Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What will happen to ID?

William Dembski
September 13, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I asked an acquaintance who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and works in the field of paleobiology what will happen to ID? Here is his brief response:

I don’t know what will happen with ID but I am sure something will. The persistent stonewalling by the evolutionists is probably helping the ID effort. It is tragic that the debate has become so polarized and politicized.

Comments
Arnhart wrote: "Darwin’s theory can suggest specific natural causes for this. Species from the mainland move to the islands by floating or flying. They radiate out across the islands. Those heritable variations that enhance reproductive fitness on the various islands will tend to be favored by natural selection. Eventually, the species will vary in adaptive ways across the islands, but they will also show similarity to their ancestors on the mainland." I’ll begin by saying that I don't think very few IDists would quibble about the evidence for "descent with modification" and likewise the evidence for "adaptation" of species. But we all know that, as has been pointed out elsewhere here, there is NO evidence for major taxonomic changes—neither artificial selection nor the fossil record bear this out. And a certain debt is owed to Darwin for his ideas of common descent and adaptation, but the specific mechanisms offered by Darwin, and his 'descendents', for how "adaptation" comes about is not firmly established. There are Fisherian mathematics to support it; but they are shaky mathematics at best. And there is the notion of random mutation--the neo-Darwinian component to the modern synthesis—which appears to be at work in living organisms as they ‘adapt’ to environmental pressures. Yet, the more that is discovered, the more it appears that what is assumed to be “random”, may indeed, be an explicit, built-in organismal/cellular mechanism of simple adaptation and defense. In other words, it might appear to be “random” only because “allelic” permutations can occur—but, again, this might be fully “designed” into biological forms. All of this is to say that the true, validated contributions of Darwinian theory are, in reality, few AND generally accepted by those who advocate ID. Now, moving on to the larger issue of “positive contributions”, let me point out that (1) you are asking for what even supposed Darwinian theory cannot provide. There are “observable” facts—species do radiate and adapt—but “what is the precise molecular mechanism?” That’s the $64,000 question. No one has “proven” that. The jury is still out. And (2) if we’re dealing with an intellect that far surpasses ours, then how can we “know” what mechanisms are used and how? Can you (Dr. Arnhart) take apart a watch, piece by piece, and then tell me the purpose of each part? Or, better yet, if I gave you all the pieces of a working pocket-watch, could you put it together? Now that is something “constructed” by humans—organisms of equal intelligence—and yet it would be hard to deconstruct (unless, of course, that is your livelihood). (And what would happen if instead of a coke bottle, a book with all the pertinent equations of Einstein’s General Theory derived for you were dropped over a primitive bush clan in Africa, would they have any idea what it meant? ) When our knowledge and technology advance to the point that we humans can begin to make objects that reasonably imitate advanced properties of biological life, like reproduction, chemical communication and effective interaction with the environment—all at the nanotech level—then I think that the kinds of answers you’re now demanding may be possible. Nevertheless, in the meantime I think that ID might play a ‘positive’ role simply by changing the mindset of the experimenters: instead of asking themselves, How did this ‘randomly’ come about?, they can ask, How might this have been ‘designed’? How might a designer have designed this? My gut feeling is that there is a whole host of scientists out there who, even now, are asking themselves precisely these ‘design’ questions, yet without realizing they’re doing so. ID’s greatest ally is science itself.PaV
September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Arnhart asks: “ID has been successful in the first stage–attacking Darwinian science by exposing its difficulties. The next stage for ID is to offer positive explanations for EXACTLY HOW THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER CREATES LIVING BEINGS WITH SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Shouldn’t ID theory move to this second stage?” Answer. How does a programmer develop software? USING HIS INTELLIGENCE AND KNOWLEDGE (in this case computer programming skill). The detailed explanations of how “living beings with specified complexity” function are in charge of the other sciences: biology, genetics, anatomy, ecc. If IDT HAS TO EXPLAIN ALL ITSELF what remains to do by the other sciences?niwrad
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
mtreat: Excellent. I was going to chime in saying ID is not an all or nothing proposition for evolution. Both fit nicely together. Standard evolutionary theory is most certainly operative in some realms. However, in laboratory experiments and observation in the wild it appears to be bounded in what it can and cannot accomplish. The variability of canines under artificial selection over 20,000 years is the best example of the observed bounds that I can offer. Anything beyond that is a narrative extrapolation of the modification mechanisms that experimental biology has revealed. All dogs, as far as I know, can interbreed with all other dogs and not a single one has any biological features that canines 20,000 years ago did not possess. Essentially the best that unnatural selection has been able to accomplish is change in scale but not change in kind. Arnhart: You reveal your agenda by insisting that ID must prove something beyond its scope. Your argument that ID must characterize the methods of design or be relegated to the dustbin of useless psuedo-science is a straw man. If you see a cave painting must you also know whether it was painted by a man or a woman, a child or an adult, with a finger or a brush, in order to know that it is designed vs. accident? Of course not. Put down the straw man. You insult my intelligence with it and I won't feel bad about insulting yours in return if you insist on continuing with it.DaveScot
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
1st post; read big letters dr. Dembski.sblank
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
"ID is not a mechanistic theory." How did you, Arnhart, design the complex and specified sequences of words you post here? If you cannot offer a causal explanation - mechanism - for that, how can you demand it for any creative endeavor?JaredL
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
I don't think anyone is refusing to research anything. All in due time friend. However, the mechanism is the essential element with a theory like Darwinism, because it postulates a purely mechanistic process. By contrast, ID holds that certain features are not reducible to mechanisms alone, and must be accompanied by antecedent intelligent action. In other words, the real work in intelligent design occurs in a mind, not in a design's implementation. When I design things for manufacture, the final product begins and is formulated in my mind. My computer, molding presses, SMT machines, etc. are all mere means of implementation, but the decisions, choices, and application of knowledge and information that leads to the creation of a specified, complex system are non-material in my head. I agree that investigation into the implementation of designs is an interesting question, but a secondary one to detecting design - which is what ID is in the context of examining the history of life on earth.ultimate175
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
ID theory has the potential to launch a scientific revolution. Scientific revolutions pass through two stages--the first is negative or critical, the second positive or constructive. ID has been successful in the first stage--attacking Darwinian science by exposing its difficulties. (Darwin himself devoted over one-third of ORIGIN to the "difficulties" in his theory.) The next stage for ID is to offer positive explanations for exactly how the intelligent designer creates living beings with specified complexity. Shouldn't ID theory move to this second stage? For example, ID theorists are good at criticizing the attempts of people like Ken Miller to explain exactly how bacterial flagella evolved. But then why shouldn't IDers take the next step and lay out a causal explanation of exactly how the intelligent designer created bacterial flagella? Wouldn't that complete the ID scientific revolution? Wouldn't that mean that scientists would be going into their laboratories to test ID theory as applied to bacterial flagella (and other complexities in the living world)? Why do ID theorists refuse to take the step towards positive, constructive explanations that would turn ID into a mature and revolutionary science?Arnhart
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Well, there is one glaring defect in the "argument from ignorance" objection. For the record, the argument from ignorance is "Not X, therefore Y." Now, even if we concede (and I don't) that ID is an argument from ignorance, you must still contend with the fact that Dembski et al have utterly nailed the "NOT X" part of the argument.JaredL
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Two from Arnhart: "At present, intelligent design theory is a purely negative position–attacking Darwinian biology " "Bill, I agree with you that Darwin framed his theory as the alternative to intelligent design theory."Charlie
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
DaveScot got it about right when he said: "It (ID) simply adds another mechanism (intelligent agency) to the drivers of modification. It doesn’t even negate other mechanisms. Natural selection is operative on heritable modification no matter whether its source is intelligent agency or random chance." Evolutionists tend to see this as an "either or" dilemma. ID is simply suggesting that you go wherever the evidence reasonably takes you -- without philosophical prejudice. In the case of variations in the beaks of finches, natural selection is the most reasonable explanation. When it comes to the existence of first lifeforms, specifically complex biological systems, and irreducibly complex biomechanisms, you do what is readily done in other branches of scientific research (forensics, archaeology, cryptography, etc.): make a design inference. It's not a "God of the gaps" argument because 1) ID is agnostic in regards to the identity of the designer(s) and 2) it's an appeal to the best explanation based on what we DO know: things that appear designed and exhibit specific complexity and irreducible functionality ARE designed. The burden of proof that something that exhibits those features is NOT designed falls squarely on the evolutionists. It's only because of philosophical prejudice, political agendas, and emotion that we even have to have this debate. The elephant in the room is plainly there for anyone willing and able to see it.mtreat
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Arnhart - Actually, not all IDers are "special creationists" - Michael Denton, for one, posits what I think of as "the anthropic principle on steroids": that the designs of living creatures are in fact embedded in the laws of physics, and "reveal" themselves through the processes of evolution, which is a directed rather than a random process. Check out his book "Nature's Destiny" for his argument.jimbo
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
I honestly don't see any conflict with the fact of animal migration and the subsequent adaptation (without information gain), from a theistic position.Bombadill
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
"I hope this helps you to understand what ID is and is not in relation to current theory of biological origin and diversity." No such luck Dave. And not only understanding ID but there is also a problem with understanding "theory of special creation". Instead long worn arguments are repeated here. Arnhart, I can only suggest that you get acquainted with very basic claims of ID theorists (and creationists as well). You can start here http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=finches&sp-a=00020fd7-sp00000000 for creationists point of view and claims of ID theorists can be found in Dr. Dembski's book "The Design Revolution". That will be a good start.Srdjan
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Arnhart, you make some interesting points there. I'm interested to see how Dr. Dembski responds. I would share my 2 cents, but I think he can articulate it a heck of a lot better than I.Bombadill
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Bill, I agree with you that Darwin framed his theory as the alternative to intelligent design theory. That's why I have proposed that the best way to "teach the controversy" is to "teach Darwin." If public school biology students read Darwin, they would see him weighing his theory against intelligent design theory, and they could decide for themselves. (In the 3rd edition of the Norton Critical Edition of Darwin, Philip Appleman includes articles by Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe, because Appleman can see that the contemporary ID debate continues the debate in which Darwin engaged.) In ORIGIN, Darwin sets the "theory of special creation" against the "theory of natural selection." He indicates that neither theory can be conclusively demonstrated. But we can at least judge one theory as more probable if it can explain "large classes of facts" more intelligibly than the other theory. For example, if the "theory of natural selection" can explain the geographic distribution of species between the Galapagos Islands and the South American mainland and do this more persuasively than any alternative explanation based on the "theory of special creation," then we can judge the evolutionary theory to be more probable. Darwin's theory can suggest specific natural causes for this. Species from the mainland move to the islands by floating or flying. They radiate out across the islands. Those heritable variations that enhance reproductive fitness on the various islands will tend to be favored by natural selection. Eventually, the species will vary in adaptive ways across the islands, but they will also show similarity to their ancesters on the mainland. What's the alternative explanation from the "theory of special creation"? Did the intelligent designer create each new species for each island? How did he do this? Why and how did he create the species on the islands to resemble the species on the mainland? Why and how did he create some species for the Galapagos that are not found anywhere else in the world? By what observable natural mechanisms did he do this? And what are the experimental procedures for testing these claims?Arnhart
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Larry, Even if ID were simply concerned with the limits of evolution, and therefore negative in your sense, I don't see how you can say that it is "purely" negative. Evolution, conceived as a process that proceeds by undirected stochastic mechanisms, stands in contradiction to intelligent design. Evidence against one is evidence for the other. Darwin himself took this line in his Origin. If evidence could not cut both ways on this, evolution would be a default position and not an inference from evidence. In that case, one could turn your argument around as follows: evolution is purely negative position attacking intelligent design (with ID conceived now as part of the engineering sciences, in which the creative process is not reducible to mechanisms). Indeed, the majority of the U.S. population would happy to assign the burden of evidence this way.William Dembski
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Arnhart, Actually, you've got it all wrong. ID doesn't attack descent with modification (Darwinism). It simply adds another mechanism (intelligent agency) to the drivers of modification. It doesn't even negate other mechanisms. Natural selection is operative on heritable modification no matter whether its source is intelligent agency or random chance. I hope this helps you to understand what ID is and is not in relation to current theory of biological origin and diversity.DaveScot
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Good said, taciturnus. This recursive story that IDT is not a positive one begins to boring. For example, what about all the positive mathematical methods IDT theorists developed to detect design? Moreover also a “negative” work of demolition of error is useful. Also the work Godel did in 1931 about metamathematics, under a certain point of view, is … negative. He destroyed the axiomization illusion in mathematics. But Godel’s proof has a huge importance. If IDT will be able to destroy the Darwinian illusion in biology, its “negative” work will have huge importance too!niwrad
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Dr. Arnhart, Are you saying that it is impossible to detect design without a scientific understanding of the mechanisms by which the design was fulfilled? This seems like saying we can't know that Paradise Lost has an intelligent origin without understanding the mechanical details of printing presses.taciturnus
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
The best thing that could happen to intelligent design is that could become a positive theory of the causal mechanisms by which the intelligent designer creates living beings with specified complexity. Such a positive theory could be tested through scientific research. At present, intelligent design theory is a purely negative position--attacking Darwinian biology but offering no falsifiable explanations of its own.Arnhart
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
The person you cite got it right. I just happened to read your 'Design Revolution'. There you're perfectly clear: ID till now is missing the crucial point. It hasn't something useful to offer for the practising scientist. So a free debate would strengthen the evolutionists. You should prefer stonewalling.El Schwalmo
September 13, 2005
September
09
Sep
13
13
2005
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply