Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ken Miller and Chicken Little — The Sky Continues to Fall!

William Dembski
March 1, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Perhaps Miller & Co. need to cut to the chase and take out a contract on key ID players. As I recall from the three years I lived in Rhode Island (I went to a prep school there), Providence, the city in which Brown University (Miller’s employer) is located, has an effective mob presence.

“Why is this a big deal?” asked Miller. The answer, according to Miller, is the future of science in America. We are raising a generation of people who are going to be suspicious of science, and that has huge implications for scientific fields. Other countries will be moving ahead in science, leaving the United States behind. “What is at stake is, literally, everything,” said Miller.

MORE

Comments

Hi Dave,

Goodbye, Mercury.

Mercury
March 12, 2006
March
03
Mar
12
12
2006
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT

Scott,

I have to admit that I didn't read the roughly 200 pages of material you linked to in order to counter one paragraph I wrote. I don't want to get into a link war, and I'm sure you're well aware of the other side of all the issues you raised. In the interest of not burying a very interesting theological conversation in the same arguments for and against IC/CSI that you can easily find elsewhere, I'm going to leave that be.

It is an extrapolation to suggest that the same mechanism that is responsible for the size and shape of the Finch’s beak, is also responsible for the Finch.

What is your own view? For instance, how did chickens evolve from those toothed, beakless ancestors? Do you think that a designer (or designers) is injecting new components into organisms over time? How can you show that this designer is the same one who created the universe, and if you can't, what theological benefit is there to the argument? If there is no theological benefit, what other benefit do you see in it?

Though I strongly disagree about your Darwinian views, I like what you have to say on the Genesis issue. :)

Thank you for the last half of that, but I'm again going to take issue with the characterization of my views as "Darwinian". I don't know how you define the term, but probably you have a fairly benign definition, such as relating to Darwin's formulation for evolution based on natural selection. However, especially in an ID blog, that is not the way the term is typically understood. Many see it as an epithet as vitriolic as calling someone a baby-eater. For instance, in the recent post about liquid water on Saturn's moon, another ID advocate defined the term as follows:

Darwinists are “stuck on stupid”. They seem interested in only one thing–that life arose without any help from any sort of God and that therefore there is no God, period. That’s it. That’s all they really care about. If there’s no God, then THEY are the smartest molecules in the Universe: if there is, well, the opposite is true. What a sad way to live.

Do you see why I object to it? I don't think anything happens in nature apart from God. I'm not out to prove there is no God. I don't think that mine are the smartest molecules in the universe. I would really appreciate it if you could refrain from using such charged words that mean radically different things to different parts of the audience here.

I agree that the miracle of creation is a sufficient testimony. I think your error is in assuming that the relics of design which he has allowed us to have a glimpse of (and marvel over) somehow suggest flaws or limitations.

If the universe is a game of chess, ID seems intent on pointing to a chessmaster through looking for illegal moves. I think the legitimate moves are better testimony to the existence of a chessmaster.

How is biological ID not an attempt to find a flaw or limitation? I do accept interventions. For instance, natural processes do not allow water to spontaneously turn into wine or long-dead bodies to become alive again. Those are limitations. God's intervention overcame those limitations in certain situations. Biological ID seems to be about claiming that natural processes in general are far more limited than most scientists believe, and then going about looking for places where intervention would have needed to occur.

I'm not against intervention. I believe in miracles. I just don't think the biological ID argument has chosen good places to look for them. And worse, I think the movement is causing a lot of people to dismiss God's work entirely because what is being touted as the best evidence of design hasn't been able to withstand criticism.

Illegal moves? Hardly. They are moves that reveal planning, intention, and purpose. Your understanding of ID is shallow and the "evidence" has indeed withstood criticism. -ds Mercury
March 9, 2006
March
03
Mar
9
09
2006
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Hi again Saxe,
Thanks for the explanation. I was also wondering about natural selection. If “it’s so difficult to say whether or not a mutation is beneficial or not.”, then what are the criteria for measuring fitness? For natural selection to be a theory, doesn’t the “fittest” class need to be measured by some sort of criteria?
Whether or not a mutation is beneficial (assuming it's not lethal or silent) is determined by the environment. Fit creatures are ones that propagate their genes. Please let me know if this isn't what you were asking. Tina, I didn't get a chance to respond to your earlier comments, and I wanted to pick up on one thing:
I think about the evolution of life on earth as being the result of constant work by intelligent beings who act fully within the creative laws of God, and whose purpose is the development of material life. The ancients called these beings gods or elementals, because for them, their activity was the most immediate and real. Nearly all of the most ancient religions are animistic, and it is my view that as the spiritual recognitions of humans developed to higher and higher planes, culminating, again in my view, in the recognition of the one Almighty God, that unfortunately this always led to the categorical rejection of everything that came before.
I agree that we are often too eager to dismiss the thoughts of those who came before us. I also think the ancients were on to something that we have minimized, but I see it a bit differently. They used to think that God or gods were responsible for bringing the rain to water their crops, for making the crops grow, for allowing them to conceive and give birth to healthy children, and many other things that today we call "natural". I understand your perspective to be that God's messengers are directly involved in at least some of these things. My perspective is that God is involved in what nature does, due to how he made it, how he sustains it, and what purposes he has for it. So, I think there is real truth in the biblical claim that God provides our daily bread, for example, even if how we earn our bread does not defy any natural laws. As to whether God delegates some of his creative work to other beings, I have no strong opinion (though I did enjoy the first part of Tolkien's Silmarillion that illustrates such an approach).Mercury
March 9, 2006
March
03
Mar
9
09
2006
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Hi Tina, Allow me to quote your question, and what you see as the implication before I respond: "Do you think, as a TE that higher qualities, such as soul or spirit, are emergent properties of matter?" "If consciousness is an emergent property of the interactions of chemistry and physics, then that consciousness will end when the complex system which supports it breaks down at death." I think this is a very thought-provoking question and point. I am unable to explain through nature how my consciousness was formed or even describe what consciousness is using natural properites. I have to claim to be rather unknowledgable in the subject area. Without much knowledge, I'm unable to see a necessary conflict between TE and consciousness. All I can say is that perhaps there is a non-physical component in us that is created for each of us individually. The way I see it, TE is based on what we observe in nature, not the unobservable. I'm a little hesitant to say much on the subject with a lot of certainty, but I do see the validity of your question. I am a theist, and not a deist, so I believe that God is personally active in our lives, and that may mean that he intervenes in nature every so often. Thinking back to what I have said before, there may appear to be a contradiction here. Perhaps I can clarify by saying that if God can get the desired result through his initial design, he wouldn't intervene later on. God's interventions, as I see them, are contingent on human volitional choices. ---- Regarding the human eye problem. The objection TEists may bring is that if God is specifically intervening for this particular problem, perhaps he could have come up with a better design. I think they may be right that the eye isn't perfect. But I do think what we have is rather marvelous, and indicates the power inherent in nature itself. -- Regarding the suggested tone of people like Miller, I've gotten a different sense, but he has said a lot more than I am aware of. I did get the sense that Miller is one of the more likable evolutionists out there. Far better than Richard Dawkins, or Barbara Forrest, or a few others. On the other side we have Michael Ruse and Eugenie Scott, who seem to come across rather pleasantly to me. Reading Miller's transcript at the Dover trial, I became impressed with his communication abilities, and his abilities as an educator. I'm also impressed that he would take away from his textbooks the idea that evolution is without direction (or something like that). But, to the extent that Miller's words are hostile, I think they are counter-productive. If he is right, some frustration may be understandable, but exhibiting frustration is not usually helpful. When I hear theistic evolutionists criticize other theistic points of view, I like to hear what they have to offer for the case for theism. Miller does do that in "Finding Darwin's God" when he discusses cosmological fine-tuning. But, I would like to see more TEers suggest more as I have been doing that the complexity and diversity we see in life does indicate design, albeit a little more indirectly.Paul Brand
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
paulbrand, thanks. I agree that it is really a design vs. design question. What a simple way of stating what has taken so many words to get to! What it really comes down to, then, is figuring out whether there can ever be an objective and scientifically credible way to infer design as being more probable than chance. Duh, of course that is what it comes down to, but what strikes me as surprising from the TEs that I hear is how very often they express incredulity and mocking contempt for the very notion that design can be detected. I have heard Ken Miller (on the radio? TV? don't remember where, really) saying with near disgust in his voice what a pathetically poor example of design the human eye is. I understand that material nature has many instances of what appear to us to be inefficient or piecemeal designs, and I have no doubt that this results from the necessities of the density of Matter, vs. spirit or form. The medium must be made to express the concept, and the limits of the medium cannot be overcome. I just shudder when I hear ostensibly religious people express such contempt for the obvious brilliance in the natural world in the name of protecting the purity of science from incursion by religion! THat is an aside, though, a rant. To the point, though is the question I tried to ask you in my previous post, but not clearly enough: do you think, as a TE that higher qualities, such as soul or spirit, are emergent properties of matter? This is a huge dilemna for the TE position if the wonders of nature are seen to be the result of the material mechanisms of the physical universe alone, which in spite of their grandeur are finite. The human body, for example, will die. If consciousness is an emergent property of the interactions of chemistry and physics, then that consciousness will end when the complex system which supports it breaks down at death. however, if matter must be infused with information or a higher substance 'the breath of life' , then matter is more like a cloak, or garment which houses consciousness but does not give rise to it or limit its duration. Just wondering about your thoughts on this.tinabrewer
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Tina, I hadn't read the entire conversation yet between you and Mercury, and thank you for restating your beliefs, I was unaware of your religious beliefs, and so obviously, my conceptions of God may not be applicable to your religious belief system. Regarding your last question, I don't think it is a chance vs design issue. I think there is a valid argument for design, but I would focus more on the idea that the evolutionary mechanisms are possible because of design, not that the evolutionary mechanisms are not sufficiently competent on their own. It's really a design vs design issue. When did God do his tinkering? That's where we disagree. I believe in chance to the degree that it helps explain diversity. It helps explain why there are so many successful branches in the evolutionary tree, and not just one. Quantum mechanics suggests that there are really chance probabilities with such things as whether a particle gets reflected by a mirror, or if it goes right through. With genetic mutations, Kenneth Miller says that quantum level fluctuations can result in chance mutations. I haven't personally verified this claim, but I believe he is a knowledgable enough guy that he knows what he is talking about. In my opinion, it is possible that God used the inherent properties of quantum mechanics to result in chance mutations, and that he produced the laws of chemistry and physics to occassionally allow a beneficial mutation with natural selection selecting out the negative mutations. Now I guess the question that comes from this is whether God knew what the outcome would be if the universe isn't deterministic. If God exists outside of time, there may be some room for explanation how he might know the outcome of chance events logically "before" he created it. Then again, whenever we speak about God existing outside of time, we are bound to get into numerous paradoxes that are beyond my comprehension, and often result in logical contradictions. Nevertheless, even if God didn't know the final outcome, he designed into the chemical makeup of the universe the ability for complex species to evolve. Or, perhaps in spite of these probabilities, he knew that humans would evolve. I don't have it all figured out. More direct to your intended question, I think we are discovering more and more how complex reality is. I agree that the bacterial flagellum is extraordinary, and I think our intuition of design is warranted by observing the amazing powers of the flagellum. The question in my mind is whether nature is so advanced that it can produce such things, or if it isn't advanced enough to explain such things. I lean more towards the conclusion that things like the flagellum show how advanced nature is. The more advanced nature is, the more we have to look at the question of why nature is so advanced. So if the question is reformulated the way I put it, I am not convinced that nature is not powerful enough to produce complexity and diversity of life. I don't think there is enough information to show that God has indeed tinkered in life. Again, I'm not against the possibility that he did, but theologically speaking, I find it more compelling that if God could do all the tinkering at the beginning, he would do so.Paul Brand
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Paul Brand, you wrote "the inherent physical and chemical properties of the universe themselves are very well suited for life" Like I said before, I agree in essence with TEs about the design of life being much larger and more profound than individual instances of tinkering, although I believe such tinkering occurs, not as a direct result of God, but of the servants who carry out His Will. I identified myself in a previous post as being a monotheist who is also an animist, entirely without conflict. The reason I restate this is because for me it completely resolves the dilemna of 'does it all unfold lawfully or does tinkering go on" There is, for me, no dilemna. The laws of creation contain the basic information for life, but the specifics have to be worked out at every level. An analogy would be to a potter, who wishes to make a pot. He has, in his mind, the image of a pot of the perfect shape and dimensions, but in order to manifest that pot in matter, he must apply his IDEA to the conscious manipulation of clay. He knows the properties of clay, and the limits of its manipulation, etc. Similarly, I envision a God who contains all, and wills all into being, but this will must be put into effect. The animism of ancient religions is essentially a recognition that conscious entities are active in the manipulation of the creative forces of matter. I know its a minority view, but it resolves the above dilemna, and also makes sense spiritually, since it doesn't require me to believe that everyone before the monotheists was crazy and spiritually delusional! Thanks for the clarification on the probability stuff. I get from what you are saying that there are too many variables at play at any given moment to make very precise statements. But do the increasing number of variables always tend in favor of making chance more probable than design as an explanation?tinabrewer
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Hi Tina, Thanks for your comments. I'll elaborate a little bit more on my "intuition" comment. What I'm saying is that we seem to be limited to a qualitative analysis of whether naturalistic processes are sufficient to explain the complexity and diversity in life we observe. A quantitative analysis is virtually impossible. As well, our qualitative analysis is extremely limited, as we don't have the necessary information to understand whether there could be naturalistic explanations for things such as the bacterial flagellum. Intelligent design is not a very forceful argument, if it were limited to saying things such as "we have no natural explanation for this, therefore we infer an intelligent designer." The design inference ought to be more rigorous than this. It has to be able to eliminate all natural explanations, including the ones we haven't thought of yet. I use the word "intuition" because the information we have is too limited to make a convincing conclusion, but we do the best we can with the available information we have. You also said "matter itself is just cold dead matter." I think it may be a lot more than this. Particles form into life, and this simple fact itself tells me that particles are very special, and are necessarily fine-tuned for life. I think TEs and IDs can agree on this point. Perhaps God designed matter in such a way that it has properties that allow for the potential of life, and who knows, maybe even individual consciousness. My intuition tells me that particles with these properties don't just appear out of nothing through a quantum accident. I realize my comments are speculative, and as I noted before, I do not rule out intelligent intervention in the course of biological development. Essentially, I'm not myself a biologist, and I'm not very much qualified to have a well-respected opinion. Anyway, I'm a TE for a combination of [perhaps] two reasons: 1)TE is a more commonly held position amongst biologists, including theistic and Christian biologists. I need very compelling reasons to go against the opinion of the vast majority who are experts in that field. At this point, I have no sufficiently compelling reasons, neither scientific nor theological. I can question it to the extent that I am an expert, that is in probabilistic analysis, but I don't have enough established information to do a probability calculation. 2)I think our intuition that life is designed is well justified. The only difference between an ID and my own position, is that I believe that the design occurred at the Big Bang, and not ex nihilo along the way. I find this to be a theologically and philosophically compelling point of view. It's speculation, but it is speculation that is consistent with the character of the God I worship and believe in. It is also a position that I find is compatible with Scripture. My one concern with biological ID, is that it seems to minimize how miraculous nature itself is, which is where I think ID would be and is most effective. Let's show the world that the inherent physical and chemical properties of the universe themselves are very well suited for life. I think atheistic naturalism is not very compelling in explaining why the properties of nature are so beautiful and so accomodating to life. Theistic methodological naturalism is much more compelling in my opinion.Paul Brand
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT

I think the important thing to note, even if you take the position posited by Mercury, is that at some specific point in past, a "spiritual transaction", if you will, occured in which humans fell out of fellowship with the creator.

Even if you embrace Adam as "humanity".

Scott
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Paul Brand, thanks for the input. I think it is interesting that you say that ultimately the probability question seems to come down to intuition. If so, then my conviction that intuition, and not intellect, is the voice of the human spirit is once again reconfirmed. The problem is that intuition and intellect should not be in conflict, but in a harmonious relation in which the intuition LEADS and intellect FOLLOWS. What exists today is a gross distortion of this natural, God-created harmony. Today the intellect so completely dominates every human endeavor, and being strictly material in both origin and outlook, it systematically narrows and diminishes the inner perceptive capacity. This is my view of original sin. This is also why we find ourselves in the depressing condition wherein our best scientists assure use that our overwhelming intuition of design in nature is just a delusion which has been selected for by chance! I think the main problem I have with the TE position which Mercury and you have now made so clear to me is that it seems to be basically the material laws of the material creation which you feel to be adequate, when it is assumed that these laws were sculpted by God. In my view this leaves a gap, which i tried to address in a previous post, since matter itself is just cold dead matter. I think even the Biblical narrative points to this in the distinction which is made between forming the man and breathing into him life. THis seems, (and I definitely take this creation story as the single most beautiful and powerful allegory ever written) to indicate the necessity to introduce a 'life force' or substance of a higher, more refined nature, into the physical form. If this is the case, this would indicate that indeed a constant supply of regenerative creative light, a constant reenactment of 'let there be light' would be necessary to sustain life in the sphere of dead matter. I wonder if this has anything to do with the thermodynamics issue. Another question I had for Mercury (or now you) is I was wondering if you have any mental picture which you make for yourselves which might illustrate your belief that God can intervene in material life. How? Is this a physicalization of God and his will? Is there an intermediary energy which God makes use of? Or are these instances of intervention also essentially lawfully preordained?tinabrewer
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT

Mercury, I am well pleased with your responses to my ["YEC's Advocate"] questions regarding the Genesis account. ;) And this is, in fact, the direction I've been leaning, for the very reasons you cited. It's exciting to see what is being communicated when we dig a little deeper into the text. :)

Having said that, I do think that there remain some compelling counter-points from from those who hold to the literalist view of those passages, points which I'm not willing to dismiss quite yet. I think my study on this continues, even though I pretty much share your position.

[I'd love to hear Sal's views on this]

Though I strongly disagree about your Darwinian views, I like what you have to say on the Genesis issue. :)

Scott
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT

The cell contains digital code, and we have a pretty good idea how natural processes can transcribe information from the environment into the genome over time.

We have no idea how a blind, mindless, natural mechanism can produce specified instructional information. We have very good reason to believe it cannot. What we have are just-so stories presented by those with an epistemological axe to grind. Programs require programmers and every instance of specified information that we have, has an intelligent agency as it's source. There is no reason to suggest that the 4-nucleotide instructional code on the DNA molecule could come about via natural processes [Just ask Dean Kenyon]. Here are some excellent treatments about the computer program we call "DNA":

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=63
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9606/pearcy.html

Irreducible complexity is explained in a general sense by concepts like scaffolding, and in particular cases by continuing research. Natural selection has been shown to be capable of creating IC structures in findings in the wild (such as the well-known nylon bug), lab experiments, and the mimicry of natural selection in artificial environments.

IC cannot be explained by the Darwinian mechanism. We know that direct Darwinian pathways are impossible and we know that indirect Darwinian pathways are so rediculously improbable that they are effectively impossible. The fact remains that the core of these machines are Irreducible - requiring all components simultaneously to function, remove one and the machine breaks. NS is incapable of building such machines. Co-option of homologous components does not help at all, it just raises more difficulties for the gradualistic model of NS. Telling me that a motorcycle motor can also be used as a blender, does nothing to tell me how that motor evolved into a motorcycle by natural processes. A blind mechanism which can only secure a functional advantage with something already functioning can do nothing to build such machinery. Here is more on the subject:

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.01.Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/wd_still_spinning.htm

The “abrupt” appearance of the major phyla over tens of millions of years does little to advance special creation. Our own phylum of chordates includes modern fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds, and most using this argument would not be willing to accept the common descent of all these creatures. In any case, more precursors are found every decade, and many now exist from the pre-Cambrian.

Prior to the Cambrian, we had nothing remotely close to the degree of complexity and novelty in body plans which indeed do appear abruptly [for evolutionary time tables] during the Cambrian era. We have unique fossil remains which give no evidence of precursors which gradually evolved into the latter. This fact flies in the face of Darwinian gradualism. At best, you may only gather from the fossil record that there was an intelligently programmed "unfolding" which does a fantastic job of explaining what science actually observes. We most certainly do not see the gradual transitions which Darwinism would predict. More on the Cambrian:

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/02/davidson_erwin_classic_neodarw.html
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=639
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

More important than any of that, what I’d like to point out is that what you call the “gradualistic Darwinian Mechanism” is what I call natural selection, a part of God’s creation. So, to me, your statement reads similar to someone railing against the relativistic Einsteinian mechanism that can’t possibly be skillfully designed enough to keep planets in their orbits. All the evidence you’ve listed, as you interpret it, points to an intervening designing intelligence which may or may not be the intelligence responsible for nature itself. Rather than showing the skill with which creation was designed, it argues for gaps where an outside intelligence would have to help creation along to get it over hurdles it was ill-equipped to surmount itself.

Let me point out that Natural Selection is very accurately described as the "gradualistic Darwinian Mechanism". And let me suggest that you have placed entirely too much faith in this mechanism. A mechanism which has only been observed bringing out trivial adaptive change within a species. It is an extrapolation to suggest that the same mechanism that is responsible for the size and shape of the Finch's beak, is also responsible for the Finch. Rather than the evidence I have cited demonstrating that a designer helps "creation along to get over hurdles", it is simply artifacts we have thus far been able to determine which are the result of a designing intelligence. At this stage in the game, I am thoroughly unconvinced that Natural Selection is capable of anything beyond the status quo. It can only shape that which already exists and is already functional. It is not creative. It is a mechanism which Darwin proposed as a designer-substitute.

When it comes to creation, I prefer to focus on the evidence of his handiwork rather than looking for flaws needing to be fixed and limitations needing to be overcome by the intervention of unnamed others. God may have miraculously intervened at many places within creation, but my faith in him as Creator does not rest on me finding those places. The miracle of creation as a whole is strong enough testimony to that.

I agree that the miracle of creation is a sufficient testimony. I think your error is in assuming that the relics of design which he has allowed us to have a glimpse of (and marvel over) somehow suggest flaws or limitations. And if we begin with a Biblical premise, we have to view this creation as fallen and therefore flawed and yearning for it's redemption, anyway. So, I would prefer to focus on these exciting windows into God's engineering (even if we are viewing these relics after eons of decay due to the Fall).

Scott
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Mercury, Thanks for the explanation. I was also wondering about natural selection. If "it’s so difficult to say whether or not a mutation is beneficial or not.", then what are the criteria for measuring fitness? For natural selection to be a theory, doesn't the "fittest" class need to be measured by some sort of criteria? Thanks, Saxesaxe17
March 5, 2006
March
03
Mar
5
05
2006
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Tina, Mercury is actually a close real life friend of mine, and largely responsible for my conversion to TE being a former follower of YEC and later a follower of Dembski (accepting common descent, but that naturalistic explanations were not sufficient to fully explain how we got to our species). I've followed much of your conversation, and I have been thoroughly impressed with the quality of the discourse between the two of you (and a few others). I thought evolution was an atheistic hypothesis and contrary for the need of God to explain things. After all, if God isn't needed to explain what we call "creation", God doesn't seem needed at all, and I still agree. Personally, I have a background in mathematics and statistics (and actuarial science for what it's worth), I'm not as much as an expert as Dembski is, but I can usually understand the principles behind the mathematics he uses in his books and on-line articles. (For example, I understand the difference between Bayesian mathematics and Fischerian mathematics). I have to say that the mathematics as applied in biology is incredibly complex, and not all that intuitive. Dembski uses examples such as a combination lock to illustrate complex specified information. I agree whole-heartedly with his illustrations, and I agree that CSI can be a good detector of design. However, when applied to evolution, mechanisms such as natural selection are not as easy to mathematically formulate as a combination lock. Not even close. Natural selection allows for multiple failures before a success, yet it is the successful mutations that is stored and reproduced, and the unsuccessful ones that are eliminated. When we try to convert these scenarios into probabilities, I have no idea where to start. I don't know what the possible combinations are, I don't know what the possible outcomes are. It seems to come down to intuition. I think CSI is more successful when applied to cosmology (for example, I recommend the Discovery Institute's "Privileged Planet", or Robin Collins on-line essays). At least in cosmology, a failure really is a failure, and isn't simply eliminated through natural selection. When failures are failures, the mathematics really do simplify, and we are justified in multiplying this probability with that probability to understand how lucky we are to be here. Back to evolution, I didn't expect I would end up accepting the theory, as my gut told me this doesn't just happen by chance, there's got to be a better explanation. I think the better explanation is that when God created the universe, he fine-tuned it so precisely, and not just the laws of physics, but the laws of chemistry as well, particularly the ones used in the evolutionary mechanisms. God only needs one shot to pocket all the balls on the pool table, and I think creation is evident of how good a job he did. If evolution is true, it strengthens the fine-tuning argument, in my opinion. I don't know 100% for sure that evolution occurred without divine intervention, but if he didn't, there's still a lot of explaining to do.Paul Brand
March 5, 2006
March
03
Mar
5
05
2006
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
Mercury, I wanted to make ask a question about the nylon bug example. I personally have absolutely no problem with the idea of descent with modification. I have written in other threads about the fact that natural selection, being simply descriptive of an obvious condition, is really not a controversial thing per se; rather it is controversial to claim that it has the degree of formative power it must have in the Darwinian explanation of evolution. What seems more interesting to me is the question of the mutations themselves, because if the evolutionary process is INTENDED to help creatures unfold and come to fruition (a theistic position) then it would make perfect sense that a creative hand of some sort would act upon the genome when it was beneficial for a certain new trait to come about. This would then allow that trait to spread through a population (which we observe as natural selection) but it would be very much the work of an intelligent agency, rather than a chance event. I know that you do not want to discuss chance with me again! I wasn't trying to do that...I just noticed that in your last post you said "the line between TE and ID gets pretty thin..." around the question of the who or what engineers changes in the cell. When I read this, I kept thinking, 'well, this is what our whole argument was about the other day!' It seems to me that this forms the basis of my entire attraction to ID, that is that it argues, I think persuasively, that the probability of all of the beneficial changes occuring at just the right time and in the right combination with the correct environment is astronomically low without factoring in some kind of directing intelligence. To me, that is basically ALL that ID says. It really cannot do anything other than that, but since I am not a mathematician, nor am I a biologist, I end up trusting other people's numbers.tinabrewer
March 5, 2006
March
03
Mar
5
05
2006
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
I have lots to say in reply, especially regarding DNA and IC. No time now. I'll post later today.Scott
March 5, 2006
March
03
Mar
5
05
2006
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT

Hi Gandalf,

The so-called nylon bug apparently has about six mutations that together allow it to metabolyze nylon waste. The mutations do not have incremental value (at least some of them need to be present together to do anything useful), so the system qualifies as IC, at least by Dr. Behe's standard.

I've heard two ID objections to this. First, that while this is an addition of information, it isn't more than 500 bits, so it doesn't qualify as CSI. That may be so, but it evolved over mere decades, giving weight to the idea that more complex IC systems could emerge over more time. The second objection is to claim that this is another example of intelligence because there's no way this could have come about naturally. For instance, it has been called "natural genetic engineering" that "must be a directed process". Another person said, "I often wonder myself if the intelligence behind evolution is part and parcel of the cell itself." Both objections and more conversation can be found here:

https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/348

At that point, the line between ID and TE gets pretty thin, though you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric. I too believe that God endowed creation with what's necessary for it to do what it's supposed to do. In a bind, some ID advocates seem willing to admit that this is the case for a very small area of apparently nonfunctional DNA in bacteria, but don't want to apply that to creation as a whole. Dr. Dembski said, "There is something very special about the nylonase host gene that isn't true of most genes in general and gives it much greater evolvability." That may be, but I'm quite sure that there's also something very special about "evolvability" itself, as well as all other natural processes that God designed.

Interestingly, I can't find any real data about this so-called "nylonase" enzyme or enzymes. Nylonase appears nowhere in any peer reviewed literature that I could locate (scholar.google.com turns up zero hits for it) and was simply made up by Ken Miller. Even google.com only brings up 81 non-redundant hits for the term and they're all in creationist/evolutionist blogs - not a single hit to any research or actual data from a lab. What's up with that? -ds Mercury
March 5, 2006
March
03
Mar
5
05
2006
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
Mercury, you wrote about "examples of observed evolution where fairly complex new structures evolved in the span of a human lifetime. Nothing as complex as a flagellum, but still more than a mutation or two could produce." Can you recall or point to any of these examples?Gandalf
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
Hi Saxe,
Natural processes can transcribe information from the environment? That is, natural (non-intelligent) can transcribe information (intelligence) from the environment (non-intelligence). That is very strange.
Strange but true. For an obvious example, look at the many creatures that have skins or coats that blend in with their environment. The details of the environment, due to at least mutation and natural selection (and perhaps other mechanisms), become part of their genome. It's not just coincidence that polar bears have fur made up of hollow hair shafts that provide far more insulation. Mutations gradually leading to such a trait would only be favoured in environments where it was an advantage. This is why it's so difficult to say whether or not a mutation is beneficial or not. In many cases, it depends on the environment. I think even most YECs accept that this type of "micro-evolution" occurs. It's an example of information from the environment (such as colours, temperature, predators, and myriad other data) becoming part of genomes.Mercury
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
Scott, I'd like to reply your questions about "this figurative view" (comment 53), but keep in mind that this is not something that distinguishes Christian ID advocates from Christian TEs. Among those who see a lot of symbolism and figurative language in early Genesis are TEs like me and ID advocates like Tina and Drs. Dembski and Behe (at least as far as I can tell). Among those who hold to a fairly literal interpretation, including a literal Adam and Eve, are TEs like Glenn Morton and ID advocates like jacktone and yourself. So, whatever disagreement you have with me on this issue is not necessarily disagreement with TE and certainly not support for ID.
1. An examination of the NT writers attitudes towards the events of the early chapters of Genesis reveals that they did indeed view them as literal historical events (Adam/Eve, the Flood, etc…). We see nothing in the NT that would indicate that the writers saw them as allegorical, legendary or even “evolutionary” events. (And remember a proper hermeneutic is to interpret the OT in light of the NT, since the NT completes the OT).
Let's look at one event from Genesis: the seventh day of creation. It is first detailed in Genesis 2:1-3 and made even more explicit in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17: "on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed". Yet, we know that God cannot suffer a lack of refreshment. Further, Hebrews 4 says that this rest is something we can still enter today -- it's not limited to a single day thousands of years ago! As justification for working miracles on the Sabbath, Jesus declared that God the Father also works during his Sabbath (John 5:17). So, both the duration and the activity of the seventh day of creation appear to be figurative: God's rest is not about natural refreshment or ceasing to work, but it is still something real; it did not last 24 hours, but instead continues to this day. The reality of the seventh day is much, much more (not less) than a literal interpretation points to. That's one example. To keep this from getting too long, I'll comment on Adam and Eve and the flood in my responses below.
2. Jesus indicates that Adam and Eve and the events surrounding their sinning (Mark 10:1–12) and also Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:37–39) were literal historical events.
That passage in Mark doesn't mention how Adam and Eve were created or how they sinned. It does say, "from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'" From Genesis 1 we know that creation took six days, and humans were made on day six -- at the end of creation. Why does Jesus say they were made from the beginning of creation? I'm sure you see the fallacy here. By using a more restrictive definition of the word "creation", I can make the texts appear to contradict. You probably interpret "creation" as meaning the universe that was created and not the event of creation, and that's fair enough. However, the word can also refer to the human realm, and that interpretation jibes the passage both with Genesis and with evidence in creation itself. Later in Mark (16:15) Jesus says, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." The word translated "creation" here is the same Greek word translated "creation" in the verse we're looking at. Now, I think that in both cases Jesus is referring specifically to humanity. In both cases it fits the context, whether divorce or spreading good news. Once it is acknowledged that this could be referring to the beginning of humanity, there's no contradiction between this verse and creation itself. As long as there've been people, they've been male and female. As for the reference to Noah, I do believe there was a flood, but not a global flood. As far as the physical details go, I pretty much stick with what Peter had to say. I think that "the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished" (2 Peter 3:6). Obviously I don't think "world" refers to the entire planet, since we're still living on the same planet as Noah. It was "the world of the ungodly" (2 Peter 2:5) that was destroyed, and the trust and obedience of Noah saved him like our trust and obedience in baptism saves us, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:20-21). The days of Noah also provide a picture of what the day of God's wrath looked (or will look) like (Matthew 24:36-42). Other localized events were also used as a picture of God's wrath (2 Peter 2:6; Jude 1:5-7).
3. Do a study of the number of times the Apostle Paul compares and contrasts the Jesus Christ with Adam (it’s a bunch!) So, there would appear to be a strange thing going on if he is making comparisons of the literal Christ and his literal redemptive sacrifice, with a figurative/allegorical Adam. Christ is called “The Last Adam”.
Why would this be strange if Adam represents humanity, particularly the first humans? I think that rather it sheds more light on why Eve is so often left out. Just referring to Adam seems to at least be shorthand for referring to both, and in my view, it's shorthand for referring to all the first humans. Genesis 1:26 quotes God as saying, "Let us make adam in our image... let them have dominion...". In Genesis 5:2, both male and female humans made in the likeness of God are given the name "Adam" by God. In reading the first chapters of Genesis in different translations, you can see how they often differ on when to translate adam as "Adam" or "man"/"humanity". In Hebrew it's the same word. So, already in Genesis there is basis for seeing Adam as representing more than an individual. According to a strictly literal interpretation, it was by one woman or by one woman and one man that sin entered the world. Yet Paul just says one man, and we have concepts such as federal headship that try and explain the New Testament focus on Adam while the Genesis narrative shows sin, guilt and responsibility being shared by both. If one allows that Adam in Genesis may be representative of humanity, there's no reason why Paul couldn't be referring to Adam the same way. Paul's teaching about the "one man" Adam doesn't fall apart if Adam represents Adam and Eve, or even a larger group of people. The parallels between Adam and Christ aren't meant to be exact: Christ is God while Adam was not; we are related to Adam differently than we are related to Christ. Paul frequently uses analogies that don't hold all the way (eg. Romans 7:1-4, noting who dies in both sides of the analogy). His overall point, though, remains unchanged in either a literal interpretation with federal headship or a representative interpretation of Adam.Mercury
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Mercury, You state "The cell contains digital code, and we have a pretty good idea how natural processes can transcribe information from the environment into the genome over time." Natural processes can transcribe information from the environment? That is, natural (non-intelligent) can transcribe information (intelligence) from the environment (non-intelligence). That is very strange. How does the environment transcribe into the genome? How do we have a ‘pretty good’ idea that this is even possible, much less happened? Wishfual speculation does not make this true, does it? Thanks, Saxesaxe17
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
I don't know where to post this but this is too freakin' funny. Over at Jack Krebbs DB I asked about falsifying the theory of evolution: http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001396;p=1 One evo named Les responded with: It's easiest with specific genes. If a eucaryotic gene is unrelated to corresponding genes in similar (recognizably related) organisms then it must have been "inserted" by an unknown mechanism. [b]An intelligent designer is one such mechanism.[/b] Did you get that? The same people telling us that ID is pseudo-science are now telling us that that pseudo-science can falsify their science! I can't believe I initially missed it...Joseph
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
Hi again Scott. I'll get to your latest post when I can. Back to your earlier post:
I’m still not clear on how the TE reconciles their position with the clear hallmarks of Intelligent Design we observe in nature. Like it or not, the cell contains digital code, the flagellum, the cell, etc… are Irreducibly Complex, the fossil record demonstrates the abrupt appearance of all major phyla sans precursors. All this evidence points away from the gradualistic Darwinian Mechanism and points towards these relics of a designing intelligence.
I don't really want to get into a science debate, since my main reason for posting here was to explain the TE position which seemed to be quite misunderstood. A few quick comments. The cell contains digital code, and we have a pretty good idea how natural processes can transcribe information from the environment into the genome over time. Irreducible complexity is explained in a general sense by concepts like scaffolding, and in particular cases by continuing research. Natural selection has been shown to be capable of creating IC structures in findings in the wild (such as the well-known nylon bug), lab experiments, and the mimicry of natural selection in artificial environments. The "abrupt" appearance of the major phyla over tens of millions of years does little to advance special creation. Our own phylum of chordates includes modern fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds, and most using this argument would not be willing to accept the common descent of all these creatures. In any case, more precursors are found every decade, and many now exist from the pre-Cambrian. More important than any of that, what I'd like to point out is that what you call the "gradualistic Darwinian Mechanism" is what I call natural selection, a part of God's creation. So, to me, your statement reads similar to someone railing against the relativistic Einsteinian mechanism that can't possibly be skillfully designed enough to keep planets in their orbits. All the evidence you've listed, as you interpret it, points to an intervening designing intelligence which may or may not be the intelligence responsible for nature itself. Rather than showing the skill with which creation was designed, it argues for gaps where an outside intelligence would have to help creation along to get it over hurdles it was ill-equipped to surmount itself. Consider the familiar example of a 747, but instead of in a junkyard, imagine one forced into a crash-landing in the countryside, but with no lives lost. Two men are investigating the crash. The first one looks for evidence -- any evidence -- to show that the fortunate outcome was due to some outside force and not the good design of the plane. He can't accept that the plane was built in such a way to make outcomes like this possible. Something else must have prevented the fuselage from tearing apart; something external must have kept the cabin from bursting into flame; something other than the design of the seats must have kept the passengers from suffering more serious abrasions. The other investigator notes the careful structure of the plane designed to protect the fuselage at all costs; he examines the fire-retardant materials used and how jet fuel is prevented from entering the cabin; he sees the seatbelts and soft-but-firm cushions designed to protect the passengers. The first investigator sees evidence of intelligent intervention, but not necessarily by the designer of the plane. The second investigator sees evidence that could only point to a competent designer of the plane. The plane is the universe. God is its designer. When it comes to creation, I prefer to focus on the evidence of his handiwork rather than looking for flaws needing to be fixed and limitations needing to be overcome by the intervention of unnamed others. God may have miraculously intervened at many places within creation, but my faith in him as Creator does not rest on me finding those places. The miracle of creation as a whole is strong enough testimony to that.Mercury
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
I hear where you are coming from, Mercury, and I personally find this figurative view fascinating. That said, there are still some puzzling questions. 1. An examination of the NT writers attitudes towards the events of the early chapters of Genesis reveals that they did indeed view them as literal historical events (Adam/Eve, the Flood, etc...). We see nothing in the NT that would indicate that the writers saw them as allegorical, legendary or even "evolutionary" events. (And remember a proper hermeneutic is to interpret the OT in light of the NT, since the NT completes the OT). 2. Jesus indicates that Adam and Eve and the events surrounding their sinning (Mark 10:1–12) and also Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:37–39) were literal historical events. 3. Do a study of the number of times the Apostle Paul compares and contrasts the Jesus Christ with Adam (it's a bunch!) So, there would appear to be a strange thing going on if he is making comparisons of the literal Christ and his literal redemptive sacrifice, with a figurative/allegorical Adam. Christ is called "The Last Adam". Again, I appreciate your viewpoint and I would like to get your feedback on the above whenever you can. Cheers!Scott
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Scott, re-reading the last two paragraphs of my post I see I wasn't explicit in tying it back to your comment. I reconcile a redemptive Christ with a figurative Adam because of the way I view symbols and figures. They are more than what they literally appear to be, not less. I don't view figurative as the same thing as false. Adam, a name that means "humanity", really did do the things Genesis 2-3 recounts, just as surely as God's chosen nation-bride really did play the harlot.Mercury
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Jacktone, I entirely agree. I think too much focus on Adam's original sin can tend to minimize the true ugliness of our own volitional rebellion against our Creator. My own view of original sin is quite different from the Augustinian view. I see it as affecting us more like culture than an inherited defect. From the first act of disobedience, sin entered the world. The world contained the results of that disobedience, and as humans perpetuated that sin, the world has become more and more tainted with the results of our sinfulness, causing it to figuratively groan under the weight of what humanity, its God-appointed ruler, has subjected it to. Every human is born into this world, and so experiences this taint of sin. Jesus was no exception, and that's why the author of Hebrews can say that he was made like us in every way, and tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin. He experienced the full temptation and horror of sin, yet withstood it perfectly. Tina, I also agree with you that the Augustinian view of original sin causes a lot of logical problems. I've been involved in a few apologetics discussions with atheists/agnostics, and they absolutely love Augustinian original sin. I think sometimes it's useful to listen to what people "outside" our viewpoint think of as its weak points. Sometimes they're right. Back to Scott's comment:
The other issue I struggle to grasp is how the TE reconciles their faith in a redemptive Christ with a figurative Adam.
First, many TEs believe in a literal Adam. One of the more prominent ones is Glenn Morton, who has a website with lots of information about the issue. His view entails a stillborn child with a chromosome fusion around five million years ago. God looks at this dead child with pity, raises him to life, places him in a safe environment, and cares for him. Eventually, God forms a partner for this man, since otherwise he would be alone. So, a very literal interpretation, but he's still a TE. My own view is that Genesis 2-4 is recounting history the same way Ezekiel 16 and 23 do. The characters are more than individuals. The serpent actually represents the tempter, Satan. The trees aren't literal magic trees, but rather represent God's knowledge (Genesis 3:5) and God's sustaining power (Revelation 2:7, 22:1-2). Adam and Eve represent the first humans, however many of them there were, just as the lady Jerusalem and Oholibah represent Israel in those Ezekiel passages. For those coming from a literal perspective, perhaps the simplest way of explaining it is that I interpret the entire account the way you probably interpret Genesis 3:15. I don't think that one verse is a deviation from an otherwise prosaic, literal account; instead, the whole account is pregnant with that kind of far-reaching symbolism. Scott, I'll respond to your other comments about IC later.Mercury
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Personally, aside from all the theological questions surrounding original sin, what I need is forgiveness for my own sin.jacktone
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Scott, I just read your post. It is wonderful how the human spirit demands consistency and clarity! Everything should fit together, because we intuit that God is clarity itself! Maybe in this light, you could explain to me how it is possible that individual humans are guilty for time immemorial just for the guilt of a single individual who made a single bad choice a long time ago? How does this jive with God's justice?tinabrewer
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
I'm still not clear on how the TE reconciles their position with the clear hallmarks of Intelligent Design we observe in nature. Like it or not, the cell contains digital code, the flagellum, the cell, etc... are Irreducibly Complex, the fossil record demonstrates the abrupt appearance of all major phyla sans precursors. All this evidence points away from the gradualistic Darwinian Mechanism and points towards these relics of a designing intelligence. The other issue I struggle to grasp is how the TE reconciles their faith in a redemptive Christ with a figurative Adam.Scott
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Mercury, thanks again for your response. I am so intrigued by this new tangent of our ongoing dialogue, because I couldn't agree more with you that the universe is lawful and that the magnitude of this lawfulness is what is the truly glorious evidence of God's creative genius. On the issue of intelligent design being about God intervening by breaking those laws, though, I think this is an interpretive stance. This is really where the sticking point is. I have not been forthcoming about my own personal beliefs bacause, like I said, I wanted to avoid, initially at least, having the discussion be about competing BELIEFS, and more about getting a handle on what TEs think, and how they resolve what TO ME has seemed like an unresolveable dilemna. Perhaps I can be more forthcoming here in order to illustrate why I still come down on the side of design inferencing in individual instances: First of all, I am a vitalist. I believe there is matter, and I believe that for that matter to have life, and element or substance OF A HIGHER SPECIES must penetrate and 'set aglow' the dead matter. The laws of the universe to which you seem to be referring, and to which the Darwinian theory of evolution refers, seem to me to be interactions within matter only. This leads quite directly to the view that higher properties are always emergent: they come about as a result of matter arranged in complex ways, but have no independent integrity or origin. I would be interested to hear your view of this, because the vitalist conception of life includes the idea that living things have a body or material form, which is, however, infused with, or occupied by, a non-material form. This non-material component, which in humans we would call the soul, has independent existence and the value or quality of its own species. The emergent view negates this. Second, I think about the evolution of life on earth as being the result of constant work by intelligent beings who act fully within the creative laws of God, and whose purpose is the development of material life. The ancients called these beings gods or elementals, because for them, their activity was the most immediate and real. Nearly all of the most ancient religions are animistic, and it is my view that as the spiritual recognitions of humans developed to higher and higher planes, culminating, again in my view, in the recognition of the one Almighty God, that unfortunately this always led to the categorical rejection of everything that came before. I understand that this will not be a popular view, but I decided to share it anyway, because it is fundamentally why I do believe that the mutational changes which lead to progressive successful adaptation through time are in fact directed by these beings, who are servants of God. Their activity, which is entirely within the laws of creation, nevertheless shapes its development willfully. The reason this view is important to understand is that there seems to be a division between the conception of something working out according to law, vs. violating that law to move something in a particular direction. I think this is a false conflict. If I build a bridge to walk across a river, am I violating the laws of creation, such as gravity? I don't see this as a violation, but rather as an acceptance of the inexorable and unchangeable nature of gravity and an intelligent adaptation to it. If however I could only build a bridge over a chasm by suspending the activity of gravity, this would constitute a miracle or violation of this law. Incidentally, I think there are no such violations, which might be termed miracles, because the laws ARE the will of God and as such are perfect. God doesn't violate his own perfection or his own perfect will. If Christ healed the sick, it was not by violating laws, but by infusing the event with a HIGHER FORM OF ENERGY, which he posessed as a result of his inner nature. THe higher energy form is able to quicken a perfectly natural process (which in this case would be the sick person's own natural tendency to heal) in much the same way as adding heat to a chemical combination increases the rate of the sought after reactions.tinabrewer
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply