Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

James Shapiro: Bill Dembski asks the question we’ve all been dreading …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Is Shapiro really a design theorist but doesn’t want to admit it? (Evolution News & Views, January 12, 2012)

For proponents of intelligent design, James Shapiro’s constant dancing in the DMZ between Darwin and design can be frustrating. On the one hand, Shapiro is as dismissive of Darwinism as any ID proponent. On the other, he constantly gives public notice that he is not on the side of ID. And yet, methinks he protests too much.

Or not enough.

Shapiro is a molecular biologist on faculty at the University of Chicago. When it comes to ID, Shapiro admits that it has identified some legitimate problems, such as Michael Behe’s irreducibly complex biochemical systems (in this he is light years ahead of Richard Dawkins and Kenneth Miller, who deny that any problem exists). Shapiro admits that these are unresolved in Darwinian terms.

Some Darwinism sounds like such nonsense as to cast grave doubt on the intelligence of the persons who utter it.

Fast forward to two days ago, January 8, 2012. In the Huffington Post, Shapiro wrote an insightful article on the mechanisms involved in antibiotic resistance, rejecting the standard Darwinian picture of antibiotic resistance being conferred by the gradual accumulation of slight adaptive modifications. Appealing to lateral gene transfer as a way of bacteria quickly acquiring complex biological structures and functions, and then appealing to natural genetic engineering to adapt those structures to new circumstances of life, Shapiro offers a picture that seems utterly congenial to intelligent design.

And yet, intelligent design is anathema in the circles in which Shapiro moves, so he must utter the mandatory denunciations:

Well, every form of refuge has its price. Some would find that stuff humiliating.

Like, placating the Darwin tenure bore, the Darwin lobbyist, the government Darwin stiff, the reverend who found Jesus n’ Darwin …

There’s a great relief in telling them all to just go to blazes, but we can’t pretend that it translates into interest from TV hair models or Arianna Huffington – once they realize that you must know what you are talking about, and no compromise.

To get anywhere with these problems, you have to be more embedded in this planet than they are.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Elizabeth: I disagree, but in any case, that is what we are arguing about. It can’t be a premise. Sure. And neither can "evolutionary processes form an intelligent system" be a premise. I was just trying to set it stright that rules are the same for both parts. " b) ID is demonstrably true in a completely different sense." Again, I disagree. I know. And I am waiting for an anwer, and a continuing discussion, here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolutionist-youre-misrepresenting-natural-selection/ Well, yes. That’s what I said. Not exactly. What I mean is: there is nothing supernatural in the idea that a conscious intelligent designer designed biological information, any more than human conscious intelligence and ability to design is supernatural. I don't believe that's exactly what you meant.gpuccio
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
Right I have seen the evidence and it is nonsense and the best part is not one evolutionary scientist can produce positive testable evidence for their position’s grand claims. You disagree because you are gullible- no other reason.
Your assertions are noted ;)Elizabeth Liddle
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
Right I have seen the evidence and it is nonsense and the best part is not one evolutionary scientist can produce positive testable evidence for their position's grand claims. You disagree because you are gullible- no other reason.Joe
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, It isn't that the evidence is invisble to me. It is that the evidence doesn't exist. I was once an evolutionist and still would be if the evidence was there. And both of your assertions are bald and unsupportable. And no one can establish that evolutionary processes need not have been designed. That is another bald assertion. It appears that your position is full of bald assertions and promissory notes.Joe
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
Exactly, Joe. You have seen the evidence, and have decided it isn't evidence. That's your prerogative. Clearly I disagree.Elizabeth Liddle
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
Look at Talk Origins and the alleged 29+ evidences for macroevolution- I can take that and make a strong case for common design. And not only that the alleged evidences for macroevolution don't even include any mechansism. And BTW you have already admitted there isn't any way to test the claim that the bacterial flagellum evolved via accumulations of random mutations. So what is this evidence you speak of?Joe
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
No, I haven't "admitted" that, Joe. Certainly I have made a bald assertion. But as all evidence for my position is invisible to you, there seems no point in presenting any. But I'd point out that there are two assertions there, not one. The second is clearly true. The first is not, and could be incorrect. Unfortunately there is no way of falsifying the converse. We will never know whether evolutionary processes were designed, or intended. We can only establish that they need not have been.Elizabeth Liddle
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
I have seen it and it doesn't amount to anything, most is equivocation and the rest is assumptive. IOW Elizabeth just because you are gullible doesn't mean I missed something- I was an evolutionist and still would be if the evidence was there.Joe
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
There is plenty of evidence, Joe, but it seems to be invisible to you. Sorry about that.Elizabeth Liddle
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, You can disagree all you want but until you have some evidence for any alternative, like your position, all it is is whining.Joe
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
Evolutionary processes are not designed. They are stochastic.
How did you determine that? Bald declarations are meaningless. Yse it helps- you have just admitted that your position is nothing more than a bald assertion.Joe
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
Evolutionary processes are not designed. They are stochastic. Organisms just evolve. Hope that helps.Elizabeth Liddle
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
a) Evolutionary processes, if unguided and not designed, in no way form an intelligent system.
So you are saying that only designed systems can be intelligent? That intelligence must be designed by intelligence? I disagree, but in any case, that is what we are arguing about. It can't be a premise.
b) ID is demonstrably true in a completely different sense.
Again, I disagree.
c) There is nothing supernatural in ID (the true ID), or at least any more than human conscious intelligence is supernatural.
Well, yes. That's what I said.Elizabeth Liddle
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
As many of us having been saying for years, evolutionary processes form an intelligent system.
Truly clueless. The question is are "evolutionary processes" designed or stochastic? Do organisms evolve by design or do the just evolve?Joe
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
Oh dear - "intelligent" looks like it's going to be added to the long list of undefined words like "selection", "fitness", "random" and even "evolution" itself! But if life, as per Darwin, Mayr, etc, has the illusion of design, it's presumably because it was produced by the illusion of intelligence, for which we could adapt the dictionary definition to mean, strictly: "false appearance of capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; illusory aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc." No doubt we'd literally mean a chaotic self-ordering system having these properties, so we would still have to avoid carefully the use of teleological language, even when the illusory intelligence was shown to be acting teleologically.Jon Garvey
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: Let's try to make some order here. a) Evolutionary processes, if unguided and not designed, in no way form an intelligent system. b) ID is demonstrably true in a completely different sense. c) There is nothing supernatural in ID (the true ID), or at least any more than human conscious intelligence is supernatural. As many of us having been saying for years... :)gpuccio
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT
As many of us having been saying for years, evolutionary processes form an intelligent system. In that sense, and in that sense alone, ID is demonstrably true. But there's nothing supernatural about it, any more than human intelligence is supernatural. Indeed, the two are quite similar in many ways.Elizabeth Liddle
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT
Neil: For me, it's very simple. Shapiro is making the right questions(exactly those that so many are avoiding), but he is not, at least until now, giving the right answers. As, IMO, questions are always more important than answers, I am perfectly fine with his position.gpuccio
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT
Neil, whenever I see a phrase like "people who understand evolution" I know someone's going to shift from one standard definition of evolution to another description. See here and here. Like "we now know" it's no more than a cheap debating trick. But Jerry Coyne says James Shapiro is "heterodox", so clearly one of them doesn't understand evolution either. After one reading of Shapiro's book I was uncertain whether he regarded mutations produced by "natural genetic engineering" as random with respect to fitness, so I read it again together with his online stuff, and concluded that he regards them as at least severely constrained, that is, intelligently designed, so selection is merely used to fine tune purposefully produced (ie teleological) changes. Therein lies the heart of his stated antagonism to the Modern Synthesis. I also concluded that, as per Dembski's blog post, Shapiro has, in effect, merely pushed the design problem one step back - he proposes no serious mechanism for the arrival of organisms-capable-of-engineering. He expressly regards the standard ND model (including neutral theory) as inadequate to produce the organisational complexity of current life, but in order to do so requires (and gives evidence for) much greater organisational complexity still. So how can ND be an adequate explanation for that? He's under no obligation to address this personally, but it causes severe problems for materialist, ateleological, views on both OOL and evolution. The only real suggestion is some kind of (non-evidenced) chaotic self-ordering, aka tornadoes in junkyards, unless one goes for Eugene Koonin's "in a multiverse all is possible" cop-out, which is falsified by the lack of unicorns and flying pigs in the world.Jon Garvey
January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT
Neil….Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering” opens up the floodgates for the miraculous
That's a question you should take up with Shapiro. It seems to me that he is being careful not to depend on anything miraculous. Biological organisms are doing genetic engineering. Meiosis is experimentation in recombinant DNA. But it is the population that evaluates the results of that experimentation.Neil Rickert
January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
If the organism itself is acting as an agent (rather than as a machine), then that is ID.
Then ID proponents should embrace standard evolutionary theory, or perhaps theistic evolution. People who understand evolution (as distinct from the strawman version that is often "debunked"), understand that biological organisms and biological reproduction are what drive evolution.Neil Rickert
January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
I haven't read Shapiro's book yet, but his previous comments elsewhere lead me to think otherwise. In any case, we know of many mutations for which the location *is* targeted to need. Not precisely, 100%, but that the cell looks towards the areas which are likely to generate benefit in the present situation. For instance, the adaptive immune system, when generating mutations, skips over 99.99% of the genome, and targets the mutations on the correct gene which needs mutating. Not only that, it ONLY targets the PART of the gene which attaches to the antigen, and DOES NOT mutate the part that attaches to the cell. This is not a unique situation either, and I highly doubt that Shapiro is unaware of it.johnnyb
January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
Shapiro's view isn't ID for the simple reason that mutations don't exhibit foresight. Mutation rate may increase due to stress, but the mutations are not targeted to need. It's in the book, clearly stated, exactly as I have described.Petrushka
January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
"It seems that Dembski sees nature as entirely mechanical, so anything complex and function would require something outside of nature to have intervened. But Shapiro does not agree with that view. He sees natural intelligence at work, right down to basic levels of nature." You are quite mistaken. The view that you just articulated *IS* intelligent design. ID has *never* been tied to a theistic designer. If the organism itself is acting as an agent (rather than as a machine), then that is ID. This is what drives me up a wall. THE ONLY THING ID SAYS IS THAT DESIGN REQUIRES AGENCY. IT IS VERY INFURIATING FOR SOMEONE TO POINT TO AGENCY AS A CAUSE AND THEN SAY, "See! ID is false!" If you want to explore the idea of agency in daily life further, you should check out the upcoming "Engineering and Metaphysics" conference.johnnyb
January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
Neil....Shapiro's "natural genetic engineering" opens up the floodgates for the miraculous: As Richard Dawkins, who mulls over lamarkian change in "The Blind Watchmaker," puts it: "By what mysterious, built-in wisdom does the body choose to mutate in the direction of getting better rather than getting worse?" pg. 306 This is why ToE is a theory of population: because natural selection (of random variants) does away with the need for miracles. Today's scientists are not interested at all in vitalism or lamarckism. It's materialism or bust. As soon as one introduces wisdom, intelligence, miracles -- or even mystery -- into science, then the institution loses its whole purpose and meaning. Add this to the fact that even "genetic engineering" doesn't produce new anatomy or new molecular machines, then what science is stuck with is the reality that life forms have no real explanation as to their existence -- only that they change with the environment via mysterious, seemingly-miraculous internal mechanisms and respond physically to what the mind perceives. hardly a problem for creationists.vh
January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Science defines nature as this observable universe.Joe
January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
Depends on your definition of nature. I define nature as that which exists.Petrushka
January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
Well the origin of nature needs something outside of nature...Joe
January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
I am not a biologist. And I have never met Shapiro. My knowledge of his work is limited to an Internet video, some Internet reports, and his recent book, which I reviewed on my blog. That said, no I don't think Shapiro's work is at all supportive of ID. If anything, I see it as being a problem for ID proponents, for he provides an alternative explanation for what ID proponents see as requiring an intelligent designer. Quoting the Evolution News and Views site:
In place of Behe's design hypothesis, Shapiro proposed that organisms evolve through what he called "natural genetic engineering." Briefly, organisms are intelligent and guide their own evolution.
For myself, I agree with that "natural genetic engineering" view, though I thought Shapiro overstated it a bit in his book. But I don't see that as at all helpful to the claims of ID proponents. Perhaps I am projecting my own view onto Shapiro. Dembski writes:
At the time, I asked you about the origin of such "natural genetic engineering" systems. As I recall, you indicated that this was not really the problem you were addressing. Have you thought any more about this problem? Specifically, how do such systems arise that can take over their evolution? And how much complexity do they require? Are you confident that non-teleological mechanisms can account for the rise of natural genetic engineering systems, and if so why?
Dembski thinks that Shapiro evaded the question. However, it seems to me that he at least hinted at the answer. It seems that Dembski sees nature as entirely mechanical, so anything complex and function would require something outside of nature to have intervened. But Shapiro does not agree with that view. He sees natural intelligence at work, right down to basic levels of nature. With a "metabolism first" view of the origins of life, presumably there would be some natural intelligence already present in the most basic metabolic processes, and that would be enough intelligence to start the natural engineering project that led to the living things that we observe. Again, I might be projecting some of my own views onto Shapiro. But what Dembski reports about his comments in that ENV page seems consistent with my view of what Shapiro is saying.Neil Rickert
January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply