Uncommon Descent Contest 19: Spot the mistakes in the following baffflegab explanation of intelligent design theory

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 26, 2009

Contests}

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

In a review in First Things by David B. Hart, of Richard Dawkins’s The Greatest Show on Earth, we are informed – on the mag’s cover – that Dawkins “gets a gold star” for his book of that name (January 2010 Number 199).

Indeed, he does get the gold star from reviewer Hart. Hart is full of praise for Dawkins, though daintily demurs at his hardline atheism. But he is a total, unwavering convert to the greatest scam ever conceived in the history of biology, that Darwinism – a conservative aspect of wild nature that trims out life forms unsuited to an ecology – actually has vast creative powers.

I can’t yet seem to find the review on line, but that was not for lack of trying.

Now the contest: Here’s what Hart has to say about design in nature:

The best argument against ID theory, when all is said and done, is that it rests on a premise – irreducible complexity” – that may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level but that can never logically be demonstrated. At the end of the day, it is – as Francis Collins rightly remarks – an argument from personal incredulity. While it is true that very suggestive metaphysical arguments can be drawn from the reality of form, the intelligibility of the universe, consciousness, the laws of physics, or (most importantly) ontological contingency, the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism’s phylogenic antecedents.

Commenters, for a free copy of Expelled, can you spot the mistakes in the quoted passage above? I mean, actual mistakes, as opposed to “He isn’t making any sense.” There is enough of the former, but you will find plenty of the latter too, I am afraid.

Here are the contest rules. Most important: No more than 400 words.

Also: If you won a previous contest quite recently and your prize is late, it is most likely because our post office here has four days off at this time of year, and I can’t do a thing about that. If you won a long time ago and never got your prize, write me at oleary@sympatico.ca

Note: This contest has been judged. Go here for more.

Comments

jerry: All the laws of chemistry, geology, aerodynamics, fluids etc. are essentially due to the four basic forces. I violate them all the time. Every time I pick something up, I am violating a law of physics, namely gravity.
Sorry, but no laws of physics were broken. Energy is conserved all the way from the fusion of the sun providing energy for plants, to the cows eating the plants, to the trucks that transport the beef, to the stove that cooks your burgers, to your body inhaling oxygen, to the energy used by your brain and brawn. It doesn't matter how smart you are, how strong you are, or how much will-power you muster.Zachriel_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Jerry... uh, he's right. Picking up an object is not "overriding a natural law via an intelligent action." Picking up the object is wholly within the natural law and doesn't violate it in the least. It's sort of... incomprehensible to say otherwise.Retroman_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

"That’s not the case at all. When you pick something up, you apply a force that is greater than that exerted by gravity. That force comes from your muscles, supported by your skeleton and fueled by the food you’ve eaten. All elements of the action obey the laws of physics." Let's not get inane here. You have just over rode a natural process by imposing an intelligent action. So you are violating what the laws of nature would ordinarily do by having an intelligence impose the force. If you want an intelligent conversation then admit when the ordinary laws of nature do not play out then one looks for another law of nature or force operating and if one cannot find such a thing one looks for an intelligence temporarily intervening. I am not saying they aren't doing it with physical processes but they are definitely over riding the natural processes.jerry_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

When you pick something up, you apply a force that is greater than that exerted by gravity. That force comes from your muscles, supported by your skeleton and fueled by the food you’ve eaten. All elements of the action obey the laws of physics.
So that force in the muscles just "poofs" out of nowhere? What physical law generates that force, keeping in mind that f=ma?Mung_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

jerry at 23, Every time I pick something up, I am violating a law of physics, namely gravity. That's not the case at all. When you pick something up, you apply a force that is greater than that exerted by gravity. That force comes from your muscles, supported by your skeleton and fueled by the food you've eaten. All elements of the action obey the laws of physics.Mustela Nivalis_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

"Could you please explain what you mean by this? In my experience, I’ve never been able to violate natural laws, regardless of the amount of intelligence I applied to the task. I suspect our definitions of “natural law” may be at the root of my confusion." The laws of physics or the four basic forces. Are there any other? All the laws of chemistry, geology, aerodynamics, fluids etc. are essentially due to the four basic forces. I violate them all the time. Every time I pick something up, I am violating a law of physics, namely gravity.jerry_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

The best argument against ID theory, when all is said and done, is that it rests on a premise – irreducible complexity” – that may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level but that can never logically be demonstrated.
Ironically irreducible complexity is one of the few falsifications of Darwinism in general, therefore Darwinism is not scientific to the same extent that it can never be "demonstrated." What can generally be observed empirically is typically a form of irreducible complexity where if a part is taken away then a lack of function results. For sociological, psychological, political, theological or some other reason many scientists do not treat what can be generally observed as evidence. Instead they tend to prefer imaginary forms of evidence based on whatever they believe naturalism to entail. They generally neglect empirical evidence and instead focus on proposing feasible evolutionary routes (i.e. naturalistic creation myths). This is in line with Darwinian reasoning of this sort: "If an organism could be found which I could not imagine coming about in a gradual sequence of events then my theory would absolutely break down. It seems that I can always imagine things, therefore my theory is sound." That summary is hardly even a satire. That is the type of reasoning which leads to a mental illusion which allows one to treat their own imagination as the epistemic equivalent of a scientific theory. For some reason those who are the first to blindly assert: "There is no scientific evidence of intelligent design." also seem to be those most willing to cite their own imaginations as the equivalent of actual science. (Although it must be admitted that a mind of the synaptic "gaps" seeking to reduce itself to ignorance by imagining itself to be the product of blind and ignorant processes seems to be fitting for the congenitally ignorant, naturally.) Irreducible complexity isn't an argument based on ignorance similar to Darwinian reasoning, it's generally just an empirical observation that can be observed in the form and function of organisms at present. Irreducible complexity is generally an observation which personal credulity and a capacity to imagine things about the past doesn't actually change. Imagining ignorance to be the equivalent of knowledge has little to do with a scientific explanation of the history of all biological specification, form and species based on empirical observation.mynym_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Mustela Nivalis (aka weasel man)- My 2 cents- Intelligence is that with can create counterflow- that is it can do what the laws of nature alone cannot. See "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratzsch.Joseph_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
Darwin’s hypothesis was that the variety of species is caused by natural selection and random mutations.
1- It appears to be more of an idea, because 2- it doesn't appear to be testable
Two consequences of this hypothesis were the age of the earth of a particulate selection mechanism.
Darwin's mechanisms require an old Earth, yet no one knows how old it has to be because no one knows if any amount of mutational accumulation can accounto for the transformations required. Sexual reproduction appears to put the big squash on Common Descent- sexual selection appears to keep the same types around- a wobbling stability if you will- Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled "Wobbling Stability". In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:
Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.
(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)
Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.
The point being, that IF it were left to direct scientific observations, evolutionism fails miserably and all that is left is wishful thinking supported by speculation.Joseph_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

#17 Jerry Darwin's hypothesis was that the variety of species is caused by natural selection and random mutations. Two consequences of this hypothesis were the age of the earth of a particulate selection mechanism.Mark Frank_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Jerry at 16, Intelligence does not follow natural laws Could you please explain what you mean by this? In my experience, I've never been able to violate natural laws, regardless of the amount of intelligence I applied to the task. I suspect our definitions of "natural law" may be at the root of my confusion.Mustela Nivalis_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

We are still waiting for a testable hypothesis based on the proposed mechanisms of natural selection and random mutations- ie an accumulation of genetic accidents. Geez Mark Frank didn't even address what I posted. Jerry neither did you. You guys are not getting away with out-of-context quote mining. Ya see when I finished the post with: "However as I said earlier they cannot even provide a testable hypothesis." The CONTEXT was "We are still waiting for a testable hypothesis based on the proposed mechanisms of natural selection and random mutations- ie an accumulation of genetic accidents." So how about addressing the real issue? Or is the refusal to do so enough evidence that thet cannot?Joseph_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

"The biggest error is the assumption that ID is a theory:" We have discussed this many times and some aspects of ID can be a theory while some cannot. Intelligent intervention is a suspension of natural laws, not the prediction of what would happen as natural laws play out. So one aspect of ID looks for places where phenomena occurred but could not have been due to natural laws but rather a suspension of them. Exactly, what one would expect if an intelligence intervened. There is another aspect of ID where phenomena are analyzed that have been created by intelligences and if certain subsets of these phenomena are unique in the sense that only intelligence could have created them. This is more amenable to a theoretical approach as the characteristics of these subsets are analyzed. People get hung up on a narrow view of science, the analysis of natural laws playing out over time and just what they will predict. Intelligence does not follow natural laws and thus this narrow view does not apply as the sole way to analyze intelligence.jerry_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

"However as I said earlier they cannot even provide a testable hypothesis." Joseph, I can provide a testable hypothesis that I believe can be verified. "If two organisms reproduce by sexual reproduction, then their offspring's DNA will be different than either one of the parents." Since evolution is change over time evolution has occurred. QED. If they want to use the percentage of alleles changing then one can show slight but real changes in any population from one generation to the next through sexual reproduction, so using that definition should hold up that simple sexual reproduction is true evolution. Of course this is meaningless but it is a testable hypothesis and one of the few they can validate. Isn't evolutionary science great?jerry_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

#13 they cannot even provide a testable hypothesis. I keep on having to repeat this - but it is still true. Two hypotheses arising from the Origin of Species: (1) The age of earth is well in excess of a 100 million years (to allow for sufficient generations) (2) The mechanism for inheritance is particulate not blended Both of course turned out to be true, but were not known to be true at the time and could have been false.Mark Frank_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

The bigger error is the assumption the that "theory" of evolution is a theory. We are still waiting for a testable hypothesis based on the proposed mechanisms of natural selection and random mutations- ie an accumulation of genetic accidents. And in the end ID stays around due to the utter failure of evolutionists to support their claims. However as I said earlier they cannot even provide a testable hypothesis.Joseph_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

The biggest error is the assumption that ID is a theory:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable.
~ Philip Johnson, Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006)Dave Wisker_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

#10 Retroman It may help if you note that there are three f's in baffflegab (look above).Mark Frank_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

What is "bafflegab"? I've never heard this word before. Did you coin it, Denyse? If so, what do you intend the exact definition to be? If not, what's the etymology?Retroman_{December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

"If Darwinism was true, then ID would have to be false." This is not true though if Darwinism were true it would strongly undermine the credence of ID but not eliminate it. Many who are Christians and many members of other major religions believe in Intelligent Design and Darwinian evolution. Namely, that God designed the universe but also believed that He designed the world such that life would play out by naturalistic means and the most likely way is Darwinian processes. So this is a form of ID. It is what I believed till I examined the issues. This belief system held by many very religious people and who assume life evolved by Darwinian processes is a form of ID. The only problem with it, is that it is not supported by the data. The data seems to point to an occasional intervention in life and this could definitely happen as the result of an intelligent intervention and does not seem to be within the range of natural processes. There is a major flaw in Hart's thinking and it is in his last sentence "While it is true that very suggestive metaphysical arguments can be drawn from the reality of form, the intelligibility of the universe, consciousness, the laws of physics, or (most importantly) ontological contingency, the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism’s phylogenic antecedents." Hart admits that there is an incalculable complexity but he assumes that somewhere along the way that new generations increased the complexity and there is no evidence for it. In fact the evidence is against it. If he, like some TE's, assumes that the necessary changes were helped along by God, then it is hard to distinguish that belief from ID. ID does not say how it happened, only that it happened. So ID only had to happen once and it would still be ID and that once could have been the design of the universe but the science shows that it probably happened more than once since the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago.jerry_{December 27, 2009
December
12
Dec
27
27
2009
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

The best argument against ID is Darwinism. If Darwinism was true, then ID would have to be false. But if Darwinism was true, then there would be published and validated scientific evidence that random mutation and natural selection could produce fundamental advancements in the structure of life. Specifically, the Darwinian mechanism would have been shown to be able to produce new cell types, new tissue types, new organ types, and new body types. The Darwinian mechanism has never been shown to be able to produce any one of these, let alone all four, which one would expect if the theory was extensively validated. From a scientific standpoint, the Darwinian mechanism is impotent to create the types of substantial novel changes that we all assume that “Evolution” can produce, but has never been shown to. Since there is no scientific evidence that these four types of changes can be produced by the Darwinian mechanism, there is precious little evidence that Darwinism is true in any substantial way. Consequently, the "best" argument against ID is no argument at all. ht: d scottEndoplasmicMessenger_{December 27, 2009
December
12
Dec
27
27
2009
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

What is the difference between personal incredulity and scientific skepticism? When it goes against the mainstream it is personal incredulity and when it supports the mainstream it is scientific skepticism?Collin_{December 27, 2009
December
12
Dec
27
27
2009
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

“The best argument against ID theory, when all is said and done, is that it rests on a premise – irreducible complexity” – that may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level but that can never logically be demonstrated.” Behe has argued successfully that certain components of a system must all be in place, working together, before anything happens. The loss of one or more components renders the system unusable. If the premise seems compelling, that’s because it is. “At the end of the day, it is – as Francis Collins rightly remarks – an argument from personal incredulity. “ It is an argument from common sense realism and scientific rigor. Someone somewhere had to put the components of my Dell XPS computer system together. That is logical. Someone (or something) somewhere had to put the components of the universe together and fine tune all the physical forces for life to happen. That is also logical. “While it is true that very suggestive metaphysical arguments can be drawn from the reality of form, the intelligibility of the universe, consciousness, the laws of physics, or (most importantly) ontological contingency, the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism’s phylogenic antecedents.” In other words, while everything appears to have been designed, it clearly wasn’t. Using really big, triple-word-score words doesn’t prove your argument to be true. The final sentence is quite amusing, since the argument is that biological organisms have antecedents that are “incalculable” in their complexity. A brief visit to the dictionary reveals that the word incalculable means “too great to be calculated or reckoned; impossible to foresee”. If the complexity of an organism’s components is truly incalculable, then science is at a standstill because no one will ever calculate how great and complex the organism really is! And here I thought science was supposed to be progressive.Barb_{December 27, 2009
December
12
Dec
27
27
2009
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

I prefer to call them tricks rather than mistakes. There are two palpable tricks used in the second sentence (I ignored the opening sentence as it was just silly). The first is to deliberately jumble together philosophical and scientific issues: in this case mixing the concrete laws of physics and the clearly observed biological complexity with concepts of ontology and metaphysics. This trick attempts to bamboozle the reader. The second trick is to simply pass the issue back to an antecedent – often all the way back to the origin of life and hope that the reader will not spot the problem. These same techniques have worked successfully in the past so we can look forward to them being repeated ad nauseum.GFrancis_{December 27, 2009
December
12
Dec
27
27
2009
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

The best argument against ID theory, when all is said and done, is that it rests on a premise – irreducible complexity” It leaves out CSI. that may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level Actually, IC is objective. but that can never logically be demonstrated. To elaborate, IC is a potentially falsifiable conclusion based on objective observations. At the end of the day, it is – as Francis Collins rightly remarks – an argument from personal incredulity. Pointing out that a particular conclusion is based on blind-faith credulity is not a argument from personal incredulity and, anyway, IC doesn't even do that. Nor does ID technially albeit the temptation to do so is usually too hard to resist during a lengthy debate with a Darwinist. the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof ID does not claim to be irrefutable proof.tribune7_{December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

The best argument against ID theory...
BAsed upon what I write in my first post, it follows that it is also not the case that this is "the best argument against ID theory."Mung_{December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

...the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism’s phylogenic antecedents.
Adding to my above post. It is not the case that the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can ever amount to an irrefutable proof of the incalculable complexity of that organism’s phylogenic antecedents.Mung_{December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

The best argument against ID theory, when all is said and done, is that it rests on a premise – irreducible complexity” – that may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level but that can never logically be demonstrated.
It is not the case that ID rests upon a premise of irreducible complexity. Even if it were the case, it is not the case that irreducible complexity can never logically be demonstrated.
At the end of the day, it is – as Francis Collins rightly remarks – an argument from personal incredulity.
It is not the case that ID is an argument from personal incredulity (whatever that is).
...the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism’s phylogenic antecedents.
It is not the case that ID is an argument from "the mere biological complexity of this or that organism." It is not the case that ID is an attempt at irrefutable proof.Mung_{December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply