Finally the truth about ID! — And now in paperback

_{William Dembski

September 22, 2006

Intelligent Design}

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

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.

Comments

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.Jack Golightly_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

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.nullasalus_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

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.
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_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Carlos
If they [studies relying on protein comparisons or other homologies] donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t, then nothing could Ã¢â‚¬â€ including nothing that ID could produce. In which case, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re basically demanding that science stop.
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?
Which specific claims would you like to see substantiated?
YOu could start with the ones I already asked you about. Now, about those studies...DonaldM_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

You could answer my challenge, for starters... :)todd_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Scott, Ooh! Bold font! Now I'm worried! Which specific claims would you like to see substantiated?Carlos_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Avocationist,
[I]f 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.
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.
Maybe itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just me, but I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see any reduction in grandeur with modern knowledge.
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.Carlos_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Carlos wrote,
because non-living systems also contain information. In fact, the entire universe can be regarded as an information-processing system
Name one non-living system which contains information on par with DNA.todd_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

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.Ekstasis_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

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.Scott_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

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_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

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.avocationist_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

- yet we see plans all over the place!todd_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

...we have good models for other systems that also quallify as Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducibly complexÃ¢â‚¬Â by BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s criterion...
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.GilDodgen_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

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.todd_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

(studies that rely on protein sequence comparisons, or other homologies, donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Carlos:
The fact is, that we currently have no model for flagellum evolution, we have good models for other systems that also quallify as Ã¢â‚¬Å“irreducibly complexÃ¢â‚¬Â by BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s criterion (the eye, the blood-clotting mechanism, the Krebs cycle, bird wings). This puts the ID supporter in a difficult position, I think.
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)DonaldM_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

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.
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.")
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.
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_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Carlos, You said, "If the argument for intelligent design rests on our ignorance of flagellum evolution, weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re in worse shape than IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.Jehu_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

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_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Carlos, You said, "ID supporters, unlike YECs, are fine with the fact of evolution but disagree as to the cause. Granted, thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a distinction that, if made more clearly by both sides, would ameliorate the hostility Ã¢â‚¬â€ 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.Jehu_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

rpf_ID:
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 Ã¢â‚¬Å“ya wanna betÃ¢â‚¬Â leaves much to be desired.
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!!DonaldM_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

[To which I respond, considering what weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve learend over the past two decades about development, regulatory genetics, and paleontology, Ã¢â‚¬Å“ya wanna bet?Ã¢â‚¬Â] Actually, yes I do wanna bet. http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/09/cellular_software.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_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

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?"Carlos_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

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 wellÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

And the previewing is real-time! Excellent! Well done!Carlos_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

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.Karl Pfluger_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Gil asks:
BTW, is there a provision for listing the authorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s name in a post?
Gil, The author's name shows up just beneath the post title in an indistinct grayed-out font.Karl Pfluger_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

I don't find this
Ã¢â‚¬Å“a strong movement has developed to encourage the teaching of Ã¢â‚¬Å“intelligent designÃ¢â‚¬Â as a viable theory alongside evolution in science classesÃ¢â‚¬Â
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.Carlos_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

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 Ã¢â‚¬Å“intelligent designÃ¢â‚¬Â 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.jerry_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply