I’m informed that simple blockquotes are dangerous when trying to stay in Google’s good graces. I’m also informed that providing a comment in front of a blockquote, which thus constitutes new material, is a way of keeping Google happy. Hence this comment. The blockquote below is self-explanatory.
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools (Paperback)
by Eugenie C. Scott (Adapter), Glenn Branch (Adapter)Book Description: An accessible, multifaceted critique of the latest incarnation of creationism-“intelligent design”-from a team of legal, education, religion, and science experts More than eighty years after the Scopes trial, creationism is alive and well. Through local school boards, politicians, strategic court cases, and well-funded organizations, a strong movement has developed to encourage the teaching of “intelligent design” as a viable theory alongside evolution in science classes. Now, in Not in Our Classrooms, parents and teachers, as well as other concerned citizens, have a much-needed tool to argue against teaching intelligent design as science. In clear and lively essays, a team of experts describe not only the history of the intelligent design movement and the lack of scientific support for its claims, but also the religious, legal, and pedagogical problems that proposals to teach this idea in the public schools bring in their wake. Not in Our Classrooms is essential reading for anyone concerned about the teaching of this religious theory as science in the classrooms of our public schools.
(Off Topic)
Moderators,
Are there plans to enable comment preview at UD?
Woohoo…. we’re winning… 🙂
Why don’t they write a book about why scientific challenges to, and the presentation of problems with, Darwinian theory should be censored in public education, since the official position of the ID community is that ID should not be taught? Perhaps that book wouldn’t come across too well, as it would reveal the fear that the theory is vulnerable after all, which is what the hysterical behavior of Darwinists is really all about.
BTW, is there a provision for listing the author’s name in a post?
Maybe here we can test my theory on how disingenuous Darwinist are:
Here is a beauty
“a strong movement has developed to encourage the teaching of “intelligent design†as a viable theory alongside evolution in science classes”
No, ID believes in evolution. It disputes the mechanism for some changes in life forms. In fact ID subsumes Darwinism since NDE probably explains some minor changes in life forms and that would be consistent with ID.
Diogenes is still looking for the honest Darwinist.
I don’t find this
disingenuous or misleading, because neo-Darwinian theorists don’t make the same distinctions as ID theorists make.
Two distinctions are worth making: the first is between the fact and the cause of evolution, the second is between the patterns and processes of evolution.
ID supporters, unlike YECs, are fine with the fact of evolution but disagree as to the cause. Granted, that’s a distinction that, if made more clearly by both sides, would ameliorate the hostility — but at the price of distancing ID from creationism. If ID adopts that stance, then it’s good bye, big tent strategy.
Now, as for pattern and process: the linchpin of neo-Darwinism can put as follows: microevolutionary processes are necessary and sufficient to explain macroevolutionary patterns. Has that been demonstrated? No. On the other hand, the neo-Darwinists respond, “well, why wouldn’t it be sufficient?”
Given how much our understanding of developmental genetics has increased in the past two decades, and how much we have yet to learn, it seems woefully premature to say that the well’s gone dry and that we should start digging somewhere else.
Gil asks:
Gil,
The author’s name shows up just beneath the post title in an indistinct grayed-out font.
I just noticed that comment previews are enabled (cool!). The preview window opens automatically beneath the comment window as soon as you type a character.
Make sure you scroll down far enough or you’ll miss it.
And the previewing is real-time! Excellent! Well done!
Carlos,
You said “Given how much our understanding of developmental genetics has increased in the past two decades, and how much we have yet to learn, it seems woefully premature to say that the well’s gone dry and that we should start digging somewhere else. ”
Are we now stuck with only one “well” that can be dug? Is this an either-or proposition? I thought competition was good. Silly me, I didn’t realize until now that Science is a monopoly type industry!
Ekstasis,
In principle, you’re correct. Intellectual freedom gives you the right to dig wherever you want. By all means, dig and let us when you strike water.
But the principle argument for intelligent design seems to be, “there are features of complex biological phenomena that methodological naturalism just cannot explain, which is why we need to posit an Intelligence.” In other words, “chance and necessity cannot bear the explanatory load.”
If that’s true, then sure, positing some designer, however intelligent, begins to look like a prudent way of moving forward. But the argument for ID assumes, from what I’ve seen, that biology is stuck in a rut without it — because, according to that argument, we won’t be able to explain what we want to explain without some designer.
To which I respond, considering what we’ve learend over the past two decades about development, regulatory genetics, and paleontology, “ya wanna bet?”
[To which I respond, considering what we’ve learend over the past two decades about development, regulatory genetics, and paleontology, “ya wanna bet?â€Â]
Actually, yes I do wanna bet.
http://www.idthefuture.com/200.....tware.html
If we really have learned so much, where is the direct/indirect pathway that lead to the development of the Flagellum? Where is the model? Where is evidence? Untill further notice/evidence your “ya wanna bet” leaves much to be desired.
rpf_ID:
All handwaving bluster to the contrary (c.f. “From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella” by Mark J. Pallen and Nicholas J. Matzke, PErspectives, Nature Reviews Microbiology, AOP, published online 5 September 2006), in 1996 Michael Behe wrote that detailed models for the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum, along with several other IC systems he mentioned in were non-existent. Its ten years later, and those research studies have still not been published. Whatever else researchers might have learned about organisms that exhibit IC systems, one thing has most definitely not been learned: the evolutionary origin of these structures. (BTW, the Matzke mentioned above is the very same Nick Matzke who is the Minister of Disinformation over at the National Coalition for the Saving of Evolution).
Scott and her NCSE cohorts apparently don’t think that accurately describing such biological systems to public school science students, and accurately telling them that there is no evolutionary explanation for how they came to be, is a good idea. Better to perpetuate the myth than have to explain the reality! This, of course, is how science is done, boys and girls!!
Carlos,
You said, “ID supporters, unlike YECs, are fine with the fact of evolution but disagree as to the cause. Granted, that’s a distinction that, if made more clearly by both sides, would ameliorate the hostility  but at the price of distancing ID from creationism.”
You would be correct that clarification would ameliorate hostility if the driving force behind Darwinism were simply science. But Darwinism is not about science it is about naturalistic materialism. The appeal of Darwinism was never its ability to explain origins but its ability to remove the supernatural from the hypothesis. At the end of the day teleology is just as much an anathema to the true Darwinist as YEC because it requires a Creator. Once you allow for a Creator the philosophy of materialistic naturalism has collapsed and the game is over for the Darwinist.
If the argument for intelligent design rests on our ignorance of flagellum evolution, we’re in worse shape than I’d feared. (I’m reminded of Kierkegaard’s subtle but vicious mockery of those who pin their hopes for eternal happiness on scholastic debates over textual authenticity.)
The fact is, that we currently have no model for flagellum evolution, we have good models for other systems that also quallify as “irreducibly complex” by Behe’s criterion (the eye, the blood-clotting mechanism, the Krebs cycle, bird wings). This puts the ID supporter in a difficult position, I think.
Firstly, one could maintain that, although some systems that appeared to be “irreducibly complex” now could have evolved through stepwise changes of existing structures, we still don’t know every jot and tittle of those changes. But this seems to be a clear case of moving the goalposts.
Secondly, one could say that there are two different kinds of systems: those that really are irreducibly complex (e.g. the eukaryotic flagellum) and those that only appear to be (e.g. the Krebs cycle). But this only begs the question; the difference turns out to be between those complex systems for which we have reasonably good models (which, nevertheless, require further refinement and testing) and those for which we don’t.
Induction from the history of science tells us that, since we’ve developed models for the evolution of complex systems through stepwise changes in some cases, there’s no good reason to think that systems for which we don’t yet have good models will forever elude us.
In short, the success of past science inclines me to have confidence in similar approaches in future science.
Carlos,
You said, “If the argument for intelligent design rests on our ignorance of flagellum evolution, we’re in worse shape than I’d feared.”
No actually it rests on our knowledge, not our ignorance. It is knowledge of the complexity of the flagellum that gives the argument strength. The more were learn about the complexity of molecular biology the stonger the ID argument becomes. For example, ID argument for abiogenisis is stronger than ever. Far stronger than it would have been in the ignorant days of Heackel. It is Darwinism that thrives on ignorance, claiming that the final proof of its hypothesis will be found in what we currently don’t know.
I dispute that this is an either/or: the appeal of Darwinism was the ability to explain the origin of species by showing that supernatural design was not required.
At work here in these debates is the fundamental question: what is an explanation? And what makes an explanation a good one?
Ever since Bacon, Galileo, and Descartes, scienists have assumed — yes, assumed — that explanations involved constructing a simplified model of a complex system. The model shows how the different parts of the system causally interact in order to produce higher-order complex behavior.
But this assumption hit paydirt — with Galileo and then Newton, with von Staehl and then Lavoisier, and then with Lamarck and then Darwin. Nor has science stood still since then. At each step along the way, teleology has been excised from nature. And this has yielded vast improvements in understanding.
No one today would want to return to teleological physics, astronomy, or chemistry. No one would dispute the enormous advance in human knowledge that was made possible by the rejection of teleology in those fields. So why should biology be any different?
(I should point out that the rise of the mechanistic world-view was not without its critics — indeed, Romanticism in its various guises (Blake, Coleridge, Goethe, Mary Shelley) was a series of responses to what was regarded as a loss of meaning — what Weber called “the disenchantment of the world.” But the 20th century has taught us to be much more wary of the “seduction of unreason.”)
This only works if one assumes that a theology of creation requires a commitment to a teleological metaphysics. If that’s right, and Darwinism shows us how to do without a teleological metaphysics, then any theology of creation is in trouble.
On the other hand — to repeat what I’ve already said many times — there’s no good reason to hobble theology with teleological metaphysics. The marriage of Scripture with Aristotle, the grand innovation of Maimonides and Aquinas, is already crumbling. Once you concede that Galileo and Newton were right about physics, the game is already over. Teleology has already been rejected. But if you reject it there, why not reject it everywhere? You don’t need it.
Aquinas needed to integrate Scripture with Aristotle, but only because Aristotelian metaphysics — teleological metaphysics — was the best science of his day. The best science has changed, it’s moved on. And you don’t need it in order to make sense of the Scriptural narrative of Creation, Revelation, and Redemption. The narrative stands on its own two feet.
Carlos:
Please point to where we might find the detailed, testable (and potentially falsifiable) models that explain the evolutionary origins of these systems. (studies that rely on protein sequence comparisons, or other homologies, don’t qualify as detailed, testable, falsifiable models)
Why not?
If they don’t, then nothing could — including nothing that ID could produce. In which case, you’re basically demanding that science stop.
Carlos,
What if past successes are illusory where darwinian pathways are concerned? Suppose Dr Davison’s Prescribed Evo theory is more on the mark and we witness a massive paradigm shift across disciplines which gets enough researchers thinking in terms of information theory and begin the hunt for inter-connectedness?
Indeed, I imagine such notions and ‘junk DNA’ would not be as readily accepted and discovering its function might happen sooner – for if we frame it by the RMNS mechanism, we’d expect to see junk DNA, but if we frame via ID, we’d assume it simply played an not yet reverse engineered role and keep looking along those lines.
I mean, nano-engineers are learning microbiology to make better designs, the paradigm is shifting and as more scientists not betrothed to the NDE framework (eg, engineers, programmers, info theorists) look into the nuts and bolts of biological design, I expect we’ll see some remarkable breakthroughs in our understanding of life.
I think the most devastating critique of NDE rests with the rise of biotic information from inanimate matter – the logical root of darwinism is that information is an unintentional by-product of material forces acting upon matter with NO PLAN.
There are speculations unsupported by evidence, if you want to call those models. In the case of the eye, for example, all we have is speculations about a series of anatomical changes that would incrementally improve vision, with no evidence that they ever took place. Furthermore, without a determination of which specific mutations would be required to engineer those hypothetical anatomical changes, and an evaluation of the likelihood that those mutations could occur with the available probabilistic resources, these “models” are just not-particularly-entertaining stories.
– yet we see plans all over the place!
Carlos,
You and others have said science removed teleology from nature. Sure, if people had such childish notions as that angels must be moving the planets around, then finding out about the laws of motion might be a bump in the road for shallow minds. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see any reduction in grandeur with modern knowledge. Yours is a common sound bite, but I’m not seeing it.
Two quick remarks:
(1) let’s not forget that it was not only “Darwinists” who thought that a lot of DNA was “junk,” but it was also Darwinists, not IDists, who discovered that the previous interpretation was partly mistaken. Would that earlier interpretation have been corrected sooner if IDists had been in the labs? I have no idea, but I don’t have any reason to think so. There may have limitations due to the technology available at the time.
(2) Darwinism needn’t assume that information “comes from” non-information, because non-living systems also contain information. In fact, the entire universe can be regarded as an information-processing system. So there’s no Rubicon there that has be crossed with the aid of an intelligence. Of course that does push the problem back to the origin of the universe — but then the Intelligent Designer becomes, at best, a Deist conception of the designer — now a Celestial Programmer rather than a Celestial Clockmaker — and that’s still a far cry from what’s really needed.
Carlos: this is a warning: Either produce published, detailed papers to support your claims or do not bother to post here any more. Hand-waving just-so stories will not be tolerated.
Carlos,
Definition: Teleology (telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in nature or human creations.
Now, true science has found that the actual substance of physical non-living objects in and of themselves do not fit this definition. But that is hardly the same as saying that “No one today would want to return to teleological physics, astronomy, or chemistry”, since these fields rely on the design and directive principle of the overarching laws of nature that they exist in accordance with. The fact that the laws of nature exist, can be expressed mathematically, and can be discovered is what is truly amazing.
Oh, of course you certainly paint us into a corner since design and directive principles may only apply in the case of the cosmos (finely tuned laws to make complex life possible) and life (evidence of design). Wow, talk about a small box!!
I guess the flaw in your logic is much like taking each individual brick in the Taj Mahal, crumbling it into small pieces, examining each piece, finding no inherent teleological or design element, and then triumphantly asserting that therefore, the Taj Mahal is not teleological or designed in any manner of speaking.
Carlos wrote,
Name one non-living system which contains information on par with DNA.
Avocationist,
I wasn’t thinking of “angels pushing planets around.” I was thinking of Aristotelian physics — that the fire goes up because it wants to be closer to where it belongs, in the sky, and rocks fall because they want to be closer to where they belong, in the earth. Everything that exists has its own place where it belongs, and motion is the result of things trying to get where they belong.
And everything moves, except for the Unmoved Mover.
That made some sense in Aristotle’s own time — although it faced some heavy competition from Stoic and Epicurean cosmologies, and by the end of the Hellenistic age, the main contenders were Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Neoplatonism. It was something of a fluke that Aristotleianism was re-discovered in the West in a time when Stoicism and Epicureanism had been entirely forgotten. The Aristotelian system, unlike the Neoplatonism which formed the core of Christianity for hundreds of years, had a place for matter and motion — even though it remained subservient to form and purpose.
But the Scientific Revolution changed all that, and it did so by introducing a new concept of nature — a lawful and mechanistic concept of nature, a nature that consisted of nothing other than matter-in-motion. From thence, Galileo and Newton replaced Ptolmey and Aristotle.
The problem with Darwin and Mendel is that they made it possible to extend the scientific revolution into the heart of biology, the last stronghold of teleological thinking in its long retreat.
Nor do I! If anything, I find the infinite universe of today far more inspiring and awesome than the closed world of late scholasticism. But then again, I also find the post-Darwinian biological world of emerging complexity also more inspiring and awesome than the pre-Darwinian “a designer did it, end of story.”
Many years ago, I recall, I was talking with a friend of mine who had, like me, a strong interest in literature, philosophy, and history, but had opted to take an undergraduate degree in biology. She argued that in the academic humanities, a certain postmodern cynicism had settled, and it was no longer fashionable to really be moved or inspired by a work of art or literature. Everything had to be theorized or analyzed. In the sciences, on the other hand, it was OK to say, “wow! that’s really amazing!”
I think that’s still largely true today, though the postmodern hegemony is slowly cracking; awe and inspiration are more at home in the sciences than in the humanities.
Scott,
Ooh! Bold font! Now I’m worried!
Which specific claims would you like to see substantiated?
You could answer my challenge, for starters… 🙂
Carlos
This is your answer to telling us where to find the studies that provide the detailed, testable and falisfiable models for the evolutionary origins of IC systems? What’s the basis for your claim here about ID…or is that just more hand waving on your part?
YOu could start with the ones I already asked you about. Now, about those studies…
An interesting analogy. I remember reading something like that in The Collapse of Chaos by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen — still one of my all-time favorite science books.
I concur that the beauty and majesty of the Taj Mahal, which of course does not consist in its bricks, shows the error of reductionism. But I am not defending reductionism; indeed, reductionism is quite wrong-headed. But it doesn’t follow, from the wrong-headedness of reductionism, that we must posit the existence of some Intelligence.
That would follow only if we already knew that there were no conditons under which a system could spontaneously self-organize and generate complex behavior from the bottom-up. But in fact we have a wealth of examples, from physics, chemistry, and biology, of such self-organization.
Carlos,
“The problem with Darwin and Mendel is that they made it possible to extend the scientific revolution into the heart of biology, the last stronghold of teleological thinking in its long retreat.”
I’m confused by this. Are you asserting that there is no design in biology, cosmology, and the other assorted natural sciences? Or are you saying that there’s no knock-out, undeniable of evidence of design to be found?
It’s an important distinction. If it’s the latter, I could see myself potentially agreeing. But if it’s the former, I’d have to ask ‘How do you prove that there was no design in these things?’
Sorry to add one more question to what is already a growing list.
Sorry Carlos, but I don’t see it.
You said:
That would follow only if we already knew that there were no conditons under which a system could spontaneously self-organize and generate complex behavior from the bottom-up. But in fact we have a wealth of examples, from physics, chemistry, and biology, of such self-organization.
What wealth of examples in biology? Physics, chemistry, yes, there are some examples, snow flakes, crystals etc. But not biology. Not unless you assume the existence of biological systems to be proof of their self-organization.
“What wealth of examples in biology? Physics, chemistry, yes, there are some examples, snow flakes, crystals etc. But not biology.”
What about Frosty the Snowman? (jk)
Carlos,
I enjoy your posts, so I hope you stick around.
I continue to see that that the NDE-ists treasure is the ID-ists trash (also vice-versa). These two groups share opposite assumptions not only about what the evidence shows, but also about what it is, in many cases.
Hugh Ross tells about one scientist’s comment to other scientists about the silliness of not accepting NDE. He said something like, “Of course we evolved, I mean, here we are!” This is the timbre of many science writers, I’ve noticed.
Which is true? Behe’s (et al here) assertion that there are no papers, or Carlos’ (et al in the science writers’ community) insistence that there is an abudance of papers.
Is there no intersection of what both camps would consider evidence?
Carlos,
Actually, IDers are not “fine” with the “fact” of evolution. First of all it’s important to define terms. ID theorists and Creationists agree with “change over time”, which is not evolution but genetic variation within a fixed gene pool. To call it “evolution” is misleading.
Secondly, some IDers are sympathetic to common descent while other are not.
The principle argumenet for ID is that there are features in the universe and the biological realm that are best explained as the result of inttelligence, as opposed to an unguided process.
Not only those forces are not adequate causes, but, based on experience , a more adequate cause is available: intelligence.
So by this we can assume that you are hoping that the future will provide the evidence that unguided forces are able to generate complex specified information systems?
So until then, we should take what we have. Based on evidence, the only source for such systems is inteligence
Poor bedraggled Carlos,
that the fire goes up because it wants to be closer to where it belongs, in the sky, and rocks fall because they want to be closer to where they belong, in the earth. Everything that exists has its own place where it belongs, and motion is the result of things trying to get where they belong.
And everything moves, except for the Unmoved Mover.
Oh, dear, this is a sad admission, but I rather like it. Not that I ascribe little egos to inanimate things-that isn’t necessary- but really, isn’t that pretty much what is indeed going on? Everything does and goes and falls exactly where it belongs according to the laws of nature, chemistry, motion. If it weren’t true, would we have the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Every inanimate thing does exactly what it should at all times.
And doesn’t everything move? Have we gotten to the bottom of this vibrating universe?
I’ll keep the unmoved mover, too, until and unless I can get a better understanding. After all, it sounds very like the philosophies of Tao and many other ancient intuitions.
Funny that… Somehow every dictionary I’ve checked lists “change over time”, worded one way or another, as a definition of evolution…
“Not in Our Classrooms” is essential reading for those interested in how to set up and defeat a strawman.
Carlos: “a lawful and mechanistic concept of nature, a nature that consisted of nothing other than matter-in-motion. From thence, Galileo and Newton replaced Ptolmey and Aristotle.”
The concept of “law” in nature was derived from the view that there was a Lawgiver. Newton was a zealous theist. Today, many want the law without the Lawgiver. They want the inheritance while denying the father that gave it to them.
Peter,
What kind of change over how much time?
… is more the point, though I agree Mats’ point is weakened by saying evo isn’t change over time.
Both agree life changes over time, but YECers are constrained by scriptural literalism and IDers tend to let evidence and logic speak for itself – bringing a sharp divide over the ‘how much’ time part of evolution.
IDers are hung up on the logic which says life and the information which maintains and propigates it is a product of undirected physical forces.
Is it possible to observe the creation of useful information in the inanimate physical universe without injecting our own intelligence?
Smidlee,
Please keep in mind we are only referring to carbon based life forms. “Frosty” is a special case, not quite sure he qualifies as biological. Certainly a good example of ID, though.
Avocationist
I agree that’s not too bad (the unmoved mover paragraph). Has a certain poetry to it.
“… I agree Mats’ point is weakened by saying evo isn’t change over time.”
We now enter the slippery sliding world of the definition of evolution. Certainly evolution is a fact if evolution just means ‘change over time’. But saying ‘Change over time is a fact!’, while true, does not prove that Man came from Microbes from Molecules, which most of the time is what is really meant by evolution.
Stephen,
I think I largely agree with Mats, I just find his wording imprecise, therefore diminishing the point he was trying to make.
todd,
Is it possible to observe the creation of useful information in the inanimate physical universe without injecting our own intelligence?
1. Please select a rigorously defined form of information.
2. Please give a rigorous definition of what it means for information of that form to be useful. (To my knowledge, there exists no such definition.)
3. Please give a rigorous definition of what it means for information of the form you choose to be created.
4. Please give explicit guidelines on how we humans can design and conduct experiments without “injecting our own intelligence.”
Then, and only then, will we have a basis for substantive discussion of science.
Neo Darwinists define evolution as a change in the allele frequency of a population over time. So if something such as the average height of a population changed over time, then that would be an example of evolution. This is a basic genetics definition.
They say that over time these allele frequency changes could lead to what we refer to as macro-evolution in some of the populations.
I don’t think ID has any problem with this definition but instead says that there are many observations of two populations separated by time with substantially different allele frequencies and no obvious path on how these frequencies changed to indicate how one population evolved into the other. What we would call the mechanism is unknown. Genetic drift, natural selection acting on rm just does not seem to get it done. So in some cases, ID postulates the help of an intelligence and tries to estimate the possibility of a possible mechanist path.
This does not stop science from trying to find other mechanisms than intelligence . However, it seems the intelligent thing to do is to admit that there may be some for which it may be fruitless to find a non-intelligent based mechanism. Keep on investigating but be open to the possibility of continued failure in some areas.
Right now what is mandated out is the possibility of an intelligent input some place. This is tantamount to saying there is no other intelligence in existence because if such an intelligence did exist, it never did anything which is the same thing as not existing as far as our planet is concerned.
Regarding self-organization in biology:
Here are some examples of biological self-organization in Wiki (ignore the last one). There is also a 2001 book by Scott Camazine, Self-Organization in Biological Systems.
Consider that it takes many more bits to describe in detail the phenotype of a human neonate than are present in the genotype. The genotype does not specify routing of capillaries, axons, and dendrites, for instance. Self-organization of the retina is particularly interesting.
Regarding the existence of self-organization in biology:
The Wiki article on self-organization gives examples of biological self-organization. Camazine’s Self-Organization in Biological Systems (2001) is an entire book devoted to the topic.
Consider that, whatever representation you use, it takes many more bits to describe in detail the phenotype of a human neonate than it takes to describe the genotype. The genotype does not specify routing of capillaries, axons, and dendrites, for instance. Self-organization of the retina is particularly interesting.
Regarding the existence of self-organization in biology:
The Wiki article on self-organization gives examples of biological self-organization. Camazine’s Self-Organization in Biological Systems (2001) is an entire book devoted to the topic.
Consider that, whatever representation you use, it takes many more bits to describe in detail the phenotype of a human neonate than it takes to describe the genotype. The genotype does not specify routing of capillaries, axons, and dendrites, for instance. Self-organization of the retina is particularly interesting:
http://vpl.usc.edu/research/development.html
Regarding the existence of self-organization in biology:
The Wiki article on self-organization gives examples of biological self-organization. Camazine’s Self-Organization in Biological Systems (2001) is an entire book devoted to the topic.
Consider that, whatever representation you use, it takes many more bits to describe in detail the phenotype of a human neonate than it takes to describe the genotype. The genotype does not specify routing of capil*laries, axons, and dendrites, for instance. Self-organization of the retina is particularly interesting.
Carlos, quoting his friend:
Very true. How odd, then, that so many in the humanities criticize science for draining the wonder from things — “unweaving the rainbow”, in Keats’ memorable phrase.
Tom English:
1. Please select a rigorously defined form of information.
2. Please give a rigorous definition of what it means for information of that form to be useful. (To my knowledge, there exists no such definition.)
Please read “In the Beginning was Information” by Werner Gitt and “No Free Lunch” by Wm. Dembski. Then if you have specific questions about those please ask.
However don’t expect anyone to put in a post what it took others to do in a book.
Joseph,
1. I asked Todd merely to select a rigorously defined form of information. He did not have to write a definition, let alone a book. By the way, are you telling me that Todd would have chosen a definition from one of the two books you named? If so, how do you know?
2. If Todd uses the term useful information, then he had best be able to say what he means by it. The term does not occur in Bill Dembski’s writings at designinference.com. Specific question: Where is the term defined in No Free Lunch? As for the Gitt book, useful information occurs as a label in a figure on p. 117. The term usable information also occurs on that page and in the introduction to the chapter on “The Quality and Usefulness of Biblical Information.” Gitt does not give a rigorous definition.
Tom wrote,
I think the last one is why the preceding ones beg the question. Whether they truly ‘self organize’ or not says nothing about the information contained within their DNA – that which PRECEDED their formation.
Tom,
By useful information I mean datum organized in such a way to have meaning. In context of the conversation, I think it obvious I’m referring to abiogenesis – which is a requirement if the materialist view of reality is true – when saying ‘created’.
And your 4th question gets to the my point – our observations are shaped by the theoretic framework we bring to the table. Philosophy precedes observation and is dependent upon apriori reasoning.
PeterZ:
I don’t contest that evolutionists have that lame (useless) definition for evolution whenever it pleases them. My point is that such a defiition is NOT what darwinists have in mind when they think of evolution, NOR is what everyone else has in mind. To make a distinction between that, it’s important to give the proper names since
“change over time” says nothing about the type of change. For example, if an unhealthy baby is born from healthy parents, is that evolution? If a baby is born with less fingers, did he “evolved” when compared with his parents?
Todd,
How does the genotype, contained in individual cells, causes arms on opposite sides of the body to grow to be the same length?
How do African termites, blind and individually stupid, collectively build elaborate mounds that are, proportional to their size, larger than any human structure?
Did you know that identical twins can be discriminated by fingerprints and retinal scans?
Tom,
I’m afraid I don’t get what you’re driving at where my comments are concerned. I don’t know how termites or the genotype cause arms to grow to be the same length. I assume such things are according to genetic plans.
I fail to see how this is relevent to asking how one can assuredly state life arose as a result of stochastic natural forces when direct observing such an thing is impossible and inferences based on observation are shaped by the epistemology of the investigator.
todd,
The genetic information accounts only in part for what emerges. There is more complexity in the colony and the mound than in the termite genome. The complexity emerges from the interactions of relatively simple individuals. Perhaps things have changed, but last I heard, biologists could not explain why your arms grow to be the same length.
So called “self-organising” of the human nervous system, and many other biological systems, is a pre-programmed organisation based on feedback loops. This form of design is more adaptable and requires more foresight and intelligence to create than fully programmed outcome systems.
Tom,
It would seem that idnet has a point. Just because the total sum of the details relating to the execution of a plan exceed the details in the plan design itself does not at all remove the requirement for a plan design in the first place. A simple analogy would be a battle plan. The battle plan consists of troop movements, setup of equipment, surveillance of the enemy, etc. Now, of course the actual movements and actions of individual soldiers are not all detailed in the plan. But that does not mean that a plan is unnecessary.
In other words, for global results to happen, than a global design must exist.
That is an assertion that begins and ends with you (i.e., Carlos).