[Update:] Beliefnet Re-Re-Titles My Piece on President Bush

_{William Dembski

August 5, 2005

Intelligent Design}

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

At my prompting, Beliefnet has now reverted to the original title (go here).

[Earlier I had written:] After President Bush’s recently stated public support for teaching intelligent design, an editor at Beliefnet asked me to respond to it. Moreover, she asked me to clarify where I stand on creationism. I responded with a brief essay that appears on my designinference.com website (go here). I titled that essay “Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design.” That essay has now appeared on Beliefnet, where it was re-titled — without my knowledge or permission — “Intelligent Design, Yes; Creationism, No” (go here). This new title is contentious and misleading. My target in this essay is Darwinian materialism. I discuss creationism in this essay to clarify how my understanding of intelligent design differs from it.

Comments

For anyone that doesn't know what probalistic resources are they're basically all the factors that can conspire to produce a given result. Dembski's CSI analysis of the flagellum is best criticized by claiming that one or more assumptions of probalistic resources is an argument from ignorance. In particular is presuming the flagellum is irreducible. Just because no one can rigorously reduce the flagellum with experimental biology right now doesn't mean there is no way to reduce it. Thus the assumption that it's irreducible is an argument from ignorance. Realistically and logically we can never eliminate ignorance. This is why all scientific theories are tentative. It's also where falsifiability becomes important. Let's take the standard theory of evolution from bacterial ancestors to human beings. It can be falsified by finding out-of-sequence fossils. The following April Fool 1999 hoax illustrates such a fossil. The hoax: http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html The admission: http://www.nmsr.org/april_fool.html Because we can never know that we've explored the entire fossil record there remains the possibility we'll find out-of-sequence fossils. So, a very basic presumption in standard evolution theory is that out-of-sequence fossils don't exist. That's an argument from ignorance but it's accepted as true until proven false. This then raises a question with regard to design detection and the flagellum. How much effort must be expended before we accept its irredicibility as we accept the non-existance of out-of-sequence fossils? I suggested in the prior comment that more effort at reducing the flagellum with experimental biology needs to be done before we can reasonably take it as a given that it's irreducible. I suggested a design test on the sickle-cell mutation because it can't be reduced - it's a point mutation. It's specified and complex but the probalistic resources, which I believe are reasonably boundable, will probably push it outside the chance rejection zone and deem it the result of RM+NS. Simple as it is, it's still going to take a lot of work robustly bounding the probabalistic resources. I'd like to see the same attempt made on the genetic code because it's common in everything alive and thus exceedingly important evidence for the theory of universal common descent. Of course saying the genetic code is common in all living things is also an argument from ignorance as we haven't yet confirmed it in every living thing. ;-)DaveScot_{August 9, 2005
August
08
Aug
9
09
2005
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Satre You'll have to get Dembski's book "No Free Lunch" to see a CSI analysis of the flagellum. I think the probabalistic resources are too ill-defined at this point in time for that to be a good example. It depends on Behe being correct that the flagellum is irreducible and while I have yet to see a reasonable reductionist scenario for its evolution from simpler components. The type-II secretory system has been put forward as a partial precurser that was co-opted to form a flagellum but the temporal appearance of the T2 in nature is after the flagellum appeared which indicates that the T2 devolved from the flagellum. Further efforts seem to be in order to verify the irreducibility of the flagellum. One test of design detection I'd like to see, a more tractible case than the flagellum is the point mutation in human hemoglobin that causes sickle cell anemia and also confers resistance to malaria. Since this is a single point mutation and (presumably) happened in recent history the probalistic resources should be tractible. Things to consider in calculating probalistic resources would be the random mutation rate of hemoglobin, the human population at the time it happened, the mosquito population and frequency of malaria, etc. The unsurprising result of design detection I expect would be no design detected. Keep in mind that design detection is useful in ruling out design as well identifying design. A second test case I'd like to see is the genetic code. Scientists have been unsuccessfully trying to reduce it for 60 years so assuming it's irreducible is a more reasonable assumption than the flagellum IMO. It is present and virtually identical in all living things and is very well characterized in every detail as it's a simple algorithmic lookup table that translates 1 of 64 possible nucleic acid triplets into 1 of 20 possible amino acids plus stop/start sequences. Since the lookup table could have taken on a practically infinite number of equally functional permutations while only one permuation is used by every living thing it is both complex and specified. The unsurprising result of design detection would be that it is designed. Furthermore, design detection in this case could be falsified by successfully demonstrating that that genetic code can be reduced.DaveScot_{August 9, 2005
August
08
Aug
9
09
2005
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

I will respond to this points tomorrow. I have to go to work soon and I won't be home tonight. But, Dave, where is that article by Miller (and remember, as Dembski points out, Miller is seen as a creationist also [I can't say if he is or not since I have not read much of his stuff]). Also, you side-stepped the issue of the flagellum. Dembski says that IC is a SPEACIAL case of CSI. Thus, by definition, the flagellum must ALSO be a case of CSI. Even if this was not the case, you SHOULD have given an instance where ID has applied CSI. So even if my assertion is wrong, provide an applied case of CSI.sartre_{August 8, 2005
August
08
Aug
8
08
2005
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Sartre, Every theory implies a metaphysic. The constancy hypothesis (I assume you are referring to Merleau-Ponty's notion) makes sense only in the context of the empiricist understanding of human nature that has been popular since the 17th century. For other understandings of human nature, e.g. Aristotle's, it can't even come up as a problem. It's a myth that the "facts" are just waiting out there for us to pick up, independent of any theories we have about them. If they were, we wouldn't need philosophers like Merleau-Ponty to point them out to scientists. But I was making more of a cultural than a philosophical point. Your original question was why IDers don't just "let the data speak for itself." The simple answer is that data doesn't speak for itself because it doesnt't speak at all. It is scientists and philosophers who do the speaking, and they must choose not only what data to speak about, but what constitutes the nature of data itself. And the voice of the Darwinian establishment has spoken: It is impossible for data to exist that establishes intelligent design, therefore it is not worth talking about, in schools or anywhere else. Thus we have the Darwinian complaint that IDers do not publish in peer-reviewed journals, while they themselves enforce the lockout on the basis that IDers can't possibly make authentically scientific points.taciturnus_{August 8, 2005
August
08
Aug
8
08
2005
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

Sartre: "Here, you are saying that ID theorists are not scientists." No I didn't say that. I didn't even imply it. You made an incorrect inferral. "there have been many places that argue that Ã¢â‚¬Å“Pandas and PeopleÃ¢â‚¬Â is a creationsim." They're wrong and it doesn't take much work to figure that out. Here's a critical article on "Of Pandas and People" by a prominent NeoDarwinist, Kenneth Miller. It attacks the science in the book but doesn't describe any of it as "a creationism" [sic]. "who are these Neodarwinists?" Anyone who supports the so-called modern synthesis of course. "show the world that you guys have substance in journals" Publication of ID sympathetic articles is denied in "journals" by the peer review process. That's part of the conspiracy. Rivista de Biologia is a notable exception. "What is the CSI of the bacteria flagellum?" The flagellum is held out as an example in irreducible complexity not CSI.DaveScot_{August 7, 2005
August
08
Aug
7
07
2005
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Dave, I will answer your question, even though you have failed to answer my question that I posed to you earlier. In this quote that I will present works against you: "Scientists might be smart but evidently most of them donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have a lick of common sense or insight into how to deal with people who donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t agree with them." Here, you are saying that ID theorists are not scientists. Now, if you believe this, why would non-science be taught in a science class? I have no comment on whether ID theorists are scientists or not. It is not my place. However, there have been many places that argue that "Pandas and People" is a creationsim. Also, who are these Neodarwinists? Are they actual scientists or are they the public Darwinists? And remember, they Darwinists claim that ID is not science. You have a right to disagree and attack them on that issue, but you cannot simply say "We are not creationism and that is final." That shows a misunderstanding of the history of philosophy and science. There have been numerous critiques in the past that say newer theories are newer version of older, outdated, and already falsified ideas, and the newer theorists go on the attack. This is what I meant by a conspiracy paranoia. It has not just happened to you, but it has happened throughout all of history. Quit complaining about it and show the world that you guys have substance in journals. If you do that, then you will have nothing to worry about. ID will come out ahead if they produce results just like any other theory. Now, I will ask my question again (now I may have missed it somewhere so point to where it exists if it does): What is the CSI of the bacteria flagellum? I am NOT asking for a physical mechanism, but rather the specific patterns that show design. How is this CSI similar to Mount Rushmoore? It cannot be DNA since the latter does not have DNA (obviously). Answering this will most assuredly help IDÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s progress.sartre_{August 7, 2005
August
08
Aug
7
07
2005
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Taciturnus, You are failing to distinguish between metaphysics and theory. Metaphysics is what is assumed underlying the interpretation of facts. For instance, in psychology the experiments of the constancy hypothesis have many interpretations depending on what the paradigm allows in their interpretations. However, theories stem the experiments themselves and the theories tie together the facts. If the facts work, then so does the theory. Also, I have shown many times on this site that there are other theories that are against Neodarwinism and are very successful in the journals. This argument against Darwinists does not work because it is not true due to these counterexamples.sartre_{August 7, 2005
August
08
Aug
7
07
2005
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Mynym - very good on the politics of what gets taught in public schools. I would add that there IS substance to the 1st amendment establishment clause and its jurisdiction over local gov't via the 14th amendment. Biblical creationism taught in public schools I believe crosses over the line of what's constitutional. ID on the other hand does not cross over. There's nothing religious in Bill's mathematical treatment of design detection nor in Behe's irreducible complexity. I don't have a problem with discussing cosmological ID in public schools either. There's nothing religious about describing how the universe is fine tuned. It is indeed very fine tuned. Of course both biological ID and cosmological ID have religious implications but that's not a disqualifier as long as the religious implications are left unsaid. If BID and CID tend to lend support to religious beliefs that's just too bad if atheists don't like it as long as the evidence is presented in an impartial manner. So "ID yes; creationism no" is quite apt for how I feel about the situation. I agree it's contentious and it's Bill's call if it isn't the message he wanted to convey. But it's the message I would want to convey for the reasons given above.DaveScot_{August 6, 2005
August
08
Aug
6
06
2005
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

That essay has now appeared on Beliefnet, where it was re-titled Ã¢â‚¬â€ without my knowledge or permission Ã¢â‚¬â€ Ã¢â‚¬Å“Intelligent Design, Yes; Creationism, NoÃ¢â‚¬Â (go here). This new title is contentious and misleading. Thank you for pressing for the clarification. It is unfortunate that many in the ID community seek to impress their enemies by shooting their friends.bevets_{August 6, 2005
August
08
Aug
6
06
2005
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

"As in the Kansas Trials, hardly any Darwinists (if any), none of them were there because they do not want to turn science into a political battle." It is Darwinists that typically seem more concerned with the political issue of what gets taught in State schools then what is actually true about origins. For some reason they seem to have thought all these years that if they teach mythological narratives of Naturalism to children against the will of parents, then the children will somehow be likely to believe them. It seems to me that history indicates that the only way to really indoctrinate a generation would be more of an abuse of the authority of both the State and Science. As far as the political issue, at some point if you are going to keep taking parent's money through taxes then you are going to have to let them teach their kid what they want them taught. If the public schools are the public's schools then each community will have to make its own decisions just as each parent does. If the schools are not the public's schools and instead are ruled by the oligarchy of "experts" and judges working through the Judiciary then they are State schools, indoctrination is typical in such schools.mynym_{August 6, 2005
August
08
Aug
6
06
2005
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

I have a question for Sartre. Why does NeoDarwinism rely on the courts to censor ID? For instance, in Cobb country Georgia NeoDarwinists have sued to have a sticker removed and all the sticker says is that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be critically considered. Is the modern synthesis so weak that it can't stand up to a silly little sticker that was added to biology texts through due demoncratic process? Why the huge fuss? Kids aren't even being tested on anything the sticker says! Same goes for Dover where the Darwin crowd is suing to stop the principle from reading a 60-second blurb saying that other ideas exist about evolution and interested students may refer to a book "Pandas and People" which is in the library. Any kids that don't want to listen to the blurb can opt out of it. And again students won't be tested on anything in the blurb! And again this was the result of the democratic process governing the Dover public school. How do you think this won't-give-an-inch we'll-use-the-courts-to-thwart-your- modest-desires plays out amongst the vast majority of people who either don't care or want to see ID at least mentioned? I'll tell you how. It's causing hate and discontent directed at science. For what? A sticker or a 60-second announcement. What a boneheaded thing to do. Scientists might be smart but evidently most of them don't have a lick of common sense or insight into how to deal with people who don't agree with them.DaveScot_{August 6, 2005
August
08
Aug
6
06
2005
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Historically, the Darwinists have had two opportunities to take the stand and have their science (beliefs!) cross-examined. So far, they're 0 for 2.PaV_{August 5, 2005
August
08
Aug
5
05
2005
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

The Darwinists chose to boycott the Kansas hearings because they knew their obfuscatory rebuttals (like harping on religious motivation instead of engaging substance) would not fly in a setting in which they'd be cross-examined. As demonstration of this, I point to the fact that Darwinists only boycotted the stand, they did not boycott the hearings. Indeed they were present in droves to give their sound-bites to media members whom they knew would not call them on their statements. The Kansas hearings were set up to gather information on very specific proposals by a minority group of the science writing committee (proposals such as teaching on the nature of hard sciences vs. historical sciences, more information regarding the nature and sequencing of DNA, etc.). In effect, they were trying to widen students' education to include a more relevant and realistic picture of the data affecting evolutionary explanations, and no more. The process was political because the members of the board who ultimately shoulder standards responsibility are elected. However the proposals, and their defense, were addressed by scientists, scholars, and educators, not politicians.ultimate175_{August 5, 2005
August
08
Aug
5
05
2005
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Sartre, It isn't data that drives science but theory. It is theory, in the form of the reigning paradigm, that decides what counts as data and what doesn't. Right now, the dominant paradigm as enforced by the Darwinian establishment says that the effects of intelligence do not count as scientific data. Since science reasons from effects to causes, ID is fundamentally mistaken (in this view) because it is impossible for there ever to be any data of a scientific nature that might lead to intelligence as the cause. So it doesn't matter the quantity or quality of the data amassed by ID theorists. There data is ruled out of court a priori by the Darwinists definition of science. This makes the ID vs. Darwinism battle inevitably a political battle. But, then, this has always been true for science.taciturnus_{August 5, 2005
August
08
Aug
5
05
2005
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

I have a very serious question. Why does ID rely on politics? As in the Kansas Trials, hardly any Darwinists (if any), none of them were there because they do not want to turn science into a political battle. Both sides should focus on doing research and let the data speak for itself.sartre_{August 5, 2005
August
08
Aug
5
05
2005
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

"This new title is contentious and misleading." I agree with you, Bill. I'm very disappointed with the editor. Bush's statement is a cause for celebration by everyone who is sympathetic to design, even creationists. The change in the title totally destroys the spirit of your essay.scordova_{August 5, 2005
August
08
Aug
5
05
2005
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply