1

If teleology means "given the laws of nature it'll get there one way or another sooner or later", there is no conflict between teleology and science - especially a science which perceives inorganic self-organisation and organic evolution?

Science may be godless but in no way does it deny God. That He is useless as a working assumption is in no way a denial of His existence - just a humble recognition of science's well-self-perceived limitations.

In Galileo's time, anthropocentrism was the flaw in the Vatican's teleology. Today, anthropocentrism is the flaw in creationist teleology.

As for IDers, they have denied the Lord thrice. They are neither brethren nor scientists.

2

Joe,

I've read your post through a few times and was struck by this passage.

"In a materialist universe barren of teleological purpose we are keft with the unanswerable question: where did this concept of teleology come from? Unless we assume that humans are granted an exemption to the standard laws of nature, we must conclude that either teleology is inherent in the universe or that it does not exist. The language of purpose can be nothing more than a metaphor for a concept that does not actually exist in nature. As historian of science Timothy Lenoir has remarked: Teleological thinking has been steadfastly resisted by modern biology. And yet, in nearly every area of research biologists are hard pressed to find language that does not impute purposiveness to living forms. Once we accept the conclusion that humans have no purpose we cannot then turn around and claim that they can create purpose out of thin air. If purpose cannot be found in living forms or non-living entities then where does it come from? It’s not enough to simply posit that that the watch has a teleological purpose; that is nothing more than wishful thinking, the fallacy of positing a belief because it or its consequence is desired to be true."

I'm not sure that I understand, but it seems to me you've made a mistake. What Dawkins wishes to, or should, say is that humans were not designed with a purpose in mind but are rather the product of 'blind', i.e. non-purposeful, but non-random natural processes. This is not the claim that no genuine teleology exists in nature. For it might well be that the products of evolution, though not designed with a purpose in mind, are themselves able to set ends for themselves and act so as to bring them about.

Call this the distinction between process-teleology and product-teleology. The former is the purposiveness that some beleive is found in the process of the creation of the forms of life that exist today. The latter is the purposiveness exhibited in the behavior of an organism. Dawkins denies that the latter is found in the processes of natural selection. But as best as I can tell, neither he nor any other evolutionary biologist has any reason to deny purposiveness of the second sort, for in general we have no reason to claim that if some property is not found in the process that gives rise to a thing it cannot be found in the product to which that process gives rise. Indeed it is often the case that a certain significant property of the product does not appear until after the process of its creation is complete, or near completion. The tastiness of the meal need not be there in the cooking.

3

I do, however, believe that any adequate scientific model of nature will have to incorporate some elements of design and that as long as such explanation are excluded a priori that the attainment of scientific knowledge will be hindered.

Science doesn't exclude any testable hypotheses from consideration.

Any ID hypothesis can be used to generate a line of inquiry or an experiment. If the results of such experiments support the ID hypothesis, then the hypothesis will be validated and used to generate further experiments.

Science is not a club of a priori accepted ideas. It is a fiercely uncompromising competition of battling ideas. Those ideas with the most explanatory and predictive value are the ones that are left standing.

Question for Joe: What elements of design will an adequate scientific model of nature have to incorporate?

4

Joe is quite correct in regards to the watch. We cannot prove the watch was created by humans. It may have been created by supernatural forces, non-humans, visiting aliens etc. It may also have been created by an unknown naturalistic process that...amazingly enough...produces a watch! While not as complicated as a watch, naturalistic 'unintelligent' forces all the time produce images that people believe are the Vigin Mary, the 'face' on the moon, the 'face' on Mars and so on.

Dawkins also fails to clarify why the same criticism made against Paley isn’t applied more broadly. Why don’t the same arguments that are used against Intelligent Design apply to all intelligent design? After all, by his definition, “designoid objects” would apply not only to “living bodies”, such as human beings, but to their products as well. In other words, every human artifact could be deemed a designoid.

Technically true however this is a bit of a spurious dispute. What you are really saying is that Dawkins could have been more rigerous in his novel definition of biology. So what? WE can rewrite the definition to define design as being created with a predetermined plan. Hence the human starts hammering together boards with a predetermined plan to produce a deck. The river, though, has no predetermined plan to carve out a canyon.

Mold may look like a machine that was built with a predetermined plan to digest uneaten bread left on the counter too long. Dawkins position is that it is not the result of a predetermined plan but rather a natural response to the pressures of natural selection and the environment on earth.

There is a deeper metaphysical argument about whether the universe is predetermined or not. In other words did you lose the lottery last night because of chance or because God didn't want you to win it. In this sense there is no chance because God has set up the universe and its rules mean that you won't win the lottery because different balls will appear in tonight's drawing than what you selected for your ticket.

But your probability textbook from college doesn't argue that God doesn't exist! We accept that the lottery results are determined by the process of natural laws. Science does not address whether those laws were created by God (who presumably would be able to see the implications of them) or just are the nature of the universe. As far as ID goes, Dawkins position is that living things were created as the result of natural processes & he has both logic and evidence on his side.

What IDers advocate is amazingly arrogant. That we can look at a system & declare it was designed because it just 'seems like it'. As if we are able to make such a statement knowing that we only understand a fraction of the laws of physics, chemistry etc!

One more humble observation. In real life system of immense complexity are often undesigned! Many social institutions such as large markets are often not designed by a central planner but appear 'organically' as the result of the self-interested interactions of humans. Yes humans make markets and humans are 'intelligent' but there's a big difference between participating in a market and designing one. Most markets were never designed. In fact, if 'common sense' were a guide systemes of immense complexity would imply a natural process rather than an 'intelligent designer'.!

5

Boonton,

In real life systems of immense complexity are often undesigned! Many social institutions such as large markets are often not designed by a central planner but appear 'organically' as the result of the self-interested interactions of humans.

While social institutions may be undesigned, they often grow from a seed (or many seeds) of designed infrastructure, such as physically built roads or socially constructed rules and codes of behavior.

What's interesting though is that intelligence and design themselves can be pushed back further into mechanistic and "undesigned" origins. It's like the chicken and the egg: design and undirected growth are (or can be) two complementary feedback cycles that can amplify each other in a very dramatic way.

This can all get very fuzzy, though, because design, intelligence, and randomness are often all poorly defined or even un-defined terms. That is one reason why Joe's posts, like his post this morning, are good: they help us define some undefined words, and reveal some hidden assumptions.

6

Franklin I'm not sure that I understand, but it seems to me you've made a mistake. What Dawkins wishes to, or should, say is that humans were not designed with a purpose in mind but are rather the product of 'blind', i.e. non-purposeful, but non-random natural processes. This is not the claim that no genuine teleology exists in nature.

Actually, that is pretty much what Dawkins claims:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference (River Out of Eden, p.133).

A more consistent thinker, like Nietzsche, would have no problem with the nihilistic implications of this idea. But Dawkins is no Nietszsche. He chooses instead to make a “leap of faith” into the illogical:

Interviewer: This sounds rather like physicist Steven Weinberg's, "the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless" (The First Three Minutes), or William Shakespeare's "a tale told by an idiot, filled with sound and fury, signifying nothing." Is that in fact your position?

Dawkins: Yes, at a sort of cosmic level, it is. But what I want to guard against is people therefore getting nihilistic in their personal lives. I don't see any reason for that at all. You can have a very happy and fulfilled personal life even if you think that the universe at large is a tale told by an idiot. You can still set up goals and have a very worthwhile life and not be nihilistic about it at a personal level.

What is still left unanswered is where the concept of purpose comes into play in a closed materialist system. Dawkins doesn’t have an answer because no answer is possible within his worldview.

Call this the distinction between process-teleology and product-teleology. The former is the purposiveness that some believe is found in the process of the creation of the forms of life that exist today. The latter is the purposiveness exhibited in the behavior of an organism.

The problem I see with this distincion is that there is no clear line of demarcation between process-teleology and product-teleology. Dawkins would argue that the process of natural selection has no purpose. But what about the caveman who sharpens a stick in order to use it as a weapon? The “purpose” would be to defend himself in order to survive. Yet the process of survival (via natural selection) has no purpose. So we have to discard one or the other concepts.

Even if I grant that there is a difference in teleologies, though, I still don’t see where we were able to sneak the concept into the universe. Dawkins explanation must account for how product-teleology arose in a completely purpose-less universe. Perhaps he has an answer. But I’ve never heard it.

Dawkins denies that the latter is found in the processes of natural selection. But as best as I can tell, neither he nor any other evolutionary biologist has any reason to deny purposiveness of the second sort, for in general we have no reason to claim that if some property is not found in the process that gives rise to a thing it cannot be found in the product to which that process gives rise.

But all properties must already exist prior to the creation fo the new product. No properties are invented that do not already exist somewhere in nature.

Indeed it is often the case that a certain significant property of the product does not appear until after the process of its creation is complete, or near completion. The tastiness of the meal need not be there in the cooking.

But the tastiness, such as salty, is merely the property of material that already exist – salt. The property wasn’t created by the cooking. It already existed in some form or another.

Matthew Science is not a club of a priori accepted ideas.

I agree that it shouldn’t be. But how many times have we heard the claims that methodological naturalism is necessary in order to make valid scientific hypotheses? That is one method of excluding ideas a priori.

It is a fiercely uncompromising competition of battling ideas. Those ideas with the most explanatory and predictive value are the ones that are left standing.

I would argue that you are confusing the Platonic ideal of science with the way that science is actually practiced. As a recent survey attests, scientists are just as apt as everyone else to fudge the facts in order to fit their purposes. Nearly 13 percent of those who responded said they’d overlooked “others’ use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data,” and nearly 16 percent said they had changed the design, methods or results of a study “in response to pressure from a funding source.”

Question for Joe: What elements of design will an adequate scientific model of nature have to incorporate?

Excellent question. And one that I will save for a future post. ; )

While social institutions may be undesigned, they often grow from a seed (or many seeds) of designed infrastructure, such as physically built roads or socially constructed rules and codes of behavior.

Great point! I was going to make the case that markets require intelligent agents but you’re example is one that I had not considered. Markets do, in fact, require some form of designed infrastructure, whether it be simple (rules of exchange) or complex (the NASDAQ). Thanks for pointing that out.

7

It appears that Joe is missing some important details that are relevant for scientific inquiry and inference. It could be that Dawkins is missing them too, but it's not clear that he is from the passages Joe cites (I don't read Dawkins, because pissy British assholes give me indigestion).

It is true that we cannot infer design, of an organism or an artifact, simply because it is complex and serves a function (or has parts that serve functions). However, we can develop certain hypotheses, test them, and determine which best explain the evidence. We will quickly discover tht certain features (e.g., metal, cut wood, or plastic composition) will be signs of human design, and license an inference of human design with an extremely high probability (Joe likes Bayes, so he can think of it like that if he likes).

We will also discover, perhaps less quickly, that certain other features (those associated with life, e.g.) do not license an inference to human design. We'll then have to search for alternative hypotheses, which might include the existence of an as yet unseen, unkown intelligent creature who has created these items, as well as the possibility of natural, non-intelligent causes. Our first temptation will probably be to infer design, based on analogy to human-created complex objects, but as is always the case, analogy will ultimately have to give way to the evidence, and the evidence indicates a natural, non-intelligent origin.

As we further study complexity and the different types of features associated with it, we will become better and better at distinguishing the features associated with designed and undesigned objects. Of course, we might also become so good at simulating the features of undesigned objects in designed objects that it becomes difficult to distinguish the types of objects, even as we have more knowledge of the features that would ordinarily distinguish them. This is what's happening today in the form of artificial intelligence, artificial life, and other similar human-made complex systems. It's this sort of problem that Dawkins appears to be trying to get around by coining the term "designoid." However, he doesn't appear to actually address the problem, a fact that Joe duely notes. But it may very well be that as we become better and better at simulating undesigned life, the only way to tell whether an individual object (or type of object) was designed will be to trace its causal history back to its origin. It may even be the case that designed objects will begin to evolve themselves in ways that don't involve design, blurring the line between designed and undesigned objects even further (this is what already happens in the case of some programs and machines that adapt to their real or virtual environments). In this case, it will be hard to know whether to call something designed, undesigned, or to come up with some third category (which, I suspect, will be the best solution).

8

Without a means of distinguishing between designed and designoid, we are left with the conclusion that the watch, like the stone, could have lain in the field for eons before Paley stumbled across it. If Dawkins view is correct, then we must accept that all watchmakers are blind.

I think you may be correct that it is impossible to distinguish design from designoid. That would seem to have two implications:

1. If design cannot be attacked solely from a philosophical viewpoint, then presumably neither can it be so defended.

2. Those who wish to defend a design hypothesis scientifically must investigate the designer and provide evidence for his/her/its existence and capabilities. If designed and designoid objects can't be distinguished, then we must look for the designer of the designed objects or the mechanisms producing the designoid object. Evidence for a designer or designoid-generating mechanism will tell us which hypothesis is more likely to be correct (although it won't prove it -- "proof is for mathematics and liquor").

Note that evolutionary biology is all about investigating the machnisms that could produce designoid objects, but IDers have been very coy about discussing the designer and his methods.

[Note: Let me clarify that the purpose of this post in not to defend ID theory as a scientific research program. My point is simply that ID cannot be dismissed based on philosophical criteria but must be judged solely on the evidence and on its explanatory ability.

I'm ecstatic. The evidence and explanatory ability is the interesting stuff. Sadly, it's where ID is sorely lacking.

Whether the current incarnation of ID theory can meet that test remains to be seen for it has not been allowed to develop to the point where it can be scrutinized in a mature and objective fashion.

That's a bit of a cop out, I think. Scientific hypotheses are attacked vigorously at all stages of their development. We don't just sit back and wait until their supporters say "We're ready."

If ID isn't ready to be scrutinized in a mature fashion, then it certainly isn't ready for classrooms.

I do, however, believe that any adequate scientific model of nature will have to incorporate some elements of design

Why do you say that? You just argued that ID must be evaluated on the evidence, not as a philosophical position, and then you claimed that the evidence is not yet in. Should a consistent approach to your argument require you to withold judgement on whether ID is required for an adequate scientific model of nature.

On the other hand, your belief could be justified, if you think sufficient evidence is in. In that case, let's start discussing the good stuff.

9

I wonder if anybody has combined this argument with Mr. Rick Warren's "Purpose-Driven" franchise?

The argument of this post seems to leave Mr. Dawkins with no compelling reason to assert any artifact is the product of intelligent design. This has existential implications. If I am to create personal meaning out of a meaningless universe, how can I say I've been true to myself or not? I can't even assert my life-choices are the fruit of reason.

The implications of consistent atheism are unthinkable (in that they provide no basis for thought). This does not demonstrate the truth of Christian Theism, but it does help motivate one to search out the matter.

10

Chris It is true that we cannot infer design, of an organism or an artifact, simply because it is complex and serves a function (or has parts that serve functions). However, we can develop certain hypotheses, test them, and determine which best explain the evidence.

I’m with you so far…

We will quickly discover that certain features (e.g., metal, cut wood, or plastic composition) will be signs of human design, and license an inference of human design with an extremely high probability…

Here’s where the problem comes in: how do we infer human design without begging the question that design is even possible?

(Joe likes Bayes, so he can think of it like that if he likes).

Very true, I am fond of Bayes. Can I use his method for non-human design too? ; )

We will also discover, perhaps less quickly, that certain other features (those associated with life, e.g.) do not license an inference to human design.

How do we discover this? Even Dawkins admits that features associated with life certainly give the appearance of design and that we have to suspend judgment (i.e., discard reason) to conclude otherwise.

Our first temptation will probably be to infer design, based on analogy to human-created complex objects, but as is always the case, analogy will ultimately have to give way to the evidence, and the evidence indicates a natural, non-intelligent origin.

Um, says who? There is a paucity of evidence that proves that natural, non-intelligent forces can produce anything as complex as the human eye, much less intelligent human beings. You may believe that is the case. You may even have some justification for that belief. But the matter is hardly closed.

But it may very well be that as we become better and better at simulating undesigned life, the only way to tell whether an individual object (or type of object) was designed will be to trace its causal history back to its origin.

I’m not quite clear on how we can use simulated undersigned model of life – which are the products of design – to make that distinction.

It may even be the case that designed objects will begin to evolve themselves in ways that don't involve design, blurring the line between designed and undesigned objects even further (this is what already happens in the case of some programs and machines that adapt to their real or virtual environments).

Whether that is possible, the fact remains that designed objects were designed. The fact that they could evolve would certainly make it more difficult to distinguish between that which is designed and that which merely has the appearance of being designed.

In this case, it will be hard to know whether to call something designed, undesigned, or to come up with some third category (which, I suspect, will be the best solution).

Interesting idea. I think that the more the distinction is blurred the more difficult it will be to conclude that nature is not the product of intelligent design. While it may not be provable one way or the other, concluding that it isn’t will merely be a matter of theological prejudice rather than a justified conclusion.

11

Designoid objects are not accidental. They have in fact been shaped by a magnificently non-random process which creates an almost perfect illusion of design.

Hmm. Sort of like fossils which, according to some YECs, have in fact been shaped by a magnificently non-random process which creates an almost perfect illusion of age?

It's a tautology: "There is no designer, ergo objects that appear to have been designed only appear to have been designed." No explanation of just how these natural non-random processes work.

Regarding investigating the nature of the Designer, it is possible to look at a design and see that it is a design while knowing nothing about the designer. A design tends to reveal a great deal about the designer, however.

(See Romans 1:20)

12

The fact that they could evolve would certainly make it more difficult to distinguish between that which is designed and that which merely has the appearance of being designed.

Turn that around. Designed objects appear to "evolve" over time - look at automobiles and airplanes for examples. The changes were the result of "blind natural selection" - undesigned market forces that spontaneously arose from the "ecosystem".

And yet each "evolutionary" change was designed.

13

Corrie,
Regarding investigating the nature of the Designer, it is possible to look at a design and see that it is a design while knowing nothing about the designer.

Can you explain in more detail how you distinguish designed objects from undesigned objects without knowing anything about the designer? Joe has argued forcefully that there is no way to distinguish the designed and the designoid. Perhaps you can help poor Dr. Dawkins out of his dilemma.

14

Second point first, Joe. You say: "But the tastiness, such as salty, is merely the property of material that already exist – salt. The property wasn’t created by the cooking. It already existed in some form or another."

The tastiness is often a result of certain chemical changes that occur as the food cooks, and chemical change often introduces genuinely new properties into a system. The liquidity of the water was not present in the gaseous oxygen and hydorgen that combined to form it. Why isn't this the right kind of model for purposiveness?

Now for the first point. You say: "But what about the caveman who sharpens a stick in order to use it as a weapon? The “purpose” would be to defend himself in order to survive. Yet the process of survival (via natural selection) has no purpose. So we have to discard one or the other concepts.
Even if I grant that there is a difference in teleologies, though, I still don’t see where we were able to sneak the concept into the universe. Dawkins explanation must account for how product-teleology arose in a completely purpose-less universe. Perhaps he has an answer. But I’ve never heard it."

I'm unsure what you mean precisely by 'process of survival'. Do you mean those evolutionary processes that tend to favor the more over the less fit? If so, you must be careful about just what in that process is purposeless, from Dawkins' point of view. It is this: those mutations that drive natural selection are not in any sense chosen so that a population might better come to cope and reproduce. It is the mutation that is purposeless. But this leaves open the possibility that the bodily structure, behavior or whatever it is to which the mutatin gives rise is genuinely purposeful. Indeed, I have encountered this attempt to analyze the notion of purpose with a evolutionary framework:

x (behavior, organ, bodily structure, whatever) is genuinely purposive just if x has been selected for by the processes of natural selection.

So, then, the idea is this: no purpose in mutation itself, but if that mutation 'works out' the product is genuinely purposive.

This seems at least concepually coherent to me.

15

"Um, says who? There is a paucity of evidence that proves that natural, non-intelligent forces can produce anything as complex as the human eye, much less intelligent human beings. You may believe that is the case. You may even have some justification for that belief. But the matter is hardly closed. "

Even if it were closed, Chris's conclusion wouldn't follow. In his book Nature, Design, and Science, Ratzsch gives the example of a message written out in meteor craters on the dark side of the moon. Let's say that the message is "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son ..." written out in a variety of human languages, past and present. Even if we could trace the meteors and the relevant causal processes back to the beginning of time, this completely natural explanation would be lacking. It wouldn't get rid of the very high design-relevant properties of a written message. These properties are, presumably, why we infer design in the first place. The only way that a complete, natural, causal history would get rid of a design inference of this type is if the only design-relevant properties were gaps in the causal processes.

Another way of looking at this is if you happened to run across a completely automated DVD player factory. There are no humans, whatsoever, in the making of the DVD players. From the excavating of the raw materials to the final products, everything can be explained without agent intervention. This, of course, wouldn't get rid of the very strong design-relevant properties found in DVD players (including functional complexity, being something that humans value, etc.). So even if this were the case, the natural, agentless explanation doesn't seem like a complete explanation.

16

Actually nature has produced a watch. It's called your shadow. Remember that many human inventions are themselves copied or inspired by objects or processes found in nature.

I do, however, believe that any adequate scientific model of nature will have to incorporate some elements of design and that as long as such explanation are excluded a priori that the attainment of scientific knowledge will be hindered.]

I think you need to define more clearly what you mean by "design". But neither as a noun or a verb is "design" excluded from scientific inquiry, which is after all simply the act of asking questions. In fact, the majority of experiments often are looking precisely for a design and a designer. Where ID'ers and scientists disagree for the most part I think is whether that designer is also an intelligence.

17

Nick 1. If design cannot be attacked solely from a philosophical viewpoint, then presumably neither can it be so defended.

Not necessarily. My point is merely that if you believe that intelligent design is possible then you have to defend it consistently. You can’t simply pick and choose a priori where design can be looked for.

2. Those who wish to defend a design hypothesis scientifically must investigate the designer and provide evidence for his/her/its existence and capabilities.

Again, I have to disagree. Because Dawkins uses that as part of his argument it was legitimate to use it against him. Personally, I think the idea is rather silly. A forensic scientist doesn’t have to investigate the “designer” in order to conclude that an intelligent being was necessary to explain a certain crime.

If designed and designoid objects can't be distinguished, then we must look for the designer of the designed objects or the mechanisms producing the designoid object. Evidence for a designer or designoid-generating mechanism will tell us which hypothesis is more likely to be correct (although it won't prove it -- "proof is for mathematics and liquor").

There is nothing inherently wrong with searching for the designer. And, as you point out, it may even be of some benefit. But it is not essential to inferring that design is evident.

Note that evolutionary biology is all about investigating the machnisms that could produce designoid objects, but IDers have been very coy about discussing the designer and his methods.

That is because they are attempting to stay within the parameters of scientific explanations. Science can only go so far before it must hand the baton off to philosophy or theology.

I'm ecstatic. The evidence and explanatory ability is the interesting stuff. Sadly, it's where ID is sorely lacking.

The theory is still young. It often takes years or even decades from the time a hypotheses is proposed until enough evidence can be presented to either falsify it or grant it credence.

That's a bit of a cop out, I think. Scientific hypotheses are attacked vigorously at all stages of their development. We don't just sit back and wait until their supporters say "We're ready."

The problem isn’t that it is being attacked on a scientific basis. That would be legitimate. The problem is that it is being dismissed a priori because it attempts to bring in the concept of design to explorations of nature.

If ID isn't ready to be scrutinized in a mature fashion, then it certainly isn't ready for classrooms.

Shouldn’t the same be true for neo-Darwinism? Why then all the fuss about “teaching the controversy?”

Why do you say that? You just argued that ID must be evaluated on the evidence, not as a philosophical position, and then you claimed that the evidence is not yet in. Should a consistent approach to your argument require you to withold judgement on whether ID is required for an adequate scientific model of nature.

My claim is based on my own intuition and experience. Because design isn’t absolutely necessary for the explanation, there is a chance that it is not required for an adequate scientific model of nature. But from what little science I know and from observing the universe itself, evidence of design appears to be readily apparent. Whether it can be used as the basis of “scientific” explanations, however, remains to be seen.

On the other hand, your belief could be justified, if you think sufficient evidence is in. In that case, let's start discussing the good stuff.

First, we would have to determine whether the evidence could be weighed on an even basis. If we exclude the customary special pleading for naturalistic explanations, then I am fairly confident that design hypotheses could be justified.

18

I would argue that you are confusing the Platonic ideal of science with the way that science is actually practiced. As a recent survey attests, scientists are just as apt as everyone else to fudge the facts in order to fit their purposes.

Science, like philosophy, religion, or politics is a human and therefore imperfect endeavor/institution.

But the problems you point out are more short-term obstacles than insurmountable failings.

Science moves in fits and starts, and sometimes stumbles into blind alleys. Yet over the last five hundred years, science has accumulated a body of knowledge, and a network for the investigation and dissemination of new knowledge, that is awesome and staggering both in its scope and in its powerful insight.

The Torah, the New Testament, the Koran, and other classic religious texts will always be with us. They connect us with our roots and traditions, and with some things that have been hard-wired into our psyches.

But the mighty engine of science leads into unexplored and barely imaginable realms. Who can say how science and technology will shape our planet 200 years from now, or even 100 years from now? (Hopefully it will be great, and not a nightmare, but like everything else, it will be probably a heavily mixed blessing.)

The power of science is its willingness to look reality square in the eye and not blink or flinch. That's not just the Platonic ideal either. It's the long-term record.

There's no indication that science is going to lose it's way anytime soon, even if our current scientists, like those who came before, are subject to the same ethical challenges and mental lapses as the rest of us. ID theories will get the hearing they deserve, if not now, then some time in our generation.

And even if they prove to be inadequate descriptions of nature, ID theories will have contributed to the debate and deepened our outstanding of whatever theory turns out to be the scientific winner.

If we exclude the customary special pleading for naturalistic explanations, then I am fairly confident that design hypotheses could be justified.

This seems a little paranoid. Many scientists are religious and reject naturalistic explanations for the universe. For example, Isaac Newton was quite the mystical fellow, and more devoutly orthodox than even Joe.

Even if some hypothesis were being unfairly discriminated against, if that hypothesis had merit, it would eventually rise to the top.

19

Again, I have to disagree. Because Dawkins uses that as part of his argument it was legitimate to use it against him. Personally, I think the idea is rather silly. A forensic scientist doesn’t have to investigate the “designer” in order to conclude that an intelligent being was necessary to explain a certain crime.

More precisely, a forensic scientist investigates whether a specific designer was necessary to explain a certain crime. The forensic scientist incudes as the presuppositions of his research program the known capabilities and limitations of a certain class of designer, human beings. A forensic scientist who knew nothing about humans and was unwilling to investigate human capabilities as part of his research program would have difficulty saying anything about the "design" of a crime scene.

There is nothing inherently wrong with searching for the designer. And, as you point out, it may even be of some benefit. But it is not essential to inferring that design is evident.

Yes, it is, if you accept the possibility of designoid objects. While you have argued that design should not be rejected a priori, you have not argued against the possibility of "designoid" objects (sensu Dawkins). If there is some possibility that unintelligent mechanisms can produce complex objects with some of the characteristics of human design, then distinguishing the designed from the designoid must begin with investigation of the designer.

I suppose you could retreat to the position that the unintelligent processes and random events are what is "designed," not the objects themselves. But that would be closer to theistic evolution and not, I think, what the IDers are shooting for.

The problem isn’t that it is being attacked on a scientific basis. That would be legitimate. The problem is that it is being dismissed a priori because it attempts to bring in the concept of design to explorations of nature.

That's not what I've seen. From my perspective, every book and paper that has been published on ID has been subjected to a wide variety of critiques. Those critiques include attempts to dismiss it from a philosophical viewpoint as well as detailed scientific analyses of the biology. I'm willing to grant that your argument against a priori philosophical rejection is valid, but the biological arguments seem pretty compelling to me.

Shouldn’t the same be true for neo-Darwinism?

Why,as anyone claimed that evolutionary biology is not a mature scientific theory that is (and has been) subjected to critique?

Why then all the fuss about “teaching the controversy?”

Because, as you point out, ID is at best a hypothesis in its early stages. The neo-darwininian synthesis is a mature scientific theory with support from paleontology, genetics, and other sub-branches of biology. As such, one is ready for the classroom, and the other is not. "Teaching the controversy" implies a symmetry that does not exist. If you want to teach the controversy, do it in philosophy class, not biology (and yes, my high school did offer philosophy).

First, we would have to determine whether the evidence could be weighed on an even basis. If we exclude the customary special pleading for naturalistic explanations, then I am fairly confident that design hypotheses could be justified.

Come on, don't tease me. Please present the biological evidence for design. It should consist of positive evidence for design, not arguments against evolutionary biology, and bonus points if you can do it without analogies.

20

I just came across this extraordinarily good little piece on teleological arguments. The author is Del Ratzsch, from Calvin College. Enjoy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

21

Here’s where the problem comes in: how do we infer human design without begging the question that design is even possible?

But that's where empirical investigation comes in. As with all empirically-derived inductions, they will be subject to revision given further evidence, but we can arrive at the conclusion that the causal change goes through several non-intelligent (natural, evolutionary, whatever) steps as far back as we can go, and in some cases, back to the origin of a particular species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, or kingdom, or further. If such non-ID explanations best fit the empirical evidence, then they are our best bets. This is in no way question begging. It is the way that science works in all its endeavors.

Very true, I am fond of Bayes. Can I use his method for non-human design too? ; )

Yes, you can. However, prior probabilities don't transfer analogically (or at least, it's not a good idea to do so when you have other means for determining probabilities). You might use the same probabilities as an initial hypothesis, but when you go out and empirically investigate the origins of an object, and realize that non-design explanations fit the data best, you will have to abandon them. Again, it is not question begging to do so, because you are proposing hypotheses and deriving predictions, and picking the hypotheses that do the best under empirical scrutiny. Again, this is not question begging. We may infer an ultimate designer (e.g., a creator who set the process of the origin of life and evolution in motion), but if we have other explanations that thoroughly explain the data leading to that point, then we won't be able to infer design between the origin and the present.

How do we discover this? Even Dawkins admits that features associated with life certainly give the appearance of design and that we have to suspend judgment (i.e., discard reason) to conclude otherwise.

It is true that we have to suspend judgement. Our brains are hair-triggered to detect agency (a well-documented finding in cognitive science), and under conditions of uncertainty, agency is our default inference. That's why we will almost certainly start out with a design hypothesis, a fact which is historically true (non-design hypotheses didn't really begin to be taken seriously until the late-18th and early 19th century). However, once again, we have to look at the data. When we see the relationships between species, and observe the mechanisms (genetic, ecological, etc.) by which species adapt, we'll have to take those things seriously, and try to explain them. The best way to do this turns out to be evolution without a designer.

Um, says who? There is a paucity of evidence that proves that natural, non-intelligent forces can produce anything as complex as the human eye, much less intelligent human beings. You may believe that is the case. You may even have some justification for that belief. But the matter is hardly closed.

This is probably where you and I will always have to agree to disagree. There are huge bodies of evidence, from a variety of scientific areas, including direct observation, for evolution, both micro and macro. There is a ton of evidence for the evolution of things as complex as eyes, and brains. You may not be satisfied with this evidence, but I am, and that is a difference that we will probably have to simply accept.

I’m not quite clear on how we can use simulated undersigned model of life – which are the products of design – to make that distinction.

As I said, the distinction gets blurry. If we can take the features that we know are associated with undesigned objects, and simulate them in objects that contain the features of designed objects, then we will quickly blur the categories. This certainly doesn't help us to make the distinction, and in fact requires us to do more work. As artificially-created simulations of life become more and more life-like, and less and less artifact-like (e.g., they might even be made out of organic material), too be able to make inferences of design (either in the positive or negative) about certain life-simulating objects with any certainty, we will have to trace their origins. If we can't do that, then it may be impossible to make any inference either way.

Whether that is possible, the fact remains that designed objects were designed. The fact that they could evolve would certainly make it more difficult to distinguish between that which is designed and that which merely has the appearance of being designed.

Right, that is what I was trying to express. Of course, if they evolve independently for a long period of time, such that the evidence of its origins is lost, it may be difficult to know that it was designed. This is not a problem for evolution, or science. Science simply goes as far as the evidence takes it. It may be the case that, as I mentioned before, a designer started it all, or set the initial conditions. Evolution, and science, is and, unless there is evidence in either direction, will continue to be mute on this point. Instead, this is a problem for intelligent design theory. It remains, and will always remain, regardless of the evidence, consistent with both possibilities. If there is evidence that non-intelligent processes created something all the way back to its origin, then the designer came before that, and if the evidence of non-intelligent causation extends back further, so too does the inference of design, always placing itself just before the beginning of the chain of evidence of non-intelligent causation. It may be that there was a designer prior to the beginning of the chain of evidence of undesign, but to infer such is scientifically unustified and philosophically controversial.

Interesting idea. I think that the more the distinction is blurred the more difficult it will be to conclude that nature is not the product of intelligent design. While it may not be provable one way or the other, concluding that it isn’t will merely be a matter of theological prejudice rather than a justified conclusion.

That's pretty much the point I was just making. Unlike Dawkins, and many Christians, I do not feel that evolution necessitates atheism. I am an atheist, but I readily admit that science will never justify my atheism. It will provide me with explanations for many phenomena for which only religion had previously offered explanations (e.g., the origin of species, the causal history of the universe, etc.), but there will always be a point at which the data trail ends, and about which science therefore cannot speak. In my mind, belief or unbelief then become a matter of personal relevance and philosophical world-view.

22

While social institutions may be undesigned, they often grow from a seed (or many seeds) of designed infrastructure, such as physically built roads or socially constructed rules and codes of behavior.

Not really Matthew. Many of those rules and codes of behavior did not result from conscious design but rather the accumulated interactions of many generations. If you read David Hume you'll note that one of the virtues he ascribes to conservatism is that social customs and traditions are useful because they are not designed! They are not planned but have rather stood the test of time. He doesn't like attempts to plan society or 'remake it from the ground up' as some proposed in the French Revolution because he doubts any human beign (or even a whole nation of humans) has the wisdom and intelligence to design anything so complicated.

Towns sprung up at railroad stations in the 1800's, today the interstate highways have made the suburbs a hot spot of population growth but this activity was essentially unplanned. The new cities and towns that have sprung up were not planned by the gov't when they were laying out the roads.

A more consistent thinker, like Nietzsche, would have no problem with the nihilistic implications of this idea. But Dawkins is no Nietszsche. He chooses instead to make a “leap of faith” into the illogical:

This is a problem with popularizers of science as well as commentary about science. Let us suppose that the development (ambiogensis) and evolution of life on earth can be demonstrated to be perfectly consistent with the known laws of nature (chemistry, physics etc.). AT best this demonstrates no 'purpose' just as the lottery results have no particular purpose (if two 6's come up it isn't because the system likes the number 6). But of course we know that while the lottery balls that come up are acting randomly the machine that spins them was built with a purpose of producing random lottery results. It is, to use a phrase Gordon likes, metaphysical speculation to assert that since evolution appears blind that the universe itself is blind. There's nothing wrong with such speculation but we should be clear on where the science part ends and the speculation part begins.

It's a tautology: "There is no designer, ergo objects that appear to have been designed only appear to have been designed." No explanation of just how these natural non-random processes work.

Well yea in the tiny quote Joe provided there was no explanation for how these natural non-random processes work but if you bother to read even just 10 pages of any of DAwkins books you'll find detailed explanation as to how natural selection works. Likewise if you venture beyond Dawkins you'll find a huge volumn of material from numerous authors writing at all levels of expertise on the subject.

Turn that around. Designed objects appear to "evolve" over time - look at automobiles and airplanes for examples. The changes were the result of "blind natural selection" - undesigned market forces that spontaneously arose from the "ecosystem".

And yet each "evolutionary" change was designed.

Indeed but as complicated as cars are they are actually rather simple when compared to, say, an economy, a single celled organism, an environment etc. There are men alive today who know every part of a car. There is no single person alive today who knows every part of the auto industry from the mines the produce the ore, to the smelting operations, the parts stamping, the transportation between these businesses, the design departments in Detroit, the industry magazines and so on. Yet this system, which no one designed, appears to have been perfectly designed to manufacture cars, deliever them to consumers and maintain them on the roads.

While it is easy to see how a master mechanic may maintain his car knowing every inch of it it is amazing that we have this system that has grew up around us that keeps cars on the road...that keeps the roads under the cars! That ensures when your car breaks you're never that far from the necessary parts and there's always fuel nearby. Yet no one ever sat down and said how are we going to make sure this all works? How are we going to make sure we have enough iron ore on one side and on the other make sure the gas stations are spread out just enough so it is never too hard to get to one.

Now for the first point. You say: "But what about the caveman who sharpens a stick in order to use it as a weapon? The “purpose” would be to defend himself in order to survive. Yet the process of survival (via natural selection) has no purpose. So we have to discard one or the other concepts.

Yet organisms that have a knack for surviving is a logical result of natural selection just as a box with small holes in it will, when shaken, cause smaller objects to fall out while holding onto larger ones. The holes may be said to have the 'purpose' of shifting thru the contents of the box but the larger reality may be that the holes were put in the box for no particular reason at all. We'd be pretty surprised if natural selection produced organisms that didn't have an ability to survive just as we'd be pretty surprised at a box with small holes that caused the larger but not smaller objects to fall out of it.

Joe
The problem isn’t that it is being attacked on a scientific basis. That would be legitimate. The problem is that it is being dismissed a priori because it attempts to bring in the concept of design to explorations of nature.

The problem is that IDers refuse to present a workable theory. They dodge valid questions that could flesh out their theory and present areas that could be tested. In the past I've posted some questions and will do so again:

1. What is the relationship between evolution and design?
2. Are some organisms the result of evolution and others designed? What makes them different?
3. Did design happen at a particular historical moment or era or has design been happening for an extended period (in other words is evolution running with a designer 'tweaking' the results here and there as needed).
4. What test can tell us whether a given system was the result of design or a natural process that was not designed?
5. What prevents evolution? In other words, what mechanism would prevent a species from evolving into another unless it was acted upon by some 'designer' agent?

The other problem I see with ID is what I call my OJ Analogy. Imagine you were called upon to prove OJ guilty of murder. There are two ways to go about this. The first is to assemble the evidence and attempt to show it proves him guilty. A less traditional method, though, would be to show the murder had to have been done by someone in a certain group (say everyone in LA the night of the murder) and then prove every member of that group other than OJ was innocent.

I'm not sure if there are any legal precedents for the second type of proof considering how difficult it would be but there are circumstances where it might be viable. A case I heard about was one where a prison guard was killed while sitting with three prisoners in a transport truck. Since the guard and prisoners were locked in the killer had to be inside the truck. If you could prove two of the three prisoners innocent (as well as rule out suicide) that would be sufficient to establish the third prisoner was guilty.

The problem with this is a good defense lawyer will attack your case by demonstrating that someone else may be guilty. Your case rests upon proving that there can be no other explanation than that the defendant is guilty. If the defense shows there can be an alterative explanation your 'proof' evaporates.

ID's central assertion can be stated that a Designer is guilty of creating life on Earth because there can be no other explanation that works that does not include a designer. This means it is not sufficient to simply demonstrate tht there are problems with evolution. One must show that no natural explanation (including ones no one has yet thought up) can explain life unless they include a Designer.

ID cannot meet this challenge, few theories could, since it involves the basically impossible task of trying to not only counter evolution but counter all possible modifications to evolution and even non-evolutionary theories that no one has yet thought of!

The fallback is to ditch the central assertion and present ID as a hypothesis. The problem is that ID becomes nothing more than one hypothesis among many and a disadvantaged one at that. A hypothesis that cannot easily be tested, is vague and not well formed, and does not appear to fit the evidence very well when compared with the main hypothesis of natural selection.

23

The problem isn’t that it is being attacked on a scientific basis. That would be legitimate. The problem is that it is being dismissed a priori because it attempts to bring in the concept of design to explorations of nature.

There's something not quite right about this statement Joe and after reading it a second time I see it. The designer hypothesis was never dismissed a priori by Dawkins! In fact Dawkins showed great respect towards the designer hypothesis by noting how living things 'appear designed' (granted that's rather subjective as a definition IMO but works for the sake of a popular discussion).

Show me where Dawkins says something like "All the evidence points to design but we must assume design wasn't involved a priori"? Where exactly!

24

"While social institutions may be undesigned, they often grow from a seed (or many seeds) of designed infrastructure, such as physically built roads or socially constructed rules and codes of behavior."

Not really Matthew. Many of those rules and codes of behavior did not result from conscious design but rather the accumulated interactions of many generations.

Boonton, I'm afraid you may have misinterpreted my comment. I agree that the structure and full development of the social things we are talking about did not result from conscious design. I agree that they came from the accumulated interactions of many generations.

My point was only what I said: that the basis of these autonomously growing structures is often a seed or seeds planted by some person or group. The seed could be physical infrastructure, a new technology, or social rules written either by a person, a committee, or the invisible hand of tradition.

I actually emphatically agree with all your points, except when you say that I disagree with you. I was merely trying to emphasize in my last comment that design and autonomous growth feed off of each other and can strengthen each other and are often hard to disentangle.

I certainly am just as skeptical of the ID theories as you are. I am just not willing to dismiss everything they say out of hand. Perhaps it is a waste of time to take them seriously, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day on average.

25

Thanks Matthew,

One of the problems with discussing ID is whenever you bring up an example of a non-designed human system (such as a market) the immediate response is 'but humans are intelligent!'. The same issue arises when computer models of are brought in (but humans designed computer!).

Humans, of course, design things but humans also do things without design at all in mind. In that much economics and sociology can provide good analogies to help clarify some points in the debate.

26

Chris has a pretty good blog, Mixing Memory.

This past Thursday Chris posted a very interesting and relevant piece titled, "Orac and Galileo".

Chris' post quotes a letter that Galileo wrote to a noblewoman in Tuscany in which Galileo explains why the Bible is often wrong on matters of physical science, and why that should pose no problem for any orthodox Christian. Galileo's point is that you can believe as much science as you want, but still believe the Bible is divinely inspired and correct.

If you scroll down to the fourth comment for "Orac and Galileo", you can read the following interesting remark:

Fortunately, I think most doctors believe in evolution, though I don't know of any actual data to support that conclusion. At least, there are plenty of doctors doing research on drug resistance who recognize that evolution is a fact, and a medically-relevant one at that.

My parents are both born again Christians (my mother is Italian, and was Catholic -- my father was confirmed about 15 years ago, and had been Southern Methodist -- until about 5 years ago, when she and my father both left the Church and became Presbyterians). They are staunch evangelicals, these days, but remain politically liberal and firm believers in science, including evolution. This is relevant because my father is an MD, and my mother a nurse. If you can have evangelical MDs who still believe in evolution, all is not lost.

27

I recently saw this in the news: http://hcdi.net/News/PressRelease.cfm?ID=93

"Results of a national survey of 1,472 physicians revealed that more than half of physicians (63%) agree that the theory of evolution is more correct than intelligent design."

Although, I think the fact that "plenty of doctors doing research on drug resistance who recognize that evolution is a fact" is pretty much irrelevant to the question of whether they accept ID or evolution (or even YEC, for that matter). You will find almost nobody who thinks that God create every species individually by divine fiat. By that, I mean almost everybody accepts at least a limited common descent where some species have evolved from other species. And in that respect, they do recognize evolution is a fact, although they don't recognize universal common descent as a fact. Certainly this is the case with the majority of IDer's and I would expect many YECer's too. And since research on drug resistance has to do with the type of evolution they accept as fact, I don't see how it is relevant.

28

And since research on drug resistance has to do with the type of evolution they accept as fact, I don't see how it is relevant.

Macht, the truth is always relevant. If universal common descent is true, then it's relevant. If it's not true, then that's relevant too.

All other things being equal, I would choose a doctor who believes in full-blown evolution over one who doesn't. In a heartbeat. No brainer.

Of course, all other things are never equal, so I might choose a Wiccan acupuncturist to treat me if the circumstances call for it, but I think you see my point.

I don't think most people have a problem with ID theory or even creationism, as long as it's kept in a religious sphere. Once someone tries to slip it into a public school science class, that's where the situation gets confrontational and problematic.

Science class is for science, not for religious political correctness. Especially in a public school.

29

"...since research on drug resistance has to do with the type of evolution they accept as fact..."

Yes, we tend to accept the degenerative, the parasitic, the diseased, etc., as what tends to by "selected" by the evolutionist's Mother Nature.

I would note in contrast to that survey that about the same number of doctors believe in "miracles." That's probably from being on the front lines in battling what the evolutionist's mommy Nature "selects." I have always wondered how they say that the inanimate is making some sort of selection, especially when it is "blind" by nature, naturally enough and so on.

Perhaps Boontown would know...and are there any unnatural selections? I think that what I write must be just as natural as whatever Mother Nature selects for such fellows to write, according to their own feelings about things. Their psychological dynamics don't seem to work that way though.

God help us escape from their smothering mother...

30

Is the truth always relevant? In a general sense, yes, I'd agree. But is the fact that Bill Clinton's wife's name is Hillary relevant to, say, figuring out the age of the earth? It very well may be, but I'd expect somebody to show me how it is relevant. Now, it may be that universal common descent is relevant, but I don't see how it is in this situation. If a person accepts that some organisms can evolve to be resistent to some drugs and if that person understands the scientific laws that apply to this evolution, how is it relevant if they don't, for example, believe humans came from a common ancestor in the same way?

31

Macht,

I was going to post a comment agreeing with your observation about antibiotic resistance in general but arguing that some creationists reject the idea of beneficial mutations, even if they accept some limited common descent (and even if the two positions aren't really compatible). Since evolution of antibiotic resistance is indisputable, they have to go through all sorts of rhetorical gyrations to explain why antibiotic resistance isn't cause by beneficial mutations. Whether those particular creationists are YECs or IDers I'm not sure.

I wrote that and then deleted it, because I didn't have a specific example of that mindset.

But then Mynym posted his comment, et voila.

Mynym,

I commend to your attention Carl Zimmer's book Parasite Rex The book demonstrates the magnificent complexity of the "parasitic."

32

"We'd be pretty surprised if natural selection produced organisms that didn't have an ability to survive..."

There are too many problems to go into with the thinking of the average Naturalist. Would we be surprised if natural selection "produced" organisms that didn't have an ability to survive?

Very well, I suppose that Naturalists are "surprised" by all the evidence of extinction, a whole pattern of extinction, mass exctinctions and growing amounts of exctinction, as the privileged planet awaits a final exctinction event.

However, ID types are not surprised by it because they expect it as a result of the study of natural theology. Contrast that with the natural theology typical to the Panda's Thumb types, their sort of natural theology counts everything that humans have a sense of being evil against the Creator. Then, by natural theology, they argue that there is no Creator because a Creator would not have done things this way rather than that. They know better and probably would have created DNA, the adaptive capacity of organisms, the types, the biotic message and so on so much better than the Creator did. So by engaging in natural theology they come to the conclusion that there is no Creator. Based on that conclusion, no one can answer their numerous ignorant and stupid arguments based on natural theology because of the conclusion that there is no Creator to study through the creation.

There are plenty of evolutionists engaging in natural theology and then proclaiming that no one can answer the idiotic conclusions they come to based on engaging in it because they feel they have refuted theology altogether through it.

They even named one of their main blogs after the practice, The Panda's Thumb. In this way they engage in enough natural theology to come to an anti-God conclusion and then censor away any opposition to their position through their own anti-God conclusion.

33

Yes, we tend to accept the degenerative, the parasitic, the diseased, etc., as what tends to by "selected" by the evolutionist's Mother Nature.

Actually that's only what you notice. Any doctor will tell you that your gut contains a huge array of various bacteria and other microorganisms that are essential to your health. They have indeed been selected because survival is a two way street. If a bacteria kills its host then how will it survive? Many end up with a balanced relationship with their host where both are benefitted....they are hard to notice except when things go wrong.

Perhaps Boontown would know...and are there any unnatural selections? I think that what I write must be just as natural as whatever Mother Nature selects for such fellows to write, according to their own feelings about things. Their psychological dynamics don't seem to work that way though.

I'm not sure what you're really asking here. Natural selection happens when organisms with certain traits find it easier to pass on their genes to the next generation than other organisms without those traits. If 'unnatural selection' means anything it would mean an artifical environment designed to create predetermined selection criteria. Humans have done this since before recorded history when they breed animals and crops. Likewise we can also say that something like artificial sugar is 'unnatural' while sugar from the cane is natural. The purist, though, will remind us that the atoms that make up both come from the same periodic table of elements.

If a person accepts that some organisms can evolve to be resistent to some drugs and if that person understands the scientific laws that apply to this evolution, how is it relevant if they don't, for example, believe humans came from a common ancestor in the same way?

It probably isn't just as it is probably irrelevant in most cases that some people believe the horoscope the newspaper publishes every day. If however some were advocating that public schools teach astrology (or 'teach the contraversy') then it would quickly become relevant.

34

"Science class is for science, not for religious political correctness. Especially in a public school."

Currently, science class is for teaching known frauds and the mythological narratives of Naturalism.

Maybe that's part of the reason why the public schools do such a poor job of teaching science. Maybe they just need more money, as the Leftists believe. It's obvious, just as Socrates needed State funding.

"I commend to your attention Carl Zimmer's book Parasite Rex The book demonstrates the magnificent complexity of the "parasitic.""

I have it. It will be amusing to read his mythological narratives of Naturalism, if he even tries. Michael Denton notes the difficulty:

The insects are by no means unique. The crustacean Sacculina, a parasite of the edible crab, has a life history which involves a remark able metamorphosis. The egg hatches into a typical free swimming crustacean larva, which then develops a bivalve shell and comes to resemble a small water flea. During this stage the larvae develop an organ for piercing the integument of a crab. On entering the crab it undergoes one of the most extraordinary transformations in nature. From being a crustacean-like organism it gradually changes, losing all its internal structure and organs, into an amorphous mass of cells which sends out root-like processes into the tissue of the crab. These processes, which resemble fungal fibres, ramify through the crab tissue absorbing nutrients and convey them back to the main ma the organism which at this stage is little more than an egg produc. bag. The life history of some parasites, which are in themselves astonish ing enough, often involve what amounts to a number of metamor phoses. Consider the life cycle of the liver fluke. The adult lives in the intestine of a sheep. After the eggs are laid they pass with the faeces onto the ground. The eggs hatch, giving rise to small ciliated larvae which can swim about in water. If the larvae are lucky they find a pond snail: they must do this to survive, for the snail is the vehicle for the next stage in the life cycle of the liver fluke. Having found a snail the larvae finds its way into the pulmonary chamber or lung. Here it loses its cilia and its size increases. At this stage it is known as a sporocyst. While in this condition it buds off germinal cells into its body cavity which develop into a second type of larvae known as rediae. These are oval in shape, possessing a mouth and stomach and a pair of protuberances which they use to move about. The rediae eventually leave the sporocyst, entering the tissue of the snail, after which they develop into yet another larval form known as cercariae which appear superficially to resemble a tadpole. Using their long tails these tadpole-like larvae work their way through and eventually out of the snail and onto blades of grass, where each larva sheds its tail and encases itself in a sheath. Eventually they are eaten by a sheep. Inside the sheep they find their way to the liver where they develop sexual organs and mature into the adult state. They finally leave the sheep’s liver and migrate to the intestine where they mate and so complete their extraordinary life cycle. In the case of many of the more dramatic invertebrate metamor phoses not even the vaguest attempts have been made to provide hypothetical scenarios explaining how such an astonishing sequence of transformations could have come about gradually as a result of a succession of small beneficial mutations. As leading parasitologist Asa Chandler admitted:

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to explain, step by step, the details of the process of evolution by which some of the highly specialized parasites reached their present condition.

The life cycles of the liver fluke or Sacculina and the metamorphoses of insects are merely representatives of a vast number of complex...

Etc.etc....

Sheesh, but I'm still back on the copulatory system of the dragonfly and a the lack of a mythological narrative of Naturalism for it.

Maybe you can try to write one?

Zimmer's book will be amusing if he tries to support the ignorance and stupidity at the root of Darwinism in it. I suspect he may and almost hope he does.

35

Ahhh yes, the "If I can't figure out a 200million year process at first glance it must be supernatural" argument yet again. Next up, the Rubix Cube....are those who solve it gods?

36

If a person accepts that some organisms can evolve to be resistent to some drugs and if that person understands the scientific laws that apply to this evolution, how is it relevant if they don't, for example, believe humans came from a common ancestor in the same way?

Macht, I look for several things in my doctors.

First, they should know their stuff, inside and out.

Second, they should be experienced. I would prefer someone who doesn't need to use me as practice, and who has seen a lot of a different patients presenting a lot of different symptoms.

Third, they should have a strong "bedside" manner. If something's important, I am not going to take it on authority alone. I want a doctor who is patient enough to explain the how's and the why's of the big decisions. And just as importantly, he needs to know how to listen so he can figure out what's wrong with me in the first place.

So how is full-blown evolution and universal common descent relevant to any of this?

It has to do with my criterion number one.

If my doctor doesn't believe in evolution, then he doesn't understand that my cells, each and every one of them, respire with the aid of mitochondria that are symbiotic stowaways that co-evolved with the cells of an evolutionary ancestor of mine a few billion years ago.

It means he doesn't get the point of the latest science, which is pretty persuasive and hard to argue with, that evolution is one of those special theories that has gained the status of accepted fact.

It means that he may in fact be a close-minded person. A doctor is charged with keeping up with the latest scientific developments on a regular basis, but my creationist doctor may be intellectually poorly prepared to do so.

He may still be a good doctor, even a great doctor. But I want the best doctor I can get, and I will get the best doctor I can get. And if a doctor doesn't buy evolution, then that will definitely be a factor. A negative factor.

Mynym,

I appreciate your skepticism towards Naturalism.

Although I love science and the scientific pursuit of knowledge, I myself am skeptical towards science for the simple reason that the scientific method of reasoning is skepticism: it is an organized, focused, practical, and deliberative form of skepticism. It is skepticism distilled.

However, I suspect that your skepticism is a one-way street, with very strict traffic cops. I don't think you direct as much skepticism as you should to your own beliefs about creationism. That is your prerogative, but it doesn't help you make credible criticisms of Naturalism or evolution theory.

37

Matthew, you didn't answer my question. I never once asked you what you looked for in a doctor. I did ask how a accepting the theory of universal common descent is relevant to researching drug resistance in microorganisms, however.

38

Macht,

You weren't talking about what to look for in a doctor, but I was. This whole tangent took off from the comment from Chris' blog I quoted, the comment about evangelical doctors who believe in evolution.

But to answer your question:

The theory of evolution has revolutionized our understanding of how the human body works, and our understanding of how bacteria, viruses, and other bugs work.

I've already mentioned mitochondria, which are the ubiquitous organelles that produce most of the energy for our cells. The mitochondria are actually an ancient bacteria that migrated into primitive cells ages ago. They co-evolved with our cells into the symbiotic systems we see today.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other examples I could list here if I had the time and the inclination.

Someone who refuses to accept the theory of evolution is going to have a totally messed up understanding of how our bodies' systems got to be the way they are. He is also going to have a poor understanding of the history of bacteria and the way they have interacted with people and other animals over the last three billion years.

His whole perspective is going to be informed by a creation myth possessing the level of scientific sophistication of an aborigine on a isolated island who knows nothing of the outside world.

Could the creationist research drug resistance in micro-organisms?

Yes, he could, in a mechanical way, under the supervision of someone with more knowledge. But he will lack the knowledge and the intuition to develop new lines of research in an intelligent way, unless he takes his cue, once again, from someone who knows more.

Your question makes me feel a little bit like Blestwithsons, who was "absolutely flabbergasted" that I could insist in a recent comment thread that the Bible or even God himself (as quoted by Joe!) could be wrong about something. I feel flabbergasted that you seem to seriously think that a researcher of microbes should not fully understand the theory of evolution and all that it entails. It would be like a pilot refusing to believe in the Bernouilli principle (which is a basic theory of fluid dynamics that explains, among many other things, where an airplane gets its lift).

Keep your ID theories out of my science classrooms, sir!

39

I've already mentioned mitochondria, which are the ubiquitous organelles that produce most of the energy for our cells. The mitochondria are actually an ancient bacteria that migrated into primitive cells ages ago. They co-evolved with our cells into the symbiotic systems we see today.

And you have proof of this or is it just an ad-hoc explanation?

Someone who refuses to accept the theory of evolution is going to have a totally messed up understanding of how our bodies' systems got to be the way they are. He is also going to have a poor understanding of the history of bacteria and the way they have interacted with people and other animals over the last three billion years.

Again, how do you know?

His whole perspective is going to be informed by a creation myth possessing the level of scientific sophistication of an aborigine on a isolated island who knows nothing of the outside world.

Wow, I don't know where to begin here. Let's see, it was those ignorant ID types who declared that whole body parts were the left overs of evolution? Or that most DNA is junk, again, left overs from evolution? Both are just the start of examples where evolutionists stop looking and assume something is junk because of
evolution and it doesn't initially appear to do anything. At least with an ID perspective you have to assume that everything has a function.

Yes, he could, in a mechanical way, under the supervision of someone with more knowledge. But he will lack the knowledge and the intuition to develop new lines of research in an intelligent way, unless he takes his cue, once again, from someone who knows more.

So, if a mechanic doesn't understand how chariots were built and used in Egypt, he can't fix a car or develop a better performing engine?

I feel flabbergasted that you seem to seriously think that a researcher of microbes should not fully understand the theory of evolution and all that it entails.

The observable and operational portions of the theory, yes. Not many people debate those. But, the rest of the theory is so much story-telling that it is useless at best and detrimental in other ways.

40

Matthew,

You still haven't answered my question. I'm not aware of any IDer's that deny the existence of mitochondria or deny that they produce most of the energy for our cells. But that's beside the point. How, specifically, will somebody's not accepting universal common descent affect their research on drug resistent microorganisms? You're just giving me general things like he won't have the "intuition" to do proper research. I see no reason to assume he'd lack the knowledge to do the research.

Also, I haven't mentioned the Bible or putting ID in the classroom, so I would appreciate it if you didn't either.

Also, I'm not old enough to be a sir.

41

Chris,
"And you have proof of this or is it just an ad-hoc explanation?"

It doesn't really matter whether this is true or not. For the purposes of this conversation I'm assuming it is true. He still hasn't offered an explanation of how it is relevant.

42

Wow, I don't know where to begin here. Let's see, it was those ignorant ID types who declared that whole body parts were the left overs of evolution? Or that most DNA is junk, again, left overs from evolution? Both are just the start of examples where evolutionists stop looking and assume something is junk because of
evolution and it doesn't initially appear to do anything. At least with an ID perspective you have to assume that everything has a function.

Actually 'evolutionists' never stopped with the idea of 'junk DNA'. If you read up on the subject you'll see not everyone agrees vast regions of DNA are 'junk'. One interesting area, though, is left over virual DNA in our genes. These came from failed attempts by viruses to infect use years ago but they left a bit of their DNA inactive in our genes.

The observable and operational portions of the theory, yes. Not many people debate those. But, the rest of the theory is so much story-telling that it is useless at best and detrimental in other ways.

This is a little bit like asking whether or not it is important for an engineer to believe the Earth was once molton. If he refuses to believe it I don't suppose it will have any real effect when he designs a bridge today. But science is more than simply asking for pratical results today.

43

Chris Lutz,
Wow, I don't know where to begin here. Let's see, it was those ignorant ID types who declared that whole body parts were the left overs of evolution? Or that most DNA is junk, again, left overs from evolution?

Most geneticists still believe that vast stretches of DNA are functionless, and no, it isn't the "ignorant ID types" who are figuring out what bits of DNA are functional. We had a discussion of this topic in the offtopics section recently:
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1324

See my last two comments there.

44

Chris Lutz,

You are asking the right questions. I don't take things purely on authority, so I wouldn't want you to believe anything I write just on my say-so.

Your questions are very scientific: how do you know this, how do you know that? Unfortunately, I am at this moment about 3,000 miles away from my home base in the Bronx, so I do not have access to my library. Otherwise I would give you a few references.

But if you are truly interested in this topic, I strongly recommend a trip to your local library. A competent librarian can pull up a few good books for you in a matter of minutes.

I would recommend you look at a good college level text for cell biology. Try to find something published in the last 15 years -- the field is continually exploding with new information, so the more recently a book has been written or updated, the better. Look at something with a lot of microscope-generated photos, and lots of illustrations.

Or even better yet, get your hands on a microscope and some slides, or prepare some of your own slides, it's not terribly complicated.

A good text on cell biology will have loads of stuff on evolution and its relevance to microbiology and human physiology and medicine.

I'm sure your librarian could also point you to a number of good science popularization books on these topics, if you tell him what kind of material you're looking for.

Good luck, enjoy!

Macht,

You still haven't answered my question. I'm not aware of any IDer's that deny the existence of mitochondria or deny that they produce most of the energy for our cells. But that's beside the point. How, specifically, will somebody's not accepting universal common descent affect their research on drug resistent microorganisms?

I've already answered your question: I said, "Yes, he could [do research], in a mechanical way, under the supervision of someone with more knowledge." In other words, he could be a diligent, even superior researcher, at least in terms of being a labworker and taking someone else's ideas and running with them.

But whatever talent the creationist researcher might have could reach its full potential only if he appreciated how everything fits together in the big picture.

If he can fully understand evolution without believing it, then maybe his disbelief is not an insurmountable problem.

But it would be hard for him to understand evolution if he doesn't actually believe it. It's hard to grasp the dynamism of living systems and creatures if your intellect is not being stimulated both by our knowledge of natural selection, and by the gaps in our knowledge of natural selection.

Evolutionary theory is in many ways still an adventure in largely uncharted territory. Trying to find your way around that territory without evolutionary theory in your toolkit is like exploring the world without a map and a compass.

By the way, universal common descent is a relatively new sub-theory in the theory of evolution. It's only been in the last thirty years that researchers have been accumulating DNA and other evidence that point to a single strand of evolutionary life prevailing down to the current day. So that aspect of evolutionary theory is not as important as the broader ideas of natural selection and evolution.

But you are probably referring to the idea that humans and all other creatures are evolutionary cousins, which of course is much older and more firmly established.

45

Oh Macht, I forgot, you are definitely old enough to be "sir"-ed, and thank you for not advocating putting ID theory in the classroom. I was just remembering some comments you had made about school boards and directed design a few weeks ago.

Good evening to you, sir!

46

Goggins

"ID theories will have contributed to the debate and deepened our outstanding of whatever theory turns out to be the scientific winner."

Wow, really? Are you a scientist, Matthew?

Here's an ID theory about the sun setting. My theory is that the sun sets in the West because some invisible aliens pull it on a string that we can't detect because we don't have the technological capability --- YET.

So, how does that theory "contribute to the debate and deepened our outstanding" Matthew?

I eagerly await your reply. I have a lot of other intelligent design theories. When I got my Ph.D. I was under the impression that one had to actually construct testable hypotheses and do experiments to prove those hypotheses were correct.

But now you're here to tell me all I need to do is quote mine the work of other scientists and propose that mysterious alien beings are responsible for everything that isn't understood.

That's awesome!!!

47

Macht

"How, specifically, will somebody's not accepting universal common descent affect their research on drug resistent microorganisms?"

That's a pretty dumb question, Macht.

We could similarly ask "How will somebody's not accepting that the earth rotates around the sun affect their research on drug resistant microorganisms"?

TO put it another way, one answer is that people who can't tell the difference between a mountain of evidence and pseudoscientific baloney make crappy microbiologists.

Another answer is that in some circumstances clues to proper microorganism culture and/or the microorganism's responses to various chemicals may come from a proper understanding of that microorganism's position in the evolutionary tree, i.e., by looking at the microorganism's closest relatives evolutionarily.

Of course, this is true for any organism of interest to scientists (which is every organism).

48

Hello, me Lord!

Why, I looked into my crystal