Good and bad reasons for rejecting ID

_{Salvador Cordova

June 24, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

Although I accept ID, I actually think there are respectable reasons to reject or at least withhold judgment on ID in biology. I am writing this essay because I expect I’ll refer to it in the future since I will frequently grant that a critic of ID might be quite reasonable in not embracing ID.

Unlike some of my ID colleagues, I do not think rejection or non-acceptance of ID is an unrespectable position. It may not be obvious, but several revered “ID proponents” either currently or in the past said they are not convinced ID is true. Foremost would probably be David Berlinski. Next is Michael Denton, and next is Richard Sternberg. I do not know for a fact what they believe now, but statements they’ve made in the past have led me to conclude although they are obviously sympathetic to ID, they had not accepted it at the time of their writings. One might even put Robert Jastrow and Paul Davies in the list of “ID proponents” who actually reject ID.

GOOD REASONS TO REJECT ID
1. Absence of a Designer. I know I might get flak for this, but I think a good reason to reject ID is the absence of seeing the Intelligent Designer in operation today. With many scientific theories we can see the hypothesized mechanism in action, and this is quite reassuring to the hypothesis. For myself, I wrestle with the fact that even if ID is true, the mechanism might be forever inaccessible to us.

2. Lack of direct experiments. A designer may decide never to design again. That is consistent with how intelligent agents act. So even if the Designer is real, even if we’ve encountered Him once personally in our lives, the fact is we can’t construct experiments and demand He give us a demonstration.

3. Belief that some future mechanism might be discovered. This is always a possibility in principle.

BAD REASONS TO REJECT ID

1. Theology! There are some Christian theologians who believe in eternal life, the resurrection of the dead, the resurrection of Christ, but believe God wouldn’t design life based on whatever theological viewpoint they have such as their interpretations of the writings of Thomas Aquinas. I put this at the top of the list of bad reasons to reject ID.

2. “God wouldn’t do it that way”. This is also a theological argument, but is so prevalent its in a class of its own. How would any know God wouldn’t do it that way!

3. Bad design. See my take in The Shallowness of Bad Design Arguments.

4. Common Descent. Common descent is incompatible with Creationism but not ID.

5. Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution doesn’t solve the origin of life problem, and thus Dawkins over extends his claim that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Darwinian evolution also has been refuted theoretically and empirically, but not everyone has caught on.

6. ID was invented to get creationism into public schools and is part of a right wing conspiracy to create a theocracy, and ID proponents are scoundrels and liars. These claims are false, but even if true, they are completely irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of ID in biology. I posted on the irrelevance of ID proponents being scoundrels. See: Scoundrel? Scoundrel?…I like the sound of that.

7. ID demeans God by making God responsible for bad designs. Denyse O’Leary deals with this one here: Here’s one bad reason for opposing ID.

I invite UD commenters to offer their own list of good and bad reasons to reject ID. This list is certainly not exhaustive, or correct, just my opinions.

Comments

UB @184:
So you suggest that a double-stranded sequence could first dissociate, and using something perhaps along the lines of pair bonding, it could re-associate with free monomers and create two strands where there was just one. And from this, we then assume a sequence which self-replicates will appear with varying degrees of fidelity, leading to Darwinian evolution. Is this about the jist of it?
At the risk of jumping in, and Elizabeth can correct me if I'm wrong, but, yes, as far as we've seen from prior discussions, this is just about what Elizabeth has in mind for her idea of self-replication. She is very enamored with Jack Szostak's work at Harvard. In prior threads we've gone through this idea of some polymer associating and disassociating at different temperatures or different conditions and such. I and others have outlined lots of problems with the proposed scenario, but as near as we could ever get Elizabeth to respond, all she would say is that Szostak's idea might not be right on the money but that something along those lines could be possible. Just FYI, is no real deep thought or analysis of the requirements for self-replication going on. Just a naive simplistic "Well, it could happen" kind of attitude. So if you're hoping for something substantive, you will likely be disappointed But maybe Elizabeth has had a chance to think about it more over the last few months and can now give a few more details. :)Eric Anderson_{July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

Thanks for both 185 and 186, Querius.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Why is everyone piling on Elizabeth? Having to try to answer all these comments must make her feel like a strand of DNA trapped in a dinosaur bone that's being bombarded by background radiation for 60-100 million years . . . ;-)Querius_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, re: Ohno My original point was about misapplying Occam's Razor, and making unwarranted conclusions based on simplicity. I used "junk" DNA as one example. At your kind suggestion, I read Ohno's 1972 paper titled, "SO MUCH 'JUNK' DNA IN OUR GENOME." The caps are in the original paper. As you described, Ohno made some important observations about reproductive fidelity in response to the deleterious effects of virtually all mutations. Nevertheless, I still contend that his legitimate observations led him to an unwarranted conclusion, and then he speculated that this "junk" might originally have been the evolutionary remnants of ancient genes. Your analogy about shooting fish in the sea compared to fish in a barrel is what I meant by ". . . or possibly as a type of statistical body armor for DNA" in my previous post. But you're also making the same mistake when you wrote:
Probably because most of the genome doesn’t matter very much.
Oh, but it more likely does. One of the websites that I looked at regarding Susumu Ohno included this:
Thinking about whether junk DNA has a purpose "is a rather obvious question for scientists to ask," says UC Berkeley mathematics Professor Jenny Harrison, a world-renowned expert on fractals. When Harrison examined the strings of amino acids involved, the idea that had also dawned on the mathematically inclined Pellionisz, in addition to several other theorists, immediately jumped out at her: If junk DNA really is junk, some of it is certainly organized in a pretty peculiar pattern, one that looks amazingly like a fractal.
Apparently the fractal pattern somehow survived. That was about 10 years ago. Since then, I understand that additional discoveries have reduced the "junk" as the warm sunshine of scientific inquiry melts away the "Darwin of the gaps," ;-) and we continue to uncover the evidence or appearance of design.Querius_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

you don’t necessarily need a transcription-translation system in order to have a Darwinian-capable self-replicator.
Of course, I am very interested in hearing of your position on this. And who wouldn’t be? On my side of the fence I can start at the drop of a hat and bring example after uncontroversial example after uncontroversial example of independently verified evidence in support my case, and on your side of the fence (to date) we have your stated position that you just don't believe transcription and translation are necessary. So, obviously, filling in a few details on your side would be very interesting.
At it’s very simplest it could be a double polymer that tends to dissociate under certain conditions into single strands that then bind to free monomers to produce two double polymers where there was one, the original sequence being preserved in both. If certain sequences replicated with greater fidelity than others, you’ve got the beginnings of Darwinian evolution.
So you suggest that a double-stranded sequence could first dissociate, and using something perhaps along the lines of pair bonding, it could re-associate with free monomers and create two strands where there was just one. And from this, we then assume a sequence which self-replicates will appear with varying degrees of fidelity, leading to Darwinian evolution. Is this about the jist of it?Upright BiPed_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Were I to find a self-replicating Stonehenge on Mars I would tend to assume it had evolved from something much smaller and simpler. Whether that smaller and simpler thing was designed, I would need more information to venture a view.
It seems almost entirely certain that the conversation you were having was about the origin of things, including your example of finding of a Stonehenge on Mars. When you stated that finding a Stonehenge on Mars would be a “justified” example of theorizing “it had been designed and built by intelligent agents”, are you now saying that you’d rather propose that the thing replicates, and with that caveat in hand, your revised position is that the thing probably “evolved from something much smaller and simpler”. If it is the case that you’d like to switch from a non-replicating Stonehenge which provided a “justified” inference to design, and propose a replicating Stonehenge in its place, one which probably evolved from a smaller, simpler thing, then my previous question remains regarding the origin of such a thing: ”you’ve made the unequivocal statement that you’d “never, ever” suggest Darwinian processes are responsible for the origin of a self-replicator. If Darwinian evolution cannot be the source replication, then how does this fact impact your specific inference that a replicator is less likely to be designed because it can rely on evolution to mimic design?” The specific inference I am referring to here is where (in a conversation about origins) you attempt to clarify your justification for making a design inference by noting that 'the thing doesn't reproduce', implying whole-heartedly that if the thing reproduced, then the design inference would be less justified. Now I also see that you’ve taken exception to the phrase “less likely” when referring to an inference, but frankly I am not certain why. Since we agree that we don’t have the original replicator in hand, then all we have are inferences – those that are more likely to be true because we can justify them with evidence and observation, and those that are less likely to be true for the same reasons in the opposite direction. So I’ll think it may be best to ignore your fuss over that wording at this time. If you think terms like “less likely” and “more likely” are inappropriate with regard to competing inferences, then we can certainly talk about it. If we may cut to the chase Dr Liddle, if Darwinian evolution cannot explain the origin of self-replication, then how is it that Darwinian evolution comes to impact your position on the design inference with regard to a self-replicating thing? If Darwinian evolution could explain replication, then perhaps it could have an impact, but if it cannot, then it has nothing to say about the inference to a designed origin of that replicating thing. Would it be possible for you to answer that question, preferably without another change in topic? And if that question does not interest you, then can we go back and get an answer as to whether or not you were still talking about the origin of a thing (using your example of finding Stonehenge on Mars) when you attempted to clarify your position with the observation “It doesn’t seem to replicate”? Or had you already changed the topic away from origins at that time, and simply failed to make that change clear in your clarification?Upright BiPed_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
Well, my view is that Darwinian evolution is a form of design process, but one not requiring intention. So I don’t think it “mimics” design exactly. I think it’s a very efficient producer of functions that serve a purpose without itself being purposeful.
What is the evidence that darwinian processes can do what you say?
Were I to find a self-replicating Stonehenge on Mars I would tend to assume it had evolved from something much smaller and simpler.
Why? We don't see that here, except in people's imagination, or by design.
I didn’t say it was less likely to be designed. I said that evolution would be a plausible alternative.
But that is just gibberish unless you are saying that evolution cannot be designed and things cannot be designed to evolve.
If I find a thing that is full of features that seem optimised to fulfil a function (Stonehenge being a poor example, but let’s say I notice that it does some cool astronomic thing) then either those feature evolved or they were designed.
The two are not exclusive.
Clearly, Upright Biped, you are of the opinion that the simplest possible Darwinian-capable self-replicator is too complicated to have come about by undirected physics and chemistry.
That is what the evidence says, Lizzie. Why would anyone believe otherwise?Joe_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

UB:
Oops EDIT: It quickly becomes a question of “Which is it, Dr Liddle?” Do you believe that Darwinian evolution offers a potential explanation for the appearance of design, or does it explain the origin of replication? If it is only the former, then why do you suggest (by your chosen observation “It doesn’t seem to replicate”) that the origin of a replicator is less likely to be by design? And if it’s the latter, then haven’t you wholly contradicted your claim that you’d “never ever” suggest that Darwinian evolution can be the explanation of self-replication? These two positions are incompatible, so I am sure you’ll be eager to retool one or the other as a good faith effort to clear up the obvious confusion on the part ID advocates.
I didn't say that the origin of the replicator was less likely to be design. I wouldn't venture an opinion as to the origin. I don't know of the simplest possible Darwinian-capable self-replicator has to be designed or not. However, I am sure even a designed-self-replicator doesn't have to evolve in the way its Designer intended. Once it's loose in the world, it will tend to give rise to evolving, adapting and diversifying populations, which could in theory at least, eventually destroy the Designer! But a lot of this argument really does hang on how simple that first Darwinian-capable self-replicator had to be. You seem to think it had to have some kind of semiotic transfer system. I don't. At it's very simplest it could be a double polymer that tends to dissociate under certain conditions into single strands that then bind to free monomers to produce two double polymers where there was one, the original sequence being preserved in both. If certain sequences replicated with greater fidelity than others, you've got the beginnings of Darwinian evolution. I'm not saying it did happen this way: it's just that you don't necessarily need a transcription-translation system in order to have a Darwinian-capable self-replicator.Elizabeth B Liddle_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped
Apparently, given this comment, a replicator would provide you with a useful insight as to the possible origin of a thing. And in the context of the conversation taking place here, if a thing had the capacity to replicate, then presumably this capacity would lead you to believe it was not designed.
No, but it would mean that there was a plausible alternative to design that could not be ruled out.
This inference would obviously come to you, as you often point out, because a thing that replicates can rely on Darwinian evolution to mimic design, thereby explaining the appearance of design without the need to evoke actual design.
Well, my view is that Darwinian evolution is a form of design process, but one not requiring intention. So I don't think it "mimics" design exactly. I think it's a very efficient producer of functions that serve a purpose without itself being purposeful.
I’m sure we can agree this is your position. Yet, you’ve made the unequivocal statement that you’d “never, ever” suggest Darwinian processes are responsible for the origin of a self-replicator.
A Darwinian process can't be responsible for the first self-replicator because Darwinian processes require self-replication.
If Darwinian evolution cannot be the source of replication, then how does this fact impact your specific inference that a replicator is less likely to be designed because it can rely on evolution to mimic design?
Were I to find a self-replicating Stonehenge on Mars I would tend to assume it had evolved from something much smaller and simpler. Whether that smaller and simpler thing was designed, I would need more information to venture a view.
It quickly becomes a question of “Which is it, Dr Liddle?” Do you believe that Darwinian evolution offers a potential explanation for the appearance of design
Yes.
, or does it explain the origin of replication?
No. I have made the clear, repeatedly.
If it is the former, then why do you suggest (by your chosen observation “It doesn’t seem to replicate”) that a replicator is less likely to be designed?
I didn't say it was less likely to be designed. I said that evolution would be a plausible alternative.
And if it’s the latter, then haven’t you wholly contradicted your claim that you’d “never ever” suggest that Darwinian evolution can be the explanation of self-replication?
No, because it isn't. Clearly Darwinian evolution cannot explain something that Darwinian evolution requires in order to occur.
These two positions are incompatible,
Yes, of course they are. That's why I don't hold both of them.
so I am sure you’ll be eager to retool one or the other as a good faith effort to clear up the obvious confusion on the part ID advocates.
No retooling is required. If I find a thing that is full of features that seem optimised to fulfil a function (Stonehenge being a poor example, but let's say I notice that it does some cool astronomic thing) then either those feature evolved or they were designed. If the thing reproduces, then clearly (IMO) it could have evolved from a simpler or different thing. The thing it evolved from may or may not have had those features, and may or may not have been designed, but as I do not have it to hand, I do not have an opinion either way. Clearly, Upright Biped, you are of the opinion that the simplest possible Darwinian-capable self-replicator is too complicated to have come about by undirected physics and chemistry. I do not have a strong opinion, but I don't see any good reason at this stage to assume this is the case. So just because something self-replicates does not tell me it was designed OR that its earliest ancestor was designed. But these are two separate questions. I do know that, given self-replicators (designed or otherwise), non-designed functional features that solve problems and serve the purpose of helping the self-replicator to survive and breed evolve. So if I see a self-replicator with lots of cool features beautifully optimised to help the thing survive and replicate, I will at least contemplate the possibility that it evolved from something simpler, which may or may not have been designed.Elizabeth B Liddle_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Oops EDIT: It quickly becomes a question of “Which is it, Dr Liddle?” Do you believe that Darwinian evolution offers a potential explanation for the appearance of design, or does it explain the origin of replication? If it is only the former, then why do you suggest (by your chosen observation “It doesn’t seem to replicate”) that the origin of a replicator is less likely to be by design? And if it’s the latter, then haven’t you wholly contradicted your claim that you’d “never ever” suggest that Darwinian evolution can be the explanation of self-replication? These two positions are incompatible, so I am sure you’ll be eager to retool one or the other as a good faith effort to clear up the obvious confusion on the part ID advocates.Upright BiPed_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: It doesn’t seem to reproduce
Apparently, given this comment, a replicator would provide you with a useful insight as to the possible origin of a thing. And in the context of the conversation taking place here, if a thing had the capacity to replicate, then presumably this capacity would lead you to believe it was not designed. This inference would obviously come to you, as you often point out, because a thing that replicates can rely on Darwinian evolution to mimic design, thereby explaining the appearance of design without the need to evoke actual design. I’m sure we can agree this is your position. Yet, you’ve made the unequivocal statement that you’d “never, ever” suggest Darwinian processes are responsible for the origin of a self-replicator. If Darwinian evolution cannot be the source of replication, then how does this fact impact your specific inference that a replicator is less likely to be designed because it can rely on evolution to mimic design? It quickly becomes a question of “Which is it, Dr Liddle?” Do you believe that Darwinian evolution offers a potential explanation for the appearance of design, or does it explain the origin of replication? If it is the former, then why do you suggest (by your chosen observation “It doesn’t seem to replicate”) that a replicator is less likely to be designed? And if it’s the latter, then haven’t you wholly contradicted your claim that you’d “never ever” suggest that Darwinian evolution can be the explanation of self-replication? These two positions are incompatible, so I am sure you’ll be eager to retool one or the other as a good faith effort to clear up the obvious confusion on the part ID advocates.Upright BiPed_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Querius: re: Ohno I think we are talking slightly at cross-purposes here. Probably best if you read the Ohno paper, if you haven't already. It's a theoretical paper, and his calculation was based on the size of the genome, the rate of mutation, and the fact that we do not have an "unbearable genetic load" (though Sanford of course, would disagree).
For the second problem, tell me how would Ohno know no phenotypic effects would express themselves under environmental stress?
Vast numbers of genes are expressed under "environmental stress". In fact you could say that all gene expression is governed by environmental signals of some sort, whether local or from the external world, and many of them you might class as "stress".
Do you know whether he later tested for any possibilities of epigenetic involvement under conditions of food deprivation, heat, cold, radioresistance (LD50/30), various pollutants, varying atmospheric composition, changes in altitude, and so on? Do you know whether anyone has?
Of course. All these things result in altered gene expression. Thinking results in changes in gene expression! Reading my post has altered gene expression in your brain! That's why I think we are talking at cross purposes. Phenotypic effects ARE examples of epigenetics! Without epigenetics there would be no complex organisms! Essentially, what Ohno theorised was that given how much mutation goes on, if genes occupied 100% of the genome, given that most genes are very sensitive to sequence changes, the mutation load would be so huge that reproductive fidelity would be extremely low. Yet it is high. Why? Probably because most of the genome doesn't matter very much. You may be right that it might have some function at population level (though I'm not seeing what, exactly), and I think it has been suggested that some of it might mark "hot spots" for recombination (and perhaps the precise sequences doesn't matter very much for these). But the point is that given observed mutation rates, it looks like genes must be a fairly sparse target - mutations are shooting fish in the sea rather than fish in a barrel! I've sometimes wondered if one function it might have is simply to make it less likely that genes are split apart during recombination. After all, if you rip up a piece of paper with print on it, you are less likely to tear through a word if there are very few words than if it is densely typed. Under a Darwinian model, that might be the reason it tends to stick around (because it must carry a slight metabolic cost). Equally, that might be why the Designer put it there :)Elizabeth B Liddle_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Optimus:
Honestly, I’m not trying to be obnoxious, but for someone who is generally very precise in using language “many reasons” is uncharacteristically vague. What reasons?
There's no obvious geological explanation It doesn't seem to reproduce It resembles an artefact made on Earth by Designers
What allows one to reasonably hypothesize or theorize (not even conclude definitely) design in absence of biographical information about the designer or a comprehensive grasp of the fabrication process? Is it CSI, the ‘purposeful arrangement of parts’, arrangements of matter that seem to exceed the causal powers of chance and necessity? If those are all vacuous concepts/metrics, then what would you suggest? I suggest that everyone has an intuitive grasp of what differentiates design from unintelligent causation.
Intuition is not always reliable. I do think that biological organisms and features share something important with human artefacts but I don't think that shared something is intentional design.
Consider again Richard Dawkins famous statement that “Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.” Or if you prefer Francis Crick: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” They have no sympathy whatsoever for design arguments, but even they intuitively grasp that biological organisms look designed. And it’s not some fuzzy, nebulous impression. It must be overwhelming – why else would a biologist have to ‘constantly remind’ himself/herself that the organisms under study aren’t designed? For all the criticisms that can be leveled at CSI, FSCO, etc., at least they represent an endeavor to formalize the distinctions that we all make intuitively every day.
Because in an important sense they are "designed" for a purposes - to help the organism survive and breed. The interesting thing is that features that help an organism survive and breed are, in a sense "self-designing" because precisely those features that do this will be the ones that are most often replicated. This is why Monod uses the word "teleonomy", to denote the process by which features that serve the purpose of reproduction will tend to accumulate and optimise in a population, while those that serve that purpose less well will tend to be filtered out. So I think our intuition takes us half way - we recognise, correctly, that biological features are finely tuned to serve the purpose of the organism that bears it. Where we go wrong is to extrapolate that thinking to the purpose we have in designing features or gadgets that serve us. I make a wheel to go on a wheelbarrow, not to serve the wheelbarrow's purpose, but enable the wheelbarrow to serve me. This means that intention is required. In contrast, a feature that by chance helps an organisms survive and breed, however slight that help is, by definition serves the organism with that feature, and by definition means that more organisms with that feature will be born. And the more that are born, the more likely it is that one of them will have a slight enhancement of that feature. In that sense, Darwinian processes are a kind of design process, in which features are optimised over time to serve the purpose of survival and reproduction - because that is the very process that enables the features to be designed! So the intention part is short-circuited - it isn't necessary, as it is when the designer doing the designing isn't the thing being designed, and the purpose of the design isn't the survival and reproduction of the thing being designed.Elizabeth B Liddle_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, The better scientific answer is b. :-) However, you get partial credit for your write-in answer c. for making the point that phenotypic effects include those that haven't been expressed. However, by this definition, your characterization of Ohno's position has two problems
Ohno’s point wasn’t that these sequences have no function, but that a great proportion of sequences have no phenotypic effects when altered.
The first problem is obvious: Susumu Ohno actually coined the term "Junk" DNA, which is in the title of his 1972 paper. For the second problem, tell me how would Ohno know no phenotypic effects would express themselves under environmental stress? Do you know whether he later tested for any possibilities of epigenetic involvement under conditions of food deprivation, heat, cold, radioresistance (LD50/30), various pollutants, varying atmospheric composition, changes in altitude, and so on? Do you know whether anyone has? Thank you.Querius_{June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Optimus: I'm out of time right now, but have bookmarked your post. If I don't respond, come and hassle me at TSZ :)Elizabeth B Liddle_{June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

But Elizabeth . . . On what evidence does Ohno conclude that phenotypical expression is the only possible purpose of these DNA sequences? How could Ohno know no other function is being compromised? Maybe these sequences activate under stress,
Well, that would be a phenotypic effect.
providing adaption, rapid evolution, a library of sequences, alternate DNA, an Undo function, immunities, repair, code comments (think programming), or even an alien textual description or maybe a message from God.
Possibly, and it the idea that some sequences might be conserved at population level is one interesting alternative answer - see Denis Noble on the evolution of evolvability.
So, in your opinion, which of these two statements would you say is more scientific: a. These DNA sequences are junk. b. These DNA sequences currently have no known function. Just asking.
Neither is good. Ohno's point wasn't that these sequences have no function, but that a great proportion of sequences have no phenotypic effects when altered. So a better statement would be: c. There is evidence that a large proportion of the genome contains sequences whose integrity seems unimportant to the viability of the organism. We do not know, without testing, which portions these are.Elizabeth B Liddle_{June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

EL @ 153 Thank you for your response. It bears pointing out that you didn't actually answer the question. I asked:
what is it that would allow a ‘justifiable’ design hypothesis?
You reply:
If you found Stonehenge II on Mars, you would be justified in theorizing that it had been designed and built by intelligent agents, for many reasons. (Emphasis mine)
Honestly, I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but for someone who is generally very precise in using language "many reasons" is uncharacteristically vague. What reasons? What allows one to reasonably hypothesize or theorize (not even conclude definitely) design in absence of biographical information about the designer or a comprehensive grasp of the fabrication process? Is it CSI, the 'purposeful arrangement of parts', arrangements of matter that seem to exceed the causal powers of chance and necessity? If those are all vacuous concepts/metrics, then what would you suggest? I suggest that everyone has an intuitive grasp of what differentiates design from unintelligent causation. Consider again Richard Dawkins famous statement that "Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose." Or if you prefer Francis Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." They have no sympathy whatsoever for design arguments, but even they intuitively grasp that biological organisms look designed. And it's not some fuzzy, nebulous impression. It must be overwhelming - why else would a biologist have to 'constantly remind' himself/herself that the organisms under study aren't designed? For all the criticisms that can be leveled at CSI, FSCO, etc., at least they represent an endeavor to formalize the distinctions that we all make intuitively every day.
So I guess I’m asking: at what point would you say: well there don’t seem to be any embodied designers or builders so maybe it was a disembodied kind? And what would that imply for your theoretical framework? Would you not now reconsider: perhaps there is a geophysical explanation for this extraordinary object? Would you still consider that some mind-levitation force was more likely than something akin to the processes that created Bryce Canyon or the Giant’s Causeway?
It would be entirely appropriate to explore the efficacy of geophysical processes to create 'Stonehenge 2'. But the putative lack of physical designers doesn't confer greater causal capabilities upon chance and necessity. So if a physically embodied intellect is ruled out for some reason, there is nothing illogical about postulating a different form of intelligence. Whether this postulated disembodied intelligence is more or less likely than a geophysical process (or something comparable) would heavily depend on the specific attributes of 'Stonehenge 2'.
But I know of no thing that can exist AND be designed AND not be fabricated. And yet that is what is proposed for Life in the ID model. I’m not saying it’s impossible. But I do think that ID proponents need to recognise that the analogy from human designed has a huge hole in it: Humans do not merely dream up designs – they make those designs into designed objects.
This expresses a significant misunderstanding on your part. Who has ever proposed that living things were designed but NOT fabricated? That's plainly absurd. Of course they were fabricated. Do we know how? No. Might we find out in the future? Perhaps. Regardless, the points stands that a lack of knowledge of how something was fabricated doesn't invalidate the hypothesis (to be modest) that something was designed. How many items in your house do you know the fabrication procedure for? Do you seriously entertain doubts that they were designed?
To do the first thing perhaps they only need immaterial minds (I would disagree, but I do understand the idea that minds can be separate from bodies), but material bodies – arms, hands, tools. And those things leave traces. Where are the traces of the fabrication process of biological organisms?
Do you mean physical traces that are distinct from the fabricated objects themselves? If so, then fabrication may not always leave traces. Imagine a child with Legos. The child 'fabricates' the Legos so that they become a house. What trace of the fabrication process must the child by necessity leave behind?Optimus_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

But Elizabeth . . . On what evidence does Ohno conclude that phenotypical expression is the only possible purpose of these DNA sequences? How could Ohno know no other function is being compromised? Maybe these sequences activate under stress, providing adaption, rapid evolution, a library of sequences, alternate DNA, an Undo function, immunities, repair, code comments (think programming), or even an alien textual description or maybe a message from God. So, in your opinion, which of these two statements would you say is more scientific: a. These DNA sequences are junk. b. These DNA sequences currently have no known function. Just asking.Querius_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

THE CRITICS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN Article: By Lou Barreto It seems like the critics of Intelligent Design, such as Sal Cordova and others, will never acknowledge the concepts of Intelligent Design as being valid. Why? Their refusal to acknowledge the existence of a Creator-God and His Son Jesus Christ-that is connected to Intelligent Design. Yes, every critic wants nothing to do with God. They feel threaten by the Ten Commandments. They are afraid of being denied their sexual desires or fantasies. They are afraid of speaking truth, being kind, being honest, forgiven others, being merciful, being faithful to their wife, being faithful to their girlfriend, or resisting the evil desires of their flesh unless it serves their purpose. They are even afraid of the message of Grace, the message of Jesus Christ. The critics want nothing to do with the church, the family of God, the Kingdom of God, or Intelligent Design.
Uh, you sure you got the right Sal Cordova? :-)scordova_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

THE CRITICS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN Article: By Lou Barreto It seems like the critics of Intelligent Design, such as Sal Cordova and others, will never acknowledge the concepts of Intelligent Design as being valid. Why? Their refusal to acknowledge the existence of a Creator-God and His Son Jesus Christ-that is connected to Intelligent Design. Yes, every critic wants nothing to do with God. They feel threaten by the Ten Commandments. They are afraid of being denied their sexual desires or fantasies. They are afraid of speaking truth, being kind, being honest, forgiven others, being merciful, being faithful to their wife, being faithful to their girlfriend, or resisting the evil desires of their flesh unless it serves their purpose. They are even afraid of the message of Grace, the message of Jesus Christ. The critics want nothing to do with the church, the family of God, the Kingdom of God, or Intelligent Design. Sal Cordova and other critics always seem to demand physical proof of the existence of God and yet many of these critics believe that there are alien life forms, extra-terrestrial beings, or a higher power somewhere in our universe. Do they require physical appearance of these aliens or a higher power? No. they just believe it without proof. The critics like Sal Cordova just believe the alien beings exist. And what about all the money that is being spent by critics, atheist, and agnostics connected with space research who are searching the universe for something they cannot see, extra-terrestrial being or some alien life form. Believing in something they cannot see. And yet the critics say to Intelligent Design believers, show us God, show us His existence, prove it to us. And the proof is before your eyes, the elements of your surroundings and you-a product of the DNA molecule, a product of God your Creator. I have news for Mr. Sal Cordova and other critics, the day that God speaks to you personally, your life will change dramatically at that very moment in time. There will be much drama. The adrenalin in your body will kick in. You will not be asking God, your creator, to give some sort of demonstration or construct some experiment to prove His existence. Let me tell you what your very words would be as the adrenalin starts flowing. “Lord how stupid, how dumb could I be all these years. It’s you that opens doors and closes doors. It’s you that controls everything. Lord how could I be so dumb, so stupid? It’s you, it’s you. Lord where have I been all these years, where have I been? From this moment on, I will seek your kingdom and declare Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord.” Yes, you will tell the whole world, your family, friends and even strangers. Of course, your family and friends will say Sal Cordova is perhaps mentally sick, deranged, a bit to religious, must be on drugs, must be out of a job and worst of all, he has become a Jesus freak. From that day on you will not be questioning God about creation, Intelligent Design, the Bible, the family of God, kingdom of God, the DNA Molecule, the Big Bang theory, and many other scientific discoveries that support the existence of a creator. It will not matter what people say about you. God spoke to you and no one can change your mind about the experience. Intelligent Design is really based on several scientific discoveries such as the DNA Molecule, a precious molecule, the Big Bang theory and other scientific discoveries. It seems like many individuals in the world want nothing to do with the Creator of the Universe as if He is some sort of kill-joy, some sort of tyrant, some sort of myth, some sort of alien, or some sort of higher power in the Universe. ” And yet many critics of Intelligent Design believe that there is a higher power or alien life form somewhere in the universe, including NASA scientists and Astro Biologist Robert Pappalardo. There is a book listed on Amazon.com about this alien, this higher power titled, Who Is This Alien? This Higher Power in the Universe The book's about Intelligent Design concepts that are based on scientific discoveries. Hence, it is science and logic blending together forever to support the existence of a Supreme intelligent being, somewhere in the heavens. It’s great reading. It's very informative, very enlightening, including the author's personal experiences and visitations with this Supreme Intelligent Being, this Higher Power. The book’s author brings up the subject of evolution. “Concerning evolution, scientists at the Genome project and other scientists have concluded that there is an element of design built into creation that cannot be explained by evolution.” No life form, be it a single cell, multiple cells or even evolutionary cells can exist without DNA. Genome scientist and other scientists have concluded that every life form is a product of DNA which has the instructions to build any life form. Where there are instructions, there is intelligence, there is an intelligent source, a Supreme intelligence and a Creator. Genome scientist, Professor Francis Crick, and other scientists have come to a conclusion that the DNA molecule originated from some alien source in the heavens, some extra-terrestrial source, not from evolution, according to History channel documentary, “The Universe.” Yes, there is an intelligent life form beyond our galaxy, the 3rd Heaven, the third Universe...The Apostle Paul spoke about this third Heaven, this other Universe (2 Corinthians, chapter 12 verse 2-7, NKJ Bible). Many scientists at NASA and individuals such as Astrobiologist Robert Papplardo are searching the heavens for extra-terrestrial beings; believing by faith that something is out there in the heavens. They will not discover that extra terrestrial being since it's in the third heaven, the third universe. There is no earthly technology to penetrate the third heaven. They will be surprised when this Supreme intelligent being reveals its identity to every scientist at the same time from east to west, north to south ...including every human being on this planet-yes at the same time……….It will not be a secret. In conclusion, critics of Intelligent Design should be grateful for those individuals who are sharing the concepts of Intelligent Design via the internet and other venues. The critics should understand the logic and beauty of Intelligent Design, including the connection to our Creator God. Yes, even the beauty of the breath of life when you wake up in the morning or the ability to love your wife or husband sexually and its excitement. Critics of Intelligent Design should support the teaching of Intelligent Design in the class rooms and not be so fearful. One way or another, your children will learn about the existence of Intelligent Design via class rooms or the internet. And they will make the decision to accept Intelligent Design with all its beauty and intelligence or not accept it. Yes, there is intelligence within the frame work of Intelligent Design…….............End Who Is This Alien? Lou Barreto Buy New $8.26 Amazon.com Check out this new book, written in layman’s term, titled, "Who is this Alien? It’s all about this Intelligent being, this supreme intelligent being, creator of the DNA Molecule with all of its genetic instructions and intelligence “ to build you- a product of DNA, a product of the Creator.” Check it out on Amazon, click on amazon link below http://www.amazon.com/Who-This-Alien-Lou-Barreto/dp/057802618X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371942357&sr=1-4&keywords=WHO_IS_THIS_ALIEN Or http://www.kingdomcomeforever.ecrater.comlove1scent_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

I haven't had time yet to read the 167 replies (!), so someone else may have already offered the same comment(s) about this: "1. Absence of a Designer. I know I might get flak for this, but I think a good reason to reject ID is the absence of seeing the Intelligent Designer in operation today. With many scientific theories we can see the hypothesized mechanism in action, and this is quite reassuring to the hypothesis. For myself, I wrestle with the fact that even if ID is true, the mechanism might be forever inaccessible to us." The problem is that, if the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible, then we wouldn't and shouldn't expect to see the designer, for God is not a physical being. An Israelite who saw God part the Red Sea didn't see God, they saw the sea part, but in seeing the sea part they did see (discern the presence of) God. I don't know why our inability to see the designer (the being) should keep us from accepting that we've seen the designer (discerned the presence of). ID is about looking at structures and processes and making an inference to intelligent causation as the best explanation for them. If the designer could be physically seen, then ID would be superfluous.Kaz_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

Querius:
Also, I wanted to point out that assumptions based on a lack of information (as in the deprecating apellation “junk” DNA),while qualifying as an appeal to simplicity, are not a ligitimate application of Occam’s razor
Except that it wasn't :) Ohno did not say: I do not know what this sequence is for, therefore it is junk. He said: mutation rates are very high, yet most functions are conserved, therefore most sequences must not have phenotypic effects. He did not say which ones, because it was an inference based on mutation rates and the size of the genome, not an assumption based on lack of information. Let's say you read a news report that says: 10,000 bombs were dropped on Asdfjkl, and 3 people were reported injured. Compare that with a news report that says; 10,000 bombs were dropped on Qwererrou, with over 90,000 casualties. What would that tell you about the relative populations densities of Asdfjkl and Qwererrou? Tha's essentially what Ohno did. He worked out the number of bombs, and deduced that the genome was only sparsely populated by injurable sequences, like the sparsely populated Asdfjkl, not densely populated like Qwererrou. He was probably correct - at least we do not know that he was not, and it is clear from some phenotypically almost identical species of onion, for instance, that have vastly different genome sizes, that at least some of that vastness doesn't matter much to being an onion. But what he didn't tell us was which sequences were "Junk" i.e. non-injurable, because his inference was based on no assumption about any given sequence. People already knew that many vital sequences must be non-coding, because otherwise how would RNA structures essential for, say translation and transcription, be coded? And how would gene expression be regulated? So the equestion arose: given that we can infer that a lot of sequences are junk (phenotypally inert) which sequences are they? Sometimes a "junk" candidate turns out not to be. But if there is no junk at all, then we have to find an alternative explanation for Ohno's finding.Elizabeth B Liddle_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

Thank you, Elizabeth. I admit that I didn't qualify the "we" or the "it" for fear that my post would become tiresome with a statistical breakdown for what's usually termed "the consensus" (also not defined) in the first case, and a careless acceptance on my part of the common though unscientific term, "junk DNA" in the second. While certainly there likely were some researchers looking into non-coding sequences of DNA, perhaps in context of epigenetic interaction, the popular pseudo-scientific interpretation of "junk" DNA as the flotsam (or perhaps jetsam?) of the process of evolution, or possibly as a type of statistical body armor for DNA, would seem to reduce its scientific significance, instead perhaps offering some people the opportunity to further annoy creationists with the observation that no conscientious god would leave such a mess. Or maybe not. Nevertheless, I do think that it's both interesting and significant that things seem to get way more complex as we delve into deeper biological, cosmological, and nuclear detail, rather than getting simpler. Also, I wanted to point out that assumptions based on a lack of information (as in the deprecating apellation "junk" DNA), while qualifying as an appeal to simplicity, are not a ligitimate application of Occam's razor. ;-)Querius_{June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

Hi RD:
1) Characterize the “agency” in such a way that observed data can confirm or disconfirm the actions of the agency
The rules of scientific investigation- only add agencies when required.
2) Have some corroborating evidence that such an “agency” existed at the time and place of the phenomenon in question
The design is evidence. As Dr Behe said: “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”Joe_{June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Hi Joe,
And yet with darwinism that is exactly what we have done.
I agree, yes (to the extent that "Darwinism" holds that our current theories fully account for biological complexity).
That is where you are wrong. Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation, Occam’s Razor, and parsimony all say that you only add agencies WHEN REQUIRED.
There's really only two ways to tell if "agency" is the explanation. 1) Characterize the "agency" in such a way that observed data can confirm or disconfirm the actions of the agency 2) Have some corroborating evidence that such an "agency" existed at the time and place of the phenomenon in question ID can't do either of these things. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Hi RD Fish:
Still, I’m sure you’d agree that we require some level of empirical evidence before we consider some particular claim to be scientifically supported.
In the word of Rocky- "Absolutely".
If we don’t understand something, we can’t just take a guess at what might be the cause and then say that is currently our best scientific theory.
And yet with darwinism that is exactly what we have done.
And offering an “intelligent agent” as an explanation is consistent with any possible data, so there’s no way to tell if it is correct (unless, say, we have corroborating evidence for the existence of the designer).
That is where you are wrong. Newton's four rules of scientific investigation, Occam's Razor, and parsimony all say that you only add agencies WHEN REQUIRED. So if it is ever demonstrated that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce CSI, for example a living organism from non-living matter, then we wouldn't say that a designer is required. ID would be a non-starter. Then given all of the other evidence besides biological, for example:
“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.” —————————————————————– “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.” ———————————————————– “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”- The Privileged Planet
And we have a consilience of evidence for ID.Joe_{June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Hi Joe, You make a good point regarding the provisional nature of scientific results. Still, I'm sure you'd agree that we require some level of empirical evidence before we consider some particular claim to be scientifically supported. If we don't understand something, we can't just take a guess at what might be the cause and then say that is currently our best scientific theory. And offering an "intelligent agent" as an explanation is consistent with any possible data, so there's no way to tell if it is correct (unless, say, we have corroborating evidence for the existence of the designer). Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

A Cautionary Tale About SCIENCE The science of today may be overturned by the scientific discoveries of tomorrow. That is just the nature of science. However the science of today cannot wait for what tomorrow may or may not uncover. The science of tomorrow may confirm the science of today. Convictions of alleged criminals are overturned because of new evidence. People once thought innocent or never even thought of are found guilty of crimes committed. This is NOT a perfect world. We do the best we can given the evidence and our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And that is why ALL scientific inferences are tentative.Joe_{June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

A Cautionary Tale About Invoking Intelligent Agency in Science 1) We observe that long, specific sequences of nucleotides in our DNA are needed to encode functional proteins. We find it unlikely that these sequences would occur by chance, and so we compute the probability. Since there are four bases and the gene sequence might be 100,000 bases long, and only a tiny fraction of this astronomical number of possible sequences would result in a functional protein, we compute that the chances of a functional sequence appearing by random mutation are vanishingly small. So we conclude that this can't be happening by mere chance. The only thing we know of that can look ahead at what sequence of bases will be needed to create a functional protein is an intelligent agent, and so we conclude that the best explanation for the information encoded in our DNA is intelligent causation. 2) Now imagine we're living 275 years ago in Boston, Massachusetts. We see that during thunderstorms, two out of every ten lightning strikes hits a church steeple. We find this peculiar, and compute the probability that this might happen by chance. We measure the city and find that it covers over 3 billion square feet, and the church steeples cover only 3000 square feet total. This means the chances of lightning hitting a church steeple is only one in a million, and so the odds against the observed frequency of strikes happening by chance are vanishingly small. So we conclude that this can't be happening by mere chance. We see that the lightning leaves the cloud at a high altitude and heads for these church steeples, and so it appears that the lightning bolts are aimed from the clouds toward the steeples. The only thing we know of that can look around from the clouds, identify the church steeples, and aim something at them is an intelligent agent, and so we conclude that the best explanation for lightning hitting our churches is intelligent causation. The Morals of the Story 1) Just because we haven't figured out how something happens in nature doesn't mean there isn't some explanation that we currently have no conception of. 2) You can always invoke "intelligent agency" as an explanation of anything, because it doesn't really mean anything except "something that can do anything". (I had intended this post for this thread although I posted it in the "What Qualifies..." thread by mistake)RDFish_{June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
What I’m trying to get at is that science consists of forming explanatory theories, deriving testable hypotheses, and coming to provisional conclusions.
How can we test the claim that darwinian processes produced a bacterial flagellum? What would the testable hypothesis be?
Where are the traces of the fabrication process of biological organisms?
Where are the traces of the fabrication process of Stonehenge? Oh no, it must have been built by a disembodied mind!Joe_{June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply