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

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 9, 2022

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

SA, my first paragraph at 211 was just quoting you, and the rest of the post was trying to explain what I'm confused about, or am at least trying to clarify. And no, of course I don't think science can study God. But you didn't address my key question. Is it accurate to say that you are saying that 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.Viola Lee_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

VL
Still confusing. “Science is the study of material reality, laws, processes. Science is “materialist” in that sense. It’s empirical.”
Are you disagreeing with that, or confused about it?
Also, “ID is a science project”
Yes, ID studies material reality and observes that which intelligence is the best explanation for the cause.
So if one thinks that there is no materialistic way that, for instance, pre-hominids could have become human via common descent, and therefore conclude design, then someone’s religious belief that God created humans de novo and someone else’s philosophical belief that the Tao, working through quantum events, designed every mutation necessary for the common descent transition from pre-hominids to humans are equally outside of the scope of further scientific investigation.
Well, you could come up with your own idea of what science is. But if you accept the definition given above, that science studies material/natural reality - then do you think science could analyze the nature of God?Silver Asiatic_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

ID is Science+ Does anyone disagree?jerry_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Hmmmm. Still confusing. "Science is the study of material reality, laws, processes. Science is “materialist” in that sense. It’s empirical." Also, "ID is a science project" That is, ID is a science project, part of the study of material reality, but what it does is determines that for some things science can't actually be used. So you are using science to show where science doesn't work? Thus, as you said earlier, at those points only philosophy or religion is applicable. True? So if one thinks that there is no materialistic way that, for instance, pre-hominids could have become human via common descent, and therefore conclude design, then someone's religious belief that God created humans de novo and someone else's philosophical belief that the Tao, working through quantum events, designed every mutation necessary for the common descent transition from pre-hominids to humans are equally outside of the scope of further scientific investigation. That is, once we infer design for a particular item, any further questions are basically answered by "we cant know any more scientifically: all we can do is offer philosophy or religion." Is this an accurate statement as to what you are saying?Viola Lee_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

VL
This is confusing: what it seems to say is that design inference is science, but going beyond ID is philosophy or religion, and that further questions that might be considered scientific, like when did design happen, and how, etc. are not really ID questions.
Science is the study of material reality, laws, processes. Science is "materialist" in that sense. It's empirical. It's what we can experiment with in a lab, observe with telescope or microscope, etc. ET's comment here should clear up your confusion:
And once we make that determination [that there is intelligent design] it means that natural, materialistic processes have been eliminated.
ID is a science project. Once materialistic processes have been eliminated, then you can't use science.Silver Asiatic_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

You declared that but you didn’t bring evidences. Why?
There is lots of logic presented. I am making the case for an all powerful creator, not just a tinkering one.jerry_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Jerry
KF That’s the root problem, there are entrenched interests who do not want their preferred narrative corrected, never mind the force of the evidence.
Are the entrenched interests you are referring to Most religious people Atheists/agnostics. Yourself
I would love to learn from you the evidences that would show that Kairosfocus is bending the truth to reach a certain conclussion. You declared that but you didn't bring evidences. Why?Sandy_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Or perhaps Jerry?
Jerry is recommending that we all read Denton and discuss. Is Denton, my entrenched interest? His first chapter is entirely consistent with my questions in 199. So far not answered or even addressed. I have no idea where the rest of Denton's book will go. Aside: I thought you were not responding to my comments because you thought I insulted you.
Why does anyone accept the concept of universal common descent?
In #93 it was pointed out that common descent of any kind is irrelevant to ID. Aside2: the information encoded in DNA and life is definitely there and massive. To ignore it is irresponsible. But to also say that it could not have been created by an all powerful creator in the initial conditions of the creation is also irresponsible. To say that this is the way it was done is also irresponsible as it may be missing something the all powerful creator wants to communicate with the design. Someone who says that it happened blindly by natural forces is disingenuous as the universe must have been extremely intricately designed if it happened that way.jerry_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

So, not even Viola Lee is going to step up and propose a testable mechanism for universal common descent? Really? Why does anyone accept the concept of universal common descent?ET_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

I switched from Creation to evolutionism to Intelligent Design. My switch to evolutionism was based on a narrative. Then I realized that narratives aren't science and that the only science to support evolutionism was found in genetic diseases and deformities. My switch to ID was based on science and evidence, not narratives. But I am very open to the possibility that someone may come along and demonstrate that nature is up to the task of producing life and its diversity.ET_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

We all have entrenched narratives, based on what we think is good evidence and good reasoning. Some people are more entrenched than others: any input from outside their narrative is seen as a threat that must be countered. Others are more open to listening to other narratives, at least with the intention of understanding them. And some are open enough that as they listen and question and examine their own narratives they make some adjustments in their thinking. However, very seldom does someone just switch from one narrative to another.Viola Lee_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

Lol! Or perhaps Jerry?Viola Lee_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

That’s the root problem, there are entrenched interests who do not want their preferred narrative corrected, never mind the force of the evidence.
Are the entrenched interests you are referring to Most religious people Atheists/agnostics. Yourselfjerry_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Is there anyone here who accepts universal common descent AND knows of a testable mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes? And if not, then why do you accept such a claim?ET_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Jerry, See the resources tab. KF PS, I clip:
ID DEFINITION [--> yes, it is an actual menu item] http://intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds
[--> key, evidence backed postulate, cf those of Newtonian dynamics and special then general relativity, thermodynamics and statistical thermodynamics, postulational cores can be brief but sweeping in impact]
that
[First, Evidence-backed Programmatic Postulate] certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained [--> explicit reference to logic of abductive reasoning] by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense,
[2nd, Operational Postulate]Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.
Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).
[3rd, Empirical Warrant/Point of test or potential falsification postulate:] An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion. Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life. GLOSSARY: Intelligence – Wikipedia aptly and succinctly defines: “capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.” Information — Wikipedia, with some reorganization, is apt: “ . . that which would be communicated by a message if it were sent from a sender to a receiver capable of understanding the message . . . . In terms of data, it can be defined as a collection of facts [i.e. as represented or sensed in some format] from which conclusions may be drawn [and on which decisions and actions may be taken].” Design — purposefully directed contingency. That is, the intelligent, creative manipulation of possible outcomes (and usually of objects, forces, materials, processes and trends) towards goals. (E.g. 1: writing a meaningful sentence or a functional computer program. E.g. 2: loading of a die to produce biased, often advantageous, outcomes. E.g. 3: the creation of a complex object such as a statue, or a stone arrow-head, or a computer, or a pocket knife.) Intelligent design [ID] – Dr William A Dembski, a leading design theorist, has defined ID as “the science that studies signs of intelligence.” That is,
[4th, Designs and Signs Postulate:] as we ourselves instantiate [thus exemplify as opposed to “exhaust”], intelligent designers act into the world, and create artifacts. When such argents act, there are certain characteristics that commonly appear, and that – per massive experience — reliably mark such artifacts. It it therefore a reasonable and useful scientific project to study such signs and identify how we may credibly reliably infer from empirical sign to the signified causal factor: purposefully directed contingency or intelligent design.
Among the signs of intelligence of current interest for research are: [a] FSCI — function-specifying complex information [e.g. blog posts in English text that take in more than 143 ASCII characters, and/or — as was highlighted by Yockey and Wickens by the mid-1980s — as a distinguishing marker of the macromolecules in the heart of cell-based life forms], or more broadly [b] CSI — complex, independently specified information [e.g. Mt Rushmore vs New Hampshire’s former Old Man of the mountain, or — as was highlighted by Orgel in 1973 — a distinguishing feature of the cell’s information-rich organized aperiodic macromolecules that are neither simply orderly like crystals nor random like chance-polymerized peptide chains], or [c] IC — multi-part functionality that relies on an irreducible core of mutually co-adapted, interacting components. [e.g. the hardware parts of a PC or more simply of a mousetrap; or – as was highlighted by Behe in the mid 1990’s — the bacterial flagellum and many other cell-based bodily features and functions.], or [d] “Oracular” active information – in some cases, e.g. many Genetic Algorithms, successful performance of a system traces to built-in information or organisation that guides algorithmicsearch processes and/or performance so that the system significantly outperforms random search. Such guidance may include oracles that, step by step, inform a search process that the iterations are “warmer/ colder” relative to a performance target zone. (A classic example is the Weasel phrase search program.) Also, [e] Complex, algorithmically active, coded information – the complex information used in systems and processes is symbolically coded in ways that are not preset by underlying physical or chemical forces, but by encoding and decoding dynamically inert but algorithmically active information that guides step by step execution sequences, i.e. algorithms. (For instance, in hard disk drives, the stored information in bits is coded based a conventional, symbolic assignment of the N/S poles, forces and fields involved, and is impressed and used algorithmically. The physics of forces and fields does not determine or control the bit-pattern of the information – or, the drive would be useless. Similarly, in DNA, the polymer chaining chemistry is effectively unrelated to the information stored in the sequence and reading frames of the A/ G/ C/ T side-groups. It is the coded genetic information in the successive three-letter D/RNA codons that is used by the cell’s molecular nano- machines in the step by step creation of proteins. Such DNA sets from observed living organisms starts at 100,000 – 500,000 four-state elements [200 k – 1 M bits], abundantly meriting the description: function- specifying, complex information, or FSCI.)
The so-called misunderstandings reflect refusal to look at and take seriously a readily available reference and/or the Forrest-NSTA-ACLU-Wikipedia slanderous thesis that we are all liars, hiding the "true" bogeyman nature of ID. At this stage it is time to apply confession by projection, cognitive dissonance analysis. Those who habitually project ill-founded accusations or insinuations of dishonesty are revealing a lot about their own secrets of the heart. It's not hard to see that ID is the science that studies signs of design, are they possible, are they actual, are they reliable: yes, yes, yes. They particularly appear in the fine tuning of the observed cosmos, in the architecture of cell based life, in the architecture of body plans. Indeed, we find the earliest texts in the living cell which speaks to chapter zero of world history. That's the root problem, there are entrenched interests who do not want their preferred narrative corrected, never mind the force of the evidence. In the end, that will fail.kairosfocus_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

There is a general lack of understanding of ID on this site by both sides. It has nothing to do with Evolution, common descent, OOL or codes in DNA etc. Most religious people believe that life in its origins and further manifestations happened naturally. So we have a large group who would seem to have vested interest in ID actually reject it. Why? Because they say it points to an inferior God. One who cannot get it right from the beginning and had to constantly tinker. So which is it? The all powerful God or the tinkering ID creator that’s powerful but not that powerful? Is the answer, both? Are they different entities? ID has nothing to do with proving materialism wrong, because that may be the means the creator of the universe used. In #93 various options to explain common descent were laid out and in the very next comment they were ignored. Both sides ignore the obvious. So which is it, the all powerful creator or less powerful one that needs to tinker? But if they are the same, why? I once laid out a general scenario how the initial creation could lead to life as we know it. Maybe other initial conditions could have led to complex life? Do any of the religious people here supporting ID believe their God could not have done it this way? Or is this God limited? Maybe we should read Denton’s book and then discuss.jerry_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

:) Common descent is from the beginning a materialist argument to evade from Designer inference so common descent and ID are incompatible with each other. Common descent was invented as a materialist surrogate for God when people believed that spontaneous generation is a reality . Nothing scientific here. When science found out that the assumption about spontaneous generation is false why they kept the conclussion of Common Descent ? To do real science you need morality therefore morality is a higher value than science . Morality doesn't grow spontaneously on the ground is a component of religion that can justify it ( while materialistic framework can't do that ).Sandy_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

ET, yes, it is clear that there is resistance to evidence of universal common design, where ool studies and cell science should make it clear that the molecular nanotech of life uses machine code stored in D/RNA, and that this expresses both language and goal directed stepwise process. Both of these are for cause seen as strong signs of design. Similarly, we can point to the molecular nanotech process flow metabolic network. Where, we actually reach over to HISTORY here: studies of the past based on text, but instead of being dug out of a tell by literal spade work, this has been drawn out by investigations of the foundation of biological life, the living cell. By the turn of the 70's in a less ideologically driven world, design would have been accepted as best explanation. The extension of that into history would have had to reckon with how language, code and algorithms are central to the cell, and how these are found in a cosmos fine tuned in ways that facilitate C-chem, aqueous medium terrestrial planet in circumstellar and galactic habitable zone life. Such would have profound impact on our worldviews and policy agendas. Which is the real problem, power and entrenched power classes with manifest deep ideologically driven hostilities, KFkairosfocus_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

SA, I would mark a distinction as there is the usual slip-slide ambiguity. The Darwinist thesis is about universal common descent from a last universal common ancestor, a unicellular organism. There is what we may contrast as restricted common descent, RCD, such as circumpolar gulls or Galapagos finches, from which it is not legitimate to infer UCD. Of course, given the ideological a prioris, the FSCO/I islands of function challenge is routinely ignored and RCD is taken as evidence of UCD. Error of unfounded, question begging grand extrapolation. KFkairosfocus_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

VL, the same research programme that -- despite slander, willful marginalisation and censorship -- has produced a growing body of professional literature in two main branches. First, in cosmology, astrophysics and exoplanet studies. since 1953. Where Sir Fred Hoyle is a key pioneer. Second, on world of life issues. As, by now you should know. Also, there are many broader studies not explicitly or intentionally part of the programme that have bearing such as Venter's work on molecular nanotech applied to life forms and the studies on DNA and extensions as memory devices above. Likewise, related fields such as engineering sciences, cryptanalysis, archaeology and forensics etc routinely use design inferences. The issue is not design inference it is that when it is extended to origins issues it cuts across a zealously guarded ideology imposed on science, evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers. As by now, you should be well aware of. Where, I cannot but note that you found a stop point rather than engaging what has had to be explicitly shown rather than taken on obvious import of the work done to establish that DNA stores genetic information including the protein assembly algorithms. KF PS, I forget to note that there are extensions of boolean algebra to multistate digital theory. Indeed in the 60's the Russians actually issued a three state element computer. I have a book from Mir publishers on this topic, the Russians have been excellent thinkers. D/RNA is four state. Proteins back-code but are more about nanotech functionality based on polymer science.kairosfocus_{May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

There isn't any conflict between Intelligent Design and universal common descent. Dr. Behe claims that God guided it:
[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."- Dr Michael Behe
And from "Intelligent Design 101":
Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.- page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”
ET_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

Intelligent Design is about the detection and study of design in nature. We obviously don't even ask about the who, how, when or why until AFTER determining (intelligent) design exists. And once we make that determination it means that natural, materialistic processes have been eliminated. Reality now dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the who, how, when and why, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. The reason we study it is so we can understand it. And the only way we can hope to understand it is by studying it as a product of intelligent design. We want to understand it so that we can properly maintain and repair it. As groups are doing that anyone can feel free to try to discover the who. The how is obviously above our capabilities, so that gives us some insight into the who. The "when" depends on the "how". As for the why, the authors of "the Privileged Planet" claim that the evidence points to a universe intelligently designed for (scientific) discovery. All it is going to take is to pry the dogmatic hands of materialism off of science.ET_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

re 190, to SA. First, I'm glad I fall into the first category of people! :-) You write, "However, in reality, ID says nothing about special creation – as I explained. ID does not say that common descent is false. It does not say that one has to accept common descent. You’re conflating the two ideas. ID merely says that there is evidence of design. What one does with the ID inference there, is not the subject of this blog, strictly speaking. You have now said that “special creation as a possible ID explanation” – where not only did I never say such a thing, but that idea does not make sense." But at 52 you wrote, "ID points to some kind of creation act by an intelligent agent", which is what prompted further discussion on my part because that seemed to invite discussion about the creation acts that would be involved in ID. But now you say, "Again, it’s important to understand the precise explanation that ID offers [ID merely says that there is evidence of design]and not extend beyond that to how ID is implemented, or whether common descent is true or false or what the designer is like. Those are not ID questions. They can be related to ID, but they’re an entirely different research topic." If that all ID does, then I guess there is nothing more to discuss about ID. I am interested in those further research projects and how they relate to ID, but I gather that interest is more or less off limits as to being pertinent. But then you write, "ID is a scientific project. Because we do not have direct, empirical evidence of the intelligent agent responsible for design, we cannot use scientific metrics for analysis. We can use philosophy or religion. But ID is a scientific project." This is confusing: what it seems to say is that design inference is science, but going beyond ID is philosophy or religion, and that further questions that might be considered scientific, like when did design happen, and how, etc. are not really ID questions. That is, as science, ID can go no further than the inference that design has occurred, and anything further is either philosophy/religion, or if scientific in nature, is not really part of ID. If this is the case, I have no further questions or comments about ID. Except I'm pretty sure there is no inherent conflict between ID and common descent, as I've been trying to explain.Viola Lee_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

re 189, to KF. I understand that one of the key sources of the design inference is the genetic code. What research program are you referring to?Viola Lee_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

VL
SA, do you consider me in the first category or the second category of people?
You are a respectful and serious person on that topic and have not shown hatred or ridicule towards God and believers - so I would consider you in the first category, at least among those it would be worthwhile to discuss theology with.
There is no reason why one can’t believe both that common descent is true and that ID has been involved throughout.
Yes, keeping in mind the distinction you offered between ID as a reality and ID as theory. For the theoretical view, we would need to see that there are no known natural causes for the effect.
(Isn’t it true that Behe accepts common descent?)
He has changed his view somewhat. In the 1990s he was fully an evolutionist, accepting common descent. But I think he has changed that and no longer accepts it.
I know creationism has a negative connotation for various reasons, but I don’t think that should prevent us from using the term.
I fully agree. The term creationism does not frighten or bother me at all. But we have ID opponents who think by putting the word creationism in with ID that it has destroyed the concept. So, they'll say ID/Creationism - as if that is a critique.
Hypotheses which posit the saltations of any sort as special acts of creation are creationist hypotheses.
Yes, that's right I fully agree. That's also a very difficult point to bring to my theistic evolutionary friends. They tend to be very frightened and opposed to the label creationist, but I try to tell them (especially my fellow-Catholic friends) that if God is involved in the process somehow, creating, guiding or doing anything - that's a creationist view.
An interesting thing to say: I can imagine people less sympathetic to some aspects of ID than I am to reply that all of ID seems like ad hoc explanations.
I don't follow you here. ID is not ad hoc - it's built on a solid foundation that can provide an analysis of anything in nature. Again, if there is no known natural cause and intelligence can simulate it, that's evidence of design. How is that an ad hoc explanation? Whereas, if someone said that there's an intelligent cause that changes species at the mutational level and then at a macro level - where's the structure for that? I don't see the parallel here.
And your second statement is also interesting, as you offer a clear cut case of special creation of complete organisms as a possible ID explanation: the complete opposite of common descent.
Again, you're confusing things because you're mixing an end-state reality with what ID is. We are having this discussion for the sake of generosity and interest. However, in reality, ID says nothing about special creation - as I explained. ID does not say that common descent is false. It does not say that one has to accept common descent. You're conflating the two ideas. ID merely says that there is evidence of design. What one does with the ID inference there, is not the subject of this blog, strictly speaking. You have now said that "special creation as a possible ID explanation" - where not only did I never say such a thing, but that idea does not make sense. Again, it's important to understand the precise explanation that ID offers and not extend beyond that to how ID is implemented, or whether common descent is true or false or what the designer is like. Those are not ID questions. They can be related to ID, but they're an entirely different research topic.
Does anyone have any ideas about experiments or data that could be gathered that might help determine at what level ID events take place: quantum, genetic, molecular in a an organism, or complete organism, for instance.
How, where and by who the intelligent design events occur are not ID. ID has a specific topic: There is evidence of intelligent design in nature. You either accept that or not. If you don't accept it, then talking about "how ID was implemented" doesn't make a lot of sense. If you do accept it, then you accept ID. Period. What you want to do with that is your choice. You can take the ID inference into religion, philosophy or science. You can build on it in several academic disciplines. ID does not control or speak about that - again, it's out of scope.
Can ID move from an inference toward really being a theory, or is establishing the inference the end point for ID?
A theory can drive an inference, as ID does. ID is a scientific project. Because we do not have direct, empirical evidence of the intelligent agent responsible for design, we cannot use scientific metrics for analysis. We can use philosophy or religion. But ID is a scientific project. If you're struggling to accept the ID inference, then why not explore your questions on that? If you accept the ID inference, then why not propose your own views? Using the stated limits of ID as if that's a criticism of ID doesn't work. Every scientific project has its limitations. ID is not a religion or a worldview. It has a specific scope, and it needs to stay in that scope for the integrity of the project.Silver Asiatic_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

Vl, that topic and the substance have direct bearing on the design inference and research programme, aka theory. It is also highly mathematical as theory of digital information and theory of computing are both deeply mathematical. Indeed, register transfer algebra/language is an extension of boolean algebra, Of course a powerful definition of computer architecture is the assembly language view of a computing entity. KFkairosfocus_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

KF, that is not a topic I am involved in discussing. I have no idea why you referred me to that post.Viola Lee_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

VL, I challenge you to look at 150 on. KFkairosfocus_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Back at 148 (skipping all this afternoon's posts), SA replied to me in respect to the discussion we had been having. He ended by writing,
For a lot of people these are questions about “how God might have done it” – and it’s tied to philosophy and theology. It’s good to discuss it with people who have a respect for God, or at least who accept the ID inference. It’s impossible to discuss with people who have hatred of God or at least are opposed to ID in principle – as almost all atheists are.
SA, do you consider me in the first category or the second category of people? Second, SA wrote, "For me it’s a problem with terminology. I don’t think the scenario there would normally be called “common descent”. It’s more rightly termed “common design”. Some people with an animosity towards the idea would call it “creationism”. I think we keep running into a problem whereby negative connotations are keeping us from using words properly. Common descent merely means that there has been an unbroken chain of biological connection via reproduction (of various sorts) for all of life. Whether that has elements of design in it or not is a separate matter, but I don't think you can throw out the actual meaning of "common descent" just because you associate it with a materialistic metaphysic. There is no reason why one can't believe both that common descent is true and that ID has been involved throughout. (Isn't it true that Behe accepts common descent?) Also, I think it is accurate to call the ID scenarios we have been discussing versions of creationism because they posit that things are created somehow by a process that is beyond natural causes. I know creationism has a negative connotation for various reasons, but I don't think that should prevent us from using the term. I know evangelical Christians who accept the scientific theory of evolution and consider themselves creationist because of the religious beliefs about how God is involved in every moment via natural processes. I don't want to go off discussing that: I just want to emphasize that I think we should separate the connotations from the proper denotations. Hypotheses which posit the saltations of any sort as special acts of creation are creationist hypotheses. Last, you write, "I also think there would be a problem with the arbitrary nature of when/where the saltations arise – as needed. It would seem like an ad hoc explanation. As I often wonder, why not just have the intelligently designed origin as the complete organism being created de novo?" An interesting thing to say: I can imagine people less sympathetic to some aspects of ID than I am to reply that all of ID seems like ad hoc explanations. And your second statement is also interesting, as you offer a clear cut case of special creation of complete organisms as a possible ID explanation: the complete opposite of common descent. To contrast with that, I've offered the possible implementation of design as occurring at the quantum level. Earlier today, I disagreed with WJM that ID was a theory in an way equivalent to our the theory of gravity is a theory, and I mentioned the many experiments Newton did to illustrate and confirm his ideas when he first developed his ideas. Does anyone have any ideas about experiments or data that could be gathered that might help determine at what level ID events take place: quantum, genetic, molecular in a an organism, or complete organism, for instance. Can ID move from an inference toward really being a theory, or is establishing the inference the end point for ID?Viola Lee_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

SA, part of the trollish game is to side track. Let us go back to what Wiki has had to concede about DNA and where that takes us, 150 on. Let's see if the objectors can address substance. What does it mean when researchers use DNA as a general digital storage medium? KFkairosfocus_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply