The core is the definition of science itself

_{Mark

November 30, 2007

Intelligent Design}

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

Your responses to this condensed version of an editorial would be appreciated. (This item is available free as a special feature.)

“Anti-Darwin activism is alive and well. The most insidious movement promotes ‘intelligent design’ (ID) – the notion that some features in nature are best explained by an intelligent cause – as an alternative scientific theory to evolution by natural selection.

Pro-ID interest groups can be found throughout US and Europe. It becomes increasingly likely for a scientist to be confronted by a pro-ID campaigner or challenged by a student, friend or neighbor intrigued and seduced by the concept of a scientific theory of design.

How to respond is not a trivial matter.

One can choose to fully engage in debate and debunk ID claims one by one with scientific arguments. This, however, requires a good knowledge of the topic and the ability to present it effectively to a lay audience.

Squarely dismissing the ID proposal as nonsense is tempting, but reinforces images, which ID advocates relish, of arrogant scientists dodging critique or even of ‘Darwinian activism’.

It is wise not to make the discussion a religious issue to avoid an unproductive debate about personal beliefs.

The best approach will often be to accept discussing ID but to emphasize the fact that it is not a scientific discipline.

At the core of ID is the notion of ‘irreducible complexity’, which postulates that some features in nature are too complex to have evolved in a step-wise fashion by natural selection and ‘therefore’ must be the result of an intelligent cause.

Because it invokes a supernatural origin for something one cannot yet explain, and because it does not generate testable hypotheses and cannot be subjected to empirical inquiry, ID is not science.

ID proponents often present the theory of evolution as “a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned”, whereas in fact evolution is a scientific theory – one that has stood the test of time and of multiple lines of empirical investigation. Intelligent design is not. Remembering this contrast should inspire scientists to defend their turf.

At the core of the debate is the definition of science itself.”

Condensed from Editorial Nature Methods – (Nov 2007)

Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: NATURE METHODS Editorial, copyright Dec1 2007

Comments

Digdug you stated: Interesting. I for one do not have the faith you apparently do that Craig Venter will manufacture an organism ‘from scratch’. As the old saw goes, God said ‘Get your own dirt’. I totally agree with you, Key words "from scratch" If any combinations of the 20 L-amino acids that are used in constructing proteins are equally possible, then there are (20^100) =1.3 x 10^130 possible amino acid sequences in proteins being composed of 100 amino acids. That is just the possible combinations from a 100 L-amino acid chain, The average sequence of a typical protein is about 300 to 400 amino acids long. Yet many crucial proteins are thousands of amino acids long. On top of that to figure out what a totally novel protein will look like will take to long: In the year 2000 IBM announced the development of a new super-computer, called Blue Gene, that is 500 times faster than any supercomputer built up until that time. It took 4-5 years to build. Blue Gene stands about six feet high, and occupies a floor space of 40 feet by 40 feet. It cost $100 million to build. It was built specifically to better enable computer simulations of molecular biology. The computer performs one quadrillion (one million billion) computations per second. Despite its speed, it is estimated it will take one entire year for it to analyze the mechanism by which JUST ONE “simple” protein will fold onto itself from its one-dimensional starting point to its final three-dimensional shape. "Blue Gene's final product, due in four or five years, will be able to "fold" a protein made of 300 amino acids, but that job will take an entire year of full-time computing." Paul Horn, senior vice president of IBM research, September 21, 2000 http://www.news.com/2100-1001-233954.html In real life, the protein folds into its final shape in a fraction of a second! The computer would have to operate at least 33 million times faster to accomplish what the protein does in a fraction of a second. That is the complexity found for JUST ONE “simple” protein. It is estimated, on the total number of known life forms on earth, that there may be some 50 billion different types of unique proteins today. It is very possible the domain of the protein world may hold many trillions more completely distinct and differently sequenced proteins. And actual functional proteins are a extreme rarity as far as total proteins possible go. “From actual experimental results it can easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein (by random point mutations to an existing protein) are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power (Sauer, MIT). To put this fantastic number in perspective imagine that someone hid a grain of sand, marked with a tiny 'X', somewhere in the Sahara Desert. After wandering blindfolded for several years in the desert you reach down, pick up a grain of sand, take off your blindfold, and find it has a tiny 'X'. Suspicious, you give the grain of sand to someone to hide again, again you wander blindfolded into the desert, bend down, and the grain you pick up again has an 'X'. A third time you repeat this action and a third time you find the marked grain. The odds of finding that marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row are about the same as finding one new functional protein structure (from chance transmutation of an existing functional protein structure). Rather than accept the result as a lucky coincidence, most people would be certain that the game had been fixed.” Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999, Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other A totally novel cell with totally novel proteins "from scratch"??? Not in this lifetime! Now of course He can pick over the "Designers Shoulder" and do lots of rearranging of proteins that would be cool! But from scratch: No way Jose'.bornagain77_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

russ i am not sure i understand what you are talking about. i simply don't have the same optimism about life from scratch that you do, and that has nothing to do with the your formula of law chemistry and time. I will remain a skeptic. Show me the critters. what bacteria has a 'DNA code' that describes the dimensions of celestial bodies? Sorry i don't follow you. Would the fibonacci sequence fit your criterion? Seems like it is information, and it is all over nature. is it CSI?digdug24_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

How much Anti-Gravity activism is there?
Just a bit, as it turns out. ;) http://www.hotairballooning.org/community/russ_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

Interesting. I for one do not have the faith you apparently do that Craig Venter will manufacture an organism ‘from scratch’. As the old saw goes, God said ‘Get your own dirt’.
If physical laws + chemistry + time can do it with no guidance whatsoever, then adding intelligent agency should make Venter's project completely doable (in time). I think your dodging the argument. But there are other examples. What about the storing of data in the DNA of bacteria? This project has been discussed here recently. If you discovered code in the DNA of some bacteria that described the dimensions of all the celestial bodies in our solar system, would you infer design only because humans can write code, or because it requires intelligence to write code that describes things?russ_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

The title of the editorial is: "Scientists are increasingly likely to be called upon to discuss the myth of intelligent design as a scientific theory." WAIT A MINUTE! This can't be right. Judge Jones buried ID once and for all two years ago this month. How can it possibly be that scientists are INCREASINGLY having to deal withe the ID challenge?BarryA_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Now this editorial is really too precious. What is "science"? It is the knowledge of nature and how it works. Science can get along quite well, thank you, without the help of Darwin. Hundreds of basic research papers are published every year in first-rate journals that do nothing more (or less) than look at nature on its own terms an attempt to describe what is seen there. Nature is so marvelous and mysterious that there is plenty of opportunity for science without the help of any superannuated theories. But Nature is not just a "science" journal, is it? No, it also fancies itself a philosophy journal. Philosophy is not merely the knowledge of nature; it also involves an attempt to define the nature of being itself and render value judgments about happiness. Enter Darwin. Like many privileged men of his day, he felt intimidated by the rise of the middle class. Happiness for the cultural vanguard meant distinguishing themselves from "the herd" and "middle-class morality." And Darwin's theory intimated that it was possible to do just that-- through struggle; through the survival of the fittest, in which surely men of his superior temper, genius and pedigree would prevail. When Nature calls upon her votaries to rise up and defend Darwinism, she is perpetuating the elitism that was initiated in the 19th centruty and is the dominating theme in Modernism. But a belief in supermen and the transcendent value of struggle is not "science." It is philosophy.allanius_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

re #2, I have thought about this a bit. I think you are the one contriving here. We HAVE seen spiders and spiderwebs so perhaps that is not an appropriate analogy. You are 'at liberty' to postulate whatever you wish, but the question is how to distinguish the null from the test. I'm not so sure that there is possible here given the category error. Interesting. I for one do not have the faith you apparently do that Craig Venter will manufacture an organism 'from scratch'. As the old saw goes, God said 'Get your own dirt'. As far as the last paragraph (origin vs work) I am having trouble understanding the relevance. I'm with #14, do we have a good definition of the terms?digdug24_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

The "natural / supernatural" dichotomy plays seems critical to this whole discussion. Is there a clear definition of either term which doesn't beg the question?BenK_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Oh well: At least this lot accept that there is a growing challenge, though of course they wish to frame it to their advantage. So also, they admit that the core of the issue in crucial part lies in questions of philosophy as it impinges on science, not science proper. For, the definition of what is science is plainly a phil question, not a sci one, and immediately raises the vexed question of demarcation of science vs non-science. Let's go back to basics, as Janice has at 11 [you sound like my kind of MD!] First, what is a reasonable, historically well-warranted summary definition of science and of scientific methods? Let's try out a couple of devcent level dictionaries:
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 -- and yes, they used the "z" Virginia!] 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]
Now, contrast that ever so reliably politically correct Wiki, on Naturalism (philosphy) -- there is no separarte articel on methodological naturalism, a dead giveaway that something funny is afoot:
Many modern philosophers of science[1][2] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes, without reference to, or an assumption of, the existence or non-existence of supernatural notions. They contrast this with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists.
Now, of course, the first part here says in effect we do not make the issue explicit. Then, it artfully conflates empirical detection of intelligent cause with the inference to the ontological existence of the supernatural. That of course begs a few questions. First, if one is only allowed to infer to causes compatible with an evolutionary materialist account of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans, one is implicitly assuming and insulating from empirical test the metaphysics of materialism. Second, it is well known that we infer to a triad of possible causes all the time, namely [i] chance, [ii] mechanical necessity manifesting itself in identifiable natural regularities, [iii] agency. If one precludes consideration of the third whenever it may be relevant but inconvenient to evo mat views, that is a plain case of selective hyper-skepticism. Then, to misrepresent inference to agency with inference to the supernatural, acts to cut off a reasonable chain of evidentially anchored inference:
--> Do agents exist and cause things to happen that would not otherwise have happened in the empirical world? [Yes.] --> Can we detect empirical signs of such agents at work? [Yes, that is routine in many scientific and scientifically based fields, most notably in statistical inference.] --> Is such detection of agent action logically dependent on knowing the nature or identity of the particular agents or what class they belong to? [No, as we are looking at signs of intentional intelligent action from the empirical traces left by such action. All that is required is that we are open to the possibility and that we have reasonable tests.] --> What does the empirical detection of intelligent action imply? [That we have reason to believe that the inferred agent(s) in question, whatever their identity or nature, existed and acted at the relevant point in time.] --> Is that the same as assuming or inferring prior to empirical evidence, that the agents exist and are supernatural? [Plainly, not.] --> In some cases, can we go on to examine arguments that might lead a reasonable person to infer that the agents in question were or are supernatural in say the theistic sense? [On inference to best explanation through philosophical comparative difficulties across worldviews, yes. For instance, the organised, fine-tuned complexity of the physics of the cosmos to make it life habitable plainly convinced Antony Flew of that. One can make the argument that the CSI and IC of life forms and the nanotechnology of the cell are at least compatible with such a cosmogenetic designer's further action, having already set the stage by creating a life-habitable cosmos.]
Do you see why I smell a rat? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

ID proponents often present the theory of evolution as “a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned”, whereas in fact evolution is a scientific theory - one that has stood the test of time and of multiple lines of empirical investigation. Intelligent design is not. Ah, but the editorial itself is incorrect. According to the high priest of popular atheism, once again, on British Television this week, Richard Dawkins, Evolution is not a theory - it is a fact that cannot be contested. Perhaps Darwinists of this stripe need to recognize it's what is deduced by them as 'fact' (a meaningless universe) that makes many realize that there is serious failing here.howard_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT}

At the core of the debate is the definition of science itself
Precisely. And I can't wait for evolution of both macro and micro forms to be branded unscientific: microevolution because the idea that random variation and natural selection can create anything new of any significance has been so well and truly falsified that it has nothing left but anomalies, and macroevolution because that's just a circular argument for materialism based on evidence interpreted on the basis that materialism is true. Then we can get that garbage out of schools and maybe arrest, or at least slow down, the wholesale slide of our societies into corruption through the institutionalised corruption of our children. Rags to riches and back to rags again in how many generations? Three? Time's about up.Janice_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT}

"It becomes increasingly likely for a scientist to be confronted by a pro-ID campaigner or challenged by a student, friend or neighbor intrigued and seduced by the concept of a scientific theory of design." But what happens when a Darwinian 'scientist' is challenged by a 'scientist' who is ID orientated? Interesting that this proposition was not canvassed. Oh, wait ... there AREN'T scientists who could possibly be IDists, are there??? The article's author may thinketh not, or try not to show that point. I especially like the "seduced by the ..." I have the Darth Vaders all over me!?! Obi-Wan Kenobi: Your father was seduced by the dark side of the force ... Have we, indeed, been seduced by the 'dark side' or are we battling Charles Darth Sidious Darwin? May the force be with us ...AussieID_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

If this is how darwinists intend to teach people to defend darwinism, then I find this encouraging news personally.13atman_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

"It is wise not to make the discussion a religious issue to avoid an unproductive debate about personal beliefs." Actually I think the main reason they would seek to do this is that they increasingly get called out for having deep metaphyscial commitments that require that something like Darwinism be true for their beliefs to hold water. Seeing as there is no other viable game in town, they must as much as possible lie and lie and lie and pretend that their metaphyscial commitments have nothing to do with it.Jason Rennie_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

because it does not generate testable hypotheses and cannot be subjected to empirical inquiry, ID is not science. That is a load of manure there: The Theistic "front-loaded ID" followed by "Genetic Entropy" , is extremely testable and falsifiable. Which is a whole lot more than I can say for evolution which "just so" happens to fit whatever surprises in evidence that come along. What a friggin load;bornagain77_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

At the core of ID is the notion of ‘irreducible complexity’, which postulates...
This is an intriguing statement. Isn't the postulate the beginning of scientific inqiury? If we have a postulate, I contend that we have are doing science.
At the core of ID is the notion of ‘irreducible complexity’, which postulates that some features in nature are too complex to have evolved in a step-wise fashion
Again, the theory of irreduceable complexity postulates a particular type of complexity, a complexity where there are multiple components which are all required to perform a function. It does get iritating that "experts" cannot even define the theory of IC correctly.
At the core of ID is the notion of ‘irreducible complexity’, which postulates that some features in nature are too complex to have evolved in a step-wise fashion by natural selection and ‘therefore’ must be the result of an intelligent cause. Because it invokes a supernatural origin for something one cannot yet explain, and because it does not generate testable hypotheses and cannot be subjected to empirical inquiry, ID is not science.
Where does this weak-minded scientist get off throwing his hands in the air, claiming that the IC hypothesis is untestable? If he went into the lab and made a minimal bacterial flagellum, then knocked out one gene -- a gene that exists elsewhere in the organism only to get a useful pre-flagellum he would have falsified the IC claim of the bacterial flagellum. Now, it may be true that the ID community would jump hobby horses and ride a different irreduceably complex microbiological machine. However two facts remain: though there are many such machines, there are a limited number and if a half-dozen of the most dramatic were refuted in the laboratory the IC argument would be seen as toast to most of us. Of course, if he wants to take on the irreduceably complex, he may want to start with the simplest known life-form. Bottom line -- IC is falsifiable! IC is falsifiable! The "IC isn't falsifiable" argument has been falsified!!bFast_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

“Anti-Darwin activism is alive and well….” Nice admission that Darwinism is a political movement. How much Anti-Gravity activism is there? “It becomes increasingly likely for a scientist to be confronted by a pro-ID campaigner or challenged by a student, friend or neighbor intrigued and seduced by the concept of a scientific theory of design.” Good God, a scientist being forced to discuss a theory?? In public no less! Thank God there are no scientists that support ID, which is simply an acronym for the Christian right. “One can choose to fully engage in debate and debunk ID claims one by one with scientific arguments.” That’s a good one. This typically ends with the Darwinist exclaiming, after witnessing his Darwinian idols fall one by one, “God wouldn’t do it like this!” Because the Darwinist knows the Mind of God better than God does – that is, if God existed, which Darwin disproved long ago. “The best approach will often be to accept discussing ID but to emphasize the fact that it is not a scientific discipline.” What observation would falsify NDE? Anyone? “At the core of ID is the notion of ‘irreducible complexity’” Coined by Pat Robertson in his book Darwin’s Black Box. I’d love to read the entire editorial, but from what I see in this condensed version it’s just more of the same misrepresentation and rhetoric we’ve come to expect from the Darwin party. I’m really so sick of seeing this type of stuff I want to scream. We need some type of breakthrough in research or we’ll have to listen to this rubbish for the rest of our lives. I don't know what the word "science" means anymore.shaner74_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

"It is wise not to make the discussion a religious issue to avoid an unproductive debate about personal beliefs." Confronting a man who insists on fighting with all his faculties - not just the ones his enemies have allowed - is what really terrifies these folks. Personal beliefs, after all, are the only thing any of us ever act on, even when we're diligently applying the so-called scientific method. These bullies will be brought to their knees most efficiently by men of God who won't be reduced to calculating machines before the contest even begins. It's not reason alone that makes the crowd applaud at those debates, y'know.Gerry Rzeppa_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

"At the core of the debate is the definition of science itself." Well at least they actually understand the core principle and admit as much. That must be a start. Maybe they felt they could no longer ignore the elephant in the room.Jason Rennie_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

This "category error" is manufactured. If you found a spider web and had never seen a spider, you would still be at liberty to postulate that it was or was not not the result of natural law. Intelligent agency may be, but is not necessarily supernatural. Craige Venter will soon manufacture a living organism from scratch. Is he supernatural? The origin of the Designer may be supernatural but the work of the designer need not be supernatural.idnet.com.au_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

I read this myself and wondered if it would be picked up here. Way to go id.net! I completely agree that many features in nature are best explained as the result of an intelligent designer. When i examine a spider web, I know that a spider created it. When I examine caddisfly cases or nets, I know that a caddisfly created it. When I examine a beaverdam, I know that a beaver created it. When I examine a termite mound, I know that termites created it. When I examine a molehill, I know that a mole created it. When i examine a spearhead, I know that a spear using human created it. Now, when I examine a bacterial flagellum, I am certainly open to the idea that a designer of some sort created it that way, but I have no way or parsing this. I know of no entities that create bacterial flagella. I do know of entities that create the other things. So how can ID get past this inherent problem of category error?digdug24_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply