Intelligent Design and GM Crops

The quote is Laplace, explaining to the Emperor Napoleon where God fits in to the motion of the planets. Wiki the name Laplace, they have a good version of the story. This is the paper I was thinking of: http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3697 which arrives at the conclusion that roughly 25% of the parameter space studied allows the formation of stars burning by nuclear fusion. Such stars will last long enough to cook up the elements required for life as we know it. A particularly, shall we say, incendiary sentence: We stress that the Hydrogen burning temperature in our universe is much smaller than the value required for no range of stellar masses to exist — in this sense, our universe is not finetuned to have special values of the constants to allow the existence of stars. (Not emphasised in the original.) I don't consider the idea that humanity cannot create a pocket universe (yet) particularly argument stopping. Its pretty awe inspiring that we can even talk about modeling different universes! I'm not going to criticise the Creator for taking so long make Jack Daniels and NASCAR, I'm just glad they both happened on the same planet. Now that's fine tuning! Pendulum

Pendulum @32

Since the Discovery Institute has been pushing for ID to be included in science curricula, it is for them to explain why, when someone raises Gen 3;17, they can say confidently “I have no need for that hypothesis.”

Do you have a reference or a link for that quote? Simply reciting that one sentence doesn't get me anywhere, I need to read the context in which it was used including surrounding text and the overall message, preferrably from the source.

I think that some researchers into cosmological fine tuning have done pretty much that, looking for sets of physical laws that allow a universe to last a long time. “Use your own dirt”, indeed!

I highly doubt they've done anything to the extent Davem specified, that is, starting from nothing, or in other words, having no prior knowledge of an existing universe or laws in which to govern it, and creating it from scratch (starting from alpha particles and assigning their mathematical relationships with one another:angular momentum, magnetism, and the rest of what we see in quantum mechanics etc... and moving up from there such that you'll create an entirely finely tuned and stable universe), such as what Christian theology proposes for God. PaulN

Davem @ 33, I think that some researchers into cosmological fine tuning have done pretty much that, looking for sets of physical laws that allow a universe to last a long time. "Use your own dirt", indeed! Pendulum

When people criticize what the Creator has designed, I wonder what they could come up with starting from absolutely nothing. That is, no electrons, protons, nuetrons, eyes, membranes, blood vessels, planets, seasons, rain, etc. etc. Davem

Yes, I understood that you were trying to say that this particular "design flaw" might actually be a beneficial design. I was just pointing out that whether you accept common descent or baraminology, that line of reasoning doesn't work for fishes. Sorry, I won't be educating you in what ID is as a science. I'll have to leave that to others better educated in the theory than I am. Since the Discovery Institute has been pushing for ID to be included in science curricula, it is for them to explain why, when someone raises Gen 3;17, they can say confidently "I have no need for that hypothesis." Pendulum

Pendulum @30, Obviously I was responding in light of Christian theology and how the testable material claims therein reconcile with certain considerable scientific observations (One example being genetic entropy mentioned above). Also I noted how our perceived "design flaws" might not actually be flaws to begin with when you take other things into consideration instead of analyzing the design at face value. But even that being said, you're begging to be put through the ringer by first explaining to me what ID is, and using your obviously advanced understanding of the theory to explain to me how it is not science(At least that's what I gather you're implying from your contextual tone.) Also you might want to let me know how design is not observable, testable, and repeatable, alongside intelligent agency, and then describe how biological systems do not meet the key identifiers(i.e. complex specified information:DNA, functional complex specified structures:Endoplasmic Reticulum, Goal oriented compilers:Ribosomes, and irreducibly complex mechanisms:Bacterial flagellum) for intelligently designed systems. So by implying that ID is not science even in the face of proof, the burden is now on you. PaulN

PaulN @26, UV protection is not such a great explanation for fishes. This whole Gen 3:17 discussion might be satisfying to a number of people personally, but it is completely unhelpful to the "ID is a science, to be taught in science classes" agenda. Pendulum

AmericaninKansas: "Still not seeing it. If you mean that it has a relation to genetics, sure. But that doesn’t mean “loss of info”." Well what else would you call mutations that increase the risk of cancer by destroying growth factor control systems? tragic mishap

Deciding if something optimal depends on what the design goals are. Something thermodynamically optimal (like a train) might not be speed optimal (like an airplane). A supersonic airplane is unlikely to be as thermodynamically fuel efficient as a slow moving train, but a train is unlikely to be as speed optimal as a supersonic airplane. With respect to "sub otimal design" and GMO's, Monsanto is deliberately engineering self destruct mechanism into their GMO's. They reprogrammed the genomes so that they could turn off certain traits at will (via triggering chemical sprays that the genomes react to). They also programmed some seed to not allow reproduction of viable seeds, thus preventing farmers from distributing and replanting GMOs. Thus they have to keep buying Monsanto products. So these are examples of "bad design" being deliberate. scordova

Oh, by the way here's a link to an article explaining in detail what I mentioned previously. There's also a couple of links at the bottom for those who are interested: http://www.catalase.com/retina.htm PaulN

I actually remember hearing somewhere that if we had eyes such as the octopus then we'd go blind due to lack of protective features blocking UV rays. The blood vessels and such that protect our eyes are actually crucial to having vision at all in our openly UV-exposed environment, on top of that the blood vessels themselves do little if anything at all to negatively affect our sight. PaulN

OK, perhaps the ‘all’ in my original post (#14) was an oversimplification. When we use words like ‘optimal’ or ’suboptimal’ in design (and this applies to engineering just as much as in biology), we imply that there is a specification to which the design has been made: the design is optimal if it represents the most efficient way of meeting the specification in the context of whatever constraints apply. Hence, for the case of the vertebrate retina or the giraffe’s laryngeal nerve, we cannot really comment whether the design is optimal or not unless we know the specifications and the constraints in detail.

Okay, so your argument is basically that "all instances of apparent suboptimal design that are not compatible with my Biblical theory are not actually suboptimal design"? Look, the LRLN takes a circuitous and unnecessary route. Connecting A->B is better than connecting A->X->B when there's nothing happening at X and no reason (other than developmental constraints) that A->B wouldn't be feasible. Frequently said by Darwinists, but octopuses have right-side-around eyes. Had we been designed "optimally", we would too. My own view is that the suboptimal features are in fact the ones that were designed. Natural selection and mutation takes care of the rest in producing adaptive complexity. But we were assigned constraints and imperfections to help guide evolution and increase diversity. AmerikanInKananaskis

Furthermore from a theological point of view, I have no problem believing that original sin could have set genetic entropy into motion. After all even Adam and eve didn't die the day they fell from grace, but they did certainly die- After aging and decay were ran its course, I think genetic entropy followed and is basically the same effect on DNA extrapolated over generations and generations. So mysterious morphological changes and accumulative negative/neutral mutations occurring overnight I believe is a misrepresentation of the creationist view. PaulN

I planted some lilies for my mother-in-law, and after a typical winter, one spring they didn't come up, so I assumed that they had died. That summer we had a drought. To my surprise, they came up the following spring. How did they know ahead of time that we were going to have a drought? Davem

BTW, I'm not sure that I agree that all things are optimally designed. They may have been at one point, but I see genetic entropy as at least part of a contributing factor within organisms which shaped them into their present forms. They might have been optimally designed initially, but it doesn't follow that they still maintain that efficiency. So whether GM crops can be better or not than ID, I don't see it poses a threat to the credibility behind IDs position: mainly that things look designed because they were designed, and furthermore, that this can be detected. Besides, it's not like we've created and designed plants from scratch. We're quite literally modifying, hence the name, crops and plants. We didn't make the original poly-functional and advanced coding within DNA for instance. Domoman

I really do not see GM crops as being bad, unless they are not created and used properly. Make sure to use them in the right fashions and that they do not pose health threats, and then use them. If they can help the poor, why not use them? I mean, if they ended up killing the poor or created some sort of disease, that'd be a bad thing, but that should be watched out for. If GM crops can truly support the starving, go for it! We just need to be careful, I think. Domoman

AmerikanInKananaskis @ 19

This is bad theology and bad ID. Did the retinas of all the vertebrates suddenly flip backwards when Eve ate the apple? Did the left recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe grow meters longer and wrap around its aorta overnight?

OK, perhaps the 'all' in my original post (#14) was an oversimplification. When we use words like 'optimal' or 'suboptimal' in design (and this applies to engineering just as much as in biology), we imply that there is a specification to which the design has been made: the design is optimal if it represents the most efficient way of meeting the specification in the context of whatever constraints apply. Hence, for the case of the vertebrate retina or the giraffe's laryngeal nerve, we cannot really comment whether the design is optimal or not unless we know the specifications and the constraints in detail. With respect to the current discussion, the contexts of wild plant varieties and cultivated varieties represent different specifications and different constraints, so that a design which is optimal for the wild will not be optimal for cultivation. GM seems to me like a good way to address this in order to achieve better optimization. But so far I'm just repeating vjtorley at #1! My comment regarding Gen 3:17 was addressing the belief held by some that all of the things that make life 'difficult' (including susceptibility to disease, for example) are due to sub-optimality in nature, and therefore incompatible with the idea of an intelligent designer per se. It is a matter of historical record that Darwin held this view and that it motivated him to develop his alternative theory, and the same idea is regularly trotted out in the UK media by the likes of Dawkins and Attenborough. The reason I think it's worth saying all of this here is that we in the ID field (and in particular that subset of ID that represents YEC) are often accused of being somehow "anti science" (whatever that means). Yet in this context, my perception at least is that most ID/YEC people would be in favour of using science to solve real contemporary issues in this way, whereas opposition to GM comes mainly from those who subscribe to the prevalent European materialist and environmentalist worldview of which Darwinism is a part. Stephen Morris

Gen 3:17 that is the origin of all the apparent ’sub-optimal design’ we see in nature This is bad theology and bad ID. Did the retinas of all the vertebrates suddenly flip backwards when Eve at the apple? Did the left recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe grow meters longer and wrap around its aorta overnight? AmerikanInKananaskis

>http://www.cancer.org/docroot/.....Cancer.asp Still not seeing it. If you mean that it has a relation to genetics, sure. But that doesn't mean "loss of info". Besides, when we're talking about suboptimal design, the things that usually come to mind are the left recurrent laryngeal nerve, the retina being attached "backwards", etc. How could those be due to loss of info? AmerikanInKananaskis

I think GM crops are no help to the ID agenda. It just puts into people's heads how simple it is to modify plants and animals. That is why Darwin started OoS with a discussion of artificial selection, to say that what Man can do quickly, Nature can do slowly. Pendulum

Dr Simoncini argues that cancer is caused by the invasive fungi candida. http://www.cancerisafungus.com/ I think an invasion of an information carrying pathogen into the cell may have some bearing on ID and the bypassing of the Krebs cycle, but cannot find any research that discusses this in depth. Anyone have any ideas on this? Andrew Sibley

In an attempt to keep this forum on-topic and answer Andrew's original question: as an ID proponent (and for what it's worth, a YEC) I can see nothing objectionable in GM crops. Though the process of developing them involves a novel technique that we have only recently learned, I cannot see how the concept is qualitatively different from the process of hybridization and selective breeding that has gone on for centuries. In particular, it seems that all of the objections I have heard to GM crops could just as well be made to conventionally-developed hybrid varieties. On an ethical level, I see this as all part of carrying out the command of Gen 1:28 to 'subdue the earth', and to use God-given intelligence and diligence to mitigate the effects of the curse in Gen 3:17 that is the origin of all the apparent 'sub-optimal design' we see in nature. Stephen Morris

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Heredity_and_Cancer.asp tragic mishap

I don't get it. What does cancer have to do with information? AmerikanInKananaskis

Denyse: "I did not think its fruit would be edible anyway, but when its no-fruit tendency became evident beyond reasonable doubt, I tore it to pieces and composted it around a vicious Northern rose bush." I never took you for a Biblical literalist! ;) tragic mishap

Well, I suggest visiting the cancer ward of your local hospital. It's remarkable how much information has stayed with us, regardless of how old the universe is or how old life is, but God did not create this world to last forever. The signs of that are obvious. tragic mishap

Sure, but you said we see suboptimality today because "information has been lost from the original design". How could the info that has been lost in extinct species explain the info loss in species that AREN'T extinct? I'm an IDist too, but I'm not blinkered enough to think that natural selection doesn't happen. Any "information loss" would probably be selected against, so I don't expect that information loss really occurs to any appreciable extent. AmerikanInKananaskis

I'm not going to discuss theodicy on this forum. I've already made one comment on this website that I think was too close to religion (which I guess is not really the topic to be discussed here). I will merely say that any true believer has an easy answer to things like natural disasters, etc. AmerikanInKananaskis

That's a good point and I've never thought of it precisely that way, but it makes a lot of sense. I'm a creationist btw, so don't get your dander up. So if you are right, and all of biological life is optimally designed for maximum diversity, than what are we to make of all the species that have gone extinct? Even in your scenario, which I find plausible and interesting, that would constitute information loss, would it not? tragic mishap

AmerikanInKananaskis: "This is the best of all possible worlds." You might like to have a look at the following article by David Hart, entitled "Tsunami and Theodicy": http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=166 vjtorley

But more likely is that information has been lost from the original design... Could you explain why that's "more likely" and what it's "more likely" than? And this argument really makes me angry. Sure, some things may appear to be "suboptimally designed" to deal with their ecology. But if they weren't then there would only be 5 or 6 living things on the earth. Nothing would be able to exploit anything else because everything would be 'perfect'. Instead, we have a massive variety of life. If you look at it from that point of view, then things ARE optimally designed, but striving for maximum diversity, not maximum perfection. This is the best of all possible worlds. AmerikanInKananaskis

Where did we get the idea that ID predicts "optimal design"? Perhaps the design is not optimal, and there are many possible reasons for it. But more likely is that information has been lost from the original design, resulting in errors in what may originally have been optimal design. This could be the case regardless of whether you are a creationist or front-loader evolutionist or whatever. ID does not predict optimal design. There is no reason why ID theorists would necessarily take a particular stance on this issue. tragic mishap

how intelligent design proponents view genetically modified crops. If design in nature is ‘optimal’ then can that be improved through human intervention? What does ID predict, perhaps that GM crops will always be sub-optimal?

The success in achieving optimality is determined by the design goals. Many times we do not have access to the design goals. Something with the design goal of being light weight may not be fuel efficient. For example, a vehicle that is desgined to be fuel efficient may not necessarily be light weight. An airplane is not maximally efficient in terms of thermodynamics, but it is pretty optimal in terms of its weight. Trains are optimal in terms of fuel efficiency. Actually Space Shuttles and space probes are the most fuel efficient in terms of distace per kilogram of fuel, but they cannot operate well in atmospheric environments at cruising speed (lest they disintegrate). I would guess bird metabolisms (for flight) or those which expend a lot of energy to maintain a set temperature (such as in "warm blooded creatures") are not necessarily the most optimal along the dimension of thermodynamic efficiency. However they are probably optimal if we evaluate them against other design goals. Plant seem definitely super optimal in terms of energy consumption. We could not expect such performance from other creatures. On the otherhand, plants don't fly like birds or monarch butterflies. Without access to the design goals, it is hard to render a judgement. Monsanto is an interesting example of engineers resorting to deliberate "bad design". One of their controversial technologies were self destruct mechanisms in their GMO's to prevent their crops from being reproduced and distributed without their control. They resorted to "Terminator and Traitor" technologies which allowed certain chemical treatments to evolve the direction of the crop development. The reprogrammed the plant genomes so that they they could turn of traits and features, and even the ability to reproduce at will by merely spraying triggering substances onto the seeds. One peripherally related subject of GM crops is related to design identification. I posted on it at UD genetic-id, an instance of design detection? (topic revisited) scordova

Here's my take on the question, based on my own experience and a bit of research: We need to be clear what we mean by sub-optimal. GM crops are manipulated to do specific things, one of which is not to survive in wild nature. If you want that, go with the local flora which have done so for at least thousands of years, with no human help.* But the GM cropster wants, for example, a "heart-healthy" oilseed plant for margarine, and breeds a plant that - when protected in a largely artificial environment (= the average farm) will produce the needed type of oil. Obviously, at least some aspects of such a plant are the product of human design. But in fairness, no one ever thought of breeding it to survive and continue to breed in the wild. Quite the opposite: "Volunteers" - weeds that are the offspring of hybrid plants - are destroyed when encountered, and I imagine that GM volunteers will meet the same fate. I have met many sad volunteers while gardening. They only have some of what they need to survive at all, never mind to survive without cultivation! My favourite was the volunteer squash that produced only male flowers. (The squash must produce female flowers as well as male ones in order to set fruit.) I did not think its fruit would be edible anyway, but when its no-fruit tendency became evident beyond reasonable doubt, I tore it to pieces and composted it around a vicious Northern rose bush. Why waste plant materials? So it was, as Noah says to a lone Muppet in the Space Muppets movie, DOOMED!!! Now, the interesting question - and I don't think we have an answer yet - is this: Could humans intelligently design a plant that coped better with a natural environment than a native one? European dooryard weeds like the dandelion do not count because humans didn't design them. We merely imported them around the globe, along with the Norway rat. *Here in southern Ontario, our landscape is post-Ice Age, so the life forms we see in wild nature around us are those that moved in after the Wisconsin Ice Sheet melted, forming huge lakes. Today, there are five of them, called - The Great Lakes. I live on the smallest of them, Lake Ontario. But it is still pretty big. O'Leary

"There’s no other way we can feed 10 billion people." Yea, yeah, yeah, we've heard this lone centuries... The figure was once 500,000. Keep your manipulated food to yourself. The exact same people behind Monsanto are behind codex alimentarius. What is codex alimentarius? Just google it, or read this page for a primer. http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=157 Please do what you can to stop these laws being passed in the USA. Gods iPod

I fail to see the connection between GM food and embryo destruction. Embryos have rights; crops don't. As for "optimality," it is a relative concept. Optimal relative to a crop's native environment doesn't equate to optimal relative to the man-made environment in which they are cultivated. Regarding "natural" farming, I think it was the writer A. A. Phillips who once said, "It is perfectly natural for people to be artificial." Here's why I have little patience with those opposing GM food because it is "unnatural": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2700176/Europes-GM-food-fear-exacerbates-famine.html Many Africans are starving because Europeans think it is wrong to tamper with "Mother Nature." That's evil. Unless we want to live in a dystopia in which boffins, guided by their infallible computer models of how many people the Earth can sustainably support, dictate to us how many children we can have (i.e. one or none), we simply have no choice but to try new ways of feeding ourselves. There's no other way we can feed 10 billion people. vjtorley