Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Salem Hypothesis is True, and That’s Great for ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Someone in the comments mentioned the Salem Hypothesis. For those who don’t know what this is, it is basically the idea that people with advanced degrees who criticize evolution tend to be engineers, not scientists.

This is supposed to be levied as a diss on the critics of evolution, but I’ve never understood why this is so. Intelligent Design focuses on the *requirements* for the development of intricate, purposeful systems. Is there a science that focuses on developing intricate, purposeful systems? That might know what the requirements of building such systems are? Anyone?

Perhaps the reason that engineers are more likely to be critical of evolution, is because evolution actually is more of a question of engineering than biology, as it deals with the development of the most intricate, purposeful systems available. Thus, the field of study most likely to be able to correctly analyze this question would, in fact, be engineers.

Biologists are rarely, if ever, tasked with building biosystems. That isn’t what they do. They study biosystems. They analyze biosystems. But it is the rare biologist who actually builds a metabolic network from scratch.

But engineers have to build things continually. That’s what they do every single day. Therefore, while engineers are much less likely to know the details of *how* a biosystem operates, or how to investigate such operations, they are *more* likely to know what the requirements are for building such systems from precursors, and have more tools at their disposal for the analysis.

So, in short, I think the Salem Hypothesis has a lot going for it, and it is a reason that we should think *more* highly of Intelligent Design, not less so.

On an additional note, the bench scientist who has the most well-known association with ID is James Tour, who—wait for it—*builds* chemical systems.

Comments
EVOLUTIONISTS: Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is ignorant, stupid, insane, evil, or some combination thereof. ALSO EVOLUTIONISTS: Anyone who isn't a biologist is unqualified to understand evolution.jstanley01
January 16, 2020
January
01
Jan
16
16
2020
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
Fascinating discussion on the day when we celebrate one of the most brilliant engineering feats ever, The virgin birth:) On a side note, as a carpenter, or as I like to say, "Alchemy with splinters". Given the engineers that I have been "blessed" to be associated with, I'm thankful that they weren't in charge of designing the universe.willspeaks
December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT
BA77, precisely my point on serial, failed literature bluffs. KF PS: The late Philip Johnson's rejoinder to Lewontin's infamous cat out of the bag NYRB article is relevant:
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.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses." [NB: I am aware that Rational Wiki has backed away, un-announced, from the cat-out-of-the-bag direct phrasing that was in place a few years ago. That historic phrasing is still valid as a summary of what is going on.]
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]
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.]
kairosfocus
December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
EG, you have shown one reason why there is a need for detailed citation and structured argument, precisely what you and your ilk like to trash and dismiss, mocking those who take time to present such. While I have points where I differ with BA77, he has said and shared much, across the years, that you and others would do well to heed. KFkairosfocus
December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
ba77 - what does a link between QM and consciousness have to do with the possibility of evolution through saltationism?Bob O'H
December 21, 2019
December
12
Dec
21
21
2019
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
Ed George, here is an article that shows how consciousness and quantum mechanics are extremely tightly correlated. Please find one paper in the article that contradicts any specific claim that I made for its implications to my overall thesis:
How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate - paper https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LMjMgnmp6pEVQXZqKRXqpdrpRxpUt58p7HeeeLyNpt4/edit
bornagain77
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
BA77
What I do find funny is PavelU continually referencing papers that directly contradict his claims for them.
Now, again with great respect, have you read the papers you reference?Ed George
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
BA77
I don’t find your original nor subsequent comment funny.
Then, with respect, you take yourself far too seriously. My comments were made with light hearted humour. If you take them otherwise then I apologize for your lack of humour.Ed George
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
I don't find your original nor subsequent comment funny. What I do find funny is PavelU continually referencing papers that directly contradict his claims for them.bornagain77
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
BA77
Ed George, I suggest you not troll me. It will not go well for you.
Please read in the voice of Yoda.
Humour does not run strong in this family
Ed George
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Ed George, I suggest you not troll me. It will not go well for you..bornagain77
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
KF
Serial, failed literature bluffs.
I assume that you are referring to BA77’s penchant for cut-and-paste. :)Ed George
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
BA77
What they actually did, in trying to find a new mathematical model for ‘punctuated equilibrium’, is admit that nobody presently has a clue “how evolution happened” in the first place.
That's the way I saw it also. We've been told that all of this is settled-science.
From the abstract: However, some of the most consequential evolutionary changes, such as, for example, the emergence of major taxa, seem to occur abruptly rather than gradually, prompting hypotheses on the importance of saltational evolution …
Silver Asiatic
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Serial, failed literature bluffs.kairosfocus
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Agree with BA77. Well stated. Is PavelU ever going to realize that his hallucinations are always so far off target? Doesn't he see that?jawa
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
PavelU "This recent paper by prestigious scientists clearly explains how evolution happened:" No they didn't, they used mathematical fantasy, unconnected to any real world demonstration, to try to find a way to meld Darwinian theory to Gould's theory of 'punctuated equilibrium' (which was basically just Gould admitting that the fossil record is severely discordant to Darwinian predictions of gradualism). What they actually did, in trying to find a new mathematical model for 'punctuated equilibrium', is admit that nobody presently has a clue "how evolution happened" in the first place. If this were soccer PavelU, you would have just made an 'own goal'. https://giphy.com/explore/own-goalbornagain77
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
This recent paper by prestigious scientists clearly explains how evolution happened: On the feasibility of saltational evolutionPavelU
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
redwave
the applied sciences called engineering prefers design over randomness, structure over changing mutations, precision over statistical uncertainty
The applied sciences attempt to apply the theoretical findings to real-world problems. Engineers just discovered that evolutionary theory is useless in application. The theorists think that the problem is with the engineers and not with the theory.Silver Asiatic
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
The animosity toward creationism, creationists, feels thick and heavy in Western Civilization beyond a simple derogation, beyond a preferential choice against ideas and beliefs. At bottom (at the root) contemporary Western society has decided science, scientific ideas and beliefs, must exhibit intolerance toward any and every idea and belief which does not conform to prevailing assumptions and explanations, regardless of evidentiary data and often without real empirical ground. There are correct (expected) words and phrases, thought forms, that must be expressed, or else ... this is the wondrous rational response that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. This is an insistence for truth within a worldview where truth can be either entirely relative or illusory but never contradictory with the worldview proffered by the would be rationalists. Maybe creationism is mistaken about many scientific concerns, yet one can venture a guess that the prevailing worldviews are mistaken as well. Whether empiricists, reductionists, physicalists, naturalists, dualists, or whatever, mistakenness runs through the full gamut of human experiencing. The Salem hypothesis is yet another false thought-form that appears sometimes innocuous, sometimes humorous, sometimes antagonistic, but never grounded in truth, unless one's truth is merely statistical and resultantly superficial. Experimental science, including the applied sciences, is at first ontologically unconscious in terms of culture, socio-political philosophy, racial complexity, religious beliefs, or worldview bias. And only secondarily during interpretation and intelligent filtering does experimental science become a diverse tool of rationality, too often divisive and falsely propositional. That the applied sciences called engineering prefers design over randomness, structure over changing mutations, precision over statistical uncertainty, does not devalue underlying scientific principles. Rather this opens up human experiencing to the numerous possibilities otherwise unavailable to the physicalistic rationalists' mind-set.redwave
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
I propose the following hypithesis: a majority of supporters of evolution are poor theorists, not applied scientists or practitioners.EugeneS
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
let me repeat that once again - i am a mechanical engineer from EUROPE. when i debate evolutionists in our big local paper, they love to talk about critical thinking, that i am missing it and bla bla bla.... i never understood this: when an archeologist digs up a broken jar made of stupid clay - it is a design. next to that jar, they dig up a sophisticated skeleton of a dinosaur ... the skeleton includes iconic engineering elements like joints.... a skeleton made of HI-TECH MATERIAL (lightweight and very strong) but this time, they concluded, NO DESIGN . so who is missing critical thinking ?martin_r
December 20, 2019
December
12
Dec
20
20
2019
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
aarceng @38 "(EA) The computer just allows many more trials and errors." some of you already noticed, that i am a mechanical engineer. I study lots of biology .... it is my hobby. The problem with biology is, that i can NOT see any errors. All species are flawless. That is the fact. Everything works perfectly. There are about 10,000,000 kinds of species on Earth. Lets say, that each species has like 1000 parts working in concert. That is about 10,000,000 x 1000 = 10,000,000,000 parts working in concert. How many design flaws have biologists (natural science graduates) found ? 5 ? 10 ? :)))))) 10 out of 10,000,000,000 ???? :)))))) Even those 'errors' found by biologists (natural science graduates) are no errors.... they think these are some design flaws. Of course, biologists are wrong, as always... THERE ARE NO DESIGN FLAWS IN NATURE. IT IS AN ENGINEERING MASTERPIECE!!!! LET ME REPEAT THAT: EVERY SINGLE SPECIES IS AN ENGINEERING MASTERPIECE .... Can someone explain to me, how is a biologist - a natural science graduate - qualified to review a very advanced design and conclude what is good and whats bad design ? Can someone explain to me, how is a professor of biology (e.g. R Dawkins) qualified to talk about very advanced engineering ? A PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY ??? NATURAL SCIENCE GRADUATE ??? HOW IS THIS GUY QUALIFIED TO REVIEW AN ENGINEERING MASTERPIECE BEYOND OUR COMPREHENSION ??? Could someone call the doctor ?martin_r
December 19, 2019
December
12
Dec
19
19
2019
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT
asauber @ 25 A little late replay from this end. It is mass hysteria and no amount of logic can permeate their emotionally driven hype. Mass hysteria is never a good thing and enables people to do things they would not otherwise do.BobRyan
December 19, 2019
December
12
Dec
19
19
2019
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
EricMH @ 2 "Plus, we can run evolutionary algorithms at scales that dwarf biological evolution." An evolutionary algorithm is simply a glorified trial and error solution, something engineers have done with paper and pencil for centuries. The computer just allows many more trials and errors.aarceng
December 19, 2019
December
12
Dec
19
19
2019
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
'Why is that?' A simple phrase, ET. But in the context, hilarious. Such an innocent-sounding question. Not ! We wait with bated breath.Axel
December 19, 2019
December
12
Dec
19
19
2019
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
TAMMIE LEE HAYNES @29 Correct. And here are two eye-opening presentations everyone should see: Abiogenesis: The Faith and the Facts James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of LifeNonlin.org
December 19, 2019
December
12
Dec
19
19
2019
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Yes, Sven, we all know that you don't know how to read for comprehension. Today's engineers know more about biology than Darwin did. And the anti-ID people posting here have never shown knowledge of biology. They always seem to be absent in threads discussing the science and evidence. Why is that?ET
December 19, 2019
December
12
Dec
19
19
2019
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
#31 The proof is in the pudding. so to speak. On certain topics important to design, like whole systems for instance, non-biologists (like a computer scientist) have described the requirements of certain biological systems far more effectively than the biologists actually studying the system. Some people (particularly those in very good position to make such pronouncements) would say that this odd (and completely unnecessary) disparity between the views of biologists and others outside biology continues even to this day.Upright BiPed
December 19, 2019
December
12
Dec
19
19
2019
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Your #29, TAMMIE LEE HAYNES 'There is a big problem with Establishment Biologists. They are known liars, to hundreds of millions of students.' Don't hold back, Tammy ! Speak your mind. Women don't take prisoners ! (chortle chortle)Axel
December 19, 2019
December
12
Dec
19
19
2019
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Your #21, Martin-r You might as well be talking to a brick wall .... or a humming bird, Martin. The Darwinists here no speaka da English, if it is intended to convey rational arguments.Axel
December 19, 2019
December
12
Dec
19
19
2019
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply