Friday Musings — Irrational Hatred of ID and a Scientific Sea Change

_{Gil Dodgen

April 6, 2007

Intelligent Design}

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

I think that one of the reasons for the irrational hatred of the ID movement is that in the last 50 years a scientific tide has reversed. The hard sciences (as opposed to Darwinian theory, evolutionary psychology and the like), which for centuries had demystified the world and made the transcendent seem increasingly irrelevant, suddenly started providing solid evidence that a materialistic worldview was untenable. The universe was fine-tuned for life, and living things were fundamentally based on highly sophisticated information and information-processing systems. The fact that those of us in the ID movement are promoting public awareness of this has enraged those with a philosophical commitment to materialism, those who counted on the hard sciences to provide ever-increasing support for their worldview.

What was thought to be their best ally is gradually becoming their worst foe, and this is a tough pill to swallow.

Comments

tyharris [6] Hierarchic classification is, by its very nature, an orderly groups within groups arrangement in which boundaries are distinct and the divisions in the system increase in a systematic manner as the hierarchy is ascended; absense of overlapping types implies the absence of sequential relationships. Therefore the contrast between hierarchic classification and gradualistic evolution, which would leave behind an overlapping blurred and fundamentally indistinct pattern, could not be more complete. Nature is fundamentally non-sequential, in other words, a discontinuous phenomenon. Furthermore, for gradualism to produce such hierarchic order it would be required that character traits once acquired can never subsequently be lost or transformed in any real sense and that the acquisition of new traits must leave previous traits essentially unchanged. Therefore, in other words, character traits (such as hair and mammary glands unique to mammals, or pentadactyl limb unique to all terrestrial vertebrates) must remain fundamentally immutable. But why should these traits have remained immune to change, after all, are we not talking about evolution? Put simply, gradualists who acknowledge hierarchic order are also acknowledging the fact that the crucial intergrading forms leading from one form to another are totally lacking. I have no idea how anyone can draw the conclusion of common descent from hierarchic classification. This also presumes that NS would direct evolution in this manner see comment: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/blythian-evolution-explains-antibiotic-resistance-not-darwinism/#comment-109702 And this also presumes complex systems can be produced gradually see comment: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/jonathan-wells-on-the-contemporary-state-of-evo-devo/#comment-110246Acquiesce_{April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

On my previous comment, I assume the procedure today is to use both time of appearance and physical similarity to classify and then use genetic information as the independent means of verification. If genetic information is also used to classify, then is there any other independent information source that could be used to verify. Since I am certainly not knowledgeable on this, maybe someone could comment using plain language to describe the procedures that are used to create these hierarchies.jerry_{April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

I have a simple question. Isn't this just an argument over the mechanism of the creation of new alleles? When objects (in this case biological organisms) are organized because of some type of similarity it is likely that there will be various forms of hierarchies used. If it assumed that the descent of the hierarchies on the paper used to show these hierarchies represents a time order then that can be checked against independent information. Assuming that time of appearance is not used in the original organization then this could be used to test the consistentcy of the hierarchical organization. I assume that is how it is done. Though I am sure there are attempts to reclassify based on the time order of appearance which then begs the question of the hierarchy having an independent verification. Even if all these procedures, which I assume are fairly complicated, indicate a general progression in life forms over time that reinforces the similarily, there is nothing said about how the individual life forms arose. We are still stuck with the lack of a mechanism no matter how consistent the hierarchies are and from what I understand there is lots to be desired in these hierarchies. So as gp has said. It could very well be common descent but common descent says nothing about the mechanism that produced the new organisms. Since no one has a clue about this, we are back to the basic question, how do new alleles arise?jerry_{April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Ty: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¢â‚¬Â¦surely somebody here has the answer to this gentlemansÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ challenge that these heirarchies prove common descentÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â Ty, I appreciate your courage to go on discussing with the crowd of darwinists, although I don't think I would be able to do the same. The point is, it is very beautiful to discuss with those who have different ideas, but it is not beautiful at all to fight. If a lot of other people have no real intention to listen with a minimum of attention to what you say, and if the only goal of the "discussion" is to outnumber you with propaganda, then there is no fun. That said, I have tried to read the many comments to your essay on your site, and got immediately discouraged. There is only a certain amount of intolerance I can tolerate per day. So, if you could please give me the numbers of the posts you found interesting, and to which you would like some answer, we could be spared some useless suffering. Meanwhile, I will try to address what you say in your post here in a general way. You say: "The best argument he had was the statement that nested heirarchies infer common descent, not design." I am not sure what he means by "nested hierarchies". I suppose he means ordered level of omology at the DNA level. Any discussion at the morphological level is too vague to be worthwhile. First of all, I agree with great_ape: why can't we accept that common descent may be the answer?. It is perfectly true that many here (including, perhaps, myself) accept or can accept common descent as a very good hypothesis. But it should be clear that: 1) Homology in DNA, however nested, is not evidence of common descent, although it is certainly a strong support for it. Indeed, omology can be interpreted as reutilization of the code, even in absence of common descent. In other words, a designer could well reutilize solutions he has already used, even if he does not materially implement them in already existing "hardware". So, if the designer modifies the code in already existing beings, we have reutilization/modification of the code and common descent is also true. On the contrary, if the designer implements the code, reutilizing parts he has already used, but on a completely new "hardware" (in other words, creating a new species not from an existing species, but, for instance, from inorganic matter), then homologies can just the same be explained as reutilization of the code, although common descent in that case is not true. Although, as I said, I tend to believe in the first hypothesis (designed common descent, with intentional modification of the code by the designer), both can be discussed. 2) The darwinist hypothesis, instead, is one of unguided common descent. It is not true that there is any support to that hypothesis. Homologies, however nested, are not specific support to the hypothesis of unguided common descent (although they are compatible with it), because, as already said, they are also perfectly compatible with any design hypothesis. Besides, the "nesting" is far from being regular and corresponding to a specific "tree". We all know the difficulties darwinists face each time they try to fix a specific "order". Finally, even the arguments about "errors in the code repeated in different species" and "homologies in non coding parts of the code" have no meaning. Regarding errors, they are common in any code, adn they are perfectly compatible with the idea of reutilization of the code, especially in our first form, where not only the code, but also the implementation, is reutilized. Moreover, it is very difficult to establish what is really an "error", when you don't know all the intentions of the designer, and not even how most of the code works. Regarding the homologies in non coding DNA, now those are really interesting! We know that many parts of non-coding DNA are ultra-conserved. That is probably some difficulty for darwinists to explain, but luckily not for ID. Indeed, we have never thought that non-coding DNA is "junk". We do believe it is code, and very important code indeed! And that can apply to any part of non coding DNA, including transposons of all kinds, until we understand how the living functions of regulation, differentiation, morphogenesis etc. are implemented. We should always remember that any fact observed by darwinists, from duplication of genes to all the similarities and differences between genetic code in various species, is by far best interpreted by design, while faces incredible improbabilities when interpreted as unguided common descent. This is the truth. That's why there is no way to ultimately define research as darwinist or ID inspired. Research, although it may be inspired by specific ideas, is just research. It looks for facts. If it is done well, and with honesty, it usually finds them. And facts only support truth. So, if design is true (as I strongly believe), for me any good research is a pro-ID research. I read pro-ID reasearch every day, although the authors are rarely aware of that.gpuccio_{April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

Hi Ty et al: 1] Nested hierarchies You may wish to take a look at what is now a fairly old book, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton. There, he analyses the resemblances across life forms based on typology -- a design-based concept that goes all the way back to Plato. Now, too, common design also gives rise to nested hierarchies -- within systems and across similar systems. That is, the observed architecture of classification is not a differentiating factor between common descent and common design, or even design for similar contexts and purposes. Indeed, Linnaeus, the originator of the modern classification system of life forms, was a Creationist. It is worth noting too that nested hierarchies are fairly common in designs and organisations etc. That is,the basic nested hierarchy system architecture is often found in indisputably design-based contexts. For example, consider a passenger jet as a cluster of nested sub-systems designed to achieve its goal. Software is often written that way too. And so on. Should we infer from the resemblances across aircraft, autos, trucks, adn even ships etc -- which can be represented as a nested hierarchy -- that these were not designed? [Similarly, there is a common taxonomy course exercise to classify paper clips and other similar fasteners using principles of taxonomy. One sees of course a nested hierarchy. Should we infer from that to common descent?] In short, the question at stake should not be begged. Nested hierarchies are possible and even expected on BOTH explanations, so the issue is not decisive between them. 2] Climbing Mt Improbable: What is happening is that the level of complexity to get TO the first functioning life form is being ignored. For instance, we know that DNA strands range from about 500k to about 3 Bn in life forms. But, since the chemistry of chaining does not determine the genetic code, we are looking at a huge space for the various possible combinations of GCAT. But, on a reasonable basis we can see that 500 - 1000 bits of information [DNA chains of 250 - 500]cannot be accessed by random searches within the ambit of the observed universe. That is what the issue of functionally specified complex information is all about. [And BTW, the concept is NOT original to Dembski, but emerged from OOL studies by the early 1980's as Yockey, Wickens etc studied the nature of the informaiton base of life forms. Have a read of Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen's The Mystery of Life's Origins, the online chapters.] The idea that a simple information structure can be selected the n we go on tot he next one in sequence till we get to the fully functioning life form or system, in short begs the question of credibly irreducibly complex information. There is no "easy" back ways up Mt Improbable. [Cf the linked through my handle.] 3] Probability vs sensitivity arguments and cosmology etc The issue on cosmological inference to design is principally on the SENSITIVITY of the relevant dozens of parameters, singly and in aggregate. In effect, according tot he General Theory of Relativity-derived equations -- which have at least some significant empirical support -- slight perturbation of key parameters gets us to a radically different cosmos that is not hospitable to life as we experience it. Similarly, the Goldilocks zone argument identifies that planets capable of harbouring intelligent life as we experience it are relatively rare int he observed cosmos, which can be a pretty hostile place. Probabilities are inferred from those sensitivities, based on the Laplacian principle of indifference that we use to say infer that a fair die will end up at 6 one out of six times on average. In short the frequentist approach is not the only legitimate one to the estimation of probabilities. [Here in Montserrat, expert elicitaiton is routinely used by the Scientific Advisory Commmittee to estimate likelihoods on the possible developments with the erupting volcano over the next year or so. While obviously the estimates are just that, they have a certain credibility and utility.] Of course, as soon as we are inferring to a probability other than 1 or 0, we infer to a certain degree of ignorance. Also, we should note that the fact of the common resort to an inferred quasi-infinite array of sub-universes is in part an acknowledgement that the probabilities as estimated have a point. Latterly, there is a tendency to scant such inferences, but it seems to me that much of that is self-servingly selective hyperskepticism. (In effect, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" rests on the issue that one's worldview assumptions and expectations lead one to selectively doubt what cuts across one's comfort zone. We need to be aware that we could be wrong, so we shod insist on adequate not "extraordinary" evidence.) Hope that helps GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

jaredl - the Darwinists are saying that evolution produces the appearance of design without design, and I think their understanding of apparent design would encompass algorithmic compressibility. A compressible sequence randomly formed through mutation, and then it continued to exist because it made the host more fit. Of course, the longer the compressible sequence, the lower the probability of random creation. But faithful Darwinists tend to ignore arguments based on stats, citing the classical physics truism that nothing is actually random, and thus, with a wish, declaring that evolution is not only not improbable, but in fact inevitable and certain. This mental state is known in criminal law as a heat of passion.Designed Jacob_{April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

Is there any way to discriminate between hostility towards id that comes from, on the one hand, the need to preserve one's identity as a professor of the profound truth, and on the other hand, the need to preserve one's religious beliefs from attack by outside facts? Because I find it hard to ascribe one or the other to any evolutionist in particular, except of course, Dawkins, because I don't know if the two motivations produce different behaviors.Designed Jacob_{April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

tyharris said:
Everybody here has sugested that I moderate more strictly, but I just cant bring myself to do it.
It is equally important that you consider those friendly to the design argument, or curious of it, who to want to post comments and questions. If your blog is dominated by the carnivorous, then they will discourage those seeking information or reasonable discussion from contributing. If your blog is primarily a "Ty versus evolution" exercise, then this is not a concern.Apollos_{April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

PS - I offer a constructive solution, and would appreciate a response: why should not algorithmic compressibility alone suffice for a design inference?jaredl_{April 6, 2007
April
04
Apr
6
06
2007
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

GA - I'll wage it. Common descent is only true if genetic similarity is in fact due to common descent - but that's circular reasoning. But there's something else that bugs me: The cosmological argument is a vacuous inference to design, if we have only Dembski's design-detection criterion to work with. If you can't demonstrate things could have been different, you can't claim improbability. Please, someone, either fully address this argument on its own merits, or drop the cosmological argument.jaredl_{April 6, 2007
April
04
Apr
6
06
2007
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

"...surely somebody here has the answer to this gentlemansÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ challenge that these heirarchies prove common descent..." --Ty Ty, have you considered the possibility that common descent is actually true? Let us forget, for the moment, any further inference about the role of intelligence in evolution, etc. Many in the ID community accept common descent and, for me, it seems as difficult to deny common descent as it is to deny that the earth is over 10 thousand years old. Are you certain this is the battle you want to wage?great_ape_{April 6, 2007
April
04
Apr
6
06
2007
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Gil I was thinking along those same lines in a discussion I was having on another thread. Ty Keep at it.tribune7_{April 6, 2007
April
04
Apr
6
06
2007
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

I have learned first hand about this "irrational hatred" in the last few days since I posted an essay on my blog in support of intellignt design and kicked off a free-for-all discussion in the comment section. I wont repeat all the personal insults again, but suffice it to say, the reaction was a bit harsh, and more than a little emotional. I am very much a layman, but I was surprised to find that I was able to pretty-much hold my own intellectually against a gentleman who claims to have a PHD and to have written 30 scientific papers. Once you got through the emotion, the venom, and the insults,it turns out that he only had a couple of really good points that I hadnt already adressed. Also, he really didnt have any particulary convincing responses to my questions about the statistical improbability of the complex, specific information present in DNA coming about apart from design. Nobody seems to have knocked down the irreducible complexity argument either. I keep hearing about Selection as a counter to both problems-( it's apparently some kind of magic genie that erases the need to confront statistical impossiblities as near as I can figure. ) At any rate, although my feelings may have gotten bruised a bit, in the end I think that free and open debate is worth the abuse.Everybody here has sugested that I moderate more strictly, but I just cant bring myself to do it. When our side has so often been the victim of academic censorship and derision, I just cant bring myself to censor anybody or shut anybody down. The irrational bomb-throwing on the part of some devout evolutionists probably says more about them and the strength of their ideas than it does about us, so I think that giving them equal time may help us in the long run. So I'm going try to just take my lumps like a man and stop whining about it. I came to this forum tonight to ask for direction and education on a SPECIFIC point put forward by the afformentioned critic of ID. The best argument he had was the statement that nested heirarchies infer common descent, not design. In the same way that he doesnt have the answer to some of the problems I raised regarding Evolution, I have to admit that I dont have an answer to his challenge on nested heierarchies. Would one or several of you brainiacs here who support ID be willing to pop in to the comments section and enlighten myself and the gentleman who raised the issue , as to how these nested heirarchies can be reconciled with ID? Since the name of this blog is "uncommondescent", surely somebody here has the answer to this gentlemans' challenge that these heirarchies prove common descent. The link is: http://tyharris.wordpress.com PS.- I know that my posts are too long, and that I need to work on my organization. I am new to all of this...tyharris_{April 6, 2007
April
04
Apr
6
06
2007
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Much of this irrationality against ID comes down to the fact that science will never know all the answers. If a being outside of time and space produced the universe and perhaps many of the complex systems in nature, it did so by means totally outside the grasp of our understanding. To admit as much must be agonizing to many interested in this debate (myself included). Yet to avoid this (or appear to avoid this) orthodox darwinians seem perfectly comfortable speculating ad infinitum; unfortunately, that is all any of us can do on such matters, speculate.Acquiesce_{April 6, 2007
April
04
Apr
6
06
2007
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

What was thought to be their best ally is gradually becoming their worst foe, and this is a tough pill to swallow.
I think of this whenever someone objects to the supposed lack of an "ID research program". The hard scientists are doing an end run around the philosophers, albeit with an occasional perfunctory genuflection in their direction.sagebrush gardener_{April 6, 2007
April
04
Apr
6
06
2007
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

I think you hit the knail on its head. Materialists are upset that what they thought was their best ally (hard science) is in fact providing the scientific evidence AGAINST their religious/philosophical worldview. To them, this is unthinkable, thus, the emotional response to scientific criticisms to Darwinism. We have seen in another blog how one of Darwins' contemporany bulldogs (PZ Meyers) is advocating physical violence against Darwin skeptics. Is this the response a rational scientist gives to opponents?Mats_{April 6, 2007
April
04
Apr
6
06
2007
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

This seems like an opportune time to bring up something that I think is a paradox in ID. IIRC, in Darwin's Black Box, Behe says that Darwin was limited because he did not know about the inner workings of the cell. Darwin and his contemporaries thought that a cell was basically something like a blob of protoplasm, and we now know that it is full of molecular parts that interact so that the cell can function. Here's my problem: isn't the "blob of protoplasm" model harder to explain as a natural process than the "complicated molecules" model? Put more primitively, it seems more like "magic" that an undifferentiated mass of material could function like a cell.mgarelick_{April 6, 2007
April
04
Apr
6
06
2007
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

I'd agree with this. And I hope I don't speak out of turn here. I still remember the stark difference between how young earth creationism was confronted by the materialism-minded - more or less joviality. Sure, they scoffed at the 'Theory' stickers on books, but generally they were all smiles. They considered science to be their turf. But ID was something different, and the tone changed in a noticeable way. No more smiles and dismissive humor. Suddenly the responses got angry and vitriolic. Rejecting large swaths of science was one thing. But having people with philosophical differences take a look at the same science they did and go "Actually, we see something special here. Something perhaps intentional."? Unfair. Science is supposed to be theirs. They decide what people can and can't consider to be a reasonable idea or theory. Accept their science with the philosophy attached, or reject it all - but anything else is forbidden. After all, if they're forced to share, the results can be devastating. People may see the vastness of the cosmos and not accept Carl Sagan's argument that the size proves how insignificant we are, but instead see a grand mission in a glorious creation. Evolution may not be the work of blind and purposeless forces of an uncaring universe, but a work brilliance in rules and programming with an intention of ascent - evidence that there is, in fact, an objective "better" and "good" in our world. And worst of all, all the past efforts on behalf of materialist and like-minded scientists may end up reinforcing a philosophy and worldview many of them wanted to see discarded entirely. Darwin shanghai'd to the side of the enemy, without any of the precious metaphysical concepts. Because, in the end, you can't prove random and purposeless. Maybe you can't prove brilliant design either - time will tell. But both can reasonably be seen as equally valid concepts, and paradigms to work by. Whether or not the materialists feel like sharing.nullasalus_{April 6, 2007
April
04
Apr
6
06
2007
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply