Jason Miller discovers the Wedge Document — Can you say out of touch and behind the times?

tinabrewer in post 36 I am not in the least bit interested in making my hypothesis (not theory) attractive. I enter internet forums in the same spirit I transmit my papers for publication. It is to enlighten not to persuade. I know better than to try to persuade ideologues. It is quite impossible as this and every other internet forum proves beyond any reasonable doubt. I know of not a single real scientist who ever tried to "persuade" anyone of the truth. It is quite unecessary. Those who have read the Discover magazine article on Dawkins: Darwin's Rottweiler, may recall that he said he had a "product to sell." That is the dead giveaway that Dawkins is not a scientist and never will be. He thereby defined himself as a "snake oil salesman." Gould and Mayr were guilty of the same congenital malaise. For that reason I, in a moment of light-hearted joviality, once described them as "The Three Stooges" of evolutionary theory. I hope all will forgive me for my blasphemy. If they don't that is fine too. I am content. Besides - "All great truths begin as blasphemies." George Bernard Shaw. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable," John A. Davison John A. Davison

Post 21 by Chris Hyland Everything DOES have a cause. The error that the Darwinians made at the outset and continue to make is that the cause is exogenous and subject to direct experimental demonstration. They have even identified the cause as random mutation and claimed that the mechanism for creative evolution was natural selection. The external environment has played no part in either phylogeny or ontogeny. The cause for both has always been internal, emergent, self-regulated, progressive, ascending, predetermined and self-limiting. Those limits are the death of the individual and extinction of the species. Only ontogeny continues. "Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance." Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134 "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison John A. Davison

John Davison: perhaps people would find your theory more attractive if you did not insist on including in every post your unnecessary and wholly unproven(able) assertion that a predetermined evolutionary unfolding leads inevitably to rigid determinism in everything... tinabrewer

I hope I do not sound too self important but it seems to me that I have proposed a mechanism in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, a mechanism in accord with everything we now know concerning the structure and function of the bearers of the genetic information, the chromosomes. Speaking of the mechanism of evolution Goldschmidt offers - "Species and the higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary steps as completely new genetic systems. The genetical process consists of a repatterning of the chromosomes, which results in a new genetic system." The Material Basis of Evolution, page 396 I only wish he had used the past tense because creative evolution is a phenomenon no longer in progress. As I keep saying - "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison John A. Davison

Actually, Behe is pretty clear in saying that he doesn't propose a mechanism, so that's probably not a good example. improvius

jgrr: The core argument for the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria is that mitochondria look like they share a common ancestor with bacteria [Standard Darwinian reasoning there]. You'll be interested to know that this is hardly a Darwinian prediction: "Evolution was supposed to proceed in small steps, not in symbiotic leaps. Just as neo-Darwinianists originally resisted lateral gene transfer, they also recoiled from endosymbiosis." Some things to note: endosymbiosis currently accounts for the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts, not eukarya. Also, mitochondria of higher organisms may appear similar in shape and size to bacteria, this is often not true among protozoa. I believe it's clear that mitochondria are derived prokaryotic systems, but the issues is with the mechanism for said derivation. The mechanism must account for two important facts:

1. Mitochondria are monophyletic. In other words, the mitochondria from various protozoa, plants, animals, and fungi are all derived from the same stem population of mitochondria that were once free-living bacteria. The significance of this is that explanations that paint with a broad brush are suspect. Citing a laundry list of common cellular and molecular events (phagocytosis, modern examples of endosymbiosis between protozoa and bacteria, mechanisms of gene transfer, etc.) left to themselves would lead us to expect a polyphyletic origin of mitochondria. The monophyletic nature of mitochondria suggest there was something unusual about the transformation. 2. Mitochondria are not just similar to bacteria, they nest with a bacterial crown group - the Rickettsia type alpha-Proteobacteria. Since alpha-proteobacteria branch late in bacterial phylogeny, and Rickettsia are one of the twigs in this late-branching group, it stands to reason that extensive bacterial evolution and divergence occurred prior to the endosymbiotic event. Since the endosymbiotic event likely occurred long after the last universal common ancestor, this raises the specter of bringing together two very different genetic control systems. How one would subsume much of the other is a challenging line of thinking. Finally, there is another twist to the story. The standard story has some primitive eukaryote engulfing a Rickettsia-like bacteria, spawning cells with mitochondria. Since mitochondria are widespread among eukarya, this is thought to have happened first. Then some eukaryotes with mitochondria engulfed cyanobacteria to form the chloroplasts. It would be nice if this scenario matched bacterial phylogeny. But cyanobacteria were around long before alpha-proteobacteria appeared. What’s more, cyanobacteria even carry out aerobic respiration. So what’s so special about Rickettsia-like alpha-proteobacteria? The standard endosymbiotic theory would be much more strongly supported if mitochondria and chloroplasts nested together and diverged very early off the bacterial tree.

So, you have hardly demonstrated incontrovertible evidence that Darwinian mechanisms have driven endosymbiotic change. My question was very specific. And it remains a more feasible explanation that quantum level programming by a designing intelligence unfolds biological novelty at given intervals [which may or may not be taking cues from the environment for the unfolding]. No primitive notions about natural mechanisms which are based on the pressuposition that the cell is a useless blob of protoplasm, are going to be accepted by me. The DI promised 100 publications and 30 books? Hmmm. Here is one fantastic book which presents a hypothesis for the origins for novel cell types: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684834936/sr=8-1/qid=1155042997/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9441411-7974522?ie=UTF8 Some peer-reviewed papers: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1026 http://www.iscid.org/papers/Davison_PrescribedEvolution_110804.pdf http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.pdf Enjoy and learn. Now, want to try at producing papers featuring tested NeoDarwinian hypotheses which demonstrate how it was blind natural mechanisms [NS + RM] which produced sufficient CSI to generate biological novelty, sans any intelligent programming? Wishful speculation, unwarranted extrapolations, & hand-waving Just-So stories will not be accepted. Please don't make me hold my breath on this one. Scott

Are you saying that a cell with mitochondria wasn't novel? The endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria is well documented and if you don't think that qualifies as a "non-teleological Darwinian mechanism" then it falls on you to explain why. The link I provided shows that the mechanism operates in the wild in a way that appears to be non-teleological, and is consistent with what I and Lynn Margulis understand as "Darwinian." Or are you saying that a Hatena with an eyespot (inherited from an endosymbiotic Nephroselmis) isn't novel? Or just denying the link to the origins of mitochondria and the eukaryotes (a "novel cell type" if ever there was one)? Can we compromise and call it a novel body plan at least? On the other hand, 7 years ago the DI promised 100 publications and 30 books. Surely one of those 130 books and papers has a credible ID explanation for the origins of "novel cell types," etc. Perhaps you could point me toward the ID experiments that have tested an ID hypothesis about that explanation. Not just what it isn't, but what it is, please. jgrr

As for a new cell type, check out the work of Lynn Margulis in the ’70s and ’80s on the endosymbiotic hypothesis, and various examples of endosymbiosis at work. I suppose it really isn’t RM or NS, but it sure is within the mainstream of evolutionary biology.

*BUZZ* wrong. Want to try again by providing a paper which details confirmed evidence of how non-teleological Darwinian mechanisms have produced novel cells, tissue or body plans? Think before you answer, or it will likely be your last answer at this blog. Scott

olegt, "The encoded message will look like garbage to the uninformed observer (unless he has the right key). Would it be possible to detect that this is not a string of random numbers but an artificially designed message?" Bill has never claimed that all designed objects can be recognized as designed. In The Design Inference, he acknowledges that a cryptosystem utilizing what is known as a one-time pad cannot be cracked. He also claims that his "explanatory filter" gives no false-positive inferences of design. In more recent work ("Specification" at designinference.com), he seems to formulate design inferences as tentative. Someone tell me if I got that wrong. Tom English

Pardon my ignorance, I am still learning, but let me ask a naive question regarding detection of design. If this question has been previously addressed I would apreciate pointing me in the right direction. Obviously my message shows evidence of design: letters are nonrandom and it conveys information. Using Dr. Dembski's mathematical apparatus one should be able to establish its artificial origin. Now, suppose I encode the same message with whatever high-quality software (say, PGP). The encoded message will look like garbage to the uninformed observer (unless he has the right key). Would it be possible to detect that this is not a string of random numbers but an artificially designed message? I suspect that the answer is yes, but let me take this to the next level. Instead of encoding this message, I will write code that will generate pseudorandom numbers using some well-known algorithm. Will someone be able to detect that this sequence of numbers is not random but created by an intelligent being (i.e. myself)? olegt

Well, Scott, I guess you weren't who I was asking then. Since the author of this blog is mentioned in the Wedge Document as an author and key component of the strategy, I'm curious about his assessment. Especially since "behind the times" is his own critique of anyone referring to the Wedge. As for a new cell type, check out the work of Lynn Margulis in the '70s and '80s on the endosymbiotic hypothesis, and various examples of endosymbiosis at work. I suppose it really isn't RM or NS, but it sure is within the mainstream of evolutionary biology. jgrr

If ID is to survive the scrutiny of science, and I beleive it does with the design inference as well as Orgels notion of information content being the instructions which specify comlex structure, it must remain science and not religion. Detecting design is an empirical endeavor yet contemplating intelligent causation seems to be metaphysical since its supersensible in DNA. We see human information at work everyday with rational intention, languages spoken and written. We know the liver cell stocks the blood with sugar, neural cells elongate, and leukocytes attack antigens because of DNA's instructions--getting Darwinist to work from this idea is not easy. Their adherance to unspecified, unintelligent causal factors creating complex structures is simply to deny the empirically confirmed science of information theory,i.e., linguistic. Linguists have their work cut out. Step up. idadvisors

Tina: I don't find the wedge document particularly stupid or daring or anything. I find it unimportant (scientifically) and silly. You asked what was wrong with it? Nothing, I suppose, but I'd like to point out this bit of it (part of your favorite bit): Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. What exploring has been done? What research has been done? Where are the results and data? What new developments has the extensive DI research program given us? Without these, absolutely EVERYTHING is wrong with the wedge document. VOICEofREASON

Chris Hyland: "Most scientists think [in 2006] that accepting supernatural explantions will be a science stopper" Mats: "Newton [died 1727], Kepler [died 1630], Mendel [died 1884], and other [dead] scientists who accepted supernatural explinations on historical sciences had no problems at all." Bill Dembski: "Can you say out of touch [stuck in 1999] and behind the times [2006]?" Tom English

My favorite parts of the Wedge Document are the parts where (7 years ago) the authors explained that “Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.” They then set 5 year objectives: “Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion); One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows;An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US; Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities; Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view; Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences” How’s that all going?

Not sure since ID proponents never recognized the Wedge document as the gospel. Despite what anti-ID\'ers have tried to make it. But hey, \"any port in a storm\" eh? Unrelated note: How\'s the evidence going which supports the Darwinian claim that NS + RM can produce novel cell, tissue, or body plans? You want 7 years to answer that? I should probably give you more time. Scott

Jason Miller is intent on Mayhem. If he wants to believe that we came from Monkeys then let him. It's also widely known that he is now a member of the WFA (a group with the stated intention of using violence to acheive its aims). Take no notice of this lunatic. Jon_D

I think some people are concerned about the “broadly theistic understanding of nature” part.

If one is a materialist, then it's easy to understand the concern.

Most scientists think that accepting supernatural explantions will be a science stopper

Newton, Kepler, Mendel, and other scientists who accepted supernatural explinations on historical sciences had no problems at all.

The best way to challenge naturalism is to prove them wrong.

If the origin of life debate hasn't stablished that Naturalism is insuficient, then nothing will Mats

"If intelligent agency WERE a causal factor in the history of life on earth (certainly a live, logical possibility), would materialism allow us to discover that? I think the answer is no" I don't see why this is, as long as the ageny produces material effects. Materialism does exclude attributing effects to supernatural causes though. "If biologists weren’t so adamant about ASSUMING everything does in fact have a material cause, and could humble themselves once in awhile to say “we don’t know, a material cause may never account for this”, I could perhaps live with it." As a biologist, regarding many problems including the origin of life, DNA, transcription and any other unsolved problems you can think of I am perfectly happy to sincerly say that we do not know and a material cause may never account for this. However as far as science is concerned I am currently forced to assume that everything has a material cause becuase there is no alternative available to me. This has nothing to do with philosophical objections I just can't think how I could factor supernatural explanations into science. "Even if it threatens my precious little worldview, so be it." I can only speak personally but ID doesn't threaten my worldview at all. Chris Hyland

ultimate175: "If intelligent agency WERE a causal factor in the history of life on earth (certainly a live, logical possibility), would materialism allow us to discover that?" Of course it could. The fundamental principle of forensics is that "Every contact leaves a trace." Evidence of manufacture ties the artifact with the artisan, and such detection is common in sciences such as archaeology. Zachriel

I would prefer to not have any restrictions on my science. Let the evidence take us wherever it will. Even if it makes us uncomfortable. If it points to an incredibly powerful designing intelligence... so be it. That's not my fault. Even if it threatens my precious little worldview, so be it. Scott

I believe it was Paul Nelson (really) who said something to the effect of: If intelligent agency WERE a causal factor in the history of life on earth (certainly a live, logical possibility), would materialism allow us to discover that? I think the answer is no, and therefore the deficiency of the materialistic framework becomes obvious. If biologists weren't so adamant about ASSUMING everything does in fact have a material cause, and could humble themselves once in awhile to say "we don't know, a material cause may never account for this", I could perhaps live with it. The problem as I see it is that the philosophical presupposition has become an incontrovertable conclusion (and inappropriately at that). ultimate175

I don't understand why the term "broadly theistic" concerns anyone so much. No one is talking about "proving and enforcing a narrowly religious" view, but that is apparently what "broadly theistic" is taken to mean. tinabrewer

"Most scientists think that accepting supernatural explantions will be a science stopper, and that there is currently no framework with which to include them in science. The best way to challenge naturalism is to prove them wrong." While science obviously cannot detect miracles per se, it can detect signs of intelligence (that is, CSI, IC, etc.). If we can show that something could not possibly have happened (or very very likely did not happen) by natural causes, then we must conclude that it was done by an intelligence. Ryan

My favorite parts of the Wedge Document are the parts where (7 years ago) the authors explained that "Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade." They then set 5 year objectives: "Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion); One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows;An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US; Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities; Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view; Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences" How's that all going? jgrr

"The basic need to challenge the naturalistic religion on the scientific and intellectual stage is blatantly obvious to me. Further, I find that such a method of challenge is perfectly fair play. Why are the naturalists afraid that they will be challenged on scientific and intelectual grounds anyway?" Most scientists think that accepting supernatural explantions will be a science stopper, and that there is currently no framework with which to include them in science. The best way to challenge naturalism is to prove them wrong. Chris Hyland

In truth, I find ID and a literal interpretation of the Bible to be an uncomfortable fit at best.

If ID is design detection, then I don't see a problem reconciling it with the Biblical account. I actually think ID works perfectly with an Old Earth interpretation of Genesis, as well as the Framework view of Genesis. Additionally, my personal opinion is that there is more to "time" than we currently understand. We have a limited linear view of time. I personally think their is more to it than that. But that's a whole different discussion. Scott

I agree with tinabrewer, I fail to find the offensiveness or shock in the wedge document. It seems that the most exciting thing about the wedge document is that it was "secret", avaiable with a lot of embellishment here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830823956/ref=sr_11_1/103-6375077-8628632?ie=UTF8 If there was one thing I would like to change about the wedge document, it is to change the term "materialism" to the term "naturalism." Oh, and I'd scratch the "Christian" bit in "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." In truth, I find ID and a literal interpretation of the Bible to be an uncomfortable fit at best. The basic need to challenge the naturalistic religion on the scientific and intellectual stage is blatantly obvious to me. Further, I find that such a method of challenge is perfectly fair play. Why are the naturalists afraid that they will be challenged on scientific and intelectual grounds anyway? bFast

When Design Theorists and other Pro-ID folks invoke the Wedge document and not scientific evidence, there will be a problem. I sure haven\'t seen this happen, however. Don\'t conflate the personal views of Phil Johnson with the ID movement and all of it\'s facets. It only makes one look desperate. Some facts: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2101 Scott

I think some people are concerned about the "broadly theistic understanding of nature" part. Chris Hyland

What lessons should design-skeptics draw from the Wedge Document? Michael "Tutu" Tuite

Actually, I kinda like the Wedge document. My favorite part is where it says that the goal is to bring together "leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature." I think desiring to look at how new developments raise doubt on the materialistic paradigm is a wonderful goal. No where does this imply concocting developments or distorting them. What's so wrong with this goal? Am I missing something? tinabrewer

This just in: 1995 called back and said you can keep it. Scott

Jason: 1995 called and wants it's epiphany back. Scott

lucID, I'm not sure what ivory tower you speak of in the case of Jason Miller. He's not a member of academia by any stretch of imagination. Here's some info about him if you care: Jason Miller has a degree in liberal arts, is passionately devoted to his avocation of sociopolitical writing, works hard to apply his core values to virtually all aspects of his being, and spends his weekdays as a wage slave (writing and publishing on evenings and weekends). As to the ``fast-changing world (of science),'' it looks the same from my ivory-tower perch. olegt

To my knowledge, the Discovery Institute has never repudiated the Wedge Document, despite discussing it at length in the article "The Wedge Document: So What?" at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349 If the DI is unwilling to distance itself from the Wedge Document, then what reason does Jason Miller have to disregard it as an accurate reflection of the DI's goals? zapatero

Yes... Terribly out of date. Everyone should know by now that the Wedge Strategy was abandoned, replaced by the Top Secret "Thing That Holds The Door Open, But We're Not Going To Call It A Wedge... Don't Mention the Wedge" Strategy. :D MikeFNQ

Can one really be surprised at this out of touch comment so late in the day?? It obviously supports the notion that some of our Darwinian brethren truly believe their own sentiments espoused towards ID briefly paraphrased as "ID will amount to nothing really". (The smart one's realise ID is a formidable foe and that the above is just towing the party line) So then we should not be surprised that from time to time when one or two ostriches pull their heads out of the lofty sand pit and crane their necks out of the ivory tower to gaze down at the fast changing world (of science) below, they will notice events of yester year as breaking-news. This will be followed by a brief episode of hysteria (flapping of wings and squawking). The end result is usually the ostrich publicly maintains the commotion through various new agencies until they feel the threat has passed (or suitably been discredited) and then it's back to the sand pit until it's time for their next breath of air. NOTE: There are certain ostriches who never return to the sand pit and who carry on the good fight from the ivory tower. lucID

Just a suggestion -- but instead of these kinds of posts, can we have some posts about the actual science of ID? I did a quick survey of the last few weeks - there's hardly a single blog entry about any research or discoveries related to ID. I wouldn't mind if there was information on the "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions” but lately there's not even been that. Instead this blog seems to me to be mosty complaining about what the evolutionists are up to, or what people say about ID (like this one). Or, there are references to papers which contain even the slightest hint of intelligent design (is that what passes for research?) I come to this blog to learn about ID - so far I've learned nothing further than what I could find at Wikipedia. I truly am beginning to wonder if "this is all there is". You people need to start walking the talk... timcol