Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Casey Luskin asks: Can claims about punctuated equilibrium accommodate the scientific data?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Some of us would have thought that quantum mechanics killed all that off but in any event:

As Stephen Jay Gould put it: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”1 Because of this difficulty, in the 1970s, Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge developed punctuated equilibrium as a model where evolution takes place in small populations over relatively short geological time periods that are too rapid for transitional forms to become fossilized.2 But this model has many problems.3

Punctuated equilibrium compresses the vast majority of evolutionary change into small populations that lived during shorter segments of time, allowing too few opportunities for novel, beneficial traits to arise. Punctuated equilibrium is also unconvincing in that it predicts that with respect to the fossil record, evidence confirming Darwinian theory will not be found. Would you believe someone who claimed that fairies and leprechauns exist and were caught on video, but when asked to produce the film, declares, “Well, they are on camera, but they are too small or too fast to be seen”? That doesn’t make for a compelling theory.

Analogous problems plague attempts to account for the life-friendly fine-tuning of physical laws by appealing to a multiverse.

Casey Luskin, “Can Materialistic Models Accommodate the Scientific Data?” at Evolution News and Science Today (May 7, 2022)

As Luskin implies, appealing to a multiverse is like appealing to fairies.

Here’s Casey Luskin’s whole series on the topic.

You may also wish to read: Rescuing the multiverse as a science concept… ? Luke Barnes on the multiverse: In the cycle of the scientific method, the multiverse is in an exploratory phase. We’ve got an idea that might explain a few things, if it was true. That makes it worthy of our attention, but it’s not quite science yet. We need to find evidence that is more direct, more decisive.

Comments
"No one is saying that change is rapid." JVL, How can anyone take you seriously with vapidity like this? Andrewasauber
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
JVL No one is saying that change is rapid. Even directed breeding takes generations.
Imagination is working.Too bad the imagination is not science.Lieutenant Commander Data
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Dembski quote: “Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.”
As he says, "it's a separate question". The design inference is ID. As I said, nothing stops you from inquiring about the production of the design. You can use science or whatever you want.Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Science as it currently exists does not permit the analysis of teleology in the origin of life. So . . . how do you analyse the possibility of teleology in the origin of life?JVL
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
VL
I understand what you are saying, ET, but I don’t think that is what SA was saying.
No - ET was correct. That's what I was saying. Science as it currently exists does not permit the analysis of teleology in the origin of life. The science that ID uses is the same science that materialists use.Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
But many, many, many generations of puddles! Andrew PS or somethingasauber
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
ET: The fittest organism in any population is still the same type of organism as all the rest. The fittest bacteria are still bacteria. The fittest fruit flies are still fruit flies. Some of the bacteria are able to digest more things, some of the fruit flies fly a bit faster or have larger broods. No one is saying that change is rapid. Even directed breeding takes generations. You may never actually notice that the rotation of the Earth is changing or that the continents are drifting but that doesn't mean those things are not happening.JVL
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
ET: Science as it currently exists won’t allow you to examine a telic origin for life or biological systems. So, how do you examine a telic origin of life?JVL
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. The only predictions borne from evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are genetic diseases and deformities. And without intelligent design all you have is sheer dumb luck- INCLUDING THIS PLANET and life itself. You still don't understand natural selection. The fittest organism in any population is still the same type of organism as all the rest. The fittest bacteria are still bacteria. The fittest fruit flies are still fruit flies. Never mind the fact that only desperation and imagination has blind and mindless processes producing all of the requirements for the process of developmental biology. There is plenty of evidence for Intelligent Design. It has been explained to you.ET
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
ET: Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? A perfectly reasonable question. And, for some well understood processes like fire propagation, creating buildings and pottery and tools and weapons it's pretty easy to determine the status of most things in question. With archaeology in particular looking for signs of 'work' are the start when an origin is in question. Let's be clear, this does not come up very often. Most archaeology is working with well-known and well-understood processes and structures. Deciding a stain in the soil is a post-hole instead of a natural object is not as tricky as it sounds. And even if one particular spot is ambiguous a building would have many post-holes so there would be rectangular or oval pattern that can be discovered. But, when all the possible natural processes are not well known or completely spelled out then it get trickier. Which is why evolutionary theory draws on multiple lines of suggestive evidence all of which are consistent with the unifying and coherent theory. That's the way Darwin reasoned: it wasn't just the fossils or the morphology or the bio-geographic distributions it was the combination. Adding the documented experience of breeders working with naturally arising variations in a population he came to the difficult, at the time, conclusion that there was no need for an intelligent designer when accounting for the variety of life extant and observed via fossils and inferred. There was a simple and clear unifying explanation: reproduction created variation some of which had a greater chance of passing on their characteristics (Darwin knowing nothing about genetics but he did know about inherited characteristic) because they had some qualities which gave them an advantage meaning more of their offspring survived. It would depend on the local conditions which is why different adaptations are prevalent in different zones. Some variation died in the womb, some died shortly after birth, some weren't fast enough to evade their predators and got eaten, etc. But some were just a bit quicker, just a bit better at finding and digesting kinds of food, had larger broods and those variations got their characteristics into the next generation in larger numbers. This is not 'dumb luck', it's the environment favouring those better able to exploit the local conditions. In the last 150 years there have been no major challenges to this basic, simple, clear idea despite our much greater understanding of the biological and chemical processes involved. Also we now know of other 'selection' processes which contribute. It doesn't mean we can predict or dictate who wins and who looses, real life situations are complicated and messy, but the general principle seems pretty clear and solid. A simple, clear, objective explanation which requires no assumption of unknown identities or processes. So, it's okay to ask if there is any evidence of intelligent design. But make sure you consider all the evidence and explanations when deciding what the 'best' explanation is. And make sure you have a clear definition of 'best'.JVL
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
I understand what you are saying, ET, but I don't think that is what SA was saying. But no need to unravel this any further. I also have some Mike Gene stuff saved, from long ago. He was different from other ID people at the time. Some people thought he was Behe, but I never believed that.Viola Lee
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Viola Lee- you didn't understand what SA said. He said that once intelligent design is determined to exist, we cannot use science as it currently exists to examine the design. Science as it currently exists won't allow you to examine a telic origin for life or biological systems. And I have archived a few of Mike's gems. ;)ET
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
re 230: Dembski quote: “Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.” Well, good, because that's the kind of thing I'm interested in. SA seemed to think that we couldn't scientifically "inquire into production": we had to move to philosophy or religion. Dembski is not clear whether that is his view or not. However, I don't think Dembski himself did much to answer those further questions, did he? And I haven't heard the name Mike Gene for a long time!Viola Lee
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Mike Gene once offered the following insight:
"What is Intelligent Design? If you ask a critic, he will probably tell you that ID is a disguised version of Creationism and nothing more than a Trojan Horse to get God taught in the public schools. If you ask a typical proponent of ID, he will probably tell you that ID is the best explanation for various biotic phenomena. For me, ID begins exactly as William Dembski said it begins – with a question":
Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?
"The first thing to note about the question is that you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to ask it. You don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider it. In fact, you don’t even have to be a religious fundamentalist to answer it."
ET
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
People need to realize that science was once saw as a tool for understanding God's Creation. Intelligent Design sees science as a tool for understanding (intelligent) design in nature, including nature itself. ID doesn't say that everything was intelligently designed. Accidents happen.
“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.” Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch
ET
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
But evolution designs.
You are equivocating, Fred. Evolution BY MEANS OF BLIND and MINDLESS processes, such as natural selection and drift, only "designs" genetic diseases and deformities. Evolution by means of telic processes, ie intelligent design, is exemplified by the designing power of genetic algorithms. That you refuse to understand the basics of what ID is just further proves that you are not here for an honest discussion.ET
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Jerry, careful!Fred Hickson
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic
Once design is inferred, ID has completed its task. ID does not go farther.
But evolution designs. I'm not seeing what ID is adding to that fact. Design isn't in dispute. It happens.Fred Hickson
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
It doesn’t require a different philosophical or theological view.
Dembski said
I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time (right up there with sliced bread)
I feel like I’m responding to a typical anti ID commenter.jerry
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Let me know where you find ordinary science using the Explanatory Filter or anything similar.
The principles are used in forensic science, data security, SETI, archeology. It's a mechanism for determining a threshold for probability of design. Nothing more than ordinary science is required. It doesn't require a different philosophical or theological view.
Is Dembski’s Explanatory Filter the Most Widely Used Theory Ever? https://mindmatters.ai/2020/08/is-dembskis-explanatory-filter-the-most-widely-used-theory-ever/ It turns out, Dembski’s filter is the bedrock of our modern information technology.
Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
VL
I’ve been inquiring/speculating on where, when, and how design is manifested in the world.
Well, you could catalogue areas where design is discovered and try to build some kind of scientific theory on that. As for when design is implemented, I can't see that as testable. Maybe there's some way to pin point when a design action occurred. As for how design is implemented, I think that requires knowledge of the designer.Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
So I don’t see it as anything else than ordinary science
Let me know where you find ordinary science using the Explanatory Filter or anything similar.jerry
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
re 215, to SA You write, "Once design is inferred, ID has completed its task. ID does not go farther. If science is confined to natural, materialistic, known, physical causes – and if those causes are eliminated in the inference to intelligence – then any science that studies only natural, materialistic, known, physical causes cannot be the right tool to use after the ID inference is established. So I do understand you correctly. I also understand that this is your opinion, and that you can't and don't speak for either science or all ID advocates. But it is our opinion I've been trying to understand, so now at least I understand what one person thinks. You write, "So, I would think that if material causes are eliminated (as they would be with the ID inference), then one wouldn’t want to keep studying material causes to get direct information about the designer." I haven't been inquiring about "who the designer is". I've been inquiring/speculating on where, when, and how design is manifested in the world. That's different. I can think of further questions, but I think I understand enough about your position to bring the discussion to a close.Viola Lee
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
We can observe, scientifically, the difference between an intelligent design and a naturally caused design. We know there are different kinds of intelligence, via science (mammal, bird, insect). We observe things in nature, by science - eliminate natural causes, by science, and infer an intelligent cause, by science. So I don't see it as anything else than ordinary science. In fact, that's the whole point of ID. Nobody needs any additional belief-system than the same science that evolutionists use, to arrive at the ID conclusion. Otherwise, you'd have to convince people to accept "the ID version of explanation" first and not just use ordinary science.Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
ID studies causal relationships in biology with the assumption of purpose
No. It will examine everything and find some deserve a conclusion that intelligence is the likely cause. That is why it is Science+ The + is logic. Science as its practiced in nearly every university on the planet will not do this.
have always thought ID was just science
If you include intelligence as one of the potential conclusions. ID uses traditional science but extends the possible conclusions based on logic. In cosmology it may get into motivations based on the nature of the design. This also has a role on Earth with the water transport system called clouds.jerry
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
I said: "I don’t really care that much what they do. If they can recognize that there is an intelligent cause in nature – then they have to pursue it through whatever means they have or want to use." I mean, theoretically I don't care what people call things or how they pursue the matter - but personally I would wish everyone to learn and accept my philosophical and religious understanding, because I think my views are correct and true. I also think I have a responsibility to help people find those truths where there is a willingness to hear my arguments, etc. So, I'm not careless about what people do or think after ID. Getting the ID inference is not the only important truth that people need in life.Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
I have always thought ID was just science. If it requires a + of anything else, then people would have to buy-into the + and not just use plain-old science to understand it.Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Jerry @212,
ID is Science+ Does anyone disagree?
Yes, I disagree. ID studies causal relationships in biology with the assumption of purpose while the Darwinian paradigm studies causal relationships with the assumption of random changes, junk, and vestiges of evolution. So far, the ID paradigm, which takes no position on the source of the ID, has been shown to be pragmatically superior to the Darwinian paradigm in that scientific progress would not have been hindered by the assumption of huge gaps in the fossil record, junk DNA, vestigial organs, and living fossils to name a few examples. Darwinism is Science + science fiction stories that include the "words" MIGHTA, COULDA, SHOULDA, and MUSTA. Anyone disagree? -QQuerius
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
once design is inferred about something, no further science about that subject can be done
Not true. We suspect there is no natural way for proteins to evolve. But there is a way to prove this using typical science experiments. See #3. There is also other questions about how proteins work with each other and what species have this relationship.jerry
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
VL
once design is inferred about something, no further science about that subject can be done: only philosophy or religion, which are outside the scope of science
Once design is inferred, ID has completed its task. ID does not go farther. If science is confined to natural, materialistic, known, physical causes - and if those causes are eliminated in the inference to intelligence - then any science that studies only natural, materialistic, known, physical causes cannot be the right tool to use after the ID inference is established. At the same time, I don't control the definition and scope of science. There are theoretical physicists who claim to "study" a multiverse scenario, which by definition is outside the scope of natural, materialistic, known causes. So, someone could use science to try to analyze who or what the designer is. I'd consider that a mistake but I'm not the boss of science, and nobody is going to care what I think anyway. So, what people do after the ID inference is reached is up to them. They can call it what they want - science, physics, religion, philosophy. I don't really care that much what they do. If they can recognize that there is an intelligent cause in nature - then they have to pursue it through whatever means they have or want to use. I have my religious views that I would wish to give to anyone who would want to listen, but I can't do that in a science blog. So, I would think that if material causes are eliminated (as they would be with the ID inference), then one wouldn't want to keep studying material causes to get direct information about the designer. We would need to know the source of the intelligence and that cannot be a materialistic source. But one could continue to study nature to try to determine how the designer did things. This would assume knowing something about the nature, power, intention (or non-intention), scope, characteristics of the designer. Or one could use nature to understand those things (as Aristotle did). Usually we call that philosophy - understanding the attributes of God by analysis of nature. But someone could call it science or whatever. The key point is that ID stops at the inference of design. IDists have different opinions about what happens after that. My opinion is just one of many.Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 10

Leave a Reply