Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Stephen Meyer on Engineers and ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In this, Part 2 in a series of posts based on the Q&A section in the recently released DVD, Case for a Creator, I offer the text of Meyer’s response to the question, Why are many engineers intrigued by intelligent design theory?

As a software engineer — in both the artificial-intelligence and aerospace research and development fields — I recognized that there were huge problems with the thesis that natural selection and random variation could produce complex information-processing systems, because designing such systems is what I do.

Here are Meyer’s comments in answer to the question posed to him above:

The origin of a new structure, of a miniature machine, or an information-processing system, or a circuit, is an engineering problem. Oftentimes people have criticized the intelligent design movement because there are so many prominent professors of engineering in our number. But we don’t make any apologies for that, because engineers are precisely the scientists that know what it takes to design things, to build things. And the question of origins is essentially a question of engineering. How did these systems get built? And when you have so many top-level professors of engineering — in mechanical, electrical or software engineering — saying, I think we’re looking at systems that clearly show evidence of design, I think the Darwinists have a serious problem. If they can’t persuade those people, that the 19th-century mechanism of selection and variation is up to this task, I think that the theory is in serious trouble.

Comments
GilDodgen: Natural selection is not random, but it does not create anything; it only throws stuff out. Natural selection is a garbage disposal. Garbage disposals don’t engineer anything. "Natural selection is a result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a popukation that vary in one or more heritable traits."- page 11 Biology:Concepts and Applications Starr/ 5th edition. IOW it is on the right side of the =. Everything to the left is random, that is under the MET.Joseph
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
Hey all, @Tom Moore (though you're probably gone): I design systems with built in capability to adapt to novel situations. I call those novel situations "stupid users". It takes a LOT of design work and forethought (telic activity) to build a system with contingency designs. That is on the level of input-output. Now talking about the actual system itself, letting randomness have a go at my code will never produce more functional code. How do I know? Another force called "stupid, unthinking programmers". When people write code without thinking through it, the results are without exception detrimental. Sometimes CSers are as alazy as anyone else and do work while day-dreaming. And when they do, you know it right away. Much the same way as boosting up mutation rates produces monsters (see Colbalt bombs), not better "variety".Atom
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
In post #55, Freelurker wrote:
Does anyone here claim that a majority, or even a large percentage, of engineers believes that ID would be useful in the practice of science? Notice that teleology plays no role in the practice of engineering.
You’ll have to help me here, Freelurker…. 1) What does majority thinking have to do with correctness? Has it been the case in human or even science history that the majority was always right? (See Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) 2) Are you serious in saying that teleology plays no role in the practice of engineering? I take invention to be almost pure telic activity. You lost me on these statements! Columbo Edited to change UBB codes to HTML codes. -HousekeepingColumbo
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
“intelligent selection.” Is this a part of ID theory? Artificial selection is a design mechanism. "Intelligent selection" would either encompass AS or be part of it. IOW the bac flag could nave "evolved by design". Each step was pre-programmed. And if each step matched some desired target it would be selected for.Joseph
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Semi off topic: So, engineering may also play a major component in the cosmos, after all: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2134891.ece Apparently dark matter serves as a "scaffolding" for the galaxies. "One of the most important discoveries to emerge from the study is that dark matter appears to form an invisible scaffold or skeleton around which the visible universe has formed." One might feel a sense of shock and awe? One might fall to his or her knees in humble adoration in light of this incredible design? Of course not! "The most surprising aspect of our map is how unsurprising it is. Overall, we seem to understand really well what happens during the formation of structure and the evolution of the universe," he [Dr. Massey] said. Now of course we understand that scientists have known for years about dark matter and how it behaves, so in a sense he is correct. But what is amazing is that there is no amazement that the cosmos all fits together so, well, perfectly, in its ability to create an environment for life. Of yes, with a wave of the hand, we dismiss it as just what we expected to find. Does this not remind you of your know-it-all boss or neighbor that, no matter what you tell him or her, there is not one bit of surprise or wonder, because he or she has such a superior intellect that none is needed or appropriate. And does it not also remind you of the Darwinians that are never surprised by new findings, because, after all, they already performed their slam-dunk, and, according to them, the whistle already blew and they already declared victory.Ekstasis
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
“At that point I conceded to him and a few years of study later I still haven’t found anything that makes abiogenesis credible.” DaveScot, no offense, but if you conceded to him based upon evidence and the weight of his argument you weren’t a very good Darwinist. In fact, if you considered NDE might be wrong for even a second, you weren’t a very good Darwinist :)shaner74
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Does anyone here claim that a majority, or even a large percentage, of engineers believes that ID would be useful in the practice of science? Freelurker, do you believe the principle that life occurred due to a series of random events useful in the practice of science? Do you believe the principle that life developed due to a series of random events usefule in the practice of science?tribune7
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
I wouldn’t give you a plugged nickel for any engineering professor. Surely you’ve heard the saying “if you can’t do, then teach”.
Tell it to Meyer. I singled them out in response to him.Freelurker
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Freelurker If you're an engineer and you've never had to find an answer using the scientific method then IMO you're not doing anything really interesting. Conversely, if you're a scientist and you haven't had to engineer experimental apparatus in seeking answers to questions you're not doing anything really interesting. Both disciplines overlap. The only real difference is motivation. Engineers only do science as needed and scientists only do engineering as needed. I wouldn't give you a plugged nickel for any engineering professor. Surely you've heard the saying "if you can't do, then teach".DaveScot
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
That there is a high percentage of IDists who are engineers does not mean that there is a high percentage of engineers who are IDists. I wish we had objective data on the reception that ID concepts are getting amongst engineers in general and amongst engineering professors in particular. Needless to say, the set of engineers who would be cited by the DI (or who would comment on this blog) is not a representative sample. Does anyone here claim that a majority, or even a large percentage, of engineers believes that ID would be useful in the practice of science? Notice that teleology plays no role in the practice of engineering. How many of you agree with Meyer that engineers should be counted as scientists? Engineering is characterized by invention and construction. Science is characterized by research and discovery. I am proud to be an engineer; I have no desire to be counted as a scientist.Freelurker
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
gpuccio It was an MD here in Austin a few years ago who finally convinced me that the theory of evolution I'd been taught was just dogma. He zeroed right in on DNA and ribosomes and asked me to explain to him which came first, proteins or DNA. After some googling on the problem I pointed him to the RNA World hypothesis. He laughed and said that was a world of pure imagination and the chemistry has never been made to work. After a little more research I found he was right. The best anyone has come up with to explain the chicken/egg paradox of DNA and ribosomes was a fantasy world where the chemistry of that hypothetical world was known to be unworkable. At that point I conceded to him and a few years of study later I still haven't found anything that makes abiogenesis credible. If you're an evolutionary biologist you either ignore the problem of origins or you take it as an item of blind faith that undirected processes could create DNA based life as we know it. It appears that engineers, medical doctors, and mathematicians are more likely than others to reject the chance hypothesis for the origin of life. I know why engineers and mathematicians are more likely but I haven't quite figured out why medical doctors are. Perhaps you and the other MDs here could speak to that. DaveScot
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
idnet.com.au writes: "IDist; as a medical doctor I thank you for including us in the esteemed group of biologists. I am not sure that biologists deserve the esteem they are afforded by some on this blog" As a medical doctor, I add my thanks. I must say that, although my specific education in biological sciences has given me the chance to evaluate directly the technical aspects of the debate, it is my personal experience as an "amateur" computer programmer, and some familiarity with statistics and mathematics, which have provided the most stunning evidence against evolution, for me. So, maybe it is useful to have a wider approach to see better the general scenario. Besides, I would not say that biologists have not been critical of darwinism. In Italy, we have the relevant case of Giuseppe Sermonti, a very distinguished biologist and geneticist, who has been criticizing darwinism for decades. As darwinism is, at present, a self-perpetuating dogma, it is absolutely obvious that the vast majority of those who work in biology do support it. That's the nature of dogmas, and of conformist behaviour. But what is really sad is that in the case of darwinism, such conformism is typically ideological, and it implies the acceptance of so many deviations from logical thought, scientific method, philosophical correctness, and above all the renunciation to that humble spirit of inquiry which should guide any search for truth.gpuccio
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
Evolutionary biologists generally specialise in imagination, hand waving and a lot of talk.
But we have to admit that they have the most fertile imagination possible. Just like Behe says it:
Some evolutionary biologists - like Richard Dawkins - have fertile imaginations. Giveb a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish.
I think if Richard Dawkins specializes in writing scientific fairy tails about animals (I think it's his field) for children he will be very successful, and this can count as "public understanding of science"IDist
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT
ID will become main stream within 5-10 years and the vast majority of accademia, who have only played lip service to the mighty power of RM+NS, in order to maintain their social respectability, will discard the myth without another thought. The world will not fall apart. Research will not grind to a halt, and unfortunately genuine faith will probably be just as rare or as common as it is now. Men will always find a new comfortable myth to believe in when an old one is discarded.idnet.com.au
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
By the way, I studied electrical engineering which included systems engineering and computer programming for two years before turning to the softer science of medicine. I saw the systems we learned about in engineering in much more refined and beautiful forms in physiology, biochemistry, embryology and anatomy. Who do you get to design a new knee joint? A doctor or an engineer? Who designs the lab equipment biologists use? Engineers. Evolutionary biologists generally specialise in imagination, hand waving and a lot of talk. The new field of systems biology is forcing the biologists back to school to study engineering. Why do we need engineering to understand the results of Darwin's simple idea?idnet.com.au
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT
IDist; as a medical doctor I thank you for including us in the esteemed group of biologists. I am not sure that biologists deserve the esteem they are afforded by some on this blog. Athough all my training was peppered with fleeting references to Darwinist myths, all the useful stuff in our training assumed design. When I was at uni there was no ID movement only YEC and Neo Darwinian Evolution. I knew there must be a third way. All those who study biology today, whether medicine or some more beastly variety of applied or pure biology, have the liberty of seeing things with new eyes. Nothing in biology makes sense without ID. If anyone doubts this, where is biology without the simplest form of life? and where is any even rudimentary evidence that life can arise without Intelligent Design?idnet.com.au
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT
BTW, any idea about when the updated version of the dissent list will be available?IDist
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
I took note of Dawkins' avoidance of the "random mutation" terminology during his recent appearance on Comedy Central's Colbert Report (where the masses get most of their scientific education, of course). My initial reaction was "Hmmmm....this is a strange new tactic." Dawkins has obviously recognized that the use of the term "random" is not likely to steer the mind of the layman in the direction he wants to take it. He's trying to weasel out of one of the core tenets of Mr. Darwin's theory. This kind of careful, calculating and cunning "spin" is just all too common these days. I grow weary of folks trying to "repackage" their ideas and personal images in order to deceive. Apparently, I'm not alone. The following quote, from a recent column in the Nation, is written by someone who likely shares Dawkins' worldview but who also can't stand the incessant redefinition of terms in modern discourse... ...Avoid weasel words. Like "spirituality." It's "religion." And "faith"--that's "religion" too. And while you're at it, define your terms....And speaking of liberals, whatever happened to them? And to leftists? How come we're all "progressives" now?... http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070122/pollitt If RM + NS doesn't add up, just multiply by zero and add the desired answer.tarheel_chemist
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
Quoted by IDist: ' "[Lynn Margulis] says that history will ultimately judge neo-darwinisim as “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuation of Anglo-Saxon biology.” ' Science does not remain static. Its core tenets invariably get modified as new evidence and outlooks arrive - science has and will continue to evolve. Evolutionary theory is no exception. Therefore, those who would cling lovingly to mindless RM/NS would do well to remember that their cherished outlook is subject to change, and even extinction.apollo230
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
I guess Dawkins has actually used that bombardier beetle as an example to show the “blind watchmaker” at work
Behe made an interesting comment on this in DBB. ---- I don't think that there is a small number of biologists that support ID or at least skeptical of darwinisim. A very good number of medical doctors are skeptical of darwinisim, and I think they count as biologists. And outside of the ID community there are great biologists who reject Darwinisim, exaples include Michael Denton , Lyle H. Jensen ( fellow AAAS & Professor Emeritus Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington) and Grasse, a great french scientist who rejected Darwinisim decades ago. Also Lynn Margulis who is a distinguished professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts, and she's highly respected for her generally accepted theory that mitochondria were once independatd, separate bacterial cells. She says that history will ultimately judge neo-darwinisim as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuation of Anglo-Saxon biology." And within the ID community biologists include Behe, Wells, Dean Kenyon, Scott Minnich, Paul Chen and others. Also I think paleontologists are no friends of Darwinian gradualism, the fossil record has nothing at all to do with gradualism, not to mention the Cambrian explosion. This was just to mention a few, of course the majority of biologists still supports Darwinian evolution, but I think this has many reasons:
if a poll were taken of all scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinisim to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinisim, most (though not all) do so based on authority.
Darwin's black box, page 30. And as David Berlinski said in an interview "the incorrigible Dr. Berlinski", most people doing research in biology don't need darwinian evolution in anything, they just take it for granted because the authorities on evolutionary biology say so, and of course because the cost of criticizing darwinian evolution is very high.IDist
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
To Shaner: :) Best regards, apollo230apollo230
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
"Faith in materialism will only be shaken at the end, when we all are finally confronted by the reality of the spirit." apollo230, you've just said what I've been thinking.shaner74
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
I am NOT suggesting that we educate Darwinists by killing them. Rather, death may be, in fact the only way that they (and we too) will be shaken out of all vestiges of material faith. Faith in materialism will only be shaken at the end, when we all are finally confronted by the reality of the spirit.apollo230
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
I guess Dawkins has actually used that bombardier beetle as an example to show the "blind watchmaker" at work.shaner74
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
Natural selection is not random, but it does not create anything; it only throws stuff out. Natural selection is a garbage disposal. Garbage disposals don't engineer anything. This is not hard.GilDodgen
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
One argues with dedicated Darwinists in absolute vain. The old saying is "a picture is worth a thousand words". Therefore, if a Darwinist can look at all the wonders of nature and not be stirred to suspect a design, we absolutely waste our breath when we attempt to convince them of the distinct possibility of ID. Typical Darwinist posture redefines the concept of "hard-boiled". The only thing that will shake these dedicated strict materialists is the death of their bodies. When their spirits look down at the discarded corpse, then and only then will it occur to them that naturalism was an incomplete explanation.apollo230
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
A little off-topic, but I just stumbled upon this and thought I’d post the incredible DESIGN the “blind watchmaker” seems to have stumbled upon in the defense mechanism of the “Bombardier Beetle”, which is a boiling hot spray. This from Wikipedia: “The mechanism works thus: Secretory cells produce hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide (and perhaps other chemicals, depending on the species), which collect in a reservoir. The reservoir opens through a muscle-controlled valve onto a thick-walled reaction chamber. This chamber is lined with cells that secrete catalases and peroxidases. When the contents of the reservoir are forced into the reaction chamber, the catalases and peroxidases rapidly break down the hydrogen peroxide and catalyze the oxidation of the hydroquinones into p-quinones. These reactions release free oxygen and generate enough heat to bring the mixture to the boiling point and vaporize about a fifth of it. Under pressure of the released gasses, the valve is forced closed, and the chemicals are expelled explosively through openings at the tip of the abdomen. Each time it does this it shoots about 70 times very rapidly. (The spray is aimed with precision accuracy, and can be pointed in any direction, even forward over its back by bouncing the spray off a pair of skeletal reflectors that it sticks out from the tip of its abdomen at the moment of ejection.) This effectively deters predators, often causing them blinding or death, and can be painful to human skin.” The designer is a chemistry genius.shaner74
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
“Russ, good point. If a mathamatical equation has any random term(s) random in it, the answer is by definition random. As far as natural selection doing the “designing”, that’s like saying that flowing water “sculpts” a rock it flows over.” A while back I attempted arguing this very point on another forum. It was met with disbelief and shock that I could be so ignorant to suggest such a foolish thing. “NDE is NOT random” is the latest mantra in the church of Darwin, yet I still haven’t seen how random + natural law somehow becomes non-random. The supposedly “lucky” mutation for NS to act upon is random. It’s a case of “we want to have our cake and eat it too” By the way, I also agree with the OP. I spent many years designing software and now I remodel homes, and the one thing I have learned from this, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that matter tends to just sit there and decay w/out intelligence acting upon it. I also have some experience in tool making, and the design and work that goes into making even a simple machine is incredible. A sidewalk won’t sweep itself given a billion years, nevermind the notion that something as complex as vision or a brain, or a cell can simply be “designed” by randomness. It’s an absolute insult to intelligent people everywhere.shaner74
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Sorry, Columbo. I reread Russ post and realize the text at the beginning of it was written by you, rather that you quoting someone else. My bad.sabre
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
Russ, good point. If a mathamatical equation has any random term(s) random in it, the answer is by definition random. As far as natural selection doing the "designing", that's like saying that flowing water "sculpts" a rock it flows over. The end result is no less random and unpredictable, unlike the work of a sculpter, who knows ahead of time what he wants the rock to eventually look like. Columbo describes natural selection as if it is aware, has a goal, and can somehow make selections by weighing affects on the system as a whole (just can't get away from the language of design, can you); however, only a designing intelligence can do that. I'm an engineer, too, by the way. Natural selection is dependent not only on the mutation itself (which is random), but also on the quite random environmental conditions that exist at the (random) time the mutation presents itself. It is also dependent on the (again random) possibility that the mutated entity (plant or animal) will survive long enough to pass that trait on. It all look pretty random to me. Remember, selection is an all or nothing process, and requires that the mutation is large enough to make a difference. I encourge Tom and Columbo to read Sanford's book on Genetic Entropy. It becomes quite clear just how truly limited the abililties of NS are. Deep time doesn't help; in fact, it actually makes RS's job more difficult, due to the vast number of near-neutral deliterious mutations propagate through time. In short, NS abilities are largely limited to weeding out the most serious bad mutations, and fall far short of being able to build higher levels of complexity. P.S. Hello, all my fellow engineers!sabre
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply