence of emergent order and complexity DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE TOOTH FAIRY EXISTS.
Where does this “emergent order” emerge from? Does it come from inert matter by…magic?
Moderate: As a scientific theory, ID fails miserably. Imagine if Einstein published a book saying, "All things are relative, I truly believe this. I think eventually we will be able to prove this in a rigorous scientific way as well. It is simply inconceivable that things aren't this way." Imagine that was the theory of relativity pawned off on the scientific community in the early 20th century. Do you think that anyone would have accepted it as a valid scientific theory? Of course not. Yet this is exactly what you are expecting of science when it comes to intelligent design.
When was Einstein’s theory first proposed and when was it tested? Do you consider that it was a “valid scientific theory” in that interim?
However they do claim that there is a way to detect intelligent design. The problem is they have yet to propose a successful mechanism for doing so.
Here is the crux of the problem. If you are claiming that science currently does not have a way to determine when or if design is found in nature then any theories proposed to explain natural phenomena are inadequate.
They are, lets say, in the very formative stage of getting their theory off the ground. Until they present a cohesive theory that can be repeatedly and independently validated and verified, they don't have a scientific theory, they have what I present as Einstein's relativity argument in my above example.
Do you consider large-scale evolution to be a “cohesive theory” even though it cannot be repeated or independently validated?
These researches are rigorously working out the mathematical justification of their theory, and what they have is working out on paper. If you scoff at this idea, I will again remind you that black holes were purely a mathematical consequence of the theory of relativity that we only knew existed on paper until the 1980's. Scientists worked the math out independently, repeatedly for decades before the actual detections occured. The same is true for many of the discoveries in quantum mechanics who's mathematical validations for preceeded their physical observation.
So you are saying that if ID theorists could formulate mathematical models that show the necessity of a designer that you would accept them?
von: If intelligent design is to be heard as a "science," its proponents must present a hypothesis that, if true, is consistent with intelligent design but inconsistent with competing forms of evolutionary theory.
No, actually, it doesn’t. Einstein’s theory presented a hypothesis that was both true and consistent with Newtonian physics. ID would simply have to be able to explain certain aspects of the natural world better than competing theories.
(A) The universe exhibits certain features [that are consistent with them being] the product of an intelligent designer[, and inconsistent with them being the product of other mechanisms].
The problem is not whether they are consistent or inconsistent with other mechanisms. The question is, as I wrote, whether they are empirically detectable.
[B is meaningless and should be eliminated.]
So you are agreeing that design in nature should be empirically detectable?
(C) [The universe exhibits certain features that are inconsistent with them being the product of an intelligent designer and consistent with them being the product of other mechanisms.]
The way you formulate the question change it to a matter of “faith” rather than a scientifically tested conclusion.
[E. There is insufficient evidence to rule in or out the presence of an intelligent designer. However, the available evidence may, at present, be explained by mechanisms other than that of an intelligent designer.]
That might be useful if it were true. But all features cannot be explained by current mechanisms. Resorting to an “science-of-the-gaps” argument by claiming that science will someday be able to explain these features is an illogical move.
Theories, in science, unite observations into a single explanatory framework, and they make testable predictions.
As Popper noted, by your definition astrology could be considered a “scientific theory.” You have to provide a method (such as falsificationism) that is able to distinguish between a scientific theory and a pseudo-scientific one.
Deceiving one's fellow Christians into thinking such an explanation exists and is a legitimate scientific explanation is not only dishonest, it's doing harm to the integrity of science, of religion, and to legitimate research into ID.
Actually, I think it is more dishonest to expect people to believe in “magic” (i.e., that “emergent properties” and “information” can arise out of inert matter). That’s not empirically science, that’s “voodoo science.”
I've no objection to ID theory being taught in the schools as long as it is placed where it belongs, which is in the discipline of Philosophy.
Perhaps. But then we should move theories that are not falsifiable (i.e., Darwinism) into the same category.
But it's not, and here's why. Let's assume for a moment that so-called "ID theory" is true (and it may well be). Does that establish that the intelligent designer is…
No, it doesn’t. And it shouldn’t. That falls outside the scope of science.
… and it is so far from authenticating "inerrantist" beliefs as to be useless as an apologetic.
Sadly, too many Christians think that ID theory is supposed to be “useful as an apologetic.” It’s value is not as a substitute for good apologetic arguments but as a substitute for inadequate scientific theories. Christians should be concerned about ID because they are concerned about truth. (And until proven otherwise, any rational person should assume that design in nature could be empirically detectable.)
This is completely correct. "Wow, this sure is complicated, and if you can't tell me how it evolved to my personal satisfaction I'm going to assume it was made by super aliens" is precisely a gap argument.
How is it not a “science-of-the-gaps” argument to assume that it evolved at all? Why in the absence of evidence should we believe that natural selection can develop specified complexity? It is not a “gap argument” to look for other explanations when the ones we have are completely inadequate and rely on question begging assumptions (i.e., individual features must have been useful because they were selected).
One which ignores a tremendous body of evidence showing plausible pathways for such structures to develop in which each transitory step confers advantage.
The problem is that if we take away the question-begging, the “plausible pathways” aren’t very plausible. Relying on such “it could happen” arguments to explain complex features is the reason that many people have a hard time buying into Darwinian explanations. When your explanation can explain anything and cannot be falsified it is no longer in the realm of scienc.e
To refute IRC all we need show is a single possible pathway.
True! That is what separates IRD from Darwinian gradualism – it’s falsifiable.
17
When was Einstein’s theory first proposed and when was it tested? Do you consider that it was a “valid scientific theory” in that interim?
Einstein's theory of special relativity was first published in 1905. The foundation of the the theory rests in work done by Poncaire and Lorentz in the late 19th century. The mathematics he presented was thoroughly revalidated throughout the remainder of the first decade of the 20th century, and didn't gain sufficient momentum until being independently worked out and published by Planck in 1908. The principle of ether as an explanatory theory was on the way out and this was actually a natural progression based on the work in the field at that time. The proof of the constancy of the speed of light, which is foundational to the theory of relativity, had already been proven in 1887 by Michelson and Morley.
General relativity was published over a period of time. His initial publications actually contained errors, which were detected both by himself and others who were independently trying to verify his equations of motion. The final form of the equations were published in 1915 and were nearly simultaneously reverified mathematically that same year. The first physical prediction from General Relativity occured in 1919 with the correct prediction of the orbit of Mercury. Mercury is close enough that using Newtonian Gravity produces measurably inaccurate motion.
So which period are you asking about Joe? We have:
1. Pre-formulation period
2. Formulation but not formally published period
3. Formally published but not mathematically verified
4. Mathematically verified but not physical or experimental validation
5. Experimental or physical validated
As you can see, Einstein's work sat in the 2 and 3 stage for some time, and then began getting accepted once stage 4 occured. Stage 5 only restrengthened the arguments. Right now ID is at best in stage 2. If they start getting results published then they can begin to have them mathematically reverified by independent scientists and mathematicions. At that point we can begin to say that ID theory is one that should be considered to be a contender in the explanation for the evolution of life in a system.
posted on 12.27.2004 12:23 PM18
Sorry...an error in my last post...
The data on the motion of the perihelion of Mercury had been accumlated with enough accuracy as far back as 1913. Therefore the physical data to confirm the use of General Relativity to make that prediction was instantaneous. The 1919 experiment was an experimental confirmation of the bending of space-time due to gravity by looking at the apparent position of a star cluster as the sun passes directly in front of it during a total solar eclipse.
posted on 12.27.2004 12:37 PM19
"Intelligent Design" is not science. I personally believe that God created the universe. I also believe that the theory of evolution is correct. I don't have a conflict with that. But if you see one and you want to discuss that conflict in schools thats fine with me. However, it should not be taught in science class. It's proper place is in Philosophy 101. Not Biology 101. Before you tell me that its unfair to teach evolution as science and "intelligent design" as philosophy, I will point out that the proof of Evolution, as a process, has been tested and confirmed many, many times. However, Evolution never makes a claim of First Cause. It never says what or who started the whole process, if anyone did. It doesn't deny the existence of the Creator. Some professors who teach it may, but Evolution itself doesn't make an assumption about that question at all. It leaves that question for philosophy class, where it properly belongs. This is also where "Intelligent Design" belongs.
The truth of the matter is that those who want "Intelligent Design" taught in Science courses do not want it taught because it is or isn't a valid scientific theory. They want it taught because they feel that the teaching of Evolution contradicts their religious or moral beliefs. Therefore to them Evolution threatens those beliefs. So they wish to get rid of Evolution or devalue it in some way. This is not a hidden agenda, many school board members have run on a platform of doing exactly that.
But in reality, the problem truly lies with the security and faith of those who hold those beliefs. It is a political or philosophical issue. It is not a problem with the rigorously tested theory and evidence of Evolution.
Science does not consider moral questions. But its conclusions may indirectly spawn them. Science created the H-Bomb. It did not create the discussion about the morality of using it.
The conscience, or lack thereof, of those who want to use the H-Bomb creates the argument. But that discussion in the conscience has never been within the scope of the science, the theories and methods, that created the H-Bomb.
The proper place for "intelligent design" is where it has always been properly discussed already, in Philosophy. Indeed, Joe's entire post is not a scientific in nature, it's Philosophy 101. Continue to make your arguments there and leave the Biology textbooks alone.
posted on 12.27.2004 12:46 PM20
Joe:
So you are agreeing that design in nature should be empirically detectable?
We touched on this in one of your previous postings on ID, but I think it might be worth revisiting. I objected to ID, because it invariably involves a comparison of living organisms to (known) designed objects and (known) undesigned objects, and this creates problems if one holds as an article of faith that everything is created. You responded: “I think you’ve misunderstood the ID position. It is not claiming that certain objects in the universe are designed while others are not. All it claims is that certain objects with high information content show evidence of having been created by an intelligent designer. “
Do I then understand you correctly to be claiming that design is detectable in some small subset of created objects which have high information content, but not in other created objects which have lower information content? If design/designer is equivalent to create/creator, then the criteria by which design is detected have a huge problem with false negatives. If design/designer and create/creator are not equivalent, then how do we go about distinguishing the two phenomena?
regarding whether design provides evidence about the designer:
No, it doesn’t. And it shouldn’t. That falls outside the scope of science.
On what basis? The only example of design that we all agree on is human design. Would you argue that no information about Homo sapiens can be gleaned from analysis of artifacts designed by humans?
posted on 12.27.2004 12:50 PM21
Patrick: "Intelligent Design" is not science.
Can you provide the criteria that you use to draw that conclusion? (Preferably one that wouldn’t exclude Darwinian theories.)
Before you tell me that its unfair to teach evolution as science and "intelligent design" as philosophy, I will point out that the proof of Evolution, as a process, has been tested and confirmed many, many times.
The “proof” of micro-evolution has been tested and confirmed many times. No one that I know disputes that. But that is not where the controversy lies. The debate is over the areas in which is that not been adequately tested or confirmed.
The truth of the matter is that those who want "Intelligent Design" taught in Science courses do not want it taught because it is or isn't a valid scientific theory. They want it taught because they feel that the teaching of Evolution contradicts their religious or moral beliefs.
You’re simply setting up a strawman now. My objections to Darwinianism have nothing to do with my religion. It has to do with my beliefs about science.
The proper place for "intelligent design" is where it has always been properly discussed already, in Philosophy. Indeed, Joe's entire post is not a scientific in nature, it's Philosophy 101. Continue to make your arguments there and leave the Biology textbooks alone.
Then I suppose you wouldn’t object to leaving eugenics in the text since they are compatible with the theory but are only disputable at the level of philosophy?
22
Nick: Do I then understand you correctly to be claiming that design is detectable in some small subset of created objects which have high information content, but not in other created objects which have lower information content?
Yes and no. I believe that the laws of nature, for example, are a product of design. These laws could be used to create certain features but not others. So when I’m saying that design is “detectable” I’m distinguishing between that which can be accounted for by the known laws of nature and that which can’t.
If design/designer is equivalent to create/creator, then the criteria by which design is detected have a huge problem with false negatives.
True, but currently the “false negatives” against design are 100%. If any features are the product of an intelligent designer who did not use the regular methods we now consider, then all such features are going to produce a “false negative”, as being what Dawkins called “designoid.” (Of course, this isn’t wholly accurate since you can only have a false negative when a test is conducted. Much of what is claimed as lacking design characteristics is based on speculation rather than empirical testing.)
If design/designer and create/creator are not equivalent, then how do we go about distinguishing the two phenomena?
The methods used. The difference between my position and the Darwinists is that they believe that everything can be explained by chance and necessity and I believe that everything can be explained by chance, necessity, or design.
On what basis? The only example of design that we all agree on is human design. Would you argue that no information about Homo sapiens can be gleaned from analysis of artifacts designed by humans?
You can glean certain information but not about the human's specific identity. Two humans could create identical artifacts and you would not be able to determine anything specific about their personalities from examining their creations.
23
One reason that ID is clearly not science is the use of bogus quantification. Pseudosciences are rife with such matters. As has been demonstrated again and again, probability calculations by Dembski et. al. are complete garbage.
Also, the author would do well to read recent literature on the "demarcation problem" - even philosophers who think science and common inquiry are continguous agree there are pseudosciences. Susan Haack's recent book is about this; for a stronger position see vol. 5-6 of Mario Bunge's Treatise on Basic Philosophy.
posted on 12.27.2004 1:12 PM24
Then I suppose you wouldn’t object to leaving eugenics in the text since they are compatible with the theory but are only disputable at the level of philosophy?
Eugenics as a historical phenomenon is disputable at both the level of science and philosophy. The goals of eugenics supporters (eugenicists?) can be disputed at the level of philosophy. The methods of the eugenicists can be shown to be based on misunderstandings of both Darwinism and Mendelian genetics. It can also be shown that application of the eugenicists methods would not have accomplished the ends they desired.
So, I would expect that a genetics textbook might include a basic statement of the eugenicists goals and a more in-depth dissection of their methods. It might also include alternatives to eugenics (e.g. Jim Neel's "euphenics") which are based on a more modern understanding of genetics. A Philosophy textbook might dissect the goals of the eugenics movement in terms of their morality without spending a lot of time discussing why their techniques run afoul of complex genetic traits and gene-environment interactions.
posted on 12.27.2004 1:17 PM25
Keith: One reason that ID is clearly not science is the use of bogus quantification. Pseudosciences are rife with such matters. As has been demonstrated again and again, probability calculations by Dembski et. al. are complete garbage.
Yes, I’ve heard those claims made but never verified. Oddly, Dembski’s probability calculations were sufficient to pass peer review but not good enough to pass muster in the blogosphere.
Also, the author would do well to read recent literature on the "demarcation problem" - even philosophers who think science and common inquiry are continguous agree there are pseudosciences. Susan Haack's recent book is about this; for a stronger position see vol. 5-6 of Mario Bunge's Treatise on Basic Philosophy.
I never claimed that there weren’t pseudosciences. In fact, I’m a firm believer in the falsibility criterion for solving the demarcation problem. That is one of the primary reasons I consider Darwininian explanations (as currently posited) to be in the realm of pseudoscience.
26
Oddly, Dembski’s probability calculations were sufficient to pass peer review but not good enough to pass muster in the blogosphere.
a. Please cite the article in question. I think I know which one you refer to, but I'd like confirmation of that without hints.
b. Einstein's first formulation of General Relativity passed the peer review process as well and was later determined to contain errors that needed to be corrected in subsequent work. The purpose of peer review is not to provide an absolute seal of approval but instead to provide some stopgap measure from purely ludicrous work to be published and thus compound the problem of there being already an immense body of work published every year.
posted on 12.27.2004 1:30 PM27
Joe --
You've responding to an aggressive group, and I'm merely reiterating a few of their points, so I'll bow out. But I do want to correct one inaccuracy in your response to me:
"Einstein’s theory presented a hypothesis that was both true and consistent with Newtonian physics."
This is untrue. Einstein's theory of general relatively, for example, is not consistent with Newton's theory. (See here for a start: http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/einstein.html; can't vouch for overall accuracy, though, since I just googled it up.) In addition, Einstein also addresses issues that Newton does not. Compare ID, which purports to explain that which evolution purports to explain.
One further note: so far as I can tell, you've not addressed the argument that ID has not been tested as a scientific theory, and thus should not be called a scientific theory.*
von
*This assumes, of course, that you adhere to the ordinary definitions of the term and have not created a special definition for ID.
posted on 12.27.2004 1:40 PM28
Joe writes
"True! That is what separates IRD from Darwinian gradualism – it’s falsifiable."
Joe, this is really the worst argument against "Darwinian gradualism" out there.
When the incredibly powerful League of Alien Artisans from Galaxy K453.23 who designed and created every life form that ever existed on earth return in their silver spaceship and tell us how they did it and explain to us how the data scientists have been analyzing has been misinterpreted, then "Darwinian gradualism" is falsified.
What's that? You say that this is a "ridiculous" example of falsifying evidence?
That's interesting .... because the existence of such awesomely powerful (and I mean awesomely powerful) alien beings lies at the very core of "intelligent design" theory.
I hope this helps you understand why ID is a pile of pseudoscientific bullcrap, right up there with the study of ESP and the "healing powers" of crystals.
posted on 12.27.2004 1:53 PM29
Moderate: a. Please cite the article in question. I think I know which one you refer to, but I'd like confirmation of that without hints.
Actually, I was referring to a monograph rather than an article – The Design Inference.
b. Einstein's first formulation of General Relativity passed the peer review process as well and was later determined to contain errors that needed to be corrected in subsequent work.
Okay. So what about his special theory of relativity which was published without going through the peer-review process?
The purpose of peer review is not to provide an absolute seal of approval but instead to provide some stopgap measure from purely ludicrous work to be published and thus compound the problem of there being already an immense body of work published every year.
Yes, that is the problem. The only way that ID could be considered “ludicrous” is if a person has an philosophical objection to it that is unrelated to science.
Von: This is untrue. Einstein's theory of general relatively, for example, is not consistent with Newton's theory. (See here for a start: http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/einstein.html; can't vouch for overall accuracy, though, since I just googled it up.) In addition, Einstein also addresses issues that Newton does not.
I wasn’t implying that Newton’s and Einstein’s theories were 100% compatible. If they were then there would have been no need for Einstein’s theories at all. But we didn’t completely discard Newton’s ideas just because a better explanation came along.
Compare ID, which purports to explain that which evolution purports to explain.
No, it purports to explain what evolution cannot explain. Saying “it’s plausible that a feature could evolve” is not an explanation. ID may be wrong, but it at least tries to find an explanation that is rational.
One further note: so far as I can tell, you've not addressed the argument that ID has not been tested as a scientific theory, and thus should not be called a scientific theory.*
Testability in a scientific theory includes falsifiability, confirmation, predictability, and explanatory power. Whether ID meets those criteria I can’t really say. I can say, however, that Darwinian explanations do not meet that standard. If you are going to fault ID for not living up the criteria of testability then you should do so for other theories as well.
30
But we didn’t completely discard Newton’s ideas just because a better explanation came along.
Well, where it mattered, we did. But you're confusing convenience with correctness.
I can say, however, that Darwinian explanations do not meet that standard. If you are going to fault ID for not living up the criteria of testability then you should do so for other theories as well.
Huh? No, really: What the heck are you talking about?
This, more than anything, suggests that you just don't understand modern evolution theory or the evidence supporting it.
(Take the last word; I really am bowing out now.)
posted on 12.27.2004 2:07 PM31
Actually, I was referring to a monograph rather than an article – The Design Inference.
This is not a peer reviewed journal article. He did run the manuscript by other professionals who determined there were no out and out forgeries or untruths in it. That is a far cry from the types of journals that are being discussed when a scientist asks for "peer-reviewed" work. Likewise, neither in this book nor in any of his other publications has he proposed any type of forumulation or test that can be independently repeated and verified. Compare that to the Einstein case where the initial publications were in a peer reviewed journal and with sufficient details to allow for independent revalidation.
So what about his special theory of relativity which was published without going through the peer-review process?
You mean the one that no one in science took seriously until Planck revalidated in 1908? Even after that, whom people as big as Lorentz urged caution against accepting as late as 1912? If that is the paper you are discussing then it most certainly was published after going through a peer review process. Einstein first published his paper on special relativity, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," in the journal Annalen der Physik, which is a peer-reviewed journal. He published in the same journal his theory of General Relativity some time later, along with countless other articles including "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon Its Energy Content?" (E=mc^2) also in 1905.
The work you quoted however is a book published by a private publisher which went through no peer review, in the sense that is generally accepted by scientists, that Einstein's work did. Even though Einstein's work went through rigorous peer review it still was treated with skepticism until it was independently verified. Why do you ask for anything different on ID? The problem is that ID has yet to publish anything with enough detail for people to even attempt such a revalidation.
posted on 12.27.2004 2:20 PM32
Several commenters have suggested that Joe is ignorant of modern evolutionary theory and the preponderance of evidence supporting it. Could someone direct a college-educated person without special expertise in science and/or technology to a resource that summarizes or highlights some of this key evidence? I am genuinely curious and genuinely skeptical of many of Darwinian evolution's claims but also of many of the so-called "scientific creationist" arguments that have been made. I see both more as matters of faith than of falsifiability. I would appreciate the help.
As someone who is a student of American history, I also appreciated Joe's dissection of _Inherit the Wind_ and its portrayal of the Scopes trial. I believe the best book on the subject is Edward Larson's _Summer of the Gods_.
posted on 12.27.2004 2:34 PM33
Could someone direct a college-educated person without special expertise in science and/or technology to a resource that summarizes or highlights some of this key evidence?
A huge archive of material by various authors is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org
Most of it is, I think, written in such a way as to understandable to a non scientist. It may, however, require you to go back and review your college biology courses if you want to be able to critique the arguments.
posted on 12.27.2004 2:41 PM34
Ben
Not sure exactly what you want, but I'll be glad to help with more if you can more specific.
Some Basics. And here's an Index of stuff.
35
Nick: A huge archive of material by various authors is here: http://www.talkorigins.org
I think most of us who have been around the Internet for more than a few days are familiar with the Talk Origins site. Most of what they present is convincing if you already accept the theory as fact but the evidence presented (i.e., vestigal structures) doesn't necessarily lead one to accept the theory.
Like Ben, I would be interested in seeing something, I don't know, a little more scientific. For example, how is Darwinism falisfiable? Before we can accept evidence that supports the theory we should clarify what makes the theory scientific.
posted on 12.27.2004 2:47 PM36
"Testability in a scientific theory includes falsifiability, confirmation, predictability, and explanatory power. .... Darwinian explanations do not meet that standard."
Absolute garbage. If you knew better, we could say that you were lying. For now, it's just poppycock.
Why can't you just be honest about your position Joe: "God must have made sharks and beavers because I will never accept that sharks and beavers evolved from a common ancestor unless I see it happening with my own eyes, which I never will because I won't live that long."
That's an honest argument, Joe. It's a crappy anti-intellectual hand-waving argument from incredulity, but at least it's an honest one, i.e., the kind of argument that doesn't make a joke out of your religious beliefs and doesn't treat the words of your Messiah like wallpaper.
posted on 12.27.2004 2:48 PM37
Joe writes
"For example, how is Darwinism falisfiable? Before we can accept evidence that supports the theory we should clarify what makes the theory scientific."
I already explained this Joe. Here it is again:
When the incredibly powerful League of Alien Artisans from Galaxy K453.23 who designed and created every life form that ever existed on earth return in their silver spaceship and tell us how they did it and explain to us how the data scientists have been analyzing has been misinterpreted, then "Darwinian gradualism" is falsified.
What's that? You say that this is a "ridiculous" example of falsifying evidence?
That's interesting .... because the existence of such awesomely powerful (and I mean awesomely powerful) alien beings lies at the very core of "intelligent design" theory.
I hope this helps you understand why ID is a pile of pseudoscientific bullcrap, right up there with the study of ESP and the "healing powers" of crystals.
38
For example, how is Darwinism falisfiable?
You find a creature in an isolated ecosystem that has nearly identical physiological features of another creature in that ecosystem yet does not share any, or any significant, DNA with the other creature nor shows any other evidence of having a common ancestor.
posted on 12.27.2004 2:53 PM39
I just took a glance at the responding posts and noted that most responses were inane comments by people that appear to be shaken at their very base. They appear to be too frightened to approach the issue with an open mind. Hundreds of accepted components that were taught as fact to support inorganic evolution have been destroyed by refined scientific experimentation and evidence. The theory however continues on without any general boundaries, having become so vague that it seldom can be pinned down for rational thought and discussion.
These people that fear the discussion and open reporting of findings, reveal that they have no interest in the truth.
posted on 12.27.2004 2:55 PM40
Could someone direct a college-educated person without special expertise in science and/or technology to a resource that summarizes or highlights some of this key evidence?
I very much enjoyed Life Evolving by Christian De Duve.
posted on 12.27.2004 2:55 PM41
Mumon is right out of the gate with insults and ad hominem attacks. That says a great deal right there about the "anti-ID" position.
ID is certainly falsifiable. Simply replicate in a lab without intelligent intervention the origin of life from non-life, and the development of complex living organisms (such as self-aware multicellular organisms capable of moral actions) from very simple proto-liging organisms such as prions and viruses.
Then replicate the experiment. If you can't, then you can't falsify ID. Now, then, your failure to falsify ID doesn't de facto make ID true. The point is that ID is AT LEAST AS GOOD an explanation as naturalistic random chance.
ID as an explanation for the visible evidence is an alternate to the "scientific" dogma of materialistic random chance. No more, no less.
There is no requirement to come up with something that supports ID to the exclusion of other theories. The point is that the evidence WE CURRENTLY HAVE is at least as well explained by ID as by random chance; in many cases the existence of a designer provides a better explanation.
Sorry, no time at present to dig further into the thread.
posted on 12.27.2004 2:58 PM42
Joe writes
"Most of what they present is convincing if you already accept the theory as fact but the evidence presented (i.e., vestigal structures) doesn't necessarily lead one to accept the theory."
Funny how similar this sounds to the sort of stuff you hear from the cranks who believe that the moon landing or the Holocaust didn't happen.
Is there anyone here who can prove to me that Americans actually landed on the moon and not in some Hollywood studio? Since there are some serious skeptics out there who have raised some troubling questions about the lunar landing, I think it's imperative to "teach the controversy" in public school astronomy classes. You know, to our children can make up their own minds.
If you believe that we landed on the moon but not in evolutionary theory, can you explain to me why? Are astronomers and astrophysicists somehow more trustworthy than biologists?
posted on 12.27.2004 2:58 PM43
These people that fear the discussion and open reporting of findings, reveal that they have no interest in the truth.
Okay Tim, please point us to some scientific validation, or even coherent description, of the ID theory. I have read up on ID theory a la Dembski, Behe and et cetera. The bottom line is that they have not formed a theory that stands up to scientific scrutiny. As a scientist I encourage them to keep trying. I also encourage those who want ID to work to take their blinders off and realize that up until this point it hasn't.
When I first started studying physics I really was hoping that we could find a way to "trick" nature into allowing us to travel faster than light. I guess that's a product of growing up in the Star Trek generation. I studied such alternatives as "auto-dynamics" and read up on people who supposedly found holes in the theory. At the end of the day however I had to accept that the theory of relativity is very solid and that travelling faster than light, in a Star Trek sense, is going to be impossible. I hope that one day someone perfects "worm hole" theory or any other exotic mechanism that would allow us to travel faster than light to distant corners of the universe. However much I wish for it however, it would be wrong for me to state that there is any scientific basis for such a belief. I'm afraid the same can be said for many people who profess a belief in ID.
posted on 12.27.2004 3:01 PM44
Larry: Absolute garbage. If you knew better, we could say that you were lying. For now, it's just poppycock.
Which part do you disagree with, my claim of what constitutes testability or that Darwinian explanations fail that standard? If it’s the latter please explain what falsifies a Darwinian explanation. Should we use the standard that Darwin himself suggested?
Moderate: You find a creature in an isolated ecosystem that has nearly identical physiological features of another creature in that ecosystem yet does not share any, or any significant, DNA with the other creature nor shows any other evidence of having a common ancestor.
There are a number of problems with your standard but I think it will be enough to point out that you make the question-begging assumption that sharing DNA is evidence of a common ancestor. My Windows XP has some of the same code (genetic material) as DOS yet it did not “evolve” from a common ancestor.
If you believe that we landed on the moon but not in evolutionary theory, can you explain to me why? Are astronomers and astrophysicists somehow more trustworthy than biologists?
Sure. We had human beings who can attest to the fact that they were on the moon’s surface. We have no humans that can attest to the fact that they’ve seen macroevolution occur through natural selection.
(By the way, if you seriously think there is as much verifying evidence for Darwinian-style evolution as for the Holocaust or the moon landing then I would say that you don't understand the theory at all.)
45
I think most of us who have been around the Internet for more than a few days are familiar with the Talk Origins site.
Perhaps, but I have no information on how long Ben has been searching for information on the topic.
Most of what they present is convincing if you already accept the theory as fact but the evidence presented (i.e., vestigal structures) doesn't necessarily lead one to accept the theory.
I'd be curious to know what possible evidence you would find convincing.
Like Ben, I would be interested in seeing something, I don't know, a little more scientific. For example, how is Darwinism falisfiable?
Can you be more specific? Specific details are after all, the sine qua non of scientific discourse. By Darwinism, do you specifically mean common ancestry of existing organisms? Mechanisms of speciation? Natural selection? The synthesis of natural selection with Mendelian genetics? Mechanisms of mutation? Each of these could be falsified in different ways, and there's no reason to expect that they would all be falsified by a single observation.
posted on 12.27.2004 3:19 PM46
There are a number of problems with your standard but I think it will be enough to point out that you make the question-begging assumption that sharing DNA is evidence of a common ancestor.
You're right. Inherited viral insertions and copy errors from previous common generations are tenuous evidence at best. If you want to say that god caused the viral insertion or the copy error, like the theistic evolutionist would, that's fine. ID wants to go one step further and determine which insertions and copy errors occured spontaneously (if any of them did) and which were caused by an intelligent agent.
My Windows XP has some of the same code (genetic material) as DOS yet it did not “evolve” from a common ancestor.
Since we have every revision of Windows and DOS source code, we could actually draw an inheretence diagram of the two. We can therefore see the code evolution of the two and develop of morphology. However that will simply be taking a snapshot of the migration of code over time. Since neither of the two are self-propagating that pretty much ends the usage of that as a correlary to evolution. Now we do have examples of genetic algorithms being coded to generate programs, but all that's proved is that evolutionary processes can "create" information.
PS Let's get the abiogenesis argument out of the way right now. The Theory of Evolution begins after the development of self-propagating species and does not care about the process by which those first species deveolped. That is reserved for a yet to be agreed upon Theory of Abiogenesis.
posted on 12.27.2004 3:20 PM47
Corrie writes
"ID is certainly falsifiable. Simply replicate in a lab without intelligent intervention the origin of life from non-life, and the development of complex living organisms (such as self-aware multicellular organisms capable of moral actions) from very simple proto-liging organisms such as prions and viruses."
Hahahahaha. "Simply" you say? What a lame sick sad fraud you are, Corrie. You can't even distinguish the concept of abiogenesis from evolution. Rather sad.
Prions and viruses aren't "proto-living organisms" any more than my hand is a "proto-living organism".
And any scientist will tell you that if you wait a billion years and earth is still here and hasn't been swallowed up by the sun you will see new life forms on earth that aren't around today but are descended from forms that are around today. That's just common freaking sense in the 21st century, corrie (indeed, it was common sense by the early twentieth century when creationists were already predicting the imminent demise of evolution).
And of course, that experiment doesn't "prove" that the organisms that are on earth today weren't intelligently designed and put here by an extraordinarily powerful group of aliens. SO much for the "falsification" corrie.
Once again, for those who aren't clear on the concept: ID theory, insofar as it has ever been articulated, is a worthless pile of crap (at leasst from a scientific viewpoint).
Here again we have an individual (corrie) who is "skeptical" about the claims of biologists but who doesn't know dick about biology. People who are skeptical of things they know nothing about can be honest. But ignorant people who pretend that they are informed when they are merely passing lies and mispresentation to others are disgusting charlatans. I'd say that were unChristian as well, insofar as their comments tend to disparage the hard work of scientists around the world who help keep our children, born and unborn, healthy and safe from disease.
"The point is that the evidence WE CURRENTLY HAVE is at least as well explained by ID as by random chance; in many cases the existence of a designer provides a better explanation."
Random chance? Again, corrie shows the complete failure to grasp the fundamentals. Disgusting.
And ID doesn't "explain" anything. It's dog poop science. Here's how it works:
How did that coffee cup get next t my computer? I don't remember putting it there but it's an intelligent place to put it. MAYBE SOME UNKNOWN ALL POWERFUL DESIGNER PUT IT THERE?
Gosh, isn't that a neat trick? What a useful concept this "ID theory" is!!!! I can use it to explain everything. And you can't falsify it.
posted on 12.27.2004 3:25 PM48
Here's the link to the journal article I was refering to in my last post. I unfortunately only have a hard copy now, so you'll have to go to your library to read more than just the abstract:
The evolutionary origin of complex features
RICHARD E. LENSKI*, CHARLES OFRIA†, ROBERT T. PENNOCK‡ & CHRISTOPH ADAMI
Nature 423, 139 - 144 (08 May 2003)
A long-standing challenge to evolutionary theory has been whether it can explain the origin of complex organismal features. We examined this issue using digital organisms—computer programs that self-replicate, mutate, compete and evolve. Populations of digital organisms often evolved the ability to perform complex logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured. However, no particular intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex functions. The first genotypes able to perform complex functions differed from their non-performing parents by only one or two mutations, but differed from the ancestor by many mutations that were also crucial to the new functions. In some cases, mutations that were deleterious when they appeared served as stepping-stones in the evolution of complex features. These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.
49
(By the way, if you seriously think there is as much verifying evidence for Darwinian-style evolution as for the Holocaust or the moon landing then I would say that you don't understand the theory at all.)
I think i'd have to disagree on that. All of the evidence for either of those events is purely, directly, manmade. As such it is easier by any measurable criteria to fabricate. The fossil record, the strata, the molecular evidence, etc, is all there for anyone who wants to put in the time to go out and find the raw data in nature, in form and quantity we cannot fabricate. We'd have to be fabricating all the data, and anyone could go out and check up on it if they wished to put in the time and expense.
50
Joe:
There are a number of problems with your standard but I think it will be enough to point out that you make the question-begging assumption that sharing DNA is evidence of a common ancestor. My Windows XP has some of the same code (genetic material) as DOS yet it did not “evolve” from a common ancestor.
Here you have oversimplified the evidence for common ancestry to the point of parody. Sharing DNA is evidence of a common ancestry, but it hardly constitutes the totality of that evidence. The evidence for common ancestry includes, but is not limited to:
1. specific similarities and differences between organisms that form nested hierarchies
2. Biogeographic data about those organisms
3. Mechanisms by which the DNA sequences can be replicated and can change over time
4. The observation that those mechanisms of DNA change will frequently make identical sequences less similar but will only rarely make dissimilar sequences more similar.
4. Fossil evidence of extinct organisms that are similar but not identical to extant organisms.
5. Biogeographic data about those extinct organisms.
6. Shared structures that are non-functional together with explanations for how those nonfunctional structures are generated and propagated.
Does your computer example have all these characteristics?
These aren't single pieces of evidence, but masses of specific details about many different organisms that generate a coherent picture. None of it constitutes proof (reserved for mathematics and alcohol), but common ancestry is the theory that best explains all of these observations. Competing theories will need to grapple with all of the evidence in all its wondrous detail, from the biogeography of caribbean anoles to the fossil evidence of whale ancestry. not just one tiny subset thereof
posted on 12.27.2004 3:39 PM51
Nick: I'd be curious to know what possible evidence you would find convincing.
The appearance of transistional fossils for most of the body types that now exist would be a nice start.
By Darwinism, do you specifically mean common ancestry of existing organisms? Mechanisms of speciation? Natural selection? The synthesis of natural selection with Mendelian genetics? Mechanisms of mutation? Each of these could be falsified in different ways, and there's no reason to expect that they would all be falsified by a single observation.
Good point. I would be interested in knowing how each could be falsified.
PS Let's get the abiogenesis argument out of the way right now. The Theory of Evolution begins after the development of self-propagating species and does not care about the process by which those first species deveolped. That is reserved for a yet to be agreed upon Theory of Abiogenesis.
Naturally, I can understand why the origins of life is a subject that is best kept quiet. But I think it is rather odd that we should start in the middle. If the theory of evolution can’t explain how a simple self-propagating life form evolved then why should we assume that it has the creative power to develop more complex structures?
Moderate: The evolutionary origin of complex features RICHARD E. LENSKI*, CHARLES OFRIA†, ROBERT T. PENNOCK‡ & CHRISTOPH ADAMI Nature 423, 139 - 144 (08 May 2003)
I’m familiar with the argument against that article. I couldn’t find the original criticism but here is one that is similar:
In the case of the article described in Nature, the "design" or the intelligent human influence can be found in the fitness function. As stated earlier, the primarily fitness function assesses health (or fitness points) on a monotonically increasing scale based upon the number and complexity of logic functions that a given digital organism could perform. For example, both NOT and NAND logic operations were associated with 2 rewards points, AND and OR_N were associated with 4 reward points, and so on up to the EQU operation which was associated with the greatest reward - 16 points. The award system was not an arbitrary one, but one that was chosen very carefully. Just ponder the number of variations of different reward systems that could have been used in the genetic algorithm. The entire set is extraordinarily large, and the vast majority of them would have not resulted in convergence on logical complexity.[3] Therefore the fitness function is highly specified. In fact, the fitness function was designed so well that it provided a 'map' that guided the genetic algorithm in fairly regular fashion [approximately 50% of the time] to the target in mind - complex logic functions and in particular, the EQU [4] function.
Would you disagree?
52
Joe writes
"Which part do you disagree with, my claim of what constitutes testability or that Darwinian explanations fail that standard? If it’s the latter please explain what falsifies a Darwinian explanation. Should we use the standard that Darwin himself suggested?"
First, let's be clear: like the lunar landing deniers, like the Holocaust deniers, like the believers in poltergeists, ESP and Sasquatch -- the burden of proof is on YOU Joe.
You see, Joe, time has passed evangelical Christians like you by. A long time ago. The pseudoscientific creationist arguments like "ID theory" are as old as Darwin's theory, if not older.
The reason Darwin's theory is around today and the reason it is taught in public school classrooms as rock solid fact is because (get ready) that's the way the cookie crumbled. That is reality. Darwin was right, even if there are details that remain to be worked out. Darwin was right.
And it isn't a subjective issue like "millions of Elvis fans can't be wrong." It's an objective issue: "millions of results consistent with evolution are extraordinarily unlikely to be explainable by a fundamentally different mechanism from the one that Darwin proposed."
Do you want to see some of those results, Joe? Okay, go to PubMed and search for all publications in the database starting from say, 1975 (I don't know how far back it goes). Have fun reading!
A better way for you to learn, Joe, than having me give you lessons on your blog is to ask your idols and preachers the answers to questions such as: "Which aspect of natural selection is NOT testable?" and "Can mutations be beneficial" and "What is the most complex examples of a sub-organismal system that has been observed to evolve in response to natural selection?"
Your preachers should immediately know the answers to these questions if they are so certain that evolutionary biology is a worthless bogus theory in crisis, as they so often claim.
Or, Joe, you can start behaving like an HONEST human being and admit (as some of your fellow Christians suggested above) that evolutionary theory is, by far, the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, and no useful fundamentally different alternative to the theory has been presented.
Or you can start behaving CONSISTENTLY and argue that the Grand Canyon and Yosemite Valley and the Lost Coast are so beautiful there must be an intelligent group of alien beings in charge of gravity and the weather and tides.
Dishonesty and hypocracy ... I seem to recall that Jesus was not a big fan. Am I misremembering something?
posted on 12.27.2004 3:41 PM53
Naturally, I can understand why the origins of life is a subject that is best kept quiet. But I think it is rather odd that we should start in the middle. If the theory of evolution can’t explain how a simple self-propagating life form evolved then why should we assume that it has the creative power to develop more complex structures?
Because the theory begins once there are the self-replicating organisms. That's like blasting Newtonian gravity for not having a valid description of the propagation of the gravitational force (there is no concensus on that one). It simply doesn't matter how either gravity forces propage nor what factors lead to the creation of the first self-propagating life forms.
posted on 12.27.2004 3:46 PM54
"Good point. I would be interested in knowing how each could be falsified."
Geez, Joe, why don't you just accept that mutations occur from, e.g., ultraviolet radiation, because living people have observed them occuring and said so? Or is it only astronauts whose word you take at face value?
If you are lack the intellect to understand how any of the processes described by Nick can be falsified, then your skepticism amounts to little more than cheerfully ignorant shoulder shrugging. I say cheerfully because after months of watching you ply Johnson's script, I've seen no indication that you've progressed in your understanding of evolutionary biology. It's just the same recycled canards over and over.
You want more fossil intermediates? Exactly how many more do you need? There's a still a whole lot of earth do dig up (but of course, many many fossils are destroyed every day).
posted on 12.27.2004 3:51 PM55
I’m familiar with the argument against that article. I couldn’t find the original criticism but here is one that is similar...Would you disagree?
I would disagree. I think the tests should be rerun for more complex scenarios and under varying conditions. The test was whether it was possible to generate what appeared to be irreducibly complex structures via evolutionary processes. It turns out that what came out the other end appeared to be irreducibly complex but in fact were not. As a side benefit we had the generation of structure from relative non-structure. The fitness function is meant to emulate what would be an environmental selector. For example such things as oxygen level, temperature and solar radiation levels. The evolution of the creature or program will occur based on that environment. Does whether the environment was deliberately or accidentally created matter? You say you don't disagree with micro-evolution, a distinction that doesn't exist outside of the ID/creationist arena, so you would accept the evolution of the Nylon eating bacterium. Is that environment too artificial for you, because it is a man-made substance or is it accidental because the bacteria weren't diliberately put into those conditions?
56
Poor Joe - the lions are nipping at you.
I do not believe in macro evolution because it is simply un-believable.
DO THE MATH
According to James F Coppedge it is mathematically imppossible for a single protein to form by chance. He gives this illustration:
Assume:
a amoeba is moving one inch every 15 billion years.
That amoeba tavels the entire distance of the known universe, picks up one atom at a time and brings it back.
According to Coppedge:
"The ameba could haul 10 to the 64th UNIVERSES across the entire diameter of the known universe during the expected time it would take for one protein to form by chance, under those conditions so favorable to chance."
Then you have to beleive that the genetic code in that protein, which is immaterial, also came about by chance. The words I am writing are coming from a mind. The medium is not the information. I could be scrathing this on a rock and the information I am producing still comes from a mind. Mind must precede matter.
Therefore materialistic evolution is entirely immplausible.
I am also an auto mechanic. The second law of thermodynamics are proven to me almost every day. In my own personal scientific observation, order always goes to disorder, not the other way around, unless acted on by an outside force. Just park a 2005 BMW under a tree for 15 years and observe what happens.
The second law of thermodynamics, which is scentifically proven and observable, directly contradicts the theory of macro evolution, which is scientifically un-observable.
So what do these arguments have to do with religion? Evolution is just plain immplausible.
So why do you rule out other explanations?
posted on 12.27.2004 4:17 PM57
Wow, Phil the Auto Mechanic apparently knows why evolution is bunk!!!! Why haven't I heard Phil the Auto Machanic's name before???? He should be on the cover of every news weekly in the country now that he has clearly articulated his rock solid explanation!!!!
From this day forward evolutionary biology, indeed nearly all of modern biology, is a dead science. Phil the Auto Mechanic has spoken!!!!!
Someone please tell the thousands and thousands of scientists who are dedicating their lives to understanding the evolution of life on earth that they have wasted their lives!!!!! Phil the Auto Mechanic has spoken.
Hahahahahhahhahaaah.
The only thing sadder than Phil's post is the fact that some dense sheep here will take him seriously. After all, they've seen Phil's script before, listing those tired dead canard's about the "random chance" of a protein forming and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Who is the dishonest preacher who first put that script together? It wasn't divinely inspired. Can Phil the Auto Mechanic tell me who was the dishonest preacher who first put that script together? How old is that claim regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? How old is that claim about the random chance of a protein forming "from scratch"?
And why have scientists chosen to ignore Phil the Auto Mechanic's theories????
Is it a conspiracy, like the conspiracies alleged by lunar landing deniers and holocaust deniers?
What other rational explanation is there for why scientists would ignore Phil the Auto Mechanic's theories and continue to waste their lives believing in Darwin's "theories in crisis"?
Can any of the geniuses lurking here answer that question? Did Phil Johnson include an answer to that question in his script for you to recite?
posted on 12.27.2004 4:29 PM58
Wow Phil..thanks for a tour through the field of creationist straw men. Even OEC's stopped using the 2nd Law BS argument a long time ago...
posted on 12.27.2004 4:30 PM59
Why is it that Mr. Moderate has to point out that Phil is reciting from a dead worthless script?
******Why can't the evangelical Christians here speak up on behalf of their religion and shame people like Phil for reciting tired old lies and disparaing the hard work of biologists, many of whom are Christians themselves???*****
Is it because your preachers won't let you? Are you afraid that you will be thrown out of your churches?
posted on 12.27.2004 4:33 PM60
"I see trees of green........ red roses too
I watch 'em bloom..... for me and for you
And I think to myself.... what a wonderful world.
I see skies of blue..... clouds of white
Bright blessed days....warm sacred nights
And I think to myself .....what a wonderful world.
The colors of a rainbow.....so pretty ..in the sky
Are there on the faces.....of people ..going by
I see friends shaking hands.....sayin'.. how do you do
They're really sayin'......I love you.
I hear babies cry...... I watch them grow
They'll learn much more.....than I'll never know
And I think to myself .....what a wonderful world"
This concludes our musical interlude.
61
Phil a protein pretty much any one element in the vast set of possible permutations of compounds formed out of amino acids.Grossly speaking, any arbitrarily long series of amino acids might considered a protein even if it doesn't do squat in an organisms. Even one that 'falls together by chance' in a pteri dish full of amine groups. If you get a bunch of amino acids together in the right condiitons, they'll start hooking up in all kinds of ways. You could easily get a long sequence that is statistically highly improbable on a per trial basis. But like the sequence of cars outside your home on the nearest rush hour clogged highway, exact sequences can be very unlikely even though some sequence is virtually guaranteed.
In evolutionary biology, specific proteins do not 'arise by chance' but are replicated from previously existing ones. (Sometimes they're not replicated well by the way.) What you seem to be addressing might better be described as an objection to abiogenesis.
posted on 12.27.2004 4:36 PM62
Aaargh. I cannot stay away.
Joe, you're a great writer and a wonderful thinker. But, please, for the love of all that is Holy, don't ever post on this subject again. You don't understand the arguments. Believe what you will, but don't waste your credibility in this way.
Tim --
I presume that you're addressing the "ID is not scientific" camp. (It's actually not clear from your post.) You write:
These people that fear the discussion and open reporting of findings, reveal that they have no interest in the truth.
What you're seeing is the reaction of decent folks to what is, essentially, a beguiling distortion of science. ID, as currently practiced, is a fundamentally dishonest exercise. It seems to have the trappings of truth, but it's a lie. As you may imagine, it is extremely disheartening to see others convinced by or trapped in it.
In