Casey Luskin: ID as fruitful approach to science

_{News
May 13, 2022

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In his Kitzmiller v. Dover testimony, biologist Kenneth Miller referred to intelligent design as a “science stopper.” Similarly, in his book Only a Theory, Miller stated, “The hypothesis of design is compatible with any conceivable data, makes no testable predictions, and suggests no new avenues for research. As such, it’s a literal dead end…”
Casey Luskin, “Science Stopper? Intelligent Design as a Fruitful Scientific Paradigm” at Evolution News (May 9, 2022)

Luskin offers a number of examples of areas where ID is a fruitful approach, including

Evolutionary computation: ID produces theoretical research into the information-generative powers of Darwinian searches, leading to the discovery that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited, which has practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve problems.
Anatomy and physiology: ID predicts function for allegedly “vestigial” organs, structures, or systems whereas evolution has made many faulty predictions of nonfunction.
Bioinformatics: ID has helped scientists develop proper measures of biological information, leading to concepts like complex and specified information or functional sequence complexity. This allows us to better quantify complexity and understand what features are, or are not, within the reach of Darwinian evolution.
Casey Luskin, “Science Stopper? Intelligent Design as a Fruitful Scientific Paradigm” at Evolution News (May 9, 2022)

The trouble is, many people would just as soon that research into evolutionary computation anatomy and physiology, and bioinformatics, however fruitful, not be done if it undermines a comfortable Darwinism.

This is the 12th and final entry in Casey Luskin’s series, which is a modified excerpt from The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos (2021).

Incidentally, here are two hilarious vids about fake COVID news from Shanghai. Couldn’t think where to put it but wouldn’t want you to miss out.

Note: The content is available. The warning is part of the joke.

Comments

Is there even a model for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes? Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. What does the opposition have beyond denying reality?ET_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

KF I see you continue to insist the model is the territory. Your fishing reel is poor analogy. At the scale of atoms and molecules, can we identify, say, an individual water molecule and keep track of it. Your fishing reel and it's bits are categories with individual examples being unique and identifiably different if we use accurate methods and notwithstanding precision manufacture. Is the oil in the bearings part of the reel? If you cast a line, where is the boundary between reel and line? These category choices are human and arbitrary. All models are wrong; some are useful.Fred Hickson_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Fred Hickson @169, Sorry, but why don't you first respond to https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/mechanisms-the-processes-of-evolution/genetic-drift/ Which starts out:
Genetic drift is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution. In each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendants (and genes, of course!) than other individuals. The genes and other genetic elements of the next generation will be those of the “lucky” individuals, not necessarily the healthier or “better” individuals. That, in a nutshell, is genetic drift. It happens to ALL populations — there’s no avoiding the vagaries of chance.
If you're planning to revert back to Darwinism, please bone up on the current thinking. -QQuerius_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

@ Querius, You wouldn't be moving goalposts would you? It is a legitimate question to consider genomic sequences and try to answer the questions: what does this bit do? what is the homology? is it under selection? These questions have an answer already for some sections and work is in progress. As others have said, adding a label of "junk" or not, especially when the term is vague and abused, makes no difference to research. Your proffering "all DNA will turn out to have function - some/any function" doesn't rise to the lowest bar of a hypothesis.Fred Hickson_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, P.S. Loved the "Alison Alison" news reports! They put a smile on my face. -QQuerius_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H @93,
Oh no! Ohno didn’t suggest “junk” DNA was useless. I guess it’s par for the course that the best “prediction” ID can come up with is based on ignorance, and predicting something after the fact.
I guess it's also par for the course when someone makes fun of the name of a eminent researcher's Japanese name. Correct regarding Dr. Susumu Ohno's 1972 paper, titled "So Much 'Junk' DNA in Our Genome." Incidentally, he's credited with coining the term. In his paper, which I've read multiple times over the years, he speculates on a number of possible benefits of "unutilized base sequences." So yes, my hypothesis is that all "junk DNA" has a function, though likely to have a variety of different functions. - The ID position is the presumption of intelligent design (although taking no position on its origin), thus likely to have a function. - The Darwinist presumption is that biological structures and features are all due to random mutation and thus likely NOT to have a function. Dr. Ohno's informed speculations are still interesting, one of which is that it's a record of historical vestiges of the evolutionary process. This raises the possibility that some DNA might dynamically get recycled into active genes. Others have speculated that "junk" DNA serves as a sort of a genetic scratch pad. Dr. Ohno also notes the massive disparity in genomes of various organisms. Of course, according to Darwinism, evolution occurs in tiny increments to phenotypes (limited to a certain maximum rate as noted by Haldane). Surely these increments would be traceable in the genomes of taxonomically close organisms, right? -QQuerius_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Earth to JVL- I just provided two quotes that prove your reference is wrong, unless that author is discussing the information that determines biological form.ET_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

PS, Glossary under resources tab, and that's about a decade back: "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].”" Of course there is more but that is a baseline, noting information can be implicit in organisation of a structure and is reducible to a specification in a description language. Where AutoCAD etc are illustrative for 3-d entities. This is a start point. And hyperskepticism which tries to undermine or deny warranted knowledge is a resort to secondary ignorance, that which unduly doubts because somewhere else there is a crooked yardstick unduly accepted and now being defended.kairosfocus_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

JVL, back in 4th form, the definition of a definition: a precise statement describing a quantity or unit. SA is right that it is an application of the law of identity, i.e. that A is itself i/l/o core characteristics that identify and distinguish it from what is not A. If we are down to debating definitions of definitions, it seems to me the objections are deep into hyperskepticism. In the case of biological information the distinction is that it is information found in cell based life forms, with DNA as capital example. For information, refer to the massive facts of this information age. And BTW, going way back, a 6500 CT reel exhibits implicit info in the specificity of parts, their arrangement and coupling towards function as a rather good fishing reel. Concrete example that aids concept formation, for the willing. Which slowly swims into focus . . . KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: In logical terms, a definition is an application of the Law of Identity. So when we define something, we separate it from other things – using comparison. We look at the attributes and properties of the thing and see what makes it a unique identity. So, as Aristotle would say “man is an animal”. But that definition doesn’t separate humans – so we look at the attributes and we come up with “man is a rational animal”. With biological information, all the definitions we already have for information – as with Shannon information as the probability increases the information content decreases — and also with the complexity measures. Functional Complex Specified Information (FCSI) The difference will be that biological information is found in biological systems. So, was that a workable definition of a definition? You seem to just be waffling about. What is 'biological information'? Can you define it? The participants in this particular symposium thought it was an important issue? Has the field progressed since then?JVL_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

ET: Decades AFTER all of this has been defined and discussed and it is beyond pathetic that there are those who still try to use their ignorance as an argument. I gave a quote from an ID publication based on a 2011 symposium wherein the author said: But what do we mean by the term “biological information”? We suggest that, at the present moment, it cannot be unambiguously defined. I didn't make that up. I got it right from the publication. So, who are you complaining about?JVL_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

JVL
I’m not sure that is a workable definition of a definition. What do you think?
In logical terms, a definition is an application of the Law of Identity. So when we define something, we separate it from other things - using comparison. We look at the attributes and properties of the thing and see what makes it a unique identity. So, as Aristotle would say "man is an animal". But that definition doesn't separate humans - so we look at the attributes and we come up with "man is a rational animal". With biological information, all the definitions we already have for information - as with Shannon information as the probability increases the information content decreases -- and also with the complexity measures. Functional Complex Specified Information (FCSI) The difference will be that biological information is found in biological systems.Silver Asiatic_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Folks, give us a break, the only thing different about biological information is that it is in cell based life forms. Information is information, codes are codes, info content by compact description is info also. Is it THAT hard to acknowledge that DNA has been chemically extended by synthesis of further bases and that it has been used to digitally encode, even movies? Why then is it that hard to notice that there is a code for protein synthesis, with about 24 dialects? Is this confession by insistent denial? KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Information, with respect to biology, was defined by Crick:
Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.
And, we also have:
Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be cashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Dembski pg 148 "No Free Lunch"
Decades AFTER all of this has been defined and discussed and it is beyond pathetic that there are those who still try to use their ignorance as an argument.ET_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Intelligent Design's concepts with respect to biological evolution have proven useful in the form of genetic algorithms. So, there's that. And that, alone, is more than evolution by means of blind and mindless processes has.ET_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

JVL I think what most scientists do is to look at something that looks like a pattern
:) They look for meaning: goal,function . Your explanations with "pattern" are like FredHicks explanations .He explains the code of cell (detecting errors /repairing DNA) by chemical reactions.Sandy_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: I was surprised also, but I think they’re saying that the ambiguity comes from the fact that we haven’t identified all the categories of biological information yet. So, they’re just defining what we know and that’s not complete – and they’re using definitions from information theory as applied to biology. Maybe they were being too cautious. Maybe. That is a common reaction among scientists: they don't always like to push the boat out until they are absolutely sure. I was also intrigued by this statement:
Towards this goal we should begin by defining a definition: a description or explanation of a word or thing by its attributes, properties or relations that distinguishes it from all other entities.
I'm not sure that is a workable definition of a definition. What do you think?JVL_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Galileo? Again? Everyone has this picture of Galileo being tortured or mistreated? You know what happened? Galileo was out of control. He was saying 'I proved it! I proved it!' And the Church was saying: "Galileo, calm down. All the data isn't in yet, and you're jumping the gun." So the Church put him under house arrest. https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversyrelatd_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Relatd - I fully agree with you. But most of our co-religionists do not agree so it's a very big challenge to try to convince them to just get rid of theistic evolution. As you say, they just want to make it sound good and to defend atheistic-science. People are afraid of the Galileo affair and they also don't want to be called Bible-fundamentalists.Silver Asiatic_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

JVL First of all, good question and thanks for reading that paper and extracting that statement. I was surprised also, but I think they're saying that the ambiguity comes from the fact that we haven't identified all the categories of biological information yet. So, they're just defining what we know and that's not complete - and they're using definitions from information theory as applied to biology. Maybe they were being too cautious.Silver Asiatic_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

SA at 149, It's time to throw out 'theistic evolution,' It says nothing of value and explains nothing, meaning not the Catholic Church's position. It's not appropriate to say "God made it look that way." God does not deceive. Ken Miller seems to think that defending science is first in importance, and that faith is somewhere over there. Its role - the role of God - vague and undefined. Romans 1:20 English Standard Version For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.relatd_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: You were demanding a research project so I think it would be courteous to acknowledge that Sandy provided one. I was asking for a research agenda and this collection of papers is helpful. I am taking it seriously, a sign of respect, by asking questions about some of the material. I was a bit surprised to discover that in 2011 (when the symposium occurred) the notion of 'biological information' was considered ambiguous by some of the participants. I didn't think that was the case. What do you think?JVL_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

JVL
They then go on to discuss why it would be useful to be able to lock down the idea of biological information.
You were demanding a research project so I think it would be courteous to acknowledge that Sandy provided one.Silver Asiatic_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

relatd
Where is the theistic part? Or is there none? Is the word, not name, God just tacked on to confuse people?
Good questions. I think your last one is correct - but not to confuse people. God is just tacked on there because they want to keep everything the Darwinists have to say. That's Fr. Coyne's view. Darwinism is supposedly 100% correct, except that God made it all look that way. That's certainly irrefutable, but as Dawkins says when interviewing Fr. Coyne: that makes God seem like He's unessential to anything. But that's the theistic evolutionary approach. In fact, Ken Miller says that God didn't even know what evolution would produce.Silver Asiatic_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Sandy: Biological Information: New Perspectives – Proceedings Of The Symposium https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=teExEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false In one of the papers reproduced in the linked book (Biological Information -- What is it? by Werner Gitt, et al) I found the following:
But what do we mean by the term "biological information"? We suggest that, at the present moment, it cannot be unambiguously defined.
They then go on to discuss why it would be useful to be able to lock down the idea of biological information. Do you think progress has been made regarding that situation? And do you agree with the idea that, at the time, the term 'biological information' was not well defined?JVL_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

JVL at 143, Thank you. I appreciate it. Jerry at 144, You should have that knee checked. It goes off/jerks too often... :)relatd_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

JVL:
I’ve been asking for an ID-based research agenda but so far no one has come up with one; granted I don’t always read every single comment here.
And I have told you many times. So, clearly you are just willfully ignorant.ET_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Potentially Alive 830-Million-Year-Old Organisms Found Trapped in Ancient Rock https://www.sciencealert.com/830-million-year-old-microorganisms-found-trapped-in-australian-rock/amp An incredible discovery has just revealed a potential new source for understanding life on ancient Earth. A team of geologists has just discovered tiny remnants of prokaryotic and algal life – trapped inside crystals of halite dating back to 830 million years ago.
Non-evolutionary stasis. The previous record was 250 million years old bacteria.Silver Asiatic_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Here we go again! I ask again, do people read? Not on this site apparently. They never answer the obvious questions. My guess on purpose. Also when ID becomes the accepted interpretation of science, be prepared for the really big food fight as factions within ID duke it out.
It goes off/jerks too often
Yes, that is what logic will do if you use it.jerry_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Relatd: What do you think I mean? The Church always means the Catholic Church which is, and has been, painted by some as the enemy of science – actually, the enemy of evolution. I was just checking; I wanted to be sure I put your comments into the correct context.JVL_{May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply