Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fred Reed on Wade’s Troublesome (Darwinian racism) Inheritance

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An opinion to respect here:

How did we get where we are? Through natural selection, says Wade. It is indisputable that selection can alter a species or subspecies. The unnatural selection which we call selective breeding produces animals of different sizes, shapes, and temperaments. Why would we think that human animals are different? If flu regularly killed those susceptible to it, presumably those genetically resistant would come to predominate. This is both reasonable and observable.

However, the thoughtful may be uneasy with some of this. Boilerplate evolutionary theory holds that when a beneficial mutation accidentally arises, its possessor has an advantage in the struggle for survival, has more children, and thus passes on the new trait. This makes sense, at least if the mutation does something really desirable.

But …

Wade points out that certain Asians, due to a mutation, have hair with thicker hair shafts. One is hard pressed to see how slightly coarser hair would promote survival so efficaciously as to result in having more children. It is not clear why it would be an advantage at all. In the absence of reason or evidence, various solutions may be adduced: thick hair cushioned the blows of clubs, or girls thought it was sexy and said yes, or … something. It smacks of desperation. More.

The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.” Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence (it will not be Darwinian, for sure), we actually do not really know what we are talking about.

For one thing, whatever survives, survives. It is easy to make up explanations after the fact.

Only predictions count. And predictions are only of value for what they can predict for behaviour, not for outcome. Some people might be more likely to fight injustice than others, but does that mean they will succeed? Or be smitten from the face of the Earth, their names lost to memory?

Then were they more fit, or less? Is that even the right way to look at it?

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution) — when you look at how little they have to go on, you can see why it ended up being about popular buzz like “race.”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Joe (attn RDF et al): Let's start with a parallel case, life. There is no universally accepted one size fits all precising definition, but on an adequate set of cases we erect the science of biology. That should head off "definitionitis" rhetoric. In fact, ostensive definition by key cases is conceptually first, and it is based on such that we test the reliability of a precising statement. At minimum, we can highlight a phenomenon of intelligence and then use it as an explanation as the biologists do with life. All this has been pointed out to you RDF, but you seem to find your rhetorical hobby-horses too convenient. Now, above I cited a definition for purposes of showing that the one cited above by was it SB, is not idiosyncratic or arbitrary as RDF tried to improperly suggest. It captures a common enough sense. In that sense, termites would not be intelligent but would be programmed by that which was intelligent. That is the issue of instincts coming up again. Next, here is a definition used in UD's glossary, deliberately taken from a known hostile source but adequate for the sense of intelligence used in teh design inference, i.s. as opposed to blind non-foresighted chance and necessity:
Intelligence – Wikipedia aptly and succinctly defines: “capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.”
If something can do that, it would be intelligent. DNA has code -- language, check. That code expresses step by step sequences to solve problems and achieve goals -- plans and solving problems, check. Ability to plan depends on reasoning and abstract thinking about future contingencies, check. The source of DNA is intelligent. Where also the blind search capacity of the atomic resources of our solar system or the observed cosmos are utterly overwhelmed by the complex functional specificity of DNA. So, that which is only capable of blind chance and mechanical necessity is not intelligent in the sense relative to dna being designed. Of course, on background RDF is trying to put up alleged artificial intelligence, but the problem there is that rocks have no dreams and computation limited by GIGO is not equal to contemplation. To see the difference look at how the task set by Go swamps computers, but is well within the reach of intelligent humans. (Chess, it turns out is within the reach of brute force computation programmed by intelligent programmers. Of course the program itself is also beyond the blind search computational resources of the cosmos.) Maybe Jonathan Bartlett's recent framing would help us, seen through the lens of the Smith model. Think of the brain-body loop as a cybernetic, computational loop. However, there is a second tier, an oracle that can sense, contemplate and respond to but also can direct and invent or create, is insightful. The real seat of intelligence is not in the cybernetic loop but in that higher order tier. The mind, in short, of whatever "stuff" composed or potentially composed. Can it be built in software? Or, are we simply substituting canned algorithms and data structures formed by the intelligent and imagining that such is reified into a genuine mind? Which is the challenge posed by Searle's Chinese Room. It is not genuinely understanding, but because of a clever enough algorithm, computation can mimic some intelligent behaviour. But take it out of the parameters of the algorithm and demand insight and creativity beyond the search resources of the cosmos, and all crumbles. Which brings the issue of the threshold for FSCO/I to the fore, the limit imposed by what blind computation can do with a blind search. If something is beyond that and it is working, there is an oracle there coming from something not constrained by the search resources of the cosmos. And in PCs with routinely millions of files in them these days, that something is obviously coming from intelligent oracles. Minds, or even souls, to use an old fashioned word the materialists get the vapours over. Time for abort, retry or fail, materialists. And Joe, I hope I am clear enough. KFkairosfocus
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
RDFish:
Once you say what “intelligence” means in ID theory, it becomes clear that you can’t substantiate the claim.
Then it is strange that we have said what "intelligence" means wrt ID and we have substantiated that claim. What now you little cry-baby?Joe
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
RDFish logic: Do we have a scientific theory on bowel movements? No. Then no one knows what a bowel movement is Do we have a scientific theory of archaeology? No. Oops then archaeology is bunk. Do we have a scientific theory of eating? No, then no one is eating. Do we have a scientific theory on the origin of humans? No, therefor there aren't any humans. Well at least we can count RDFish out humanity. Is there a scientific theory on cars? Then no one knows what a car is. I could go on and on...Joe
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, Your definition in 10 is just confusing. Termites are intelligent designers yet I doubt they have the ability you highlighted- try the following- intelligence: 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) As Del Ratzsch puts it- the ability to create counterflowJoe
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
RDFish:
The only reasonable way to interpret this is that we have no scientific theory of intelligence, and that there is therefore no scientific meaning for the term.
Why is that, cuz a scientifically illiterate arse sez so? RDFish:
Some day somebody might come up with an actual scientific definition for “intelligence” in the context of ID
What a dotk. So there are scientific dictionaries and dictionaries for other people? Or is RDFish just an arse?
Until then, just as Denyse says, nobody has any idea what it means when ID says the cause of the flagellum was “intelligence”.
Except Denyse doesn't say that. You just made that up because you have serious issues.
You’ve forgotten that I believe ID is a very confused endeavor.
Sed the very confused endeavor.Joe
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
I already refuted that claim with the point that Darwinists do, in fact, know what it means.
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that while ID proponents such as Denyse deny that anyone knows what the term refers to, and while other ID proponents disagree about the meaning of the term (such as Meyer vs. Dembski, or Dembski vs. Dembski at some other time), Darwinists somehow have provided ID a scientific description of what intelligence is?
RDF: I’m not a Darwinist. SB: Irrelevant to the point.
It is relevant to your bringing up what Darwinists think the term "intelligence" refers to. I don't care what Darwinists think, either about evolution or about intelligence. I'm talking about what the term "intelligence" is supposed to mean in ID theory, and how Denyse here confirms that it doesn't mean anything at all.
SB @7: ID presents its own definition of intelligence as a cause for design. RDF @9: ID does NOT present its own definition of “intelligence” as a cause for design. SB: Again, irrelevant.
I directly contradicted your claim that ID presents its own definition of intelligence, and you say that is irrelevant? Clearly it couldn't possibly be more relevant - it is the very issue we are discussing.
ID is not a singular argument.
But ID presents one singular explanation: intelligence. Not one other thing is ever mentioned by way of explanation - just intelligence, and that's it.
Each ID scientist defines intelligence in terms of his own individual paradigm and his own strategy for arguing, which is all that is necessary.
If each ID scientists believes that "intelligence" means something completely different, why do they use the same word? And what is it that these different versions of ID have in common? On the other hand, if every ID scientist is talking about the same thing when they refer to "intelligence", what exactly does it mean? Denyse said that it doesn't mean anything, and I agree with her.
RDF: On the contrary! “Intelligence” is not a unary thing, and so there is no sense in trying to come up with a single definition! RDF: ID surely ought to prominently present a clear, canonical, technical definition for its sole explanatory concept, but it doesn’t. SB: You are saying that there is “no sense in trying to come up with a single definition of intelligence,” and yet you also think that “ID” ought to provide a single definition of intelligence? This argument is not easy to process. It seems that you ought to affirm one of those statements and negate the other one.
You've forgotten that I believe ID is a very confused endeavor. There is indeed no sense at all trying to explain phenomena such as the creation of life or the universe by appeal to "intelligence" without further qualification, because the term refers to nothing at all in the abstract. My exhortation for ID to actually attempt to put forth a canonical definition is simply meant to illustrate ID's central problem: Once ID does actually say what they mean, it becomes clear that there is no evidence that it exists. For example, if ID adopted the definition you gave above, it would have to provide some reason to think that anything with the ability to produce complex mechanisms must experience conscious awareness like humans do. There is no scientific evidence that this is the case. The same is true for any other specific meaning you might assign to the term "intelligence": Once you say what "intelligence" means in ID theory, it becomes clear that you can't substantiate the claim.
So, which is it? Is intelligence defined by the discipline or is it defined by the analysis at hand?
Again, when scientists use the term, they provide a clear operational definition of the term which is appropriate to what they are trying to show. For example, they may define "intelligence" as "that which IQ tests measure" if they are studying correlations between intelligence and wealth. Or they may define it as "the ability to learn from reinforced trials" if they are studying the effect of magnetic fields on the intelligence of sea slugs. And so on. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
Hi RDFish
No one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence”!
I already refuted that claim with the point that Darwinists do, in fact, know what it means. It is was a meaningless counterpoise to law/chance, they would say so and continue on as sleek as ever. They don't say that because they do, in fact, know what intelligence means (as a cause) and they set out to show why this cause is not needed to produce biodiversity. The one thing they do not say is, "intelligence is not needed, but I don't know what it means."
I’m not a Darwinist.
Irrelevant to the point.
ID does NOT present its own definition of “intelligence” as a cause for design.
Again, irrelevant. ID is not a singular argument. Each ID scientist defines intelligence in terms of his own individual paradigm and his own strategy for arguing, which is all that is necessary.
On the contrary! “Intelligence” is not a unary thing, and so there is no sense in trying to come up with a single definition!
ID surely ought to prominently present a clear, canonical, technical definition for its sole explanatory concept, but it doesn’t.
Let me try to understand. You are saying that there is "no sense in trying to come up with a single definition of intelligence," and yet you also think that "ID" ought to provide a single definition of intelligence? This argument is not easy to process. It seems that you ought to affirm one of those statements and negate the other one.
Scientific disciplines always provide scientific (operationalized) definitions for the term “intelligence” that are appropriate for the analysis at hand. ID fails to do this
So, which is it? Is intelligence defined by the discipline or is it defined by the analysis at hand? I gather that you understand that the two standards are not one in the same. If intelligence is defined by the the first standard (the discipline) how does anthropology's definitions of intelligence differ from those of sociology or social psychology? If it is defined by the second standard (the analysis at hand), why does that same standard not also apply to ID and its varying approaches to the design argument? Cheers!StephenB
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT
RDF: We seem to be right back at the redefinition game here. Let's go to a classic dictionary:
intelligence (?n?t?l?d??ns) n 1. (Psychology) the capacity for understanding; ability to perceive and comprehend meaning 2. good mental capacity: a person of intelligence. 3. news; information 4. (Military) military information about enemies, spies, etc 5. (Military) a group or department that gathers or deals with such information 6. (often capital) an intelligent being, esp one that is not embodied 7. (Military) (modifier) of or relating to intelligence: an intelligence network. [C14: from Latin intellegentia, from intellegere to discern, comprehend, literally: choose between, from inter- + legere to choose] in?telli?gential adj Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
I think we can see that SB has clearly not been idiosyncratic. The root problem is this: a rock has no dreams (even if it has been reworked as a Si chip), and computation is not equal to contemplation. Not least, in light of the GIGO principle. KFkairosfocus
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
To say that the cause of X is intelligence is to say that it was produced by a conscious choice for the sake of some end and was not produced by unconscious forces for no reason at all.
Well, that is your particular definition of intelligence. Other people use other definitions. Many (if not most) definitions, for example, make no reference to consciousness at all; instead they focus on functions such as learning, memory, and problem solving. See what we mean (Denyse and I)? No one knows exactly what we mean by "intelligence"!
Everyone inside and outside the ID camp understands the point.
The point I just made refutes this: Everyone inside ID disagrees about what "intelligence" means, and so does everyone outside ID. The big difference is that nobody outside of ID ever invokes "intelligence" as the explanation for anything. (Please, Joe, spare us the archeology and forensics lecture, since those disciplines deal not with "intelligence" in the abstract but rather "human beings").
You will never hear a Darwinst say that he doesn’t know what ID’s argument means. He is too busy trying to shuffle the evidence in the other direction. If the meaning wasn’t clear, he would seize the point.
I'm not a Darwinist.
I doubt very much that Denyse would question the meaningfulness of the term “intelligence” or “intelligent agent,” as a cause for the bacterial flagellum.
And yet she really just did, by saying that nobody knows what "intelligence" means.
Clearly, Steven Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jay Richards (or any other ID proponent that I know of) would not question it. As far as I know, the only person who claims not to know what it means is you.
And Denyse. (And of course lots of other ID critics - and even a couple of ID sympathizers - who have agreed with me over the years).
It is never wise to dismiss context in any evaluation of this kind. Denyse was discussing, among other things, the difference in intelligence between races from an evolutionary perspective. She was not referring to intelligence as a cause for design. In keeping with that point, one would not expect a cosmologist and a physicist to present identical definitions for the word “energy.” It would only be unscientific if each discipline failed to present its own definition, just as ID presents its own definition of intelligence as a cause for design.
First of all, ID does NOT present its own definition of "intelligence" as a cause for design. That is the whole point. ID surely ought to prominently present a clear, canonical, technical definition for its sole explanatory concept, but it doesn't. You'll find Meyer saying one thing, Dembski saying another, and others never bothering to provide any definition at all! Second, you would never hear a physicist say "Until there is a scientific theory of energy, we actually do not really know what we are talking about." So no, it isn't merely that scientists use different definitions in different contexts. Denyse is correct - neither ID proponents nor anyone else has a scientific theory of what intelligence is.
There is simply no reason for an ID proponent to present the same definition of intelligence as that which might be provided by a cognitive psychologist, a physical anthropologist, or a military tactician, even if there are similarities in the concepts involved.
In fact, there is a very good reason ID cannot possibly use those definitions, of course. For example, if ID used a definition such as "that which is measured by an IQ test", then it would become obvious that ID can never provide any evidence that the cause of biological systems was "intelligent".
Or is it your position that representatives from these and other disciplines should get together and standardize their definition of intelligence in order to say anything meaningful from a scientific perspective?
On the contrary! "Intelligence" is not a unary thing, and so there is no sense in trying to come up with a single definition! Scientific disciplines always provide scientific (operationalized) definitions for the term "intelligence" that are appropriate for the analysis at hand. ID fails to do this. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT
God by way of the bible did comment on human intelligence. Solomon the ise said Wisdom is first, then understanding, then knowledge. Thats the atomic structure of smarts. IQ tests don't score these things but only score these things at a point in a childs life and this only from their demographics. tHat is its beyond their easy free will. Just like our languages. I say Asian hair is for the same reason as their eyes and possibly some other things. they simply bumped into the last stages of the "ice age' moving east and instantly the body was triggered to deal with a cutting wind. The hair is simply stronger to stay on the head. The eyes to protect the eyes from the cutting wind/dirt. simple changes from innate mechanisms. No evolution by selection. Probably these changes were not really needed but the body is sensitive.Robert Byers
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT
Hi RDFish
To say that the cause of X is “intelligence” is to explain nothing, since nothing whatsoever follows from such a statement: We learn nothing about what the cause is, what it can or cannot do, what (if anything) it consciously experiences, nothing about any characteristics of the cause at all.
I disagree. To say that the cause of X is intelligence is to say that it was produced by a conscious choice for the sake of some end and was not produced by unconscious forces for no reason at all. Everyone inside and outside the ID camp understands the point. You will never hear a Darwinst say that he doesn’t know what ID’s argument means. He is too busy trying to shuffle the evidence in the other direction. If the meaning wasn’t clear, he would seize the point.
Until then, just as Denyse says, nobody has any idea what it means when ID says the cause of the flagellum was “intelligence”.
I doubt very much that Denyse would question the meaningfulness of the term “intelligence” or “intelligent agent,” as a cause for the bacterial flagellum. Clearly, Steven Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jay Richards (or any other ID proponent that I know of) would not question it. As far as I know, the only person who claims not to know what it means is you. It is never wise to dismiss context in any evaluation of this kind. Denyse was discussing, among other things, the difference in intelligence between races from an evolutionary perspective. She was not referring to intelligence as a cause for design. In keeping with that point, one would not expect a cosmologist and a physicist to present identical definitions for the word “energy.” It would only be unscientific if each discipline failed to present its own definition, just as ID presents its own definition of intelligence as a cause for design. There is simply no reason for an ID proponent to present the same definition of intelligence as that which might be provided by a cognitive psychologist, a physical anthropologist, or a military tactician, even if there are similarities in the concepts involved. Or is it your position that representatives from these and other disciplines should get together and standardize their definition of intelligence in order to say anything meaningful from a scientific perspective?StephenB
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
Hi StephenB, There really is no other reasonable interpretation of Denyse's remarks here, try as you might. Read it again:
Denyse: The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.”
The only reasonable way to interpret this is that no one knows exactly what we mean by "intelligence".
Denyse: Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence (it will not be Darwinian, for sure), we actually do not really know what we are talking about.
The only reasonable way to interpret this is that we have no scientific theory of intelligence, and that there is therefore no scientific meaning for the term. To say that the cause of X is "intelligence" is to explain nothing, since nothing whatsoever follows from such a statement: We learn nothing about what the cause is, what it can or cannot do, what (if anything) it consciously experiences, nothing about any characteristics of the cause at all. Some day somebody might come up with an actual scientific definition for "intelligence" in the context of ID, just as psychologists have come up various other definitions of "intelligence" for other contexts. For example, as Timmy (@1) alluded, sometimes "intelligence" is defined as "that which is measured by an IQ test". Until then, just as Denyse says, nobody has any idea what it means when ID says the cause of the flagellum was "intelligence". Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
RDFish, still unable to use a dictionary. Do we need a theory of intelligence in order to define it? No. And no one but RDFish has taken the leap from no scientific theory of to meaningless to science. Talk about chump-bait...Joe
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
RDFish
Thank you, Denyse!
I would be very surprised if Denyse meant that ID has no theory of intelligence as a way of accounting for the existence of design in nature. Her point, as I take it, is that we have no theory of intelligence to explain why Asians are better at math than Europeans. Context matters.StephenB
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Asian hair evolved to destroy roller-brush vacuum cleaners. The hair wraps around the roller, migrates to the bearings and heats up to incendiary temperatures where keratin maintains its strength long after polystyrene, polyethylene and bearing grease fail. - husband and father of 7 girlsRobert Sheldon
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.” Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence (it will not be Darwinian, for sure), we actually do not really know what we are talking about.
Oh, my. I have been arguing for many years that we have no theory of intelligence, that the term means different things to different people in different contexts, and that in general, just as Denyse says, we do not know what we are talking about when we talk about "intelligence". It is very nice for my position to be validated here at UD. What seems to have escaped notice is that if the word "intelligence" is scientifically meaningless, then any "theory" which invokes "intelligence" as the explanation from everything from biological complexity to the values of physical constants to the relative size of the Sun and the Moon is... meaningless. Thank you, Denyse! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
There is a very scientific theory of intelligence, despite the fact that we don't know exactly what "intelligence" means. It is based on the fact that IQ scores correlate with outcomes (education level, income, illegitimacy rates, et cetera). Since at no point is macroevolution invoked to explain these racial differences, any accusation of racism cannot be sullied association with Darwinism.Timmy
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
1 7 8 9

Leave a Reply