A Mathematician’s View of Evolution

_{Gil Dodgen

September 19, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

If you haven’t run into this essay from The Mathematical Intelligencer by mathematician Granville Sewell, I recommend it. In a concise and easily accessible fashion he summarizes why a mathematician might be driven to skepticism about orthodox Darwinian theory.

I continue to find it entertaining that many Darwinists are convinced that only religious fanatics, the uneducated, and/or not-very-brights don’t buy their arguments.

Comments

Karl Pfluger, "How disappointing. WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re back to the argument from personal incredulity" This isn't an arguement from personal incredulity. This is a "burden of proof" argument. Neither Gil nor I have said, "the theory of evolution doesn't seem right, therefore it is wrong", we have said, rather "the theory of evolution claims to explain an amazing phenomenon. The theory needs to provide a reasonable level of proof that its explanation can explain the evidence." This is not an unreasonable request. Its not like we are attempting to set the bar infinitely high. Just, please, prove that there is a reasonable path (just so story) that has been proven to be realistic through some specific stages. For example with the flagellum, show the boundary between a "pre-flagellum" (it doesn't transport) and the "minimal flagellum". Show that there is only one or two reasonably probable mutations separating these states. Show that the preflagellum being demonstrated uses all of its parts -- otherwise it is front-loaded. Then prove that the bacteria with a minimal flagellum actually has an advantage over the pre-flagellum bacterium. This is a reasonable proof. So far with the flagellum the best I have seen is a just so story that requires structures which are not known to have pre-existed the flagellum. You say you have an antigravity machine? Prove it, show it works. You say you have an antisecondlaw machine? Prove it, show it works. This isn't the argument from personal incredulity.bFast_{September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

How disappointing. We're back to the argument from personal incredulity: "I can't believe evolution could have produced something this complicated. Therefore it was designed."
Design detection through the observation that machines only originate through intelligent agency has already made waves. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why this debate is exploding in all quarters...
"Exploding"? One of the commenters at Pharyngula took a look at Google search trends for the phrase "intelligent design": http://www.google.com/trends?q=intelligent+design&ctab=1&geo=all&date=all Based on this graph, "petering out" might be a more appropriate phrase than "exploding".Karl Pfluger_{September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

The Wistar 1966 Symposium The Darwinist . . . A new 'meme". I love it.tribune7_{September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who claim that this kind of machinery can originate by the Darwinian mechanism.
I agree. The darwinists have the burden of proof. They have by no means met that burden. Not in my book anyway.bFast_{September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Karl, Machine: 1) an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work: a sewing machine. There is only one known, demonstrable source of machinery: design. Living systems are not only full of machines, they are full of hideously complex, indescribably sophisticated information-processing machines. The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who claim that this kind of machinery can originate by the Darwinian mechanism. Until such a proof is offered, the best inference, based on what we know, is design. Design detection through the observation that machines only originate through intelligent agency has already made waves. That's why this debate is exploding in all quarters, and why militant Darwinists are resorting to lawsuits and attempts to destroy the lives and careers of those who dissent. Such tactics are tantamount to the admission that the debate has been lost on evidential and logical grounds.GilDodgen_{September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Russ, but I'm already familiar with Dembski's method. I'm interested in Gil's objective method of design detection, which he says is "not all that difficult" and doesn't require "anything fancy like calculating CSI." If Gil is correct, he's onto something that will make some waves.Karl Pfluger_{September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

P.S. Gil, donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t forget that weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re waiting to hear about your objective method of design detection on the Ã¢â‚¬Å“ID exam questionÃ¢â‚¬Â thread. Comment by Karl Pfluger Ã¢â‚¬â€ September 19, 2006 @ 6:57 pm Here's an Amazon.com review of Dr. Wm. Dembski's NO FREE LUNCH. I haven't read it, and can't vouche for the accuracy of this review, but perhaps this book will answer your question (the math therein is almost certainly over my head). "Some critics have asserted that he has never applied his model for detecting design to any real biological systems. The latter half of this book debunks this fallacious objection, and provides a detailed calculation of the CSI found in the bacterial flagellum. Dembski assesses the complexity of the flagellum on various levels, including its protein parts and its assembly instructions, finding that the amount of CSI contained in the flagellum vastly outweigh the probabilistic resources available in the history of the universe to construct such a structure, absent intelligent design." http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Complexity-Purchased-Intelligence/dp/0742512975/sr=8-1/qid=1158712572/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9999481-3278254?ie=UTF8&s=booksruss_{September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

More info: I tried the same search with Yahoo and found the post I was looking for: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/884 Weird. Anyway, read the comment thread on that post. Sewell's ideas on thermodynamics don't stand up too well to informed scrutiny. P.S. Gil, don't forget that we're waiting to hear about your objective method of design detection on the "ID exam question" thread.Karl Pfluger_{September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Moderators, I remember that there was another post on Granville Sewell a few months ago on UD. Just now, I tried searching for it using Google with the string "Sewell site:uncommondescent.com". I got no results. Curious, I tried a few other searches and found that none of them returned any results. It's as if UD has been declared off-limits to Google. What's up with that?Karl Pfluger_{September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply