Textbook wars: The fact that something evolved does not mean that Darwinism caused it

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 12, 2012

Books of interest, Intelligent Design, science education}

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

A blog repeats a whole lot of stale stuff about Americans not believing in evolution, in support of a 2013 textbook, whose cover shows insects that look like leaves.

It’s a great cover, but what does it show? That Darwinism is true? Almost everyone crabbing about the fact that Americans do not believe in evolution means that Americans do not believe in Darwinism – the only theory of evolution ever developed explicitly to destroy the idea of design.

Somehow or other, looking five percent like a leaf was supposed to prevent the original forebears of these insects from getting eaten as often as their own forebears did. And the Darwinist’s usual response to any doubt about this explanation has been ridicule – and court cases, if ridicule doesn’t work.

Normal people push back.

By the way, an equally interesting example is the praying mantis that looks like dropped petals. It’s amazing. But it is not evidence for Darwin’s theory either.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Comments

Hi Jon Garvey
C: Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that natural selection can’t be defined and thus can’t be refuted. The question still remains: What consequences are clearly and unequivocally entailed by ID, and how can we empirically test them? J: Let’s assume, also for discussion, that ID like natural selection could not be unequivocally tested: then the consequence would be that there are two competing, non-scientific theories of origins. But since falsification as a strict requirement of science is not universally agreed, it’s a bit academic. Whatever predictions natural selection makes could also be produced by, say, a tricksy designer. A label in a cell declaring “Designed and built by Slartibartfast” could be explained by chance (a message being no more unlikely than a non-message, in retrospect). So we’re necessarily reduced to accepting less rigorous criteria, like inference to best explanation.
I agree, and this echoes my comments above. Inference to the best explanation, aka abduction, requires establishing that A entails B, so that if we observe effect B, we can infer cause A. Without clear and unequivocal entailments of an ID hypothesis that can be empirically tested, ID will be unlikely to gain recognition as sound science. Cheers PS: It's been a long time since I read Hitchhiker's Guide. Your reference brought back fond memories.CLAVDIVS_{March 16, 2012
March
03
Mar
16
16
2012
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

Hi Joe
J: if there were any evidence that blind and undirected processes could produce CSI you would have a point. ID makes the claim that blind and undirected processes cannot produce CSI C: OK, so what science would call for, in my view, are unambiguous definitions of blind/undirected processes and CSI, and a procedure to test the claim that the former can’t produce the latter — Or is it “originate CSI” rather than “produce CSI”? This would need to be clearly defined as well. J: ...“No Free Lunch” puts it all on the line...
I don't think No Free Lunch gives an unambiguous definition of CSI because he acknowledges that the specification is subjective:
Nothing is ever specifiable as such but only in relation to a subject that does the specifying. ... Is specification therefore subjective? Yes, but not in a way that limit's specification's usefulness to science. It is important here to grasp John Searle's distinction between ontological subjectivity and epistemic objectivity. ... Specifications are ontologically subjective but epistemically objective. --- Dembski, W. A., No Free Lunch (2007), p.66 (emphasis added)
Dr Dembski tries to rescue specification from subjectivity by appealing to John Searle. This rescue doesn't really work: Dembski glosses over Searle's requirement that epistemic objectivity must be based upon some objective criteria for evaluating claims about subjective phenomena. But the specification is part of the evaluation criteria, not the phenomenon! Empirical tests call for objective criteria, not subjective ones. This may be a significant reason why CSI, as described in No Free Lunch, has not enjoyed acceptance in the sciences. CheersCLAVDIVS_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

Yes, that’s precisely the point and also why you differ from IDM leaders who insist that ‘intelligent design’ is ‘scientific.’ You say it isn’t, but seem to be hedging your bets, as a good Catholic might. Hedging how? The only "hedge" I have is this: when it comes to policy (as much as I can affect them, lone meager citizen-nobody that I am), if the it's considered "science" for Dawkins to say that God's existence is a scientific hypothesis, or for Victor Stenger to say science shows God doesn't exist, then for practical purposes I'll consider ID as science after all, and be quite content with it being treated as such. This is a great problem with the IDM’s claims. Legitimacy. It's not a "problem with the IDM's claims". It's a problem with many, many claims, of which the IDM is just the latest iteration. I refuse to endorse a double standard where Behe is treated as some kind of science-harming monster for speculating about the limitations of Darwinian evolutiton or even inferring design (in the most qualified sense imaginable), but similar excesses on the part of Dawkins or even Darwin himself are forgiven or encouraged. Yes, of course. Well requested. I’m trained in 3 fields. How about you, nullasalus. Which field(s) would you say you can speak authoratatively in? Do you have specialized (scientific) knowledge? Are you qualified or seeking qualification? Have you missed the part where I said I really don't care about academic standards, particularly with regards to who can "speak authoritatively"? Or that I don't care if someone speaks outside of their field, so long as they don't pretend they're an authority on what they're therefore speaking about? As for your training in three fields (whatever they are), they don't seem to be seeing much use in this conversation. But it could have been worse - you could have majored in english. If you are not defending ID as ‘science,’ then as ‘what’ do you defend or promote ID? As a story? As a meta-narrative? As a myth? The fact that you apparently think that, if something is not science, then it must therefore be "a story, a meta-narrative, or a myth" is telling. I think ID asks legitimate questions - is nature designed? Are physical laws designed? Is the universe at a certain level designed? Are living things designed? I think the IDM sometimes makes some legitimate criticisms of current evolutionary theory, though that's not the same as an ID inference. I think ID inferences can be reasonable, even if they're not properly called science. And I think ID serves as a fantastic counterbalance to popular abuse of science - maybe it will one day be less appealing to men like Jerry Coyne to abuse science if their actions indirectly legitimize ID. I answered your question, Gregory. Now maybe you'll answer mine: exactly what is your problem with ID? And please, for the love of God, I hope it's not something like "they fail to take seriously or sufficiently include the work of prominent sociologists" or something like that.nullasalus_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

"Not all knowledge is science" - nullasalus Yes, that's precisely the point and also why you differ from IDM leaders who insist that 'intelligent design' is 'scientific.' You say it isn't, but seem to be hedging your bets, as a good Catholic might. Let me reiterate your thoughts, regarding the IDM with which I concur: why? "The desire to be able to speak with the authority of science…” This is a great problem with the IDM's claims. Legitimacy. "How about speaking outside your field, but qualifying yourself appropriately?" - nullasalus Yes, of course. Well requested. I'm trained in 3 fields. How about you, nullasalus. Which field(s) would you say you can speak authoratatively in? Do you have specialized (scientific) knowledge? Are you qualified or seeking qualification? "The problem is when the physicist confuses those views with, and presents those views as, science – worse, science that he’s an authority regarding." - nullasalus Goodness, yes. That's why I often hark upon the quote by G.B. Shaw about 'specialist idiots.' If you are not defending ID as 'science,' then as 'what' do you defend or promote ID? As a story? As a meta-narrative? As a myth?Gregory_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

If it is knowledge – going back to Latin for ‘science’, nullasalus. We now live in a knowledge society, within the electronic-information age. McLuhan is more powerful than Bacon, by far, and for you a fellow Catholic at that. Not all knowledge is science, and "going back to the latin" isn't decisive here. Otherwise you'd be telling me that astrology is science. Not all warranted belief and reasoning is science either. Yes, it is a ‘belief,’ rather than knowledge, isn’t it, based usually on a desire? Based on arguments and evidence and some presuppositions. Man, I really suggest you don't play the "cute manipulation of words" game with me. I'll frankly say I'll do it better. Right now, not interested. Yes, as Behe and Einstein have said (same breath!?). Then I will do my best here to speak only inside or within my field. Why? How about speaking outside your field, but qualifying yourself appropriately? The problem isn't that a physicist talks about theology or has theological views and ideas. The problem is when the physicist confuses those views with, and presents those views as, science - worse, science that he's an authority regarding. As it happens, I’m one of very few who has studied and actually defended theses in front of academic committees on the topic of ‘intelligent design’ and the IDM. Oh boy, an actual academic committee? Did they wear fancy hats, by chance? That's how you can tell they're authorities you know. And you attended the summer program? Congratulations. Look, you're an interesting guy with interesting thoughts. But you're pretty damn insufferable when your comments are just namedropping of books you've read or people you think should be more influential, or assertions that you're quite knowledgeable. No harm done - I'm pretty insufferable too most of the time. But I kindly suggest, since you have the potential to do so, that you start giving actual input on these topics. And "everyone should take sociology more seriously!" doesn't count for input.nullasalus_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

"You tell me, Gregory. Is something only worth studying – can it only lead to reasonable conclusions – if it is “science”?" - nullasalus If it is knowledge - going back to Latin for 'science', nullasalus. We now live in a knowledge society, within the electronic-information age. McLuhan is more powerful than Bacon, by far, and for you a fellow Catholic at that. "The belief that ID is science, I imagine. The desire to be able to speak with the authority of science..." - nullasalus Yes, it is a 'belief,' rather than knowledge, isn't it, based usually on a desire? "PhDs so often talk outside of their field" - nullasalus Yes, as Behe and Einstein have said (same breath!?). Then I will do my best here to speak only inside or within my field. As it happens, I'm one of very few who has studied and actually defended theses in front of academic committees on the topic of 'intelligent design' and the IDM. The IDM may or may not wish to admit this, but I've studied them from inside the DI at their Summer Program. Thus there's a difference between a 'pink' steak and one that is by experience/experiment 'well-done.' 'Joe' can go eat a tasty crackerjack now, if his babysitter allows him.Gregory_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Gregory, Margaret Archer could only be considered ‘irrelevant’ by someone who reduces a gigantic conversation about agency, purpose, teleology and plan down to simple biology, botany or sound bytes. Reality is much wider than that, which is why scholars get paid to study it/us. To be dead frank, "scholars" often get paid to study complete nonsense, and quite a lot of their pay comes in the form of government subsidization. You really don't want to use an argument which amounts to "Of course it's worth doing. Otherwise why would the government pay for it?" That said, yes, reality is much wider. Archer may have some valid insights. But you're the one who brought up 'context' and how ID proponents "don't matter" in them. And I'm pointing up how, rightly or wrongly, practically irrelevant your context of choice is. I'm probably, out of everyone on UD, the least impressed by the trends in deeper academia. Reading Herman Dooyeweerd’s modal aspects might help here, though of course nullasalus’ anti-intellectual attitude might deem him irrelevant too. A simple USamerico-centric approach to this topic is quite obviously insufficient when presented with alternative superior resources. I'm not "anti-intellectual" in the sense of disregarding intellectual pursuits. I support them. I'm anti-intellectual insofar as "intellectual" refers to people, ie, "the leading intellectuals happen to say..." Last I saw, a pack of "intellectual bio-ethicists" were suggesting that there's nothing really wrong with infanticide. I think they should be fired and shamed. If that makes me anti-intellectual, git me mah tractor 'n mah pig. Sure, we are playing on the same card here. Do you not wonder, nullasalus, what motivates the IDM’s leaders to persist then in saying “ID *is* science”? Is this what resists you from being an ID proponent? What motivates them? The belief that ID is science, I imagine. The desire to be able to speak with the authority of science, just as Dawkins does whenever he goes off on some half-assed jag about God being a scientific hypothesis. And frankly, they have every right to demand as such, because "science" is abused more often by the anti-teleology crowd, and has been for a long time, without the "science defenders" saying much of anything. Just as Internet enables people to self-generate opinions about ‘science’ it thus allows them/us to challenge the experts (priests). This is what makes uneducated folks feel they can ‘compete’ with PhDs! They very often can "compete" with PhDs, precisely because PhDs so often talk outside of their field, while pretending they have some particular authority to do so. Once again: Richard Dawkins' thoughts on God have as much intellectual weight as a plumber's. Or to paraphrase George Carlin, "I have as much authority on theological subjects as Dawkins has. I just have fewer people who believe it." But since you denigrate social sciences as ‘unscientific,’ nullasalus, likely never will ‘intelligence’ or ‘design’ be/become topics worthy of study at a high level. Wait a second. I thought they were already worthy of study - hence Archer and Dooyeweerd. ;) Yeah, this type of thinking is part of the problem. You equate "worthy of study" with "being scientific". I happen to disagree, strongly. You tell me, Gregory. Is something only worth studying - can it only lead to reasonable conclusions - if it is "science"?nullasalus_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

kf, But we should not fool ourselves that the label “science” is a seal of truth and practically certain knowledge, starting with physics. We ought not to genuflect before the holy lab coat. That will just attract power-hungry ideologues and charlatans to use the name to extract blind adherence. Well, I agree with much of what you say in your entire reply, and particularly here. Really, I would expand the problem from "science" to "academia" in general - the problems with "scientists" are often problems with "professors" as well. I agree that there's no simple formula for determining "this is science, and this is not". My own definition is conditional and qualified. But I think the best way to avoid the problems you highlight is to recognize that science as a field has some severe limitations, and that "inference to the best explanation" is not at all identical to the scientific method. StephenB, Yes, it does get down to fundamentals, doesn’t it? He who defines terms and frames the issue wins the debate. Everything turns on whether you grant our definition of science or whether we grant your definition of science. All further analysis is redundant. Well, hold on now. I'm not debating anyone here, at least not at this moment. I'm just frankly saying that I think "science" is rightly defined in a far more limited way - a way that's not only more limited than what ID proponents want, but a way that's more limited than what many ID *opponents* want. Trust me - promoting a view of science where design's presence *or lack* are non-scientific questions, where scientific theories are neither teleological or non-teleological but utterly silent on the question of teleology, will tick off Jerry Coyne far more than Michael Behe. But either way, I'm not debating this here. Just stating my view frankly. It seems reasonable to me, then, that anyone who holds a different view should, in the spirit of good-faith dialogue [a] provide his own definition of science and [b] support that formulation with a coherent rationale. Ugh. Dialogue. Frankly, I'll pass. I have not been "debating" this. My position on ID was pretty tangential to the discussion so far, and I've discussed this here more than once. I probably will again in the future. But not every time I happen to state my position. Loosely, I think science is best defined as dealing with primary qualities and certain core metaphysical assumptions (PSR, for example), and not dealing with secondary qualities or more extraneous metaphysical assumptions (denial of causation, for example). I'm sure you know the distinction. The more central secondary qualities become to the theorizing and investigation, the less it has to do with science. Want to infer a bacterial flagellum is designed? You may well have great reason to. Indeed, your reasoning may be compelling. I'm just not going to consider it "science". Which shouldn't be much of an issue if your main concern is whether or not your conclusion is warranted. Along KF's lines, I'm no fan of genuflecting before the holy lab coat, and I think one reason for all the genuflecting is that people seek out the blessings of scientists in areas that are not science, rather than properly telling them to put a sock in it and treating their opinions as equivalent to any other person's.nullasalus_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Nullasulas:
Not everything that leads to reasonable or empirically supported conclusions are necessarily rightly called science. I’ll admit my view on this is my own, not any mainstream one.
Yes, it does get down to fundamentals, doesn't it? He who defines terms and frames the issue wins the debate. Everything turns on whether you grant our definition of science or whether we grant your definition of science. All further analysis is redundant. I accept the traditional (and ID compatible) definition: "science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster's 7th Collegiate, 1965]" It seems reasonable to me, then, that anyone who holds a different view should, in the spirit of good-faith dialogue [a] provide his own definition of science and [b] support that formulation with a coherent rationale.StephenB_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Thanks KF- I have tried and tried to tell her that she needs to explain the self-replicators- which we already know didn't exist. Also what she is calling "CSI" is just some specification, ie something that can be algorithmically compressed. I told her that computer programs, for example, are CSI and cannot be algorithmically compressed. Now her point is once you have replication with variation then CSI just spills out- again I am not sure of her version of CSI but she says chi > 1 has been accomplished, over and over. I told her that yeah, if you design a program to produce CSI then it should.Joe_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Joe Thanks. From your clip, at most we have here another hill climber, within an island of function. Not an explanation for how you get the relevant function, with reproductive capacity from an arbitrary initial point. Someone needs to tell Dr Liddle et al, that the first issue is to get to the first life form with metabolism and self-replication. Until you can show that on chance plus necessity, all you have is something that says that a designed reproductive capacity can support hill climbing if you have a selection filter. Within an island of function in short. Which was never in dispute or doubt. She may have complexity indeed, any string of 500 bits is complex, but there is no specification there independent of the string. But of course that is probably the point, to try to break down the idea that here is such a thing as a definable specification that is independent of the series of bits in the string and in relevant cases will function in a way dependent on the specific pattern. Unfortunately, we are not really dealing with a serious discussion, just something to get to a point where the concept of specification will be dismissed by those disinclined to follow where it points. To see how pointless it is, let us suppose she manages to obtain a string that when the runs of H's are multiplied the product exceeds 10^60 or whatever. Let's say it actually fits some definition of a "specification." Would that have shown that by chance and blind necessity, we can generate functional codes that carry out relevant life function, especially by incremental changes? Patently not. The purpose is rhetorical not serious. At most it may tell us we need to tighten the way we talk about a specification. And, coming back to the real world, we are dealing with functionally specific complex organisation and associated information. The sort of thing that makes a key fit a lock and open it, but not another apparently similar key. Likewise, the way certain strings of two-bit elements code for proteins that work, and fairly slight disruptions tend to lead of non-function. Where also, we have that protein fold domains are isolated in the space of protein sequences to something like 1 in 10^70. Similarly, for the evolutionary materialist narrative to gain traction, they have to account for the origin of a metabolising entity with a code based replication facility. And what is happening here is that the relevant config spaces are huge, beyond astronomical, and the co-ordinated complexity of what works, makes sure things are pretty unrepresentative of the field of possible strings. So, chance and blind mechanism do not have capacity to successfully search the space. If you are moving around in an island where neighbours are selected and rewarded incrementally, you are within an island of function and have failed to address where the problem begins. Back to the Weasel "misleading" -- Dawkins' admission -- example, in yet another guise. Disappointing, but not surprising. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

"However, starting with a randomly generated population of, say 100 series, I propose to subject them to random point mutations and natural selection, whereby I will cull the 50 series with the lowest products, and produce “offspring”, with random point mutations from each of the survivors, and repeat this over many generations." How does having a high product make a sequence self-reproducing so that natural selection is a valid thing to simulate? How does multiplying random runs of heads make the result in any way specified? A product of 10^60 would be complex, but hardly specified.Jon Garvey_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Hello again Gregory- Intelligent Design can be tested and either confirmed or falsified. The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. What else does it need before people outside of ID accept it as being scientific?Joe_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Creating CSI with NS She is taking the results of virtual coin tosses, mutating them and seeing if she can get some specification as defined in Dembski's 2005 paper on specification and chi:
Imagine a coin-tossing game. On each turn, players toss a fair coin 500 times. As they do so, they record all runs of heads, so that if they toss H T T H H H T H T T H H H H T T T, they will record: 1, 3, 1, 4, representing the number of heads in each run. At the end of each round, each player computes the product of their runs-of-heads. The person with the highest product wins. In addition, there is a House jackpot. Any person whose product exceeds 10^60 wins the House jackpot. There are 2500 possible runs of coin-tosses. However, I'm not sure exactly how many of that vast number of possible series would give a product exceeding 1060. However, if some bright mathematician can work it out for me, we can work out whether a series whose product exceeds 10^60 has CSI. My ballpark estimate says it has. That means, clearly, that if we randomly generate many series of 500 coin-tosses, it is exceedingly unlikely, in the history of the universe, that we will get a product that exceeds 10^60. However, starting with a randomly generated population of, say 100 series, I propose to subject them to random point mutations and natural selection, whereby I will cull the 50 series with the lowest products, and produce "offspring", with random point mutations from each of the survivors, and repeat this over many generations. I've already reliably got to products exceeding 10^58, but it's possible that I may have got stuck in a local maximum. However, before I go further: would an ID proponent like to tell me whether, if I succeed in hitting the jackpot, I have satisfactorily refuted Dembski's case? And would a mathematician like to check the jackpot? I've done it in MatLab, and will post the script below. Sorry I don't speak anything more geek-friendly than MatLab (well, a little Java, but MatLab is way easier for this).
Joe_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Joe Please give me a link so we can see what is going on. But, there is no good reason to believe we can do more than correct for record. Gkairosfocus_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

"the reason why critics call ID anti-evolution has far more to do with the usual marketing and politics." - nullasalus Yes, of course. There is much to discuss about ID as a kind of social epistemology. That would fundamentally change the perspective that says persons don't matter in 'doing science.' I believe they/we do matter. Margaret Archer could only be considered 'irrelevant' by someone who reduces a gigantic conversation about agency, purpose, teleology and plan down to simple biology, botany or sound bytes. Reality is much wider than that, which is why scholars get paid to study it/us. Reading Herman Dooyeweerd's modal aspects might help here, though of course nullasalus' anti-intellectual attitude might deem him irrelevant too. A simple USamerico-centric approach to this topic is quite obviously insufficient when presented with alternative superior resources. I'm pleased to see KF's appeal to Feyerabend. If only more people would study PoS with some rigour, we'd probably have less of a controversy. "Let me be clear: while I don’t think ID is science, I do think ID asks some very important questions, and makes inferences I have great sympathy with." - nullasalus Sure, we are playing on the same card here. Do you not wonder, nullasalus, what motivates the IDM's leaders to persist then in saying "ID *is* science"? Is this what resists you from being an ID proponent? As for taking academics less seriously, well, you should read Steve Fuller's notion of Prot-Science because that is exactly what you're suggesting about scientists in your comments. It is the Protestant Reformation with biblical vernacular for the Internet age. Just as Internet enables people to self-generate opinions about 'science' it thus allows them/us to challenge the experts (priests). This is what makes uneducated folks feel they can 'compete' with PhDs! But since you denigrate social sciences as 'unscientific,' nullasalus, likely never will 'intelligence' or 'design' be/become topics worthy of study at a high level. "Not everything that leads to reasonable or empirically supported conclusions are necessarily rightly called science. I’ll admit my view on this is my own, not any mainstream one." - nullasalus Actually, as someone who studies this topic in depth, I can say that is the mainstream Anglo-American view; by far it is not just your own.Gregory_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

clavdavis- blind and undirected processes refers to being reducible to matter, energy, necessity and chanceJoe_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

KF- perhaps you could write a post describing all that is wrong with Ms Liddle's claim about NS producing CSI- she ain't listening to meJoe_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Clavdavis- Hey I have a siter-in-law in Sydney- but anyway "No Free Lunch" puts it all on the line....Joe_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

All -- forgive me its a bit late here in Sydney; I will have to go to bed now and attend to any followup comments in about 8 hours. Thanks for your responses.CLAVDIVS_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Hi Joe
if there were any evidence that blind and undirected processes could produce CSI you would have a point. ID makes the claim that blind and undirected processes cannot produce CSI
OK, so what science would call for, in my view, are unambiguous definitions of blind/undirected processes and CSI, and a procedure to test the claim that the former can't produce the latter -- Or is it "originate CSI" rather than "produce CSI"? This would need to be clearly defined as well. CheersCLAVDIVS_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that natural selection can’t be defined and thus can’t be refuted. The question still remains: What consequences are clearly and unequivocally entailed by ID, and how can we empirically test them? Let's assume, also for discussion, that ID like natural selection could not be unequivocally tested: then the consequence would be that there are two competing, non-scientific theories of origins. But since falsification as a strict requirement of science is not universally agreed, it's a bit academic. Whatever predictions natural selection makes could also be produced by, say, a tricksy designer. A label in a cell declaring "Designed and built by Slartibartfast" could be explained by chance (a message being no more unlikely than a non-message, in retrospect). So we're necessarily reduced to accepting less rigorous criteria, like inference to best explanation.Jon Garvey_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

CLAVDAVIS- if there were any evidence that blind and undirected processes could produce CSI you would have a point. ID makes the claim that blind and undirected processes cannot produce CSIJoe_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

To kairosfocus @ 36
I think Feyerabend et al had it right, science is not a monolithic whole, but a conventional term. ... Inference to best explanation looks, to me, to be the closest I can come to an overarching framework for epistemic warrant. In that context, we have to recognise that theories etc define webs of thought that often embed unobserved or unobservable entities. The degree of warrant never approaches absoluteness, starting from the problem of affirming the consequent on Theory => Observations, Observations [perhaps as predicted], so Theory. But, it may be empirically so reliable that we would be foolish to treat it as false. In cases where we find ourselves going in circles of thought, we need to be extra cautious, e.g. in reconstructing the deep past of our planet. But we should not fool ourselves that the label “science” is a seal of truth and practically certain knowledge, starting with physics. We ought not to genuflect before the holy lab coat. That will just attract power-hungry ideologues and charlatans to use the name to extract blind adherence.
You should be aware I am in 100% agreement with your comments here. CheersCLAVDIVS_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Hi kairosfocus
If you were to empirically show that complex, specified information, especially functionally specific, complex info, can actually originate within the resources of our solar system, by blind chance and mechanical necessity — no intelligent intervention or direction — ID would be dead. A classic, simple test would be to generate a meaningful text of 500 bits by such processes, the million monkeys tests.
Imagine this scenario: An intelligent designer intervened at certain points in the history of life of earth to produce CSI, but at other times blind mechanisms produced CSI. In this scenario, the intervention of an ID is not refuted by demonstrating blind mechanisms can produce CSI. This is because the hypothesis that an ID intervened in natural history does not logically entail the incapacity of blind mechanisms to produce CSI -- both might be true. Further, are "million monkeys tests" truly testing the origination of CSI by blind chance and mechanical necessity, when they are simulations running within pre-existing, intelligently designed computer systems? And by the way, I've not swallowed a priori materialism. CheersCLAVDIVS_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

KF- Please read the following for a morning laugh: Creating CSI with NS Elizabeth Liddle really thinks she has refuted something Dembski said....Joe_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Hi Jon Garvey
In fact, can natural selection be defined closely enough to be refuted at all, and if so what is that precise definition?
Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that natural selection can't be defined and thus can't be refuted. The question still remains: What consequences are clearly and unequivocally entailed by ID, and how can we empirically test them? CheersCLAVDIVS_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Null: I think Feyerabend et al had it right, science is not a monolithic whole, but a conventional term. So, there is no one algorithm of scientific warrant, just a collection of methods that on success have been accepted in relevant fields. Inference to best explanation looks, to me, to be the closest I can come to an overarching framework for epistemic warrant. In that context, we have to recognise that theories etc define webs of thought that often embed unobserved or unobservable entities. The degree of warrant never approaches absoluteness, starting from the problem of affirming the consequent on Theory => Observations, Observations [perhaps as predicted], so Theory. But, it may be empirically so reliable that we would be foolish to treat it as false. In cases where we find ourselves going in circles of thought, we need to be extra cautious, e.g. in reconstructing the deep past of our planet. But we should not fool ourselves that the label "science" is a seal of truth and practically certain knowledge, starting with physics. We ought not to genuflect before the holy lab coat. That will just attract power-hungry ideologues and charlatans to use the name to extract blind adherence. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS What would be the consequences should natural selection not, in fact, be the principle mechanism in evolution? How, for example, could it be distinguished from a demon artificially selecting everything from random variations? Or from successful variations that were produced purposefully by evolved cellular mechanisms? In fact, can natural selection be defined closely enough to be refuted at all, and if so what is that precise definition?Jon Garvey_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS: Pardon an intervention, re your:
for an idea to be scientific, it must clearly and unequivocally entail some consequences that we can empirically test; and the entailment of these consequences should be such that, if they are not found to obtain, the original idea is considered false, at least in part. It appears many feel that, so far, ID proponents have not not met this standard. To be sure, they are facing worldview bias and prejudice, but do these factors alone explain ID’s almost complete lack of traction in science?
If you were to empirically show that complex, specified information, especially functionally specific, complex info, can actually originate within the resources of our solar system, by blind chance and mechanical necessity -- no intelligent intervention or direction -- ID would be dead. A classic, simple test would be to generate a meaningful text of 500 bits by such processes, the million monkeys tests. (Such tests have been done and are ongoing, they have reached 24 or so ASCII characters, i.e. 1/4 or so of the relevant length, 73 characters. But the challenge is that config spaces go as exponential of string length. Spaces of 10^ 50 possibilities have been successfully searched; that is a factor of 10^100 short of the relevant scope.) Similar tests apply to many other design theory constructs. Going beyond, we have literally billions of observed cases of FSCI in hand. in every instance, they are known to be produced by intelligent action. This is backed up by an analysis of the search challenge on the config space for 500 - 1,000 or more bits; relative to the atomic resources of our solar system and observable cosmos. What that analysis shows is that there is a good reason why FSCI will all but certainly only come from design. That is we have good warrant to see it as a tested, empirically reliable sign of design. The problem is not the validation, it is the implications, which cut across the canons of the dominant evolutionary materialist (that's a description) school of thought. Namely, once we look at the FSCI in DNA etc, it strongly points to the design of life. BTW, if you want one, a log reduced, simplified metric for such FSCI that draws on Dembski's metric (but stands on its own merits) is: Chi_500 = Ip*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold, where S is a binary, dummy variable on specificity that defaults to 0, not-specified. (That is one needs a positive4, observable reason to assign S = 1.) Similarly, irreducible, co-ordinated, key-lock complexity -- with its all-or-none functionality -- poses a serious challenge to claimed darwinian type mechanisms, especially once Angus Mengue's criteria C1 - 5 are brought to bear:
For a working [bacterial] flagellum to be built by exaptation, the five following conditions would all have to be met: C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the flagellum, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of paddle, rotor, and motor, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function. C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time. C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed. C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a flagellum are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant. C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if a paddle, rotor, and motor are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly. ( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)
IC systems are routinely produced by intelligence, starting with say Berlinski's Dixie cup example: waxed cylinder plus disk stuck together to hold water. There are a great many candidate IC systems in life forms, and none of the attempted darwinian pathway explanations have shown a sound answer in the teeth of C1 -5 and actual observational evidence. In short, you have swallowed strawman mischaracterisations, serving as excuses for what is really going on: imposition of a prioi materialism on science, especially on origins. Philip Johnson, replying to Lewontin, is apt:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
You may find the UD Weak Argument Correctives, on the resources tab at the top of this and every UD page, helpful. The glossary and definition of ID will also be helpful. The NWE survey on ID may also prove helpful -- the Wikipedia article is a blatantly propagandistic hit piece. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply