Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Charge of Duplicity

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Design theorists who are religious believers are often charged with duplicity for not explicitly identifying the intelligence that they claim is responsible for certain forms of biological complexity with the God of their religious faith. But this charge is itself ill-intentioned. As far as the science of ID goes, there is no way to get from the data of nature to the God of, say, Christianity (or any other deity for that matter). Moreover, there is no reason to think that even if the God of Christianity (or of any other religious faith) is the source of creativity behind the world, that such a God acted immediately without the aid of intermediate teleological organizing principles (i.e., through secondary causes that are themselves intelligent). In particular, there is no reason to think that ID requires God to specifically toggle the genes for the bacterial flagellum and make this structure magically materialize. ID is entirely compatible with a path-dependent form of evolution that is intelligently guided.

For more about the supposed duplicity of ID proponents, consult the following paper by John Calvert, which I’ve posted with his permission: “Are We Liars?“

Comments
"One need not know how pyramids were constructed to know that they are the result of intelligent design." Quite so. However, to the extent that we are considered to possess a scientific explanation for the pyramids, we know how they arose (they were built of exquisitely shaped stone blocks, they contain pictures and inscriptions indicating that they were designed and constructed as pharaonic tombs, etc.). On the other hand, to the extent that we do not know how they arose, we are not considered to possess a scientific explanation of them.neurode
October 26, 2005
October
10
Oct
26
26
2005
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PST
ID is NOT a mechanistic theory. One need not know how pyramids were constructed to know that they are the result of intelligent design. There may be no way to determine exactly how life's design was translated from abstract to material existence. ID does not claim that it can or will define construction mechanisms. It merely discriminates between haphazard assemblages and purposeful assemblages of matter. For the purposes of validating ID as a physical possibility, demonstrating a single possible construction method suffices. Intelligent agents in human form today have machinery that can construct/modify DNA sequences for directed purposes. That doesn't mean to say gene splicing machinery was used to direct past evolution but it does mean that there's at least one *demonstrable* way it could have happened.DaveScot
October 26, 2005
October
10
Oct
26
26
2005
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PST
"Why the ribosome, and why not the first cell?" Because a "first cell" is a mythical creature. How do you try to get something to self-organize in a lab when you don't even know what that thing is or if it ever existed? A ribosome on the other hand is a bit of life's machinery that's present and essentially of the same basic construction and function in every organism so far observed. It is probably the most thoroughly studied bit of cellular automata and probably the single most complex bit of it that's common to everything alive. It and DNA together are the basis for the genetic theory of evolution. It also presents the mother of all paradoxes to explain - DNA needs enzymes to replicate and enzymes need DNA to specify their construction. Ribosomes are the mechanism that translate enzyme blueprints into actual enzymes. If someone can convincingly show me how the ribosome evolved by chance I'll take it as a matter of faith that lesser machines like bacterial flagella could have evolved by chance.DaveScot
October 26, 2005
October
10
Oct
26
26
2005
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PST
(Note that the above NFL page number should be "328")neurode
October 25, 2005
October
10
Oct
25
25
2005
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PST
Yes. You can find the relevant material starting on page 228, sections 6.4 and 6.5. Note that where mechanism is defined on nature, and nature is understood to consist of information and its transformations, we have a new standard on which to define mechanism. Note also my reference to "natural (physical or metaphysical) mechanisms", which explicitly makes use of this extension. Once again, the mathematical mechanisms of probabilistic inference exploited by IDT in its current form either map to nature in this extended sense, or they do not. If they do, then we have natural mechanisms for the transfer of information. If they do not, then we have nonscience, i.e., something that does not describe nature. There's no way out, jared. IDT is already mechanistic, and must continue in that direction if it is to live up to its scientific billing.neurode
October 25, 2005
October
10
Oct
25
25
2005
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PST
Neurode, I think there is some unintentional equivocation going on somewhere (probably in our several use of the word "mechanism" and "mechanistic"), and I think it was addressed in NFL. I'll get back to you.jaredl
October 25, 2005
October
10
Oct
25
25
2005
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PST
Dave, Why the ribosome, and why not the first cell?avocationist
October 25, 2005
October
10
Oct
25
25
2005
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PST
DaveSCot, I agree with your point, and find it very unlikely that life could emerge from a prebiotic soup without intelligent agency. We could, I suppose, expose bacteria to mutagens and see what happens. Bacteria multiply quite rapidly, so we should see one acquire a flagellum within, say, a week. (LOL)Mario A. Lopez
October 25, 2005
October
10
Oct
25
25
2005
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PST
Here is a suggestion I posted on "Will the Real Testable Theory Please Stand Up" Post 42. I have an easier solution. First off, IC is not a condition which demonstrates “design.” IC, at best, is a threat to the evolutionary model. Design detection is a job for Dr. Dembski's EF (explanatory filter). I propose that two years are not necessary to prove the irreducibility of the bacterial flagellum. Indeed, evolutionists have argued that there are certain parts of the flagellum that can be compromised without the loss of the flagellum's motility (such as the L-P ring complex, which are comprised of FlgH and FlgI proteins). This, of course, is only imaginative conjecture, since there have been no experiments in a lab to prove this. Evolutionists make this assumption by imagining a motor without them (L-P rings), and taking the flagellum's structural complexity for granted; and furthermore, ignoring the effects of natural selection on their uselessness. The IC of the flagellum can be tested by programming genetic or evolutionary algorithms using the “proposed” precursor, Type III secretory system (T3). (Note: This may require the assumption that gene duplication+mutation occurred) A scientist can track the evolutionary pathway (assuming the program produced the most parsimonious) to the bacterial flagellum. The scientist can then reverse-engineer the structural complexity of the system (BF) by turning off the essential regulatory genes leading to the system (T3) in the order produced by the program (this can be done by using the dicer enzyme/RNAi method or older methods such as the use of antisense and ribozymes). Once the irreducible core has been reached (or the system's motility mechanism has been compromised), the effects of natural selection are more obvious, that is, that the bacterium may have managed to perfect its motility device, but without any evolutionary precursors. Indeed, its irreducibility poses the problem of novel genetic information and the need for additional proteins necessary to construct the flagellum from a less complex system, such as the Type III secretory system. If the structural complexity of the flagellum can be reduced without any compromise of motility, then evolution has proven to be the victor. However, if its irreducibility is confirmed, the flagellum can be passed through the explanatory filter's three-part criterion for inferring design!Mario A. Lopez
October 25, 2005
October
10
Oct
25
25
2005
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PST
Mario ID is falsifiable in a lab by, for example, getting a ribosome to self-organize in a test tube. FYI I consider the ribosome to be the ultimate problem for chance theories of evolution to explain. As far as being testable (confirmable) in a lab I've already put forward that this step has been adequately accomplished. Genetic engineering today is science fact, not science fiction. Genetic engineering IS in fact an instance of intelligent design demonstrating a mechanism by which it can be accomplished. If you think ID is otherwise testable via experimental means please elaborate.DaveScot
October 25, 2005
October
10
Oct
25
25
2005
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PST
neurode, You have said: "Evolution and self-organization are not “mechanisms”, Mario, but processes for which mechanisms have not yet been fully specified. Their respective mainstream theories are in much the same boat as ID; they are mechanistic in principle, but not yet in practice. Neither of these theories even comes close to establishing that its known mechanisms are even remotely sufficient to account for all aspects of its explanatory domain. In fact, quite the opposite appears to be true. That's one of the main reasons that ID has come so far, so fast." A "mechanism," in this sense, is a physical process by which something is done or comes into being. Biological systems are contrivances that bear the marks of intelligent causation. Evolution attempts to explain away their teleological aspects by means of unguided natural processes. ID, on the other hand, suggests that the structural and functional complexity of these systems do not show signs of having been produced by a blind force, but by intelligent agency. The crux of the argument lies between nessesity and purpose. An evolutionist must resort to natural process to explain "apparent" design, while ID theorist only need to demonstrate the parameters of actual vs. apparent design; since design is already an obvious phenomenon. You have said: "While ID is scientific and testable in principle, we're not all the way there yet. We can look all around us and see evidence of ID, and we can even make some preliminary quantitative calculations based on knowledge from other still-evolving fields of science. But if anyone thinks that these calculations are enough to convince the vast majority of working scientists, he needs to take another look. Trust me, not all of the scientists who remain unconvinced are motivated by their philosophical convictions alone. You write that “ID (theory) detects design where design may be found, and the mechanism need not be a metaphysical one, but certainly an intelligent one.” Once again, we're making a design inference using the mathematical mechanisms of probability theory. These either map to nature (including its physical and metaphysical levels) or they do not. If they do, then they reflect natural (physical or metaphysical) mechanisms. If they do not, then no design inference is possible." Indeed, but the detection of design does not only reflect a principle for contrivance, but also for its functional complexity (i.e. what may in turn be deemed as a physiolocal adaptation). You have said: "As I've said before, thanks to deep thinkers like Behe and Dembski, ID has made a good start. But not even its brightest lights, including Drs. Behe and Dembski themselves, are likely to say that it is anything but just that…a start. We've only just hit the road, and have miles to go before we sleep" Agreed. I would only add that it is not the theory that is utterly incomplete, but the mindset of its critics. :)Mario A. Lopez
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PST
DaveScot, You have said: "ID is math, not laboratory science. What scientists “do” is search for the truth." Actually, IC is very testable in a lab, and it is a good starting point for making a design inference.Mario A. Lopez
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PST
Ilib, You said: "ID must, and I iterate ‘must' be developed solely as 'science'. The arduous task of formulating a convincing science beyond rhetorical assertion lay ahead. ID is a hypothesis, nothing more. The assumption that the origin of species was part of a design, this ‘design' is detectable, and the responsible intelligence is of little importance, is a toughy. Investigating ‘natural mechanisms' is what scientists do, they take 'stuff' apart. That is what ID must do; take 'stuff' apart; examine biological mechanisms. While dismal and frightening to many, ‘natural selection' is an easier sell; ‘nothing' doesn't need proving. Design, intelligent design no less, requires proving 'something'. Remember, all there is to work with, scientifically that is, is 'stuff'." ID is testable, and the natural mechanism in question is adaptable to an ID inference, but it is (as of now) not in the scope of ID.Mario A. Lopez
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PST
"It won't be for lack of intelligence ID stalls; the lack of intelligent ‘design' dooms this baby. It is fairly obvious by now that design, lacking designer, threatens just about everybody. Science vaporized Hiroshima. The Cold War was ‘designed'; no one questioned that. No one wants an ‘answer', they're happy with the question; heaven or hell? If they're to be convinced, it will take more than ‘God'. " What in the freak does any of this mean? What are you so afraid of?MGD
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PST
"As I've said before, thanks to deep thinkers like Behe and Dembski, ID has made a good start. But not even its brightest lights, including Drs. Behe and Dembski themselves, are likely to say that it is anything but just that…a start. We've only just hit the road, and have miles to go before we sleep." It won't be for lack of intelligence ID stalls; the lack of intelligent ‘design' dooms this baby. It is fairly obvious by now that design, lacking designer, threatens just about everybody. Science vaporized Hiroshima. The Cold War was ‘designed'; no one questioned that. No one wants an ‘answer', they're happy with the question; heaven or hell? If they're to be convinced, it will take more than ‘God'.Ilib
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PST
"But I see the responsible intelligence as hugely important…although outside the realm of science." Pure brilliance! I will quote my beautiful LutepiscIlib
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PST
"...and the responsible intelligence is of little importance, is a toughy." Yes, I completely agree with what you're saying, Ilib. But I see the responsible intelligence as hugely important...although outside the realm of science.Lutepisc
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PST
Evolution and self-organization are not "mechanisms", Mario, but processes for which mechanisms have not yet been fully specified. Their respective mainstream theories are in much the same boat as ID; they are mechanistic in principle, but not yet in practice. Neither of these theories even comes close to establishing that its known mechanisms are even remotely sufficient to account for all aspects of its explanatory domain. In fact, quite the opposite appears to be true. That's one of the main reasons that ID has come so far, so fast. While ID is scientific and testable in principle, we're not all the way there yet. We can look all around us and see evidence of ID, and we can even make some preliminary quantitative calculations based on knowledge from other still-evolving fields of science. But if anyone thinks that these calculations are enough to convince the vast majority of working scientists, he needs to take another look. Trust me, not all of the scientists who remain unconvinced are motivated by their philosophical convictions alone. You write that "ID (theory) detects design where design may be found, and the mechanism need not be a metaphysical one, but certainly an intelligent one." Once again, we're making a design inference using the mathematical mechanisms of probability theory. These either map to nature (including its physical and metaphysical levels) or they do not. If they do, then they reflect natural (physical or metaphysical) mechanisms. If they do not, then no design inference is possible. As I've said before, thanks to deep thinkers like Behe and Dembski, ID has made a good start. But not even its brightest lights, including Drs. Behe and Dembski themselves, are likely to say that it is anything but just that...a start. We've only just hit the road, and have miles to go before we sleep.neurode
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PST
Ilib ID is math, not laboratory science. What scientists "do" is search for the truth.DaveScot
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PST
ID must, and I iterate 'must' be developed solely as 'science'. The arduous task of formulating a convincing science beyond rhetorical assertion lay ahead. ID is a hypothesis, nothing more. The assumption that the origin of species was part of a design, this ‘design' is detectable, and the responsible intelligence is of little importance, is a toughy. Investigating 'natural mechanisms' is what scientists do, they take 'stuff' apart. That is what ID must do; take 'stuff' apart; examine biological mechanisms. While dismal and frightening to many, 'natural selection' is an easier sell; 'nothing' doesn't need proving. Design, intelligent design no less, requires proving 'something'. Remember, all there is to work with, scientifically that is, is 'stuff'. “Now when we claim that we have no religious motive and just want to do good science, I think we appear to be like those we criticize. Even though we may have no intention to replace materialism with theism, it looks like that is what we really want to do. Now we genuinely do not want to do that, in science. Maybe in the culture through honest competitions, but not in science. I think we all agree that science must always remain tentative and objective. What we want to do is to replace an ideology that is damaging credible science with objectivity that will restore its respect as an effective investigative institution. We do not want to replace an ideology with another ideology.” Calvert may be onto something.Ilib
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PST
neurode, I agree that it would be a great benefit for ID to investigate "mechanisms" as a means of causal developments, but I disagree that identifying the mechanism should be the barometer to qualify ID as a scientific theory. In fact, as it stands, any mechanism would do (including evolution, and self-organization theories). ID is certainly scientific, and testable. To be sure, design detection eliminates inadequate causal theories. It identifies the possible (design by intelligent agency) vs. the impossible (design by chance and necessity). If design is dictated by invariable physical laws, then the theories are, by their own predictions, bound to "mechanisms." ID, in this regard, is different. ID detects design where design may be found, and the mechanism need not be a metaphysical one, but certainly an intelligent one.Mario A. Lopez
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PST
I'm afraid that ID is already a mechanistic theory in at least two senses. (1) It incorporates the inferential mechanisms of probability theory. These mechanisms either do or do not map to nature. If they do, then there exist natural mechanisms which mirror the probabilistic mechanisms of ID theory. If they do not, then the probabilistic theory of ID is, by definition, scientifically vacuous. (2) It implies the existence of causal mechanisms permitting the formation and natural realization of design (as a direct function of the design inference). If you think you see a way out, I'd naturally be willing to consider it.neurode
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PST
"ID is not a mechanistic theory." To assume ID must devolve into a mechanistic theory is to deny ID. Neurode, do you mean to say that for each scientific hypothesis, such a hypothesis must necessarily be a mechanistic one? If so, you're begging the question as to what is, or ought to be, science.jaredl
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PST
"What is that 'next step'?" I suspect that precise expectations may differ. But whatever it is, it must represent an advance toward the development of a causal, mechanistic theory of ID. That is, if ID theory is really "scientific" in its potential to augment our understanding of how certain natural phenomena occur, then this is the direction in which it must go. On the other hand, if IDT has no chance of progressing in that direction, then by definition, it is not "scientific" in the given sense. Thus, to consistently assert that IDT is scientific, one must believe that it can advance in that direction.neurode
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PST
Read the literature. Chapter 14 of Signs of Intelligence discusses the "next step".Gumpngreen
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PST
“The real threat to all true theists of the world is that "western European materialism," recognized by CS Lewis as the enemy, will cause the institutions of the world to impose that ideology on the rest of us and our children. The threat is that all juries and all judges will become materialists or be required to be materialists.” “From a purely scientific standpoint, I think the most honest and genuine answer is that we just don't know what caused the origin of life or the origin of the diversity of life. This tentativeness is necessary due to the enormity of our ignorance about how the system works in the first place. I think that is what we would want our public schools to tell our children. That would be a legitimate response, given the present state of the science.” Wisdom from a thoughtful, threatened theist? “However, when ID is refined to the point at which it offers mechanistic explanations, there is a very good chance that the mechanisms will betray the nature of the designer.” Neurode Faith-based optimism? In a hasty bid to prevent ‘godless' materialism from infecting the minds of our children, ID ‘scientists' have overlooked or ignored dealing with ‘Achilles Heel' of ‘ design inference'; the designer. This ‘Intelligence' is neither rudimentary nor vestigial. “the process of scientific inference from advancing to the next step.” What is that “next step”?Ilib
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PST
Excellent remarks. I was struck by: "As far as the science of ID goes, there is no way to get from the data of nature to the God of, say, Christianity (or any other deity for that matter)." This is inarguable, as regards the current state of ID theory. I also appreciate the wisdom of: "Moreover, there is no reason to think that ... such a God acted immediately without the aid of intermediate teleological organizing principles (i.e., through secondary causes that are themselves intelligent)." This chain of reasoning is clearly moving in the direction of mechanism and thus of increased explanatory power. However, it seems to me that the following question, asked by Calvert, might be seen as moving in the opposite direction: "As a final note, it seems to me that recent theories regarding possible cybernetic explanations make it all the more difficult to say that we can 'know,' as a scientific proposition, who the designer is." I must confess that I'm a little confused by the notion that "possible cybernetic explanations" weigh against any positive identification of the designer. The fact that ID as it now stands is a probabilistic rather than mechanistic theory is largely what enables it, for the moment at least, to function independently of any particular characterization of the designer. However, when ID is refined to the point at which it offers mechanistic explanations, there is a very good chance that the mechanisms will betray the nature of the designer. At that point, a decision will be unavoidable: will ID embrace the mechanisms even if it must thereby commit itself to a well-defined, scientifically-based understanding of theology, or will ID forsake its newfound explanatory power in order to disown the mechanisms and remain theologically neutral, thus splitting off from those who choose to pursue its future development under a different name? Regardless of how this decision is made, there is no good reason for any ID proponent to believe that ID theory, having committed itself unconditionally to a design inference, will be able to stop the process of scientific inference from advancing to the next step.neurode
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PST
Analysis of Behe's Testimony, Part 4: The Sterility of ID During his testimony, Michael Behe continually brought up the big bang as being comparable to intelligent design. His intent was to show that some people objected to the big bang because it had religious implications as well, but that didn't...Dispatches from the Culture Wars
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PST
Sounds too much like Theistic Evolution. Although, a valid point. ID, however, is far more modest than that. ID seeks to demonstrate design detection, not design assemblage. In applying principles for design detection, one does not need to worry about the step-by-step process of the design; that goes beyond the scope of ID. Although other disciplines may incorporate ID as a starting point for further research (such as the step-by-step process of the design), ID's focus in on what constitutes the hallmarks for inferring design.Mario A. Lopez
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PST
I can't quite figure out how ID is incompatible with anything other than random variation. It's all a matter of probabilities. Some structures are just too improbable for random chance to be reasonably responsible. Intelligence is the only agency we know of that can and does routinely choose events with otherwise almost impossible odds. ID doesn't even require activity by an intelligent agency at any time since the big bang since it's quite possible that the universe is deterministic. If the universe is deterministic it then follows that no event in the history of the universe was random - everything that's happened was writ in granite (so to speak) at the instant of the big bang.DaveScot
October 24, 2005
October
10
Oct
24
24
2005
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PST
1 2 3