Design inference Intelligent Design

Eric Holloway: Is GMO detection an application of ID theorist William Dembski’s explanatory filter?

Spread the love

If so, says Holloway, it would be an instance of the use of the filter in biology:

Have you ever heard people say that intelligent design (ID) theory has never been applied to biology? They are wrong! In fact, it is applied frequently in the very important field of detecting genetically modified organisms (GMOs). “A genetically modified organism contains DNA that has been altered using genetic engineering.” (National Geographic) Detection can trace the use of GMOs, now frequent in our food supply, so that products can be recalled if there is a problem or if people just don’t want to use GMO products.

GMOs are intelligently designed biological organisms, and scientists use design theorist William Dembski’s explanatory filter to detect GMOs.

Eric Holloway, “Is Gmo Detection An Application of Dembski’s Explanatory Filter?” at Mind Matters News

“The process of determining whether an organism has been the product of genetic engineering meets the criteria of the explanatory filter,” he says.

19 Replies to “Eric Holloway: Is GMO detection an application of ID theorist William Dembski’s explanatory filter?

  1. 1
    jerry says:

    At the very beginning of this site when Dembski was the main moderator, there was a push to have some mathematical theory as the basis for ID. Dembski was a mathematician. To many critics, their sssessment of ID rested on whether these theories being pushed rose or fell.

    It seemed as if some ID promoters wanted a QED to absolutely show ID was valid. When this didn’t happen, opponents were in glee to show ID was a failure. It’s good to see some of Dembski’s ideas paying out.

    However, there will never be absolute proof of ID or a creator with immense capabilities. The logic is overwhelming in one direction but only a small percentage of scientists will concede this. These are theoretically people with good brain power. Why?

  2. 2
    ET says:

    jerry- perhaps no one has really pushed that majority on the subject. Those scientists’ specialties don’t depend on ID or materialism.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    The comment box is back.

    Why would we want to detect GMOs?

    Could this be a way of testing whether or not the Explanatory Filter actually works reliably?

  4. 4
    ET says:

    Umm, the explanatory filter is/ should be standard operating procedure for conducting an investigation. It forces you to follow Sir Isaac Newton’s Four Rules of. Scientific Reasoning. I would think that all investigators use the EF.

    Why would we want to detect GMOs? Invasive species comes to mind

  5. 5
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Seversky “ Why would we want to detect GMOs?

    Making claims that something is non-GMO can be a profitable marketing strategy. However, there have been plenty of examples of food companies making claims that have been shown to be fraudulent. Subway’s tuna sandwich is a recent example. Having your claims supported by accurate testing can be beneficial.

    However, claiming that this testing is an example of the explanatory filter is a stretch.

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    Seversky @ 3 –

    Why would we want to detect GMOs?

    There are regulations in some countries about GMOs. In the EU, organic crops have to have less than a certain percentage that is GM (zero isn’t an option because of cross-pollination). Even outside of GMOs, there are regulations about seed purity that might mean testing is needed.

    When I was ding my PhD, a colleague worked on detecting bread wheat in pasta, because farmers were mixing the two, which is a bit naughty.

    However, claiming that this testing is an example of the explanatory filter is a stretch.

    Indeed, for starters for GMOs we know the exact genetic signature we’re looking for. It would be like knowing the identity of The Designer, and how they work.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    LoL! @ Acartia Stevie! Every investigation that seeks the root cause uses the explanatory filter. The EF is standard operating procedure for such investigations.

    It is very telling you didn’t know that.

    A for Subway’s tuna sandwich, that is still only an unproven accusation.

  8. 8
    Bob O'H says:

    ET – but ID doesn’t seek the root cause. It’s not allowed to discuss the identity of the designer, remember? So how does the EF relate to this problem?

  9. 9
    ET says:

    LoL! @ Bob O’H. ID seeks the root cause. The root cause would be intelligently designed or nature did it. The who is not required to determine whether or not what is being investigated was designed or not. ID isn’t about the designer. ID does NOT prevent anyone from trying to determine who that designer was.

    Your ignorance of ID, while amusing, still isn’t an argument.

  10. 10
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Bob O’H, not only that, the detection of GMO has nothing to do with root cause analysis. Root cause analysis seeks to identify the ultimate cause of something that has already been identified. GMO detection is similar to PCR COVID tests. You are looking for genetic signatures that are known to be the result of GMOs. Root cause analysis doesn’t come into play until after the GMO has been confirmed.

  11. 11
    Steve Alten2 says:

    ET “ Bob O’H. ID seeks the root cause. The root cause would be intelligently designed or nature did it.

    No, the root cause would be what was responsible for the design.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    Acartia Stevie:

    No, the root cause would be what was responsible for the design.

    ID posits an intelligent designer, duh.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    Notice that I NEVER said anything about GMOs and root cause. But if you do find GMOs there is only one known cause for them- intelligent agency volition. So it goes without saying…

  14. 14
    Seversky says:

    Comment box disappeared again and now it’s back again. Strange.

  15. 15
    Seversky says:

    The question is can the EF distinguish between natural and artificial changes to a genome?

  16. 16
    Seversky says:

    The other question is if there are no observed harmful side-effects to GMOs then why bother?

  17. 17
    ET says:

    What else are you going to use, besides the SoP EF? Flipping coins?

  18. 18
    ET says:

    The other question is if there are no observed harmful side-effects to GMOs then why bother?

    No one said harmful side effects would be instantaneous.

  19. 19
    EugeneS says:

    Seversky

    ==The question is can the EF distinguish between natural and artificial changes to a genome?==

    Natural is noise, artificial can be noise BUT can also be coding for complex function.

    For note, it is a lot more difficult for a Darwinist to distinguish between homology due to common ancestry from homology due to convergence…

Leave a Reply