Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Irreducible Complexity Redux?

PaV
April 3, 2006
Intelligent Design
1
Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When scientists have to continually look to nature to figure out how to do things well, doesn’t it become apparent at some point that we’re dealing with embodied intelligence? Here’s just the latest edition:

The propulsion system used by slime-squirting bacteria could teach rocket scientists and nano-engineers some new tricks.

Myxobacteria are micrometre-scale filament-shaped organisms that glide along surfaces, leaving a trail of slime in their wake. Biologists were convinced the bugs produced the slime as lubricant, but couldn’t explain how they generated the force to move.

Now it turns out that the bacteria push themselves along by ejecting the slime from nozzles on their bodies. “They are little rockets,” says Andrey Dobrynin, a polymer scientist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs.

Myxobacteria have 250 nozzles located on each end. By squirting slime from one set or the other they can dart forward or back at up to 10 micrometres per second.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8933-bacteria-use-slime-jets-to-get-around.html

Comments
Slight correction: It's not prejudice in ALL cases...only in some. Still, this has more to do with an adoption of a particular philosophy than raw science.Patrick
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Jerry "So materialistic thinking eliminates God even if He does exists and scientists who espouse it should be honest enough to admit it. However, if you accept the premise that there could be a supernatural creator who affects some aspects of the universe then by definition any attempt to find a materialistic cause for those aspects must be a scientific cul de sac. This should be admitted and be a basic premise of science. It is something they should be willing to live with." I understand what you are saying. As scientists we assume that the universe behaves in an ordered and consistent way, and is possible to describe at a fundamental level by relatively simple laws. But I think you misunderstand the reason we do this---it's pragmatism, not prejudice. I.e. the reason we do this is because it has always worked so far; of course, as soon as we observe phenomena that are inconsistent with any possible materialistic explanation one would have to abandon this stance. But that hasn't happened, yet. All the phenomena we observe are consistent with simple physical laws. To be honest it would be fascinating if they were not!physicist
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
I always find the argument that science should not concern itself with the possibility of the supernatural a specious argument. It is used solely to justify that the supernatural is not needed as an explanation for anything and for all practical purposes does not exist. If you take the premise that there is a materialistic cause for everything in existence then you have essentially neutered the supernatural even if it does exist. For then the supernatural has no function because it has never done anything. So materialistic thinking eliminates God even if He does exists and scientists who espouse it should be honest enough to admit it. However, if you accept the premise that there could be a supernatural creator who affects some aspects of the universe then by definition any attempt to find a materialistic cause for those aspects must be a scientific cul de sac. This should be admitted and be a basic premise of science. It is something they should be willing to live with. This does not mean that science should not explore these cul de sacs because we do not know for sure where they are but science should admit that there might be some. Even if there are areas that look strongly affected by the supernatural, it does not mean they cannot be explored. It has never stopped any scientists before including those who had a deep faith in God. My guess is that OOL is one of the cul de sacs but I actually support research here for two reasons. First, the more they explore the bigger the problem seems to be and second, there is often unforeseen uses for the research results. While Stuart Kaufmann's self-assembling molecules as explanation of OOL may be science fiction his research may have lots of useful applications. I also enjoyed Robert Hazen's account of OOL research but reacted negatively to the smugness of those who dismiss anything but a materialistic cause for life's origins and their unwillingness to discuss the issue honestly. Suggesting that there may not be any materialistic explanation for the OOL problem will not stop research there.jerry
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
"What is the scientific method you used to determine this claim?" If anyone has a suggestion how we can include supernatural explanations without being able to to detrmine whether or not they are in fact supernatural I would be interested to hear them. Maybe most scientists would call me a heretic for suggesting that if someone could convinvingly determine between the supernatural and a phenomenon for which we just have no natural expliantion, we would have to rethink the definition of science, thats just my opinion. However I think the question is purely philosophical at this point as no-one has claimed to have such a method that I am aware of, assuming of course you do not count an intelligent act produced by a natural entity as supernatural. "“As far as I understand it intelligent design has no moral implications . . .” Not true. See this post:" I understand ID does not rule out God, but neither does evolution as I understand it. Although it does rule out the specific God of the bible in my opinion, there are certainly people who dispute this.Chris Hyland
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Chris Hyland "As far as I understand it intelligent design has no moral implications . . ." Not true. See this post: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/957BarryA
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Chris Hyland, You said "Having said that science cannot rule out supernatural mechanisms, but it can’t include them until there is a method to scientifically distinguish between the natural and supernatural." What is the scientific method you used to determine this claim? Thanks, Saxesaxe17
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
"When you say, “I don’t think evolution is based on pure chance”, you are actually not too far from accepting intelligent design, if you’d only take “intelligence” in a more technical sense rather than a personal sense." I am far from accepting intelligent design so far as it is claimed there is positive scientific evidence of purpose in evolution. I am perfectly happy to accept that an intelligence would be God as long as there is evidence for it. Richard Dawkins also often says that evolution is not based on chance alone. As far as I understand it intelligent design has no moral implications as it does not have a position on the nature of the designer, if the designer is no longer around this would have the same implications as if there was no designer. "That is the logical conclusion, if one follows the empirical evidence, devoid of materialistic mental prisions." Intelligent designs practice of simeltaneously refusing to speculate on the designer and attacking materialism is seen at best as a mixed message by most people who I speak to about it. Having said that science cannot rule out supernatural mechanisms, but it can't include them until there is a method to scientifically distinguish between the natural and supernatural. "I would like to know some of the things that you have read that strengthens the theory for you. I believed in Darwinian evolution until about 7 years ago but quite frankly never read a thing about it except for the occasional blurb in the popular media. Since that time I have not found very much which supports it as the mechanism for any significant biological change but a lot that contradicts it. But I don’t have 30 years experience in biology so I would be interested in your experiences and insights." I have not been studying biology for nearly that long, neither am I an evolutionary biologist. In fact when I started reading about the claims of intelligent design in the press I realised that I didn't really understand evolution all that well, so I went to the scientific literature to see if I could find some answers to the questions that ID was asking of evolution. I read Richard Lewtonin and Mary Jane West-Eberhard and their papers on phenotypic plasticity, Stuart Kauffman's papers on complexity and self-organization, Eric Davison's papers on developmental networks, and many other over a period of several years (including John Davison's and ID papers). Sufficed to say my idea of what constitues the evolution of species has completely changed, however I have still not seen sufficient evidence to conclude that intelligence is nessecary. I think a lot of the problem is a confusion about evolution, for example many people I speak to say they can't believe that change in allele frequency in populations can result in the complexity we see today. I don't believe it either, neither do i stick to the gene centric or adaptationist view, and I also belive that saltation is perfectly in line with my view of evolution. Does that mean I'm not a 'Darwinist', if so i think everybody is having different arguments.Chris Hyland
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
Ricardo You nailed it about the "pride" that prevents atheists and others in that camp from even contemplating the possibility that there might be in this universe an intelligence greater than their own. It truly is a matter of the heart. An ancient Philosopher-King put it bluntly: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'." (King David, Psalm 14:1). Many years later, with tragic self-willed mistakes and bitter experience behind him, he would candidly confess: "Reverence and worship of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding." (Psalm 111:10) A thousand years after David (and two thousand years ago) another writer, Paul of Tarsus, might as well have been talking of God-rejecters as we know them in our day. Because they denied God, he said, "their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...[and] exchanged the truth of God for a lie..." (Romans 1:21-25) If history proves anything, it is that human nature has not evolved from what it was six thousand years ago. The old battle between Light and darkness rages on: "There is nothing new under the sun," (Ecclesiastes 1:9)Emkay
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT
"Actually, this is not correct. Even the most frothing of the frothing at the mouth Darwinists see the self-evident design of living things. Richard Dawkins famously said that biology is “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Pace your comment, Dawkins looks at the cosmos and sees design and purpose, but he denies the most plausible conclusion from the overwhelming evidence before his eyes, because he is more committed to his atheist religious views than to searching for the truth." Agreed, but my original post I meant that they just choose to not see what is plainly designed. My following remarks I think make that clear enough when I say, "However, I am not sure as to why?" My point being that humans always want to be the top dog being able to explain things gives us power both with ID and Evolution but both have different implications. If you have ever heard Dawkins or Dennett talk they are both overly proud of there atheism which they proudly wear like a new boy scout badge. My thoughts are directed towards people with such a pride that it makes them blind. Thanks for the thoughts BarryA. Ricardorpf_ID
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
Hey, just wanted to say thanks for the new website to explorecarbon14atom
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Chris, I would like to know some of the things that you have read that strengthens the theory for you. I believed in Darwinian evolution until about 7 years ago but quite frankly never read a thing about it except for the occasional blurb in the popular media. Since that time I have not found very much which supports it as the mechanism for any significant biological change but a lot that contradicts it. But I don't have 30 years experience in biology so I would be interested in your experiences and insights. I do have a job that requires me to understand cellurlar energy metabolism so biology is not entirely foreign to me.jerry
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
As a follow-up to what BarryA wrote, let's just try and put ourselves into the mindset of the time, a time when "Newtonian mechanics" reigned--a 'mechanics' that said contrary to what your eyes are telling you, the earth is revolving around the sun; not the sun around the earth." Then comes Lyell: "It looks like catastrophes have happened; but, really, all it is is erosion and uplifting, etc., viz., small, UNIFORM forces acting slowly over a very large amount of time. This was the mindset of the time. In our times, however, the raw complexity of what is seen strongly suggests the presence of design. The more and more science can enlarge things so that we can look at them, the more evident this design becomes. The more and more we study the nano-world and the quantum world, the more and more we find information is present even at the tiniest of levels. At these tiniest of levels, the question just naturally arises as to where this information came from. In other words, science itself will be the undoing of Darwinism as soon as a cricital number of scientists finally conclude that they can, indeed, 'trust their lying eyes.' I'm personally waiting for the critical threshold to be crossed soon.PaV
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Darn it. Pressed the "Enter" key by accident. "When scientists have to continually look to nature to figure out how to do things well, doesn’t it become apparent at some point that we’re dealing with embodied intelligence?" That is the logical conclusion, if one follows the empirical evidence, devoid of materialistic mental prisions.Mats
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
When scientists have to continually look to nature to figure out how to do things well, doesn’t it become apparent at some point that we’re dealing with embodied intelligence?Mats
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT

Ricardo

“Unfortunately not everyone looks at the cosmos and sees design or purpose or intention.”

Actually, this is not correct. Even the most frothing of the frothing at the mouth Darwinists see the self-evident design of living things. Richard Dawkins famously said that biology is “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Pace your comment, Dawkins looks at the cosmos and sees design and purpose, but he denies the most plausible conclusion from the overwhelming evidence before his eyes, because he is more committed to his atheist religious views than to searching for the truth.

Dawkins says the appearance of design is an illusion. While he could be right there's no proof it's an illusion. As far as physics informs us everything in the non-quantum universe is deterministic which by defintion means that randomness is an illusion caused by incomplete information of the chain of causal events. And even in quantum mechanics it's arguable whether anything is actually unpredictable or whether the unpredictability is because we don't have a complete theory (quantum gravity is MIA). The default position should be that randomness is an illusion since all the evidence points that way right now. -ds BarryA
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Chris: design theory is not opposed to evolution per se, but to natural selection/random mutation and purposeless process. From http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php 2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution? It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. Thus, some, though not all, design theorists do accept "evolution" to some extent; they only dispute that pure random processes can result in the (specified) complexities that we observe in the biological world. In addition, "intelligence" does not equal "God", if that is what's bugging you. One might, for example, define intelligence in opposition to randomness, perhaps with probability or degree. The less random something appears, the more likely it was the result of design. That's way we reason about just everything else; e.g., I infer from your writing that there was, with high probability, an intelligent agent behind it, though I don't know who you are. Why should this reasoning not be applied to the biological world? When you say, "I don’t think evolution is based on pure chance", you are actually not too far from accepting intelligent design, if you'd only take "intelligence" in a more technical sense rather than a personal sense.formlessandvoid
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Unfortunetly not everyone looks at the cosmos and sees design or purpose or intention. However, I am not sure as to why. I guess "pride" is more powerful than we give it credit for. Many people see themselves as being able to explain everything and that lends itself a sort of comforting factor in establishing your power over nature. Although it is just a pyschological power it is a power non the less, look to Stephen Hawking and others who wish to find a theory of everything. My question though is, What then? We humans have this knack for wanting to put things in there place to see ourselves being able to explain everything including our supposed purposeless existence. This ability to say our existence is purposeless gives us incredible power, you know? It allows us to make decisions without a consequence of having to hold ourselves responsible, what's responsibility? It also allows us to give people the ability to act in ways that fullfil the deepest human desires. In other words it eliminates, at least at face value, morals. I have been thinking deeply about this issue and I wonder if at heart those who oppose ID are really afraid of its implications regarding many moral issues. And further, I think it scares people to accept a view which would give credence to views so opposite of their own. Mmmmmmm, the questions are as tricky as the answers but let us think through our purposeless existence. Now I'm off to play Scrabble to logically conclude where I shall go for my masters degree. hhehehehehheee. Ricardorpf_ID
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
"When you see things in nature that is more complex than these machineries, isn’t it reasonable to say that there is intelligence behind it (as opposed to pure chance)?" I don't think evolution is based on pure chance, unless you count all processes that aren't caused by intelligence as random. No I don't think the fact that biological systems are more complex than human machines is reason to infer intelligent design any more than the fact that we mimic them is. "The scientific community is beginning to recognize this, but read textbooks from the 90s and you will see that it was not long ago at all that scientists thought that the existance of abiotic amino acids was proof enough that life as we know it “just happened by a realistic accident.”" I studied high school biology in the 90's and I was taught that we were still a very long way off from any kind of reasonable origin if life theory. Incedentaly I was also taught that we had no understanding of how the bacterial flagellum evolved. "Do you not find it strange that 600 mya, there was one or two philums, in a period of about 10 million years there was suddenly about 100, and since 500 mya there hasn’t been a single new philum? What up with the burst of change thing? When I look at the data I think, “purpose, plan or intention.”" I find it fascinating, another thing I was taught as an unsolved problem in science, from what I have read it seems that insights from systems biology and developmental biology are helping us understand this phenomenon. I am not an atheist I have no religious opposition to there being purpose behind evolution, I am perfectly prepared to throw up my hands and say I was wrong if the day comes. However I read a lot papers about evolution, and they only strengthen the theory for me not weaken it. I admit there are many things we don't know, and I imagine there are many questions that won't be answered in my lifetime, but that alone can't be a reason to assume design, I have studied biological systems for several years, and they do not look like designed systems to me, other than through analogy. If intelligent design produces research and a theory that explains the evidence better than evolution I will gladly change my mind.Chris Hyland
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Kathy, I like your defintion of design, "purpose, plan or intention that is thought to exist behind an action, fact or material object." Some of us look at the natural world, add 4 billion years and 1 quadrillion organisms experimenting with mutations per year (or thereabouts), and come to the conclusion that without "purpose, plan or intention" these 4 * 10^24 mutational experiments would not come anywhere close to pulling off the complexity that we see. When we look at the rock record, and we see that life appeared very early in earth's development. When we see that the kind of life that existed then still exists now, and that it is vastly beyond what chance would produce. The scientific community is beginning to recognize this, but read textbooks from the 90s and you will see that it was not long ago at all that scientists thought that the existance of abiotic amino acids was proof enough that life as we know it "just happened by a realistic accident." Further, though the scientific community recognizes that some intermediaries such as RNA world must have existed. But such insite has not produced a feasible pathway from abiotic amino acids to the simplest life as we know it. Our reasonable conclusion, life itself is the product of "purpose, plan or intention." Continuing to look at the rock record, we find that the greatest gaps in the fosil record, the gaps between the philums, the kingdoms and the domains happened in a geological instant, and always a long time ago. Do you not find it strange that 600 mya, there was one or two philums, in a period of about 10 million years there was suddenly about 100, and since 500 mya there hasn't been a single new philum? What up with the burst of change thing? When I look at the data I think, "purpose, plan or intention." When we examine the cosmos, when we realize that the cosmos had a true beginning, when we see how carefully tuned it is, we have a choice between chasing after some odd religiously motivated (athieism) conjecture such as a multiverse theory, or come to the logical conclusion that the universe has "purpose, plan or intention." I, and the others in the ID community, look at life, our world, the cosmos and, based upon the evidence, we think, "purpose, plan or intention." Based upon the evidence, the only alternative that I can find is a religious committment to the avoidance of such a view.bFast
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Even my "widgets" on my Mac OS X dashboard know that design is defined as: "purpose, plan or intention that is thought to exist behind an action, fact or material object." If we don't presume purpose, plan or intent, we don't have design, we merely have a pattern: "an arrangement or sequence found in comparable objects or events." When we see such functional complexity, we can't call it a mere pattern. The implied intelligence in the definition of design seems to prove itself. Is there a Latin phrase for that?kathy
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Chris: when you see a car, an airplane, a rocket, etc., do you doubt the intelligence of those who designed and produced them? When you see things in nature that is more complex than these machineries, isn't it reasonable to say that there is intelligence behind it (as opposed to pure chance)? This is just a simple a minori ad maius argument. Unless, of course, you deny the intelligence behind man-made machines, in which case you've just insulted all the engineers in the world.formlessandvoid
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
I don't see how if we mimic nature, it follows that nature was designed by an intelligence.Chris Hyland
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
Why? Because we mimic design found in nature. Isn't part of that sentence the answer?Doug
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
"When scientists have to continually look to nature to figure out how to do things well, doesn’t it become apparent at some point that we’re dealing with embodied intelligence?" No. Why?physicist
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
"Myxobacteria are micrometre-scale filament-shaped organisms that glide along surfaces, leaving a trail of slime in their wake." In my practice I frequently run across lawyers who do this except on a larger scale.BarryA
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply