Posts
The Chutzpah of Intelligent Design
By Jason Rosenhouse / November 20, 2007
Yesterday Jewcy published an exchange on the topic of evolution between author Neal Pollak and Discovery Institute senior fellow David Klinghoffer. Jason Rosenhouse, a professor at James Madison University and host of Seed Magazine's Evolution Blog, sends us this response.
I do not know what you do for a living, but I suspect you are pretty good at it. You probably trained for years to learn the basic elements of your craft, and then honed those skills through more years of on-the-job experience. Now imagine that someone without that training and experience presumes to discourse on your profession. Worse, they make assertions and arguments that are obvious nonsense to anyone versed in the subject. Not an altogether uncommon experience for you, I suspect, but one that is no less annoying for that.
Now suppose that after ignoring your best attempts to explain things, your interlocutor goes running off to the press. It is alleged that your entire profession is corrupt and shot through with religious and political agendas. Then he goes running to the local school board to pressure them into teaching his view of things despite its complete lack of acceptance among knowledgeable people. Then he gives public presentations, announcing he is going to blow the lid off the scandal in your profession.
Are you there? Are you really picturing it? That, you see, is what scientists contend with in confronting proponents of intelligent design (ID). For more than a century every branch of the life sciences has reported that all of the considerable available evidence points to the conclusions that modern species are related through common descent, and that natural selection is an especially important mechanism guiding that descent. Scientists applying evolutionary thinking to their work have been met with a nearly unbroken string of successes in solving the practical problems they face in the field and the lab. Pretenders like ID, on the other hand, have led to precisely nothing.
That is why ID folks spend very little time arguing with scientists, preferring instead to take their case directly to a public unlikely to be familiar with the minutiae of genetics or biochemistry. Tell a roomful of mathematicians that some back of the envelope probability calculations are enough to refute evolution, and they will rightly laugh in your face. But I know from sad experience that such arguments are rhetorically effective. Tell a physicist or an engineer that Darwin runs afoul of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and watch how quickly you are sent to a remedial course. Tell a gathering of paleontologists that there are no transitional forms, and the most polite among them will simply refer you to an elementary textbook. Yet ID folks routinely parrot these bogus arguments, and many others besides.
POST A COMMENT
where do you draw line between ID and plain tries and success
are you sure that whole thing is not ID? How?
"Let's assume for a moment that the universe *is* intelligent. Where does that get us? When we study something, we theorize about its behavior. Considering that this intelligence is impossible to rule out, it would make any inconsistency in a theory attributable to such intelligence. Science wouldn't be where it is today if perturbations in planetary orbit were attributed to intelligence. That's why the "theory" of an intelligent universe is useless."
Bud says:
This is an excellent point. If one assumes intelligence, it almost always becomes a dead end from a scientific point of view. If, whenever we are presented with a "gap" in our understanding of a scientific hypothesis, we assume intelligence, we have effectively shut the door on any further study. As stated correctly above, intelligence can never be ruled out or proven. There is simply no where you can go, from a scientific standpoint, once intelligence is entered into the equation. It is a dead-end. Think of all the discoveries that would not have occurred throughout history, if, everytime we were presented with an incomplete understanding of a problem, we simply gave up and said "it must have been that designer again". This, in a nutshell, is why ID is not only useful, but is downright dangerous in the filed on scientific inquiry. If you disagree with this, then I ask the following: please tell us how the presence of design can be used to extend scientific research. What further experiments would you propose once design is detected? What useful predictions and discoveries could result from exploring the concept of design?
How about this one from Phillip Johnson (the 'father' of the ID movement)…
"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. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."
Bud says:
What also is striking is that the ID movement was "founded" back in 1987, by the person quoted above. That's 20 years, and still they do not have a workable hypothesis as to how ID operates!! That in itself says volumes about the ID movement. Any real scientific hypothesis that did not have at the very least a working hypothesis after 20 years of "research" would be the laughing stock of the scientific community. Maybe that's why ID is not taken seriously in the realm of scientific study? Please, ID folks, if you want to have your "hypothesis" taken seriously, please give us a mechanism (not the end result) as to how ID operates. Please make sure this hypothesis is testable, falsafiable, and can make useful predictions.
We're waiting patiently …
"Is there any way to test this kind of idea? It is assumed in the sciences of systems, complexity, chaos and information. Can't we apply these principles to biological evolution and find a way to test them?"
Yes, that is our question too, how do you test it? How do you falsify it? How do you show it can make useful predictions? Please, tell us, we're all ears.
RealPC said "I don't belong to Discovery Institute and I often disagree with certain DI members' statements."
Really? Which statements do you disagree with exactly?
How about this one?
"ID is a scientific theory"
Do you agree or disagree, RealPC?
How about this one from Phillip Johnson (the 'father' of the ID movement)…
"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. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."
Do you agree or disagree, RealPC?
Or how about this one from William Dembski…
"Dismantling materialism is a good thing. Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration."
Do you agree or disagree, RealPC?
Let's have another from Dembski…
"I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."
Do you agree or disagree, RealPC?
ID is not science. The are no ID labs. No ID research.
Not one dirty test-tube.
It's all press releases, coffee-table books and lots of money.
It's a fraud.
And by the way Prophet, you may not be aware that the greatest obstacle to machine intelligence is the inability of computers to process natural human language. Since chess does not require NLP, computers can sometimes win because of their speed. But their speed is actually a result of their stupidity, not of their intelligence.
An intelligent creature decides what it is going to think about. A computer runs through pre-determined decisions regarding the data it receives. It has no real choices.
"I predict within the next decade the Turing Test will be passed"
Realpc-If you recall, less than 10 years ago it was claimed a computer would never beat a highly ranked chess player, let alone the world champion. I predict within the next decade the Turing Test will be passed by a cumulative program along the lines of "Jaberwhacky."
I came to the conclusion there was no god-as defined by any of the major religions-long before I ever heard of Dawkins, and thus haven't bothered to read his TGD. I don't put too much faith in science either, but I do believe the scientific method offers our only hope of understanding the world we live in. Embracing myths from our ancient past has only held us back. It continues to do so.
"The future is fun. The future is fair. They already have won. We may already be there! Men, women, children, all, are up against the thrall, of Science!" (FT)
No computer has ever passed the Turing test. Very far from it. Humans are NOT smarter than nature. We couldn't run our bodies for an instant if we had to do it consciously. Biologists can't create the simplest of life forms. Neuroscientists have almost no real understanding of how the brain works. A fly is smarter than our smartest computers.
And where exactly did you get the inside information that god is an illusion? Have you fallen for Dawkins' delusions of omniscience?
God is the illusion, realpc. Ever heard of the "Turing Test?"
We have ample evidence man-made computers exist, and that their capacity to perform is rapidly increasing. There is NO such evidence that our evolution has intelligence behind its' design. And if it does, it would appear to be inferior to that of man, who has begun a process of cognition that is growing at a far faster pace than our own. -Hal
No, Prophet. Are we smarter than god because we can make airplanes? It's the same with computers — they seem smart because they're fast. Like airplanes they are specialized machines that cannot operate without human direction. A computer is just as stupid as an airplane. It's seeming intelligence is all illusion.
I never claimed AI could at this point be compared to human intelligence, even though Deep Blue beat Kasparov. My point is that AI has been evolving far faster than has IQ scores over the last couple thousand years, and some argue we are now devolving. Think Aristotle, Da Vinci, etc.
We KNOW computers are the result of intelligent design, and my question is how could this second tier advance so much faster than what it copies from the original design?
Does this mean we could be smarter than your god now, if the product can out perform the creator?
Computers allow us to automate cognitive tasks that we already know how to do. We must describe the steps in detail in order to get the computer to follow them.
The intelligence of computers CANNOT be compared to natural human intelligence. Artificial intelligence has NOT produced anything resembling natural intelligence. As brilliant as computers may seem to be, the brilliance is in the engineers, not in the machine.
Your argument has no relevance to Intelligent Design anyway. It seems to be related to the typical materialist argument that intelligence is not a big deal since it can be created so easily. All wrong, on various levels.
A quick DR. (Drive-by Reply) It is widely acknowledged that whenever we make a copy of anything something is lost in the process. Yet the advancement of computer capability far exceeds the pace of our biological evolution. If in fact there was some omnipotent intelligent design behind our existence, how could the product of that intelligence-mankind-produce a form of cognition that evolved at a faster rate than the master copy?
While computers have yet to equal overall the alleged product of 'intelligent
design,' they are undeniably evolving at a much faster pace. Being the result of a
second tier of the intelligent design process, and unlike their creators
indisputably the result of such design, how could their rate of evolution exceed that of their biological creators?
I sense a flaw in this concept, but decided to throw it out on the highway and see what runs over it at any rate.
"evaluate conserved portions of the nucleotides and structures to understand common genetic foundations between species."
"Yes, of course you would see it as absurb and useless. Or pretend to. I doubt you have ever consdered any of the evidence."
Actually, I spent a semester writing software to evaluate rRNA alignments among species to determine the quality of hand-made alignments versus the leading automated alignments of the day. These sequence alignments are then used to evaluate conserved portions of the nucleotides and structures to understand common genetic foundations between species. When was the last time you worked in a genetics lab?
Let's assume for a moment that the universe *is* intelligent. Where does that get us? When we study something, we theorize about its behavior. Considering that this intelligence is impossible to rule out, it would make any inconsistency in a theory attributable to such intelligence. Science wouldn't be where it is today if perturbations in planetary orbit were attributed to intelligence. That's why the "theory" of an intelligent universe is useless.
It's absurd because it's anthropomorphic. There's no reason to believe the universe has goals and thoughts like a human. Nor is there reason to believe if the universe had intelligence that we'd even be able to recognize its nature.
When your arguments are reduced to questioning motives and positing conspiracies, you're probably wrong. I'm done with this thread.
"It is also an absurd and useless theory."
"Because the idea of an intelligent universe is extremely threatening to
scientific materialism and atheism."
It is also an absurd and useless theory.
I agree with you, David N. Friedman. However, the emotional charge
surrounding evolution is not going to subside and calm reason will not
prevail any time soon. This is because the acceptance and establishment
of neo-Darwinism as an explanation for evolution is what allowed
scientific materialism to dominated 20th century science. The
scientific materialists, and the atheists, are not going to let go
without a desperate fight.
They have been the high priests of mainstream science for decades. And neo-Darwinism was the key.
So logical arguments mean nothing to them. The more logical you are, the angrier they get.
I don't belong to Discovery Institute and I often disagree with
certain DI members' statements. Especially the ones who sympathize with
creationism or who criticize well-established tenets of evolution and
Darwinism. ID proponents are not infallible. But on the whole, it is
obvious to me that ID is heading in a much more promising direction
than neo-Darwinism.
I do not believe evolution was caused by supernatural interventions,
or that it was consciously planned by a personal god. Maybe that is
what happened, but we have absolutely no evidence that it did, and it
would be utterly unscientific to make those claims. I think a more
reasonable and scientifically modest hypothesis right now would be
something like Developmental Systems Theory, for example.
According to Systems Theory, consciousness is not confined to
physical brains. Consciousness, and intelligence, are a natural
property of the universe, or universes. In this framework, the origin
and evolution of life is not surprising or unlikely. It is exactly what
we should expect. Systems Theory makes sense, and it's scientific. No,
it does not give us a detailed explanation of evolution. But it is a
reasonable framework and starting point.
So why wasn't a Systems Theory view of evolution accepted decades ago?
Because the idea of an intelligent universe is extremely threatening to
scientific materialism and atheism. If the universe is intelligent,
then maybe religion is something more than ignorance and wishful
thinking. It would not be so easy to denounce and disdain any and all
spiritual or supernatural beliefs. Without neo-Darwinism to lean on,
scientific materialism would lose its strongest arguments against
religion.
Scientific materialists see science and religion as natural enemies.
Giving scientific credence to religion would be devastating to them. So
they are fighting desperately and seriously. They are fighting for
their survival as an intellectual and political force. Therefore, they
are not likely to listen to reason or pay attention to evidence.
I agree with you, David N. Friedman. However, the emotional charge surrounding evolution is not going to subside and calm reason will not prevail any time soon. This is because the acceptance and establishment of neo-Darwinism as an explanation for evolution is what allowed scientific materialism to dominated 20th century science. The scientific materialists, and the atheists, are not going to let go without a desperate fight.
They have been the high priests of mainstream science for decades. And neo-Darwinism was the key.
So logical arguments mean nothing to them. The more logical you are, the angrier they get.
I don't belong to Discovery Institute and I often disagree with certain DI members' statements. Especially the ones who sympathize with creationism or who criticize well-established tenets of evolution and Darwinism. ID proponents are not infallible. But on the whole, it is obvious to me that ID is heading in a much more promising direction than neo-Darwinism.
I do not believe evolution was caused by supernatural interventions, or that it was consciously planned by a personal god. Maybe that is what happened, but we have absolutely no evidence that it did, and it would be utterly unscientific to make those claims. I think a more reasonable and scientifically modest hypothesis right now would be something like Developmental Systems Theory, for example.
According to Systems Theory, consciousness is not confined to physical brains. Consciousness, and intelligence, are a natural property of the universe, or universes. In this framework, the origin and evolution of life is not surprising or unlikely. It is exactly what we should expect. Systems Theory makes sense, and it's scientific. No, it does not give us a detailed explanation of evolution. But it is a reasonable framework and starting point.
So why wasn't a Systems Theory view of evolution accepted decades ago? Because the idea of an intelligent universe is extremely threatening to scientific materialism and atheism. If the universe is intelligent, then maybe religion is something more than ignorance and wishful thinking. It would not be so easy to denounce and disdain any and all spiritual or supernatural beliefs. Without neo-Darwinism to lean on, scientific materialism would lose its strongest arguments against religion.
Scientific materialists see science and religion as natural enemies. Giving scientific credence to religion would be devastating to them. So they are fighting desperately and seriously. They are fighting for their survival as an intellectual and political force. Therefore, they are not likely to listen to reason or pay attention to evidence.
"Specified complexity may infer design"
No, it doesn't. That inference is completely unjustified unless you count anecdotal evidence.
The modern theory of evolution, even in its many incarnations, definitions and modes fails the basic test of a working scientific theory. It is much more of a hope than a working theory and should find its place in the trash heap of history since it has no scientific utility.
It is the winning formulation because of its political and anti-religious implications. Science needs to be about science alone and if we substitute politics for science, we are making a very poor exchange.
I must add that modern science was the invention a few hundred years ago of God-obsessed men that worked from the premise of design. Design remains a compelling base formulation. At this moment, the business of science should be to teach what man knows about nature. The tendency to scream "evolution" as the source of almost everything, without any explanation, must end since it verges on both silliness and contempt for learning.
It is with a lot of "chutzpah" that persons wish to allege that it is those who see the obvious: design in nature–have and hold chutzpah and contempt for science.
The talk.origins website has become (by default) some kind of alleged gold-standard for evolutionary dogma that seeks the demonization of creationists. I am no Christian and no Christian creationist and I do not work for the Discovery Institute. Thanks for the links, ,cg, but I am afraid to say that they provided no facts and no science very obviously. More telling, they provide no argument. They are big on conjecture.
It is both scientific and truthful to say, when asked about origins and about HOW nature works–we do not know. Please help us figure it out. A stopped clock is correct twice a day and we recognize it is broken–by contrast, evolution is correct only about tiny matters and yet we are willing to give it credence that it is somehow the catch-all answer to almost everything. Case closed? Preposterous. Wake up, people.
"
No one can read everything and no one can know anything."
Meant to say: "
No one can read everything and no one can know everything."
"Materialism denies their existence because science cannot measure them."
"Yes. "
"And science cannot measure them because it has not yet discovered them!"
"Hardly. "
Where is the logic in the above David? Materialism denies the existence of anything science can't measure at this time. It cannot hypothesize the existence of anything it does not already know how to measure. New fields, substances, etc., cannot be discovered within the materialist framework.
" think you have some reading to catch up on"
No one can read everything and no one can know anything. I have read as much as anyone. Your statement simply dismisses my arguments because you think I have not read enough. It implies that you have read enough and your opinions are therefore valid where mine or not. But you don't find anything wrong with my logic. You just dismiss it, because I have not read enough, you assume.
You expect everyone who has been educated in science to agree with materialism. Anyone who does not agree must be ignorant, must have missed some important reading. For you, this goes without saying. There is no need to argue logically and make your case. Just dismiss any dissidents who do not fall in line with current scientific materialism. What if the status quo turned out to be not entirely correct? That would be very unsettling and lots of people would lose their complacency.
It's better, easier, to call the dissenters ignorant, unscientific, not worth listening to. Because you really don't like to question your established beliefs. You don't really want to learn anything disturbing.
David: You make some excellent points here, and I would like your permission to quote you elsewhere in the metaverse. I particularly like the house-painting allegory.
Tompalmchicken: "What is truth, said jesting Pilot." You mention materialists denying truth. Until it can be observed and quantified, an ongoing process, should we accept on 'faith' any mortals vision of the answers to the countless possible unknowns? Isn't this irrational embrace of omnipotence and absolute though unverifiable truth what lies at the base of many of the world's conflicts?
A: Did you ever read Heller's Catch 22? Funny how many are confused about the concept. If you ask me to reject David's argument on the grounds that he's failing to see the truth, I will. You must see something I don't. But if you DO ask me, it will prove you are quite uncertain, and looking for others to reinforce your beliefs which have NO real evidence to support them.
Therefore, I will agree with you if you ask me to, but in doing so you will prove I shouldn't agree with you so I won't. If you don't ask me, I will assume you have 'seen the light' and realized your deconstructions of David's comments were specious at best.
"Materialism denies their existence because science cannot measure them."
Yes.
"And science cannot measure them because it has not yet discovered them!"
Hardly.
"A lovely catch-22."
I think you have some reading to catch up on before you throw around that claim again.
to realpc,
I have enjoyed your trolling above but no way are you sucking me in.
Having said that (see my last entry "case closed" above)….
This does not mean that a scientific idea/model/theory that predicts well is necessarily "true". Nor does it mean that an idea that makes no predictions is "false".
But science doesn't care about truth. It cares only about how well ideas can explain and predict measurements.
Note that the idea of evolution DOES make predictions about future measurements, and hints at where one aught to begin looking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk&eurl=http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-chimp-chromosome-2-proves-evolution.html
And by the way this captcha challenge is buggy.
Magnetic fields and gravity yield material effects that we can measure and predict. The idea that materialism is limited to current knowledge is absurd.
"Materialism allows us to include anything in the natural world in scientific study. An attempt to include something that materialism rejects (like otherworldly intelligence in nature) is an attempt to include something supernatural."
For an idea to be a scientific one it must:
a) explain previous measurements (data)
b) make predictions of future measurements.
period.
ID does NOT satisfy these most basic criteria. It is no more science than it is a recipe for muffins.
case closed.
The last comment was me.
David Strauss,
"Materialism: A theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter."
If we take out the parts about physical matter being the exclusive source of causes and effects in our reality, everyone would agree with the idea. No one's going to legitimately debate that matter does not have some cause and some effect in our reality.
Now, let's consider the exclusivity that the definition theorizes for matter with a metaphor: painting houses. Let's say you see 20 houses being painted with paint brushes and have never seen a house being painted any other way. While we can't rule out that other methods have been used to paint houses, it would be absurd to make any claim that houses have been painted a different way without any evidence of it. So, we would theorize that all houses are painted with paint brushes.
Later, we discover that some houses are painted with rollers. So we revise the theory to say that all houses are painted with paint brushes or rollers. It remains absurd and unproductive to wildly speculate about alternative causes in the absence of evidence. For example, I could add "…or fountain pens dipped in the paint." The statement would remain just as logically correct (because adding such a disjunction always maintains truth), but the theory becomes far less useful.
This problem arises whenever people propose to inject supernatural causes into a theory. Injecting such causes doesn't make a theory less logically correct, but assuming supernatural causes is even more absurd than assuming some houses may have been painted using fountain pens.
"Other examples of successful predictions, to name but a few."
All of those predictions are about evolution, NOT about the neo-Darwinian hypothesis about the causes of evolution.
Talk Origins is a propaganda site, dedicated to defending the status quo. They make no attempt at intellectual honesty. They know that no one is seriously questioning evolution theory. But it's easy to find evidence for evolution, impossible to find evidence for Darwinian evolution.
"where we're beginning to uncover design instead of just physical laws and constructs?"
It is not a question of "design" vs. "physical laws and constructs." I think design is a law of nature. Nature designs, and creates. Nature is intelligent.
And it is not a question of evolution vs. Intelligent Design. ID does NOT oppose evolution, only a particular theory of evolution.
The currently accepted theory grew out of Darwin's hypothesis about the cause of evolution. After the discovery of DNA, Darwin's hypothesis was accepted, almost as a fact.
ID says that the current theory was accepted to easily, without evidence. The evidence for evolution, which is plentiful, has been misconstrued as evidence for neo-Darwinism.
Neo-Darwinism says that random variations acted on by natural selection can fully account for the origin of species. This is merely a claim, without evidential support. Neo-Darwinists often argue that many factors in addition to random variations and natural selection are involved. But any other factors they mention turn out to be some version of random changes and natural selection. Gene duplication? Well that's a random change isn't it? Sexual selection? Well that's a type of natural selection. Population drift? More random changes.
We already have scientific evidence that genetic mutations can respond in quality or quantity to environmental challenges. DNA somehow "knows" what's happening outside the organism, at least in some cases. No one is suggesting God is directing the DNA and giving in inside info. But we are beginning to see signs of purpose and intelligence within the cell.
Contemporary materialism assumes that intelligence is something created by brains. How was that conclusion reached? It is entirely an assumption. Computer scientists know that anything can be a computer and information processing does not depend on any particular medium. Why does it have to be brain cells? Why can't information processing happen within cells, molecules, or atoms? It should be obvious that it can.
If intelligence is information processing, and information processing can happen in any medium, then materialist science has been wrong all along. Nature can be intelligent.
And that is what the science of Intelligent Design is all about.
DNF,
Thank you for your response.
I suppose my difficulty with your points, cg, is that you fail to separate what is science, what is religion and what is philosophy.
It is my point of view that science should be kept free or competing philosophical claims and as pure as possible to research the facts.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that God does not seem to have a place in science. Many ID advocates would disagree, but I see you are the noble exception. Let's stick to the science.
Because the Left has a loud voice, they have quickly and adamantly demonised ID and claimed, like you–that they are simply creationists.
Please point to where I used the word creationist. I didn't so don't say that I did.
By contrast, there cannot be a real debate over the fact and basic reality of the theory of gravity. Do not change the topic by suggesting that no one studies gravity or if gravitational effects are understood or not. The force of gravity is right in front of us to test and observe.
I think this is a side-issue.
No one has ever seen an act of macro-evolution
Wrong
and there is no coherent theory as to how how nature could manifest the evolution of life on its own without direction.
It's called evolution by natural selection. It's perfectly coherent.
There is no theory as to how DNA and RNA could have evolved,
Wrong
there is no understanding even how it is possible for amino acids to combine natural to form a functioning protein.
Wrong again
Further, another really telling sing is despite the fact that evolution (meaning the specific formulation concerning natural selection and random mutations plus luck as the driving force behind the creation and development of novel forms) is promoted and pushed as such a supposedly critical feature of science, its actual scientific study at the university level is very small.
Do you have statistics to back this claim up, or is this just what you reckon?
Regarding the predictions of ID–I find it very valuable and scientific as an "if,then" proposition. Please give me some sense of the prediction of evolution regarding, for example, malaria and I will better understand your question.
Here is an example of the evolution of the malaria parasite.
Other examples of successful predictions, to name but a few.
I suppose my difficulty with your points, cg, is that you fail to separate what is science, what is religion and what is philosophy.
If you wish to make the point that Phillip Johnson, for one, is a strong Catholic and his "theism" colors and animates his science, I possibly honor the point but I would say that his theism is his philosophy. As for the debate over evolution, it is a scientific debate and even if those who are skeptical about the power of natural, undirected forces to explain the evolution of life and complex systems–belief or non belief in God is clearly a separate consideration.
Rav Kook was quick to embrace Darwinism and he felt if Darwin was true, this is an even greater tribute to Hashem. Today, a good minority of Orthodox Jews accept what could be called the "party-line" on evolution and this does not at all diminish their faith in God. Natan Slifkin has led this movement. It is my belief that Slifkin is wrong on the science.
Further, when Dawkins said that belief in evolution allows oneself to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist–he made several points. First, he speaks for a lot of people with an anti-God mindset that wish to employ science against those who believe that God created our physical reality. Further, he is demonstrating that science can easily be contorted to fit an agenda and if you quickly suspect the majority for not finding a full truth in the party line of evolution, one can just as easily find a related bias in the eyes of the minority who may be looking for a scientific justification of their atheist philosophy.
It is my point of view that science should be kept free or competing philosophical claims and as pure as possible to research the facts.
Because the Left has a loud voice, they have quickly and adamantly demonised ID and claimed, like you–that they are simply creationists. This is why they have put together a list of hundreds (over 700) scientists (most having PHD's) who will publicly come forward in opposition to the party line of evolution as testimony that a better answer lies elsewhere. For objective people, this is more than enough evidence to suggest that there is a legitimate scientific debate concerning the basic creative force of life on this planet.
By contrast, there cannot be a real debate over the fact and basic reality of the theory of gravity. Do not change the topic by suggesting that no one studies gravity or if gravitational effects are understood or not. The force of gravity is right in front of us to test and observe.
No one has ever seen an act of macro-evolution and there is no coherent theory as to how how nature could manifest the evolution of life on its own without direction. There is no theory as to how DNA and RNA could have evolved, there is no understanding even how it is possible for amino acids to combine natural to form a functioning protein. The evolutionary paridigm is simply an ad hoc theoretical formulation. Further, another really telling sing is despite the fact that evolution (meaning the specific formulation concerning natural selection and random mutations plus luck as the driving force behind the creation and development of novel forms) is promoted and pushed as such a supposedly critical feature of science, its actual scientific study at the university level is very small. They are told in high school that is the wondrous catch- all that makes science what it is and then it is rarely referenced as a day to day study when a student develops a specialty.
This is why evolution is more dogma than science and more philosophy than testable formulations. Design, is a good beginning premise and its actual utility as a working scientific discipline is being worked out.
Regarding the predictions of ID–I find it very valuable and scientific as an "if,then" proposition. Please give me some sense of the prediction of evolution regarding, for example, malaria and I will better understand your question.
I don't see it as an act of faith, rather a hope. It's possible that science one day hits a brick wall and can get no further on various fundamental topics, but we're not there yet. Who knows. I think physicists have good reason for optimism.
So what would that mean? There'll always be room for uncertainty, and things we don't know. Whether you choose to fill those gaps with God is up to you, though beware, giving the gaps a name does not mean that you understand the gaps any better.
I was thinking about my previous glib comment about thunder caused by Thor. I see Thor as a "god of the gaps", and is a natural logical fallcy. The point is, we should be a little wary about explaining various natural phenomena with gods and godesses.
I wonder why scientists put their faith in the asumption that standard model and general relativity can actually unified.
DNF – You seem to think that religiosity and ID are completely independent concepts. I would actually argue that religiosity is the main motivator behind ID – therefore cannot be dismissed as not "sticking to the point".
As for gravity – this is one of the most difficult challenges facing theoretical physicists. If you are going looking for god in nature, that is as good a place to look as any. My point is, where do we look for God in nature? Sorry if that parallel is too far off topic for you.
ID advocates claim that there is a debate about evolution when there is none. It's done and dusted. Any claims to the contrary are FUD. On the other hand, gravitation is right there at the bleeding edge (unifying the standard model with general relativity is one of the hardest challenges physicists face).
DNF – you didn't answer my challenge. What does ID predict?
I'm sorry, I didn't really respond to the brunt of your writing, and I apologize for basically blowing it off. As much as I'd like to think I'm better than this, I see where you're coming from, but I'm too stubborn to accept the idea, and specifically, not knowledgeable enough in reference to the plant hormone issue to discuss it. I don't know how you'd respond, but I have the feeling that if I kept discussing the subject, I'd let it deteriorate into a typical flamewar scenario. Thanks for your understanding.
Thanks for your response. To be sure I'm not misinterpreting your writing again, let me ask you a question. To you, god, or the designer, was the one that put everything into motion, and today's scientific inquiry is reaching the point where we're beginning to uncover design instead of just physical laws and constructs? If this is true, I can see where you're coming from, and though I disagree on that specifically, I think I understand.
It seems we agree on most of the rest of your points. Scientific progress is a good thing, and we can only have real research if scientists can keep an open mind and unbiased viewpoint. At the very least, scientists should be aware of their prejudices and biases and account for them. I once read that "The best science is conducted when something unexpected happens." I think it's true, precisely because the unexpected precludes judgement and bias.
However, I disagree about the message to children. Outside of learning about mythology, I was never told of any higher powers, or plans for the world. I've always been under the impression that the only underlying reason anything happens is cause and effect, and that extends to (specifics not withstanding) how everything started out. It could be just that I'm a naturally curious person, but I spend a good majority of my time learning or experimenting in order to better understand the world around me. Any time I was told something happened "just because" (This is admittedly my own bias here, but I group "God did it" in with that answer), I would find another method of obtaining the information.
Granted, I was never told that evolution was the only possibility. I don't think it's the message that stunts curiosity so much as it is the method. I think saying "Shut up, it's science!" to a child amounts to the same thing as saying "Shut up, it's Jesus!". I don't mean to single out any one religion. The "Sit down, listen, and obey" message will cause the same damage no matter what ideology is backing it.
Even though I disagree on your viewpoint, I think that we can both agree that as long as we can pass on curiosity and independent thought to the next generation, the world could be a better place.
Lack of scientific knowledge does not prove God–true.
The ignorance of the ancients regarding lightening is evidence of their ignorance, and no implication that gods caused the thunder. The contrast with today's scientific world is extreme. I hold no respect for the expertise for the ancient Greeks–by contrast, I hold great respect for the expertise for modern science. We are able to decipher and study a whole heck of a lot.
For example–please consider my example about the plant hormone auxin. Even though today's science cannot approach how it works–I am granting the fact that one day science will be able to not simply chart it, they will have a good understanding of how it actually works. I am making this extrapolation. My trust that this is a sign of design has nothing to do with the fact that we are currently ignorant and everything to do with the monumental complexity of the process.
The kind of complexity that is so specified and so precise in its inner workings has sure trademarks of design. We know enough right now to understand that even if we knew all the secrets, the belief that it could have emerged randomly and naturally strains all credibility. This is why I am happy to grant some miracles–since miraculous things might happen. What I am not willing to grant is so many miracles that we stubbornly ignore a plan and a purpose that is evident when you see a live organism in operation. Modern science has its hands full with quantum theory. By contrast, I think modern science should be able to figure out the cell and how a blade of grass grows. The fact that such matters are highly clouded in mystery has a clear message and a clear implication concerning the designing power of raw, natural agents acting without an alleged plan or purpose. If modern sophisticated scientists cannot decipher many things–no problem. On the other hand, if they cannot get a grip on a blade of grass and a guess as to how it could be naturally manifested in terms of its total working parts–this implies that it has a kind of sophistication that is much higher than human beings armed with very good tools of analysis.
We should never give up trying to understand how nature works and this is why your concluding shot is such a contortion of the truth. The suggestion, forced down kid's throats with the full force of the law, that a natural mechanism drives the evolution of life is precisely the kind of thing which harms curiosity. The auxin story is a great example–the secularists merely chart one hormone and then fold up tent by saying that it is a victory for Darwin. Evolution works, that's it. Let's pretend we know it all, even when it is clear we know almost nothing.
The job is to understand HOW it works. It is much more empowering for many more people to say, gee, this looks like it was planned. Let's try to figure out how it was planned. Indeed, if a purposeful agent (God)brought a universe into existence out of nothing and made a planet capable of producing life and culminating in creatures (Mankind) made in his image with the ability to see the patterns and the purpose–that message is much more motivating in favor of scientific discovery than to tell our kids that we are only the evolved descendants of pond scum and we have emerged only as a fluke.
Thanks–I will keep responding.
Mr. Friedman, you wrote: "Life is enormously difficult to get a handle on the issues–science
does not have gaps–it has profound ignorance. Compared to what we do
not know, what we actually know is tiny. This is good evidence of design."
Please explain how this is evidence of design. Utter ignorance is not "good evidence" of anything. It is exactly what it is, a lack of evidence. For at least thousands of years, nobody had any clue how lightning worked. They explained away their ignorance by explaining it was the work of gods. They were ignorant of the processes behind lightning, and at the time, it was enormously difficult to get a handle on the issues. The science of the day had profound ignorance of the workings of lightning.
Your gap may (or may not) be as big as the Grand Canyon, but this is still a god-in-the-gaps argument. I'm not saying that there is no designer, but the argument is specious and a false dichotomy. Lack of scientific evidence is not evidence for divine intervention.
Also, keep in mind that the length of time science spends studying something has nothing to do with its validity. Quantum theory has been around since the early 1900s, billions (if not trillions) have been spent on understanding it, and it was only until 20-30 years ago that we've been able to test any of it at all. Science certainly doesn't know everything, and most definitely doesn't claim to, but saying "God did it. All of it. We give up." is the surest way to stop scientific advancement and rational thought. Sorry, I'm getting off-topic and ranty. I'll shut up now. :)
When we say "designed" we are not thinking of some guy with a white beard at a drawing board. It should be framed more scientifically — for example, the universe, and nature, possess some kind of intelligence which guides and motivations the creation of the complex machinery of life. Complex machines are expected to emerge in a universe which is naturally intelligent and creative.
Is there any way to test this kind of idea? It is assumed in the sciences of systems, complexity, chaos and information. Can't we apply these principles to biological evolution and find a way to test them?
C'mon CG, please stick to the point and stick to the science. Thunder is a well-understood natural phenomenon. There is not one scientist that disputes gravity.
Concerning what drives evolution and what natural selection can actually create–this is a real scientific dispute and it will remain a problem since there is no real science behind the claims made by the "evolutionists." If 700 scientists are sign a petition publicly acknowledging the fact that natural selection and random mutations fail to describe life processes–there are surely thousands more who also doubt that we have a hold on the problem.
For me, a rational skeptic–this is more solid proof of the design hypothesis. The more we know about nature, the more we do not know. Thunder is not at all intricate–it is very simple. Life is enormously difficult to get a handle on the issues–science does not have gaps–it has profound ignorance. Compared to what we do not know, what we actually know is tiny. This is good evidence of design.
Take one plant hormone named auxin as one example. The news came out about one year ago as a claimed "victory for Darwin" that scientists can now chart auxin after about 80 years of struggle. A team of scientists with some high powered computers can chart the hormone! How is this a victory for Darwinists? It points in the opposite direction–obviously. Step by step, every step is crucial and nothing is redundant, the hormone can be charted but science has no idea how it actually works–nor could they ever duplicate it. It is one regulatory function among several others–all working together and if you actually want a functional blade of grass–it all must work in perfect harmony. To put it all together exhausts a team of scientists and a bundle of high-powered computers–that is just to chart it. The HOW part is the job of science and this team can chart it, but they have no idea HOW it works or how it could have evolved. It "emerged" we are told–over and over. The fine print says "we have no idea how this works and we don't even know where to begin!"
How can one claim that this is "natural?" It not only appears designed–I can't get see how one can even make the argument that it is an evolved process and believe it.
This has no similarity with simple chemical reactions or natural phenomenon like thunder and lightening.
I have no problem with ID as a scientific theory – provided it can be tested and it makes measurable predictions. If it can't be tested then it isn't a useful theory, true or not. The problem is that if it can't predict anything then it shouldn't be dressed up as a science.
ID advocates are making a big claim – that there is something guiding the hand of evolution. Biologists make the opposite claim – that there doesn't need to be a guiding hand. The phrase "Russell's teapot" springs to mind. ID is a hypothesis. So is evolution by natural selection. I'm open minded, but the problem is that the evidence only points to natural selection.
Now, could somebody (e.g. realpc) please point me to one concrete measurable prediction of ID? Thought not. ID advocates may genuinely believe that they have evidence, but it never survives even casual scrutiny. Which of course makes me question what kind of truth these people are peddling. If what they claim about biology is wrong, maybe what they claim about theology is also wrong?
Another thing – why pick on biology? I mean, we could have a theory of "intelligent gravitation", or a theory of "intelligent thunder", or a theory of "intelligent supersymmetry". Thunder is too complex to arise naturally – it must be Thor. Science actually started making progress when we stopped looking for God in the clockwork.
Jim Lippard: Just as a curiosity, I looked up the credentials behind those names you mentioned. All of them are associated with the ID movement, the Discovery Institute, and many of them are near the tops of their own organizations. Of those, I noted that only one of them had any background in biology. I'll admit, it was a quick search, I may have missed one or two. I'll be generous and say that at most, three of them have spent any time with biological studies.
Check out <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/"Project Steve</a>. For every biological scientist that's been quote-mined into an ID standpoint, and even for the ones that went along willingly, there are more biologists named "Steve" (or some variation thereof) that agree with the findings of evolution. Among scientists, there is no controversy.
Anonymous, you're confusing the idea of abiogenisis (life arising from previously inorganic matter) with evolution. The theory of evolution is not concerned with the beginnings of life, merely every step after that first one.
From TalkOrigins.org:
<blockquote>"The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all
organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often
called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms
appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis.
And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean
natural selection — one of the many mechanisms of evolution."
<br>And "One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the
first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis
wouldn't affect evolution in the least."</blockquote>
I don't want to say characterizing evolution as explaining the origins of life is "playing right into their hands", but I believe that is a major reason why many people so quickly dismiss it.
Mr. Rosenhouse, that has to be the worst comb-over I have ever seen.
ID advocates are individuals and there must be some differences between their beliefs. Maybe there is a small minority that denies evolution. However, denial of evolution is definitely not typical. I can't imagine how you got the idea that Dembski denies evolution; he definitely does not.
Sometimes people use "evolution" as a synonym for "Darwinian evolution," unfortunately. This creates enormous confusion. ID advocates oppose one particular theory of evolution, which originated with Darwin and Wallace in the 19th century, and is now sometimes called neo-Darwinism. ID does not oppose or deny evolution; it is an alternative theory of evolution.
Realpc says “You didn’t even read Klinghoffer’s comments. You stubbornly continue to pretend that the DI opposes evolution. But you know very well, or certainly should know, that they accept evolution and common descent.”
What? If that’s the case, then why are they always arguing against evolution? Have you not read what the DI Fellows actually write? There are even DI Fellows who claim that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or to be uncertain or agnostic about it, including Paul Nelson, Nancy Pearcey, Dean Kenyon, John Mark Reynolds, and Phillip E. Johnson. Others who have explicitly argued against evolution and for creationism include Raymond Bohlin, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen Meyer, the CSC program director. There are what, two, DI Fellows who aren’t evangelical Christians? Besides Behe and possibly Berlinski, is there an evolutionist among them?
The main intelligent design textbook, _Of Pandas and People_, started life as a creation science textbook that was modified by a search and replace operation into an intelligent design textbook (even leaving behind the intermediate form “cdesign proponentsists”). The Discovery Institute has been a supporter of that book, and its Fellows’ names are all over it.
DI is a creationist organization that repeats the standard creationist arguments against evolution while doing its best to remain silent about any actual positive creationist claims, such as flood geology, vapor canopy theory, or the claim of a young earth. Even their alleged “intelligent design theory” has yet to materialize in any coherent, empirically testable form. Rather than actually developing a scientific research program, they engage in PR attacks against evolution based on old-style creationist quote-mining and misrepresentation. They’ve been caught and called on it again and again, but they persist because it works on the PR front–it brings in the donations and keeps them in operation.
http://www.answers.com/topic/materialism
Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality
and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be
explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/materialism
a theory that
physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being
and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or
results of matter
"a theory that"
"Materialism is a belief, and it's a belief that doesn't make any sense."
This purposeful misuse of the scientific definition of theory, which should be something like "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world", is going to lead me to violence and I may just break some bones in the next person that deliberately makes this mistake. I will reassure them that the energy transfers that caused the damage are mere theories and should not be any cause for alarm.
evolution says that billions of years ago there was a chance combination of chemicals in the worlds oceans that made a series of reactions that we now call life. you end up with a "cell" that does nothing but make more of itself and does so by using a molecule (called DNA) to "control" what happens and when. sometimes the DNA makes a mistake when copping itself and the VAST majority of these mutations are either harmful or useless. however, sometimes, just by chance, it is helpful then that particular cell can live longer and produce more offspring and pass on that mutation. eventually you end up with a cell that is nothing like the first one. maybe the new kind of cell eats the original and becomes the dominant species on the planet (it can do that because the original has nothing to defend itself with) with so many mutations happening all at once for billions of year you end up with all of the diversity we see today
a billion years is a LONG time longer than most people can comprehend, I know its longer than my interpretation, so perhaps time itself is an intelligent designer. after all its just a bunch of chemical reactions.
"evolution has had a few billion years head start."
That is the Darwinist all-purpose excuse. You don't need evidence or logic or math to support your hypothesis. It doesn't have to make any kind of sense. Given huge amounts of time, and maybe an infinite number of parallel universes, anything at all can happen. So no one can criticize your "theory." There is no way to prove that something can't happen given unlimited time and parallel universes.
When As Usual says that Intelligent Design accepts common descent, he is "correct" only if you use their definition.
When I say common descent, I would mean "living things creating offsrping that are subtly different, until eventually descendents are extremly different organisms.
ID "accepts" common descent only if it means "An intelligent designer took one organism, and then radically improved it to create a new organism from the old. In that way, the new 'descended' from the old."
Those are not the same conepts.
"Then why
haven't scientists been able to create life intentionally?"
evolution has had a few billion years head start. scientists have been trying for just a few decades.
"Materialism IS a methodology"
It is NOT a methodology. A dictionary definition:
"a theory that
physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being
and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or
results of matter"
Materialism is a belief, and it's a belief that doesn't make any sense. We don't even have a definition for "physical matter."
Physicists study fields and energies that are nothing like the "physical substances" of our "physical world." The word "physical" just means natural. And what does "natural" mean?
None of these concepts are easy to define. And there is absolutely nothing in modern science that precludes the idea that nature possesses intelligence. You must agree that something we call "intelligence" exists. You believe it can only exist as a product of a physical brain? Why? How can you assume that? We don't even know what intelligence is, and we have absolutely no basis for assuming that whatever it is we call intelligence cannot exist except as a product of a physical brain.
" life likely arises easily and often in the universe."
You're sure about that? Life arises easily by accident? Then why haven't scientists been able to create life intentionally? Easy to create by accident, difficult or impossible to create on purpose? Where is the logic in your belief? And where is the evidence? There is absolutely none. You take it on faith that life can arise easily by accident.
We have no theory about how life originates. Remember there is no DNA before there is life, so there are no random mutations to select from. You think you can explain the origin of species that way (although many of us disagree). But you have absolutely no plausible theories to explain the accidental origin of life.
It is NOT scientific to hold beliefs simply because they support a particular ideology.
Materialism IS a methodology and scientific research should adhere strictly to methodologies that can provide observable phenomenon and measurable data.
Jason,
You didn't even read Klinghoffer's comments. You stubbornly continue to pretend that the DI opposes evolution. But you know very well, or certainly should know, that they accept evolution and common descent.
There are several different groups involved in this controversy. There are Christian creationists who deny evolution. Almost none of that group are scientists. None of them are educated in the basic facts of biology. Christian creationists might claim to believe in ID, but it's unlikely they understand anything about ID.
ID does NOT oppose evolution and common descent. ID advocates and Christian creationists are NOT the same people, in most cases. Yes, ID advocates oppose the materialist philosophy that dominates contemporary biology. Materialism is a philosophy and scientific research should NOT be dominated by any particular ideology. A scientist SHOULD be allowed to say that some kind of intelligence seems to be at work in nature. A scientist SHOULD be allowed to express the opinion that it seems unlikely that a dead mindless universe would give birth to the complex and intelligent machinery of life.
The evolution controversy is so much deeper and more sophisticated than the silly debate you insist on pretending it is. An uneducated Christians might protest that he "ain't descended from no monkey." But that has absolutely no resemblance to the position of the DI.
I am not a DI member, and I often disagree with them on certain points. But I always defend them against these nonsensical accusations. They do NOT deny evolution or common descent. You do not seem capable of understanding that.
The main challenge that ID has never solved is they claim to have an alternative view of the presently held scientific theories. Fine, big deal, most scientists have some area of science that they believe they have a better view on (most of their professionional lives are devoted to discovering something new). What ID fails to do (which the good scientists do) is ever discover anything new. I wish a debate would start off with:
Moderator: "Before we begin could each side name a current healthcare breakthrough as a result of your research?"
Biologist: "The flu vacciness you are all taking are predicated on our understanding of evolution."
ID Proponent: "Unnhhhh…"
-Matt
very well put together.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!