Reliable Recognition of Intelligent Agency
Over at ID in the UK Andrew Rowell put up a series of questions on intelligent agency. I’d love to hear your perspective on them– which of the following do you agree with, and if you disagree, why?
1. Human intelligent agency is a distinct type of causation which can be recognised and is recognised successfully as an integral part of our normal lives. The evidence left from some human acts is indistinguishable from other animals. The evidence left from other human acts is distinguishable from all other known animal activity. eg writing books and using a complex language.
2. Human intelligent causation can be recognised as having occured even in situations where we know nothing about the individual agents concerned. We believe in their existence solely on the basis of the recognition of human like intelligent causation.
3. Human intelligent causation is currently our only physical model for the whole field of intelligent causation…we have no other material intelligent agents to study yet.
4. It is possible to concieve of other different intelligent agents from ourselves. It is not impossible that such beings may exist.
5. It is legitimate to use human intelligent causation as a model for the whole field of possible intelligent causation-
(a) from different time periods
(b) from different planets.
(c) from other non-material/hyper material intelligent agents.6. It is possible to come to a correct conclusion of intelligent causation when examining
(a) the universe as a whole
(b) particular instances of intelligent design e.g. a living cell or a flagellum.
#1: True
#2: False (human, not human-like intelligence)
#3: True
#4: True
#5a: True
#5 b&c: False
#6: unknown
BTW if #5b&c were true, ID would be a non-starter, because nothing we know of human intelligent causation supports the notion that “how we build things” would ever allow for us to create life forms and the complex network of ecosystems that are the most interesting attribute of our planet.
But the author of this charming chain of ill-logic probably didn’t mean to shoot himself in the foot, right?
Comment by Don Baccus — June 26, 2006 @ 2:11 am
I would have a general answer that I do not necessarily believe that humans alone (among the animals) can be intelligent causes. I think the evidence is still out on that one. I do think that humans are unique in their causitive abilities, but I’m not certain that this has to do with our having access to a unique form of causation and not some other answer.
But I do believe that intelligent causes per se are studiable. The question is whether or not you can apply this to to non-human intelligent causes. However, I think that the simple fact that intelligent agency is causally distinct from material causation is enough to say that if such agency did exist it would be detectable by similar means.
Likewise, if many of the “life design” experiments come out successful, it will mean that our intelligence is capable of doing this (and it will prove once and for all that common ancestry is not universal — you would have de facto proof that at least one species had a separate phylogenetic root!). I don’t think they will (well, some of them are lame enough that what they are actually trying might well succeed, but to call it “creating life” would be a stretch. specifically thinking of the genome engineering project someone is working on).
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — June 26, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
More examples of human engineering say nothing about the history of life on this planet.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 26, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
“More examples of human engineering say nothing about the history of life on this planet.”
You are correct, but it would establish as a matter of fact that (a) intelligent causation is able to do this, and (b) there are now in fact multiple roots to phylogeny (and therefore they are not required of biology).
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — June 27, 2006 @ 2:39 am
You are correct, but it would establish as a matter of fact that (a) intelligent causation is able to do this and (b) there are now in fact multiple roots to phylogeny (and therefore they are not required of biology).
The irrelevancy of this to the origins of life and the diversity of life on this planet leaves me wanting to repetitively pound my head against the nearest brick wall.
If we were to create, from scratch, and entire complex of ecosystems and tailored life forms on Mars this would say NOTHING AT ALL about the history of life on Earth.
NOTHING.
If we create, from scratch, a new life form on this planet sure, it would not be rooted in the phylogenic tree describing life in nature, but this would say NOTHING AT ALL about the history of life on earth.
NOTHING.
It is totally irrelevant to creationi…sorry, intelligent design.
If anything it would weaken faith in the basic claim made by Behe and Dembski, that only the Christian God could’ve created life as it exists on this planet.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 27, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
“If we were to create, from scratch, and entire complex of ecosystems and tailored life forms on Mars this would say NOTHING AT ALL about the history of life on Earth.”
It would tell us about the options available.
Let’s say we _know_ that X has the causal power to produce Y because we’ve seen it. Let’s also say that we _think_ that Z _might_ have the causal power to produce Y, but we’ve never seen it happen. We then find Y. What is the best explanation for Y? Given the evidence available, I would say anyone ruling out X without explicit reasons for doing so is simply propping up their own theory Z.
In addition, if we have a newly created organism, in its own phylogenic branch, we can then compare it to other organisms which are _known_ to be separately rooted. This would provide a basis for better understanding claims of homology, since we would have an instance of a known separate root. If it had deep homologies (which I’m pretty sure it would), then why would we continue assuming that deep homologies are the result of ancestry?
The point is, when we have a known case of design, we can use it to examine our previous speculations about design and non-design, and better examine the evidence for both. Right now, we don’t have any organism whose ultimate origins are observationally known, hence the debate.
It would be even better if we had both an organism that had a known origin that was designed and another organism that had a known origin that was not designed, but I don’t personally see any amount of progress in abiogenesis research showing the latter.
If that turns out to be the case, then what would it say about the efficacy of the different modes of causation in producing life?
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — June 27, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
No matter how deeply you try to obsfucate it, your basic point remains “if people can design life, then life on earth must’ve been designed”.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 27, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
Don Baccus writes: “No matter how deeply you try to obsfucate it, your basic point remains “if people can design life, then life on earth must’ve been designed”.
I don’t think that’s his point. The reason we would think a radio signal from outer space might have been designed, is that we know how to design one ourselves. Likewise, as our knowledge of how living organisms are constructed grows; and as our ability to construct various parts of them grows; and as our inability to find a non-intelligent way for them to be constructed remains; our belief that they were designed will grow.
Comment by Bilbo — June 27, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
The reason we would think a radio signal from outer space might have been designed, is that we know how to design one ourselves.
You leave out one very, very important point - the kind of radio signal being searched for is one which we know how to design ourselves AND KNOW WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF PROBABILITY DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE.
You folks are turning it around - if we can learn how to copy natural artifacts, that means they’re designed.
Nope, not the same thing at all. Just because I can design a freezer capable of freezing water doesn’t mean that every time water freezes outdoors it is the result of design.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 27, 2006 @ 8:46 pm
This does not make sense. In case of the radio signal we infer ‘design’ because we understand our own motives and assume that if similar intelligent life existed, it would use similar methods. We have limited or no experience in biological design and yet we should consider our ignorance to be evidence of design? For example, take the bacterial flagella. Could anyone explain how ID can infer design?
Can we design flagella? What about the increasing evidence showing plausible pathways?
Comment by PvM — June 28, 2006 @ 1:16 am
Having just come from the first meeting of the now-notorious evolution & design seminar at Cornell, I am struck immediately by this comment (above):
“In case of the radio signal we infer ‘design’ because we understand our own motives and assume that if similar intelligent life existed, it would use similar methods.” [emphasis added]
And so “motives” comes into the question of recognizing design. the same subject came up tonight in the discussion, and the general concensus was that scientists do not consider nor discuss “motives” when it comes to proposing hypotheses for the origin (and/or causes) of natural objects and processes. This is not because scientists don’t believe in “motives” (after all, I have a “motive” in posting this comment). However, “motives” are generally not considered to be necessary for explaining the origin (and/or causes) of natural objects and processes, and so discussing them or speculating about them is simply not done in science.
And yes, I know that some “intelligent design” supporters assert that discussion or speculation about “motives” isn’t necessarily a part of ID either. I must humbly, but insistently disagree. Either the Intelligent Designer (aka God = Generator Of Design) has a motive in designing things like the bacterial flagellum or S/He/It doesn’t. In the first case, God’s motive(s) may be inscrutible, but at least S/He/It has a motive. However, in the second case, God’s actions are simply capricious, even random, and therefore indistinguishable from the randomicity that characterizes non-designed/unintentional actions.
Motive, IOW, is an intrinsic part of ID, whether one wants to talk about it or not.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — June 28, 2006 @ 3:01 am
Allen,
I trust all is well with you.
We do not need to know motives, however we can detect certain motivated acts (we can see the Statues of Easter Island or Mount Rushmore, we don’t need to know the exact motives as to why to make an ID inference).
Knowing motives is not a necessary condition for detecting design. However, that does not mean that intentions for a particular design cannot be accounted for or discussed in ID literature. Dembski mentions intentions:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 28, 2006 @ 4:26 am
‘No matter how deeply you try to obsfucate it, your basic point remains “if people can design life, then life on earth must’ve been designed”.’
Close but not quite. You only got part of it. My point was that the combination of being able to design life with the inability to find life being generated without design despite a long and hard search, lends evidence in favor of design being a necessary requirement of life. It doesn’t prove the case, but it certainly does corroborate it.
For instance, I could say that the temperature gauge on my car goes up because of fairies in the engine that are only there when I can’t look at the engine. Of course, every time we have ever looked at the reasons for a temperature gauge to go up, it is because it is getting hotter. Our uniform experience on this point lends credibility, but not proof, to the idea that the temperature gauge going up is the result of increases of heat and not of fairies.
Even as it stands right now, we have a 100% uniform experience of symbolic coding systems being generated as the result of intelligent design, and a 0% uniform experience of a symbolic coding system ever coming into existence without an intelligent designer. This lends credibility, but does not prove, the case that life was likely designed by an intelligent designer. We cannot know all possible causes which may be elucidated in the future, but that is true of any postulate of science. The fact that our experience in this matter is 100% should at least lend enough weight to the idea to give them a seat at the discussion. Personally I think that a 100% uniform experience should grant the idea a little more than that, but hey, I’ll take what I can get.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — June 28, 2006 @ 6:50 am
Salvador claims
On ISCID, people like Gedanken have effectively put to rest the claim that ‘motives etc’ are not required for a design inference. So let me try this once again to explain: Motives is one of the ways, and although not exclusive, it’s a major one, to help constrain the design inference. Other factors include means, opportunity etc.
The design inference needs some estimate of probability in order for it to be able to compete with the null hypothesis of ‘we don’t know’. Since the design inference attempts to detecft design without presenting any hypothesis of its own (it’s after all an eliminative method), even if present science allows us to eliminate regularity and chance, without knowing the probability of the design inference we cannot estimate it’s reliability and thus the design inference is inherently unreliable.
I am sure that Salvador can show us how we, using the explanatory filter, can reliably detect design without knowing motive, means and/or opportunity? Or for the stated examples: How do we recognize ‘design’ when looking at Easter Island statues or Mt Rushmore. No ID proponent has yet shown how to apply the explanatory filter in any scientific manner, beyond some handwaving: that’s how we detect design…Poof…
Yet, science in the instance of archaeology for instance determines likely capabilities of ‘designers’, looks for indirect evidence (circumstantial) as well as for ‘eyewitness evidence’ and other forensic evidences to determine the likelihood if a designer was involved. Take for instance stone arrows. In case of criminology, things are even clearer.
Now this is nothing new really, as Wilkins and Elsberry have shown there is a major difference between ordinary and rarefied design. Let’s take the flagella: there are no ways to guide us in determining probability beyond: the designer did it the way he did it because he wanted it and he could do it because it exists (paraphrasing Behe’s testimony in Kitzmiller). How do we know the designer even existed? How do we know its motives? How do we know its capabilities? The simple answer is ‘we don’t’.
This is a major shortcoming of the Explanatory Filter and ID proponents have failed to really address it.
On ISCID Gedanken explained it quite well
Link
See also the posting at Pandasthumb on reliability
Hope this helps
Comment by PvM — June 28, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
Salvador claims
On ISCID, people like Gedanken have effectively put to rest the claim that ‘motives etc’ are not required for a design inference. So let me try this once again to explain: Motives is one of the ways, and although not exclusive, it’s a major one, to help constrain the design inference. Other factors include means, opportunity etc.
The design inference needs some estimate of probability in order for it to be able to compete with the null hypothesis of ‘we don’t know’. Since the design inference attempts to detecft design without presenting any hypothesis of its own (it’s after all an eliminative method), even if present science allows us to eliminate regularity and chance, without knowing the probability of the design inference we cannot estimate it’s reliability and thus the design inference is inherently unreliable.
I am sure that Salvador can show us how we, using the explanatory filter, can reliably detect design without knowing motive, means and/or opportunity? Or for the stated examples: How do we recognize ‘design’ when looking at Easter Island statues or Mt Rushmore. No ID proponent has yet shown how to apply the explanatory filter in any scientific manner, beyond some handwaving: that’s how we detect design…Poof…
Yet, science in the instance of archaeology for instance determines likely capabilities of ‘designers’, looks for indirect evidence (circumstantial) as well as for ‘eyewitness evidence’ and other forensic evidences to determine the likelihood if a designer was involved. Take for instance stone arrows. In case of criminology, things are even clearer.
Now this is nothing new really, as Wilkins and Elsberry have shown there is a major difference between ordinary and rarefied design. Let’s take the flagella: there are no ways to guide us in determining probability beyond: the designer did it the way he did it because he wanted it and he could do it because it exists (paraphrasing Behe’s testimony in Kitzmiller). How do we know the designer even existed? How do we know its motives? How do we know its capabilities? The simple answer is ‘we don’t’.
This is a major shortcoming of the Explanatory Filter and ID proponents have failed to really address it.
On ISCID Gedanken explained it quite well
Link
See also the posting at Pandasthumb on reliability
Hope this helps
Comment by PvM — June 28, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
Salvador claims
On ISCID, people like Gedanken have effectively put to rest the claim that ‘motives etc’ are not required for a design inference. So let me try this once again to explain: Motives is one of the ways, and although not exclusive, it’s a major one, to help constrain the design inference. Other factors include means, opportunity etc.
The design inference needs some estimate of probability in order for it to be able to compete with the null hypothesis of ‘we don’t know’. Since the design inference attempts to detecft design without presenting any hypothesis of its own (it’s after all an eliminative method), even if present science allows us to eliminate regularity and chance, without knowing the probability of the design inference we cannot estimate it’s reliability and thus the design inference is inherently unreliable.
I am sure that Salvador can show us how we, using the explanatory filter, can reliably detect design without knowing motive, means and/or opportunity? Or for the stated examples: How do we recognize ‘design’ when looking at Easter Island statues or Mt Rushmore. No ID proponent has yet shown how to apply the explanatory filter in any scientific manner, beyond some handwaving: that’s how we detect design…Poof…
Yet, science in the instance of archaeology for instance determines likely capabilities of ‘designers’, looks for indirect evidence (circumstantial) as well as for ‘eyewitness evidence’ and other forensic evidences to determine the likelihood if a designer was involved. Take for instance stone arrows. In case of criminology, things are even clearer.
Now this is nothing new really, as Wilkins and Elsberry have shown there is a major difference between ordinary and rarefied design. Let’s take the flagella: there are no ways to guide us in determining probability beyond: the designer did it the way he did it because he wanted it and he could do it because it exists (paraphrasing Behe’s testimony in Kitzmiller). How do we know the designer even existed? How do we know its motives? How do we know its capabilities? The simple answer is ‘we don’t’.
This is a major shortcoming of the Explanatory Filter and ID proponents have failed to really address it.
On ISCID Gedanken explained it quite well
See the posting at Pandasthumb on reliability for references
Hope this helps
Comment by PvM — June 28, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
“…we have a 100% uniform experience of symbolic coding systems being generated as the result of intelligent design, and a 0% uniform experience of a symbolic coding system ever coming into existence without an intelligent designer.”
Let me admit right from the beginning that this is a true statement. However, the implication of this statement is that the only place in the evolution of life on Earth that “intelligent design theory” might have a place (a point that I have not conceded, BTW) is in the origin of the genetic code (and perhaps, by extension, the protein synthesis translation apparatus, including ribosomes).
In other words, once this system has come into being (either by design or by “accident”), essentially everything that happens from then on can be explained purely on the basis of Democritus’ “chance and necessity.”
This is precisely why Darwin did not speculate at all on the origin of life (mentioning it only in the last paragraph of the Origin of Species, and then only in a “poetic” paraphrase). As Michael Ruse and others have pointed out, Darwin “started in the middle” - that is, he proposed an explanation for how populations of living organisms evolve after they have come into existence.
True, there are biochemists and a few evolutionary biologists who study possible mechanisms for the origin of life and the genetic code, but they are greatly outnumbered by evolutionary biologists and ecologists who study the processes of evolution that can be empirically identified and tested in populations of already living organisms. This means that “intelligent design theory” has not one but two arguments to make:
(1) That an “intelligent designer” (the Generator Of Design = God) is necessary for the origin of life and the genetic code/translation apparatus, and
(2) Having brought those systems into being ex nihilo, God (despite Her/His/Its putative omnipotence) has apparently been motivated to continue to “tweak” Her/His/Its creations throughout their evolutionary history.
In particular, S/He/It (for reasons known only to Her/Him/Itsself) felt that certain bacteria needed a means of propulsion, and therefore whipped up the bacterial flagellum/butt propellor (BTW, I find it interesting that no member of the ID community finds the eukaryotic undulapodium/”flagellum” as likely a candidate for “intelligent creation ex nihilo” - could this be because the various stages in its evolution are better known? But I digress…).
I suspect we may always be at least partially in the dark as to the origin of life and the genetic code/translation apparatus. After all, it happened at least 3.5 billion years ago and left no fossils or other indirect evidence (because individual molecules don’t fossilize, no matter how big they are). Does our potential inability to figure out how the system originated undermine in some fundamental way our ability to explain how it has worked since then, using only naturalistic explanations? In a word, no.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — June 28, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
Oh, there’s no need to concede this point, allen. The fact that grammars or their FSM/PDA/Turing machine counterparts can be used to describe DNA no more implies design than the fact that the St Louis Arch, designed to trace a catenary curve, means that a rope suspended between two supports proves that gravity is Intellgently Designed.
Again, the point being made is “if we can design something, then anything that remotely looks like that ’something’ must be designed”.
No matter how much they try to obsfucate.
They try to play all sides of the argument, too. If human designers copy artifacts observed in the natural world, that proves the artifact is designed. If we design something then later find artifacts in nature analogous to it, that proves the natural artifact is designed. If we are able to “reverse-engineer” something, in other words, “understand how it works”, that proves design.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 28, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
“However, the implication of this statement is that the only place in the evolution of life on Earth that “intelligent design theory” might have a place (a point that I have not conceded, BTW) is in the origin of the genetic code (and perhaps, by extension, the protein synthesis translation apparatus, including ribosomes).”
This is wrong on several points.
(1) For starters, it assumes that Intelligent Design theory only has to do with origins. But in fact, Intelligent Design is much broader in scope, the current biology debate being only one application area of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a full investigation of agency as a distinct causitive force, not simply a complex combination of chance and necessity. This includes ideas as disparate as design detection in archaeology to Jeffrey Schwartz’s investigation of the ability for intelligent agents to change their own brain response patterns.
(2) With regard to origins theory, it indicates nothing of the sort. It simply indicates one place where the evidence currently points to intelligent design as having the only positive evidence. There is nothing in that argumentation which would indicate that it is the only place.
(3) Having said #2, it is my personal belief that indeed, with regard to origins theory, that the only place that God [since we’re talking about my personal belief] intervened was at the beginning of life [that’s not _quite_ true, but true enough for this discussion — the specific other places are of little relevance here]. In fact, there are many in the ID movement who think that this is the only place where God intervened. To offer two radically different sets of ideas, I give you the front-loaded evolutionists and the Young-Earth Creationists .
(4) Having said #3, I do not agree with where you think that this takes us (or at least where I think you are thinking).
[As a nitpick, if the organisms themselves are intelligent agents, it is possible that they are able to intelligently choose their evolution. I am agnostic on this point, so to make the conversation easier I will happily concede it.]
First of all, this changes dramatically the possible character of evolution, and the number of possibilities that are able to be considered. For many examples of this, see the front-loaded evolutionists. A more practical consequence, is that we would not have to be annoyed with people filling papers with “X evolved” when there is no basis for the statement except the existance of X. Some questions include — how do we know that things came from lower things, and not instead that everything came from a more complex cell? Or even, why do we think that everything came from a single-celled organism? Such views of the origin-of-life allows us to view organisms holistically, rather than having to assert that everything evolved via happenstance changes that were selected. As I often argue on UncommonDescent — why do we _assume_ that evolution is continually building up new informational complexes? The experimental evidence seems to be pointing to a highly directed evolution, which indicates that informational changes are specializations driven by higher-order mechanisms, rather than a jumble of lower-order mechanisms that fortuitously have combined into what gives the appearance of a higher-order mechanism. Having ID views on the origin of life automatically allow the view that life is a working-out of a higher-order mechanism, while previously this view was looked at as out-of-bounds.
But then we’ve missed an even more interesting question — how many origins of life were there? If we allow intelligent causation in (or what might be an even more interesting conversation path, even if we don’t), on what evidence do we say that an organism was the result of an evolution rather than a distinct creation? It is not so much that this should give Creationists the opportunity to throw their hands up and say “special creation!” wherever they want to, but instead we need to truly tackle the question of how do we know whether evolutionary group X is connected geneologically to evolutionary group Y, or if they are distinctly-rooted lineages? As pointed out in the link above, naturalistic evolution is not immune from these questions, either. In addition, going about answering these questions will very much depend on your origin-of-life viewpoint. Creationists have been working on this question, and have been attempting analytic tests of it. The problem is, since we have not observed the creative acts (or even the non-creative versions of them), we have no empirical basis for either the singly-rooted tree of life or the multiply-rooted tree-of-life. We can only establish them by using fairly radical and specific assumptions in all cases.
The problem I have is not so much that many people hold to Darwinism or some form of naturalistic evolution, but rather that the other viewpoints are not allowed to be heard. As I have hopefully shown, many very interesting an potentially productive biological questions are simply not being asked because it contradicts the prevailing view of the origin-of-life, despite the fact that there is no evidence that the current view of the origin-of-life has occurred, and many reasons to think that it can’t.
Also, one other point, it appears that you think that irreducibly complex structures cannot have evolved (at least that’s what I took from your flagellum example). That’s actually a misconception of what irreducible complexity means.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — June 28, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
“The fact that grammars or their FSM/PDA/Turing machine counterparts can be used to describe DNA no more implies design than the fact that the St Louis Arch, designed to trace a catenary curve, means that a rope suspended between two supports proves that gravity is Intellgently Designed.”
I think you miss the point. It’s not that X can be used to describe DNA, it’s that DNA is itself a symbolic description language. A few starters for research on this:
Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent — Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 2006, 28(4).
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life — Cell Biology International 2004, 28(11).
Origin of life on earth and Shannon’s theory of communication. — Computers and Chemistry 2000, 24(1).
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — June 28, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
I agree and but I think this is most evident with technology.
Agree, although there are things we can tell about the designer from studying the design. It’s been shown, for example , that DNA-mediated redox activation of repair proteins occur on DNA binding (e.g. an electrical wire). The principle used in mitochondrion is almost identical to the one used in PEM fuel cells. Large scale machines look very much like, and even work very much like, the systems we see in the cell. We can say that the intelligence is very human-like.
We can compare and contrast beaver dam construction (for example) as examples of non-human intelligent design.
True. In fact, even according to ardent Darwinists, the universe is too big for there to have been only one kind of intelligent agent.
Yes, these hypotheticals are all candidates for intelligent designers. It’s similar , if not identical, to the situation with hypothetical common ancestors.
Thats a tough one. I’m more inclined to take things on a case by case basis.
Comment by Guts — June 28, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
Freawaru,
As I said, I think the weblogs are useful for practicing debate on the issues. If there are objections to the ID position you think you’d like to hear a response to, please indicate. It will help me better focus my time and efforts.
And feel free to publicly say, “Salvador, can you clarify your point, I think there is probably a better way to frame your arguement.”
Such feedback can help me serve the weblog and the IDEA club at Cornell more effectively.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 28, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
Guts wrote:
“We can compare and contrast beaver dam construction (for example) as examples of non-human intelligent design.”
Not without stretching the definition of “intelligent design” to the breaking point. Would the same thing apply, for example, to the comb of a beehive? How about the nest of a paper wasp? A bird’s nest? The scrape in the gravel that a killdeer lays its eggs in? In ethology, we assume (according to Morgan’s canon; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan%27s_canon ) that:
“In no case may we interpret an action as the outcome of the exercise of a higher mental faculty, if it can be interpreted as the exercise of one which stands lower in the psychological scale.”
Therefore, the building of a beaver dam, wasp’s nest, honeycomb, bird’s nest, etc. are all interpreted as innate behaviors, motivated by and caused by the “wiring” in an animal’s nervous system, modified by chemical signals from its hormonal system. In no case can we (nor should we, nor is it necessary to) assume that the animal producing the particular “artifact” in question is either conscious or “intelligent”, nor that its consciousness (if any) has anything to do with the construction of the supposedly “intelligently designed” artifact.
For that matter, there is no way for me to directly empirically verify (or falsify) the hypothesis that any other entity in the universe besides myself is either conscious or intelligent. We tend to do this for other humans, primarily on the basis of analogies we perceive between their behaviors and what we understand about our own, but this is pure inference, not direct observation.
Indeed, what would assuming the presence of consciouness and/or intelligence do for one’s analysis of how and why a non-human animal does what it does? The concensus in ethology for almost a century has been: absolutely nothing.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — June 28, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
Well, actually, beaver dams are a great example of non-design. It’s entirely instinct-driven, a response to stimuli. Beaver have no concept of what they’re doing.
There we go again, so-called proof by analogy. You folks just can’t help yourselves, can you.
No matter how much you try to obsfucate, your argument boils down to “if it looks designed, it must be designed”. Mere speculation posing as an assertion.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 28, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
Thats irrelevant, or at least debatable, as to whether it is the result of natural “blind” mechanisms, or purposeful “forward looking” acts of design. Sandhoppers, which orient by the sun, for example, to head for the beach, was found to be partly learned, partly innate. They are born knowing the direction of the ancestral shore, but as they mature, they lose the instinct if it is not excercised, and they are easily trained to take a different heading. Arctosa spiders, are born with a direction sense but keep it only if it is practiced and can modifty it if necessary. Whether intelligence arises through innate behavior or not, there is still a distinction to be made between intelligent acts and natualistic causality.
Comment by Guts — June 28, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
Im not sure if it is a response to stimuli, but again, it’s irrelevant. If I train a dog to bury a bone when I ring a bell, it will do so in response to stimuli. But the bone is underground as a result of intelligent action, not naturalistic action.
Not sure how that is osfucating. Scientists likewise say “that looks like it evolved” when they do sequence analysis.
Comment by Guts — June 28, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
How is “intelligence” not “naturalistic?” For that matter, how would you define “intelligence” so that we can all agree that it’s what we’re talking about? If what a sandhopper does via learning is intelligent, that even Paramecia are “intelligent” and the term simply refers to behavior that arises from the interactions between organisms and their environment. By that criterion, the poplar tree outside my office is “intelligent.”
This is important, because almost everyone agrees on what “design” is, so the real problem here is “intelligence,” and from what you have posted above, I can’t see any way to precisely define it at all.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — June 28, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
If you really think that’s all scientists have done to support the theory of evolution over the past 150 years, then you need to spend some time cracking the books. Evolution is not supported by handwaving of this sort.
Sheesh.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 28, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
For anyone reading just the end of the comments, two posts I made earlier today just made it out of the spam queue above. I’ve got one to Allen and one to Don.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — June 29, 2006 @ 4:16 am
Various ID proponents have given criteria to recognize acts of intelligence, but I think if you can detect “forward-lookingness” you’ve pretty much got it in the bag. This is why high efficiency and complexity would convince even some ardent Darwinists.
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
Thats not “handwaving” at all. Havn’t you ever read Matzke’s account of the transition from an export machine to a flagellum? It’s all “it looks that way to me”.
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
Jonathan wrote
That’s of course incorrect. Other viewpoints are allowed to be heard but that also sets a high standard for such other viewpoints such as being scientifically relevant. Instead ID chose to insert itself into highschool programs.
There is so much wrong with this. First of all, the basic approach of ID generates no questions that are unique to ID about evolution and origins. ID merely throws up its hands and states ‘we don’t know, it seems unlikely and thus designed’. And yet much evidence exists that help us understand the evolution and origins of the genetic code, despite those arguing that such events could not have taken place. Even accepting your claim that current explanations cannot explain origins of life adds NO credibility to Intelligent Design. None at all.
I have had no time to read through your claims as to how ID can contribute to evaluation data but I argue that since intelligent design (lower case) is fully open to scientific inquiry as evidenced in criminology, archaeoloy etc, it seems that ID (upper case) has nothing really to add to science here other than the statement ‘the designer(s) must have been supernatural’ and that is, I argue, the extent of the claim of ID.
Comment by PvM — June 29, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
In other words, IC can evolve and thus there are no reasons to accept ID, just because we presently do not fully know the precise steps. And since ID refuses to explain the details as to how the flagellum arose, it seems to have rendered itself scientifically vacuous.
ID activists have been less than clear in their IC claims and assertions. While Behe did mention in his original thesis that IC systems could in principle evolve, he rejected these pathways for reasons for which he failed to provide any supporting evidence. Combine this with IC’s insistance on maintenance of original function and one quickly realizes that IC is an argument that seems to have only indirect relevance to evolution.
Comment by PvM — June 29, 2006 @ 5:33 pm
As someone who in a former life was an expert in formal languages abstract machines, i literally do not know how to respond to a statement that shows such ignorance on so many levels.
Seriously.
Matzke’s account is speculation and nothing more is claimed for it. Remember that Behe insists that the evolution of the flagellum is impossible. Matzke points out how it MIGHT have evolved, and that’s all we need to show that Behe’s claim is bullshit.
However, when I refer to 150 years of research supporting evolution, I’m not talking about speculative reasoning like Matzke’s proposed pathway that could’ve led to the flagellum evolving.
I have an impression that you’re unware of the vast amount of research that’s been done the past 150 years.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 29, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
Yeah but he outlines several lines of evidence that supports his speculation. When it comes to origins, everything is speculation.
Thats great, there’s only one problem Don, Behe never claimed any such thing.
Yeah too bad I’m not a mind reader. Anything else that you might be referring to is irrelevant to this discussion anyway.
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
Thats great, there’s only one problem Don, Behe never claimed any such thing.
You mean the court clerk in Dover got Behe’s testimony wrong?
This is the first time I’ve heard THIS claim …
Comment by Don Baccus — June 29, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
“I argue that since intelligent design (lower case) is fully open to scientific inquiry as evidenced in criminology, archaeoloy etc, it seems that ID (upper case) has nothing really to add to science”
I think your distincting between “id” and “ID” is mistaken. “ID” is merely attempting to systematize “id” more formally and apply it to more fields than previously done. There isn’t really a technical distinction between the two, except that “ID” is in fields where previously “id” wasn’t allowed.
“Instead ID chose to insert itself into highschool programs.”
The discovery institute does not support measures to include ID in high school curriculum.
“Other viewpoints are allowed to be heard”
Tell that to Dr. Sternberg, Dr. Gonzalez, Dr. Davison, and the numerous other researchers who have had tremendous professional difficulty after being associated with ID in any way.
“ID merely throws up its hands and states ‘we don’t know, it seems unlikely and thus designed’”
That is simply false. “X is unlikely” is not the design inference. In addition, when design is detected, it adds a whole new set of questions to ask about the phenomena, and does not necessarily rule out that the mechanism for engineering the thing will be known.
“Even accepting your claim that current explanations cannot explain origins of life adds NO credibility to Intelligent Design.”
Perhaps you should read some of the papers. The _only_ known place where symbolic codes are developed is caused by intelligent agents. Thus, since we have a symbolic code in the DNA, a reasonable inference is that the origin was an intelligent agent.
“it seems that ID (upper case) has nothing really to add to science here other than the statement ‘the designer(s) must have been supernatural’”
ID does not add that statement.
“In other words, IC can evolve and thus there are no reasons to accept ID”
Perhaps you should bother to read the link. The point is that it can evolve if evolution is directed via information. For example, I can write a program X which, in 3 months, or in response to a specific stimulus, will generate program Y. Program Y can be both irreducibly complex, and generated from program X. However, if program Y is irreducibly complex, it cannot be generated in a non-directed way. That is, if I didn’t fairly directly encode for its possibility in X, it couldn’t be produced as Y. Therefore, if Y is irreducibly complex, it may have “evolved” from X, but not in any sort of “blind watchmaker” fashion.
“the basic approach of ID generates no questions that are unique to ID about evolution and origins.”
It doesn’t?
The whole idea of genome decay is unique to ID. For a blind watchmaker evolution, the “decay” is the entire substrate of evolution!
The whole question of whether things are being built up from the bottom or is being worked out from the top is a central difference of ID and blind watchmaker evolution.
In addition, there are many aspects of biology which are asked and discussed that really don’t make much sense without ID. Sure, you can ask the question without being ID, but the underpinning assumptions of many of those questions only work in an ID context, especially if you look at ecology.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — June 29, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
A hand-waving argument from personal authority if there ever was one.
As I’ve said repeatedly - obsfucate all you want. The point made is the same. “If it looks designed, it must be designed”.
Add circular reasoning to your list of sins. Your first sentence is only true if DNA was designed, yet the assertion that DNA was designed rests upon the truth of the first sentence.
Sternberg sinned, and paid for those sins, which had nothing to do with ID per se.
Davison? That’s a howler. The man’s insane. I mean that literally.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 29, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
Please quote from Behe’s testimony where Behe claims such a thing. Thats a complete fabrication on your part. You might also want to take a look at page 40 of Behe’s book. Which you probably never read either.
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
Behe, under cross:
OK, he’s left a bit of wiggle-room there, but his statement is clear. Behe states that such systems could not have evolved.
And, of course, elsewhere in testimony he states that the designer must be God, and builds that argument through logic.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 29, 2006 @ 9:17 pm
Don Baccus writes: “As I’ve said repeatedly - obsfucate all you want. The point made is the same. ‘If it looks designed, it must be designed’.”
Let’s amend that to, “If it looks designed, and we can’t find a way for it to have come about without design, then it’s reasonable to believe that it is designed.”
But Professor MacNeill writes: “In other words, once this system has come into being (either by design or by “accident”), essentially everything that happens from then on can be explained purely on the basis of Democritus’ “chance and necessity.”
Well, yes, if this statement is true; if in other words, everything in the history of living organisms can be explained by chance and necessity, then of course, there’s no need for ID as an explanation after the origin of life. But is Professor MacNeill’s statement true? I think he’d get a challenge or two from Behe et al.
Comment by Bilbo — June 29, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
“OK, he’s left a bit of wiggle-room there, but his statement is clear. Behe states that such systems could not have evolved.”
Wrong. He was talking about _Darwinian_ evolution (look at the explicit context). My whole point in what I said earlier, and my earlier post I linked to, is that there are other possibilities to evolution than Darwinian evolution. That’s the whole point of the debate. ID allows for an intelligible system of non-Darwinian evolution.
Look at the phrases I’ve highlighted:
“And your conclusion is that, that complexity provides an insurmountable obstacle to Darwinian evolution?”
“And you reached the conclusion that certain biochemical systems could not be produced by natural selection because they are irreducibly complex?”
These are the important points. It could have evolved, but only using a telic form of evolution, not with atelic (Darwinistic) forms of evolution. THAT is what IC is about.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — June 29, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
Of course, on the other hand, one could say, “Even though it looks designed, if we can’t figure out how a designer could have had access to the object, then even though we can’t figure out how it came about without design, it is still reasonable to believe that it was not designed.”
So we have two groups of people that have reasonable (rational) beliefs but opposing beliefs about ID. And yet both groups are made up of rational people. So maybe the real issue is not the truth or falsity of ID, but whether or not the two groups can treat each other as rational human beings.
For the most part, I would say we have failed.
Comment by Bilbo — June 29, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
He leaves wiggle room there because he is not pointing to a logical impossibility, as you first claimed. His statements about obstacles to evolution because of irreducible complexity is based on probability.
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
ID is taking a legitimate concept and turning into an argument from ignorance in an attempt to introduce the concept of ID into sciences and more specifically biology. The argument that ‘id’ is or was not allowed in science is just plain wrong and ID has done nothing to further scientific understanding
ROTFL, first of all other viewpoints are still allowed to be heard but seriously, is science to consider any claim as equally valid?
So many errors. First of all the design inference is an ‘x is unlikely’ argument where ‘x’ is ’specified’ or in other words has a function (in biology). ID adds nothing to science and if it does not rule out mechanisms that will eventually be known then ID is unreliable and per Dembski’s own claims, useless. Since ID presents no positive argument, it fails to be able to compete even with ‘we don’t know’
A great argument from ignorance. In fact we have no evidence of intelligence creating DNA-like code and in fact we do have evidence helping us understand the evolution and origin of the genetic code. What does ID have to offer here? Nothing…
But you miss the point, our claimed ignorance of the origin of the genetic code adds NO credibility to ID.
But it does, although not explicitly it places the designer outside natural explanations.
Man, so much nonsense here. ‘if directed via information’ and yet that is exactly what evolution is all about. I am sure you are familiar with the concept of mutual information and how information from the environment is ‘transferred’ to the genome by evolutionary processes?
Genome decay does not follow from ID, it follows from the creationist perspective.
Totally unsupported assertions…
Sigh… so many unsupported claims. Can you explain to us what you believe the concept of ID is all about and how logically from it follows that the genome should decay?
Once you familiarize yourself with what ID really claims, you will be surprised how little relevance it has to science.
So help us out, see if you can explain how the decay of the genome follows logically from ID?
Comment by PvM — June 30, 2006 @ 12:11 am
Interesting. So you are saying that Darwinian evolution is insufficient but still relevant. Just like Darwin? Of course there are other aspects of evolution which Darwin had no access to. Such as DNA, developmental biology and not to mention neutral evolution which is undoubtably a major component of evolution.
So if regularity and chance can explain evolution then what place is there for ID?
However, if ID wants to play a role, it has to contribute in a scientific manner and so far, it’s contributions have been trivial at most.
Comment by PvM — June 30, 2006 @ 12:14 am
Darwinian evolution is inherently teleological. I assume you are familiar with Ruse, Ayala and others who have commented extensively on this topic.
Comment by PvM — June 30, 2006 @ 12:16 am
Sigh. To paraphrase Archie Bunker, “Look, meathead, OF COURSE it’s Darwinian evolution Behe and I are talking about”.
That’s the friggin’ argument. Designed or evolved via the various mechanisms you folks like to call “Darwinian evolution”, i.e. without God’s intervention. Behe argues for intervention by God, and that is not evolution as understood by anyone with an IQ in excess of their body temperature. He argues that God’s intervention does what evolution can not do. He’s not making a theistic evolutionist argument.
No, Behe’s not arguing that it looks like evolution but is really driven by God. He’s arguing that “poof” the flagellum magically appears wholely evolved and functional without any intermediate steps. That is not evolution, theistic or otherwise.
Nice try, co-opting the word “evolution” in order to try to convince people that “ID embraces evolution”.
Another obsfucation that’s not going to fool anyone.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 30, 2006 @ 12:35 am
Apparently God’s not very good at his job?
Comment by Don Baccus — June 30, 2006 @ 12:36 am
No, I didn’t first claim he was pointing to a logical impossibility.
I’m well aware that the thrust of the argument is to build a probabalistic argument based on false premises, to mislead those who are unable to see through those false premises.
The probability Behe et al come up with (thanks to resting their calculations upon false premises) is so low that they then present it as being as strong as proving evolution logically impossible.
Quibbling over semantics as you are doing is just another form of obsfucation.
(I’m tempted to switch to plain english and simply say “another way to lie”, but we’re supposed to be polite here).
Comment by Don Baccus — June 30, 2006 @ 12:40 am
“That’s the friggin’ argument. Designed or evolved via the various mechanisms you folks like to call “Darwinian evolution”, i.e. without God’s intervention.”
You are misunderstanding. Telic forms of evolution do not require interventionism in order to be accomplished. Let’s look at three possibilities. There are likely more:
1) atelic evolution — there is nothing or very, very little pre-coded in an organism for future situations. All adaptations from the origination point have occurred through some form of haphazard change selected by environments.
2) interventionism — an intelligent designer was required to intervene at each step and make a change to generate new organismal form.
3) telic evolution — an intelligent designer designed life pre-coded with potential pathways, from which an organism can use, modify slightly, or discard. Primary organismal forms, while not being expressed in the original organism pools, were nonetheless coded for in such pools. No interventionism is required even for substantial change, because the primary forms of those changes were precoded.
The difference between ID and Darwinism is that ID has either #2 or #3 responsible for primary organismal change, and perhaps Darwinian mechanisms responsible for a few minor secondary changes. Darwinism only allows for #1. Interestingly, the molecular evidence appears to be favoring #3. It seems that at least for microbes the secondary structures formed by single-stranded DNA points genomes to the most fortuitous places for genomes to change. Transposons are able to transpose in response to stimuli. The genome can alter the expression of entire functional groups using repetitive elements which act as tuning knobs.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — June 30, 2006 @ 4:02 am
#2 is wrong. ID insists that supernatural inputs happen at times, not always. Thus Behe and the flagellum, while admitting that explanations that don’t require God can explain other things.
#3:
IDists reject theistic evolution as, well, being an own goal.
You should know these things before you post. After all, the internet wayback machine *is* watching.
Unless it’s been told not to in your robots.txt file, which is cowardly.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 30, 2006 @ 4:26 am
“IDists reject theistic evolution as, well, being an own goal.”
It depends on what you mean by “theistic evolution”. Theistic evolution has historically been people who were Darwinists, but felt that “God was behind it all” somehow. In fact, if you read Miller’s book, I think that Miller was arguing for #2 which looked like #1.
#3 on the other hand is what is known as front-loaded evolution, and I’m not aware of any ID theorist who doesn’t consider it an ID–based theory. In fact, one ID website prefers front-loaded evolution to all other forms of ID. Likewise, this is Davison’s view as well.
Far from being an “own goal”, many people I know of who claim “ID” are talking specifically about front-loaded evolution. For example, I think this is the opinion of DaveScot who runs Dembski’s blog.
Perhaps the problem that many people have with ID is that they are confused as to what it is really saying. #3 is wholly within what ID theory says.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — June 30, 2006 @ 9:27 am
The molecular evidence is argued to support #3 and yet NO evidence is provided with sufficient details to establish this.
But perhaps Jonathan can explain how ID explains these features? And how does he believe evolutionary theory fails to explain this?
Front loading is the logical escape for ID, unable to present any explanations and now removes the initial stage further and further away while our knowledge increases. In the end it likely will end up pushed up against the Big Bang Planck Time where it can safely go into hiding.
Give us an example of this ‘front loading’, how/when/why and since ID is based on negative evidence show us that science cannot explain the data.
Remember that evolvability is a selectable trait…
Comment by PvM — June 30, 2006 @ 10:07 am
I think the false dichotomy (trichotomy) presented is flawed since evolution need not be ateological. In fact, evolution is inherently teleological and even better, under selection evolution can ‘evolve’ strategies which can improve its ability to evolve.
In other words, ID has to face the reality that arguing that something appears to be teleological is of no importance, it’s the nature of the designer which is the issue and science at least presents its best hypotheses, all ID can do is hope and wait that scientific explanations will ultimately fail and even then, all we can conclude is that ‘we don’t know’.
Comment by PvM — June 30, 2006 @ 10:11 am
DaveTard also thinks he violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics every time he types a sentence. He and Davison (who hate each other) are wonderful spokefolks for the ID movement, indeed.
Yes, “the privileged planet”. It’s really the only place to go with it given that there’s absolutely zero evidence of front-loading on the biological front.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 30, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
“I think the false dichotomy (trichotomy) presented is flawed since evolution need not be ateological.”
That’s the point IDers are trying to make.
But if you are implying that a telic mechanism can evolve from an atelic one, I’m pretty sure you are mistaken.
“Remember that evolvability is a selectable trait”
Obviously. But the question is not how it was selected but how it was arrived at.
“The molecular evidence is argued to support #3 and yet NO evidence is provided with sufficient details to establish this. ”
So what? I’m supposed to write a book in the blog to argue my point? If you are having trouble finding info for this, try:
Wright, BE, “A Biochemical Mechanism For Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution”.
Caporale, ed. “Molecular Strategies in Biological Evolution”
Shapiro, JA. Well, take your pick. Almost anything of his.
In the lead paper for “Molecular Strategies” the abstract says: “Rejecting entirely random genetic variation as the substrate of genome evolution is not a refutation, but rather provides a deeper understanding, of the theory of natural selection of Darwin and Wallace.”
:)
If you want to get rid of atelic mechanisms, then, sure, there’s not so much wrong w/ Darwin. But that is the primary distinction that Darwin is revered for,
“ID has to face the reality that arguing that something appears to be teleological is of no importance,”
Actually it is. Design provides a heuristic for finding functionality. Design proponents argued for looking for function in “junk DNA” long before it was discovered, and those favoring atelic explanations claimed it was intellectually vacuous to even search for function there. Another example of teleology providing a heuristic function is in Well’s paper on polar ejection forces. He is using modern design principles to elucidate the functions of centrioles.
“all ID can do is hope and wait that scientific explanations will ultimately fail and even then, all we can conclude is that ‘we don’t know’.”
When you know something is designed, you have an entirely new set of questions to investigate about it. It is not a dead end but a new beginning.
“DaveTard”
What you think of individuals in the movement is irrelevant. The point is that contrary to what you seem to think, front-loading is entirely consistent with ID, and is in fact one of the main viewpoints.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — June 30, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
Yawn. There’s no evidence whatsoever that anything in the natural world is design. You’re back to the same old point, “if it looks designed it must be designed”.
It’s certainly consistent in the sense that there’s absolutely no physical evidence for front-loading, it’s just more blather.
Suppose, though, front-loading is true? How do you know it is the result of DESIGN?
Comment by Don Baccus — June 30, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
The point is that contrary to what you seem to think, front-loading is entirely consistent with ID, and is in fact one of the main viewpoints.
Is that the point? I thought the point was that you were asked to provide an example of front-loading, but failed to do so. Yes, I’m almost certain of it. Here’s what PvM said:
Give us an example of this ‘front loading’, how/when/why and since ID is based on negative evidence show us that science cannot explain the data.
Comment by ivy privy — June 30, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
ivy —
I was responding to several people — both Don and PvM. But in response to your question I have given several already. I gave several already. A good summary of several mechanisms is “Chance Favors the Prepared Genome”. There’s no real difference between a “prepared” and a “front-loaded” genome, except that the author of the “Prepared Genome” paper doesn’t believe in front-loading, but gave no other explanation for how such “preparations” occurred.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — July 1, 2006 @ 1:16 am
the entire concept of “front-loading” is so full of pitfalls, evolutionary biologists should be cheering as the ID “theorists” traips down it. Why? Because one of their own supporters, John Stanford at the Cornell/Geneva Experimental Station, has written extensively about what supposedly happens to genomes over time: they degenerate. If so, then all of the “front-loaded” goodness that Type 3 ID is supposed to rely upon is constantly and inexorably degenerating: that is, it is constantly losing genetic “meaning” and becoming pure information-free gibberish.
Honestly, you can’t have it both ways: either the DaveScot version of the Second Law is constantly destroying what information is present in existing genomes, thereby requiring constant intervention by the Generator of Design (i.e. God), or some other force is forestalling such degeneration (and therefore maintaining those parts of the genome that result in enhanced survival and reproduction of its carriers.
And the name of that forestalling force (i.e. the one that “conserves” gene sequences that have survival value for their carriers)?
…wait for it…
natural selection (of course)
Which eliminates Type 3 ID (which is functionally equivalent to Deism anyway, and therefore anathema to any but the most blasé theist).
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 1, 2006 @ 3:18 am
Now, on the question of the “front-loaded genome” providing the raw material for later evolution, the authors of the paper quoted in its support have stated quite clearly that the source of this “front-loaded” raw material is, in fact, good old reliable natural selection. That is, selection operating on the genome of bacteria in the past has resulted in the “front-loading” of a set of adaptive mechanisms that can respond to changes in conditions that are detrimental to the organism. They can do this because the ancestors of such bacteria survived and reproduced when such changes occurred, and therefore passed on the genomic features that made such responses possible, whereas their compatriots who lacked such mechanisms (or in whom such mechanisms were less effective) were eliminated.
Notice that “front-loaded” only looks “front-loaded” when you’re looking forward in time. If you look retrospectively, it appears to be exactly what it is: a result of previous episodes of selection operating on simpler, less adaptive genome components (dare I still use the now passé term “genes” or, even worse “alleles”?…heavens forfend!). In other words (i.e. in words with which virtually no evolutionary biologist would have no quibble), “front-loaded” adaptations of the kind referred to by Jonathan Bartlett are simply evolutionary adaptations, and as such are no more examples of “intelligent design” than non-”front-loaded” adaptations. Both come about by the same processes:
1) genetic and phenotypic variation (which appears to be essentially random);
2) genetic (and in some cases cultural/memetic) inheritance, both vertical and horizontal;
3) the fecund overproduction of offspring with various heritable variaitons; resulting in
4) non-random, unequal survival and reproduction (i.e. natural selection).
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 1, 2006 @ 3:29 am
“the authors of the paper quoted in its support have stated quite clearly that the source of this “front-loaded” raw material is, in fact, good old reliable natural selection.”
They _asserted_ this, but they offered no support for it. When the mechanisms producing beneficial change in the present are discovered to be highly directed, what gives us confidence that undirected change ever produced what has been speculated of it?
In addition, you have added complications when you have a complicated interaction like this. There is a direct relationship between the chaos present in a system and its programmability. This is easily seen from Wolfram’s experiments in A New Kind of Science. There is a level of chaos that is required to have a fully expressive programming system. The problem is that this amount of chaos causes only tiny functional peaks to even exist. Perturbation of a program in such a chaotic environment leads quickly to catastrophe. So how could selection operate in such an environment? If the genome wasn’t expressive, it could not code optimization strategies. If it is, we have the issue of the chaos in the coding system which means that the system is on a pretty small functional peak. Therefore, when someone tells me that a highly expressive system must have evolved simply because it’s more selectable, I tend to think it’s because they haven’t really thought about the generative side of the issue, and only about the selective side, especially if they give no reason to see otherwise.
So, with the fact that Corporale has essentially removed random mutation as the substrate of selection in the present, why, in the face of the same and worse difficulties that Corporale alluded to in her paper for random mutation in the present would we presume that the highly involved mechanisms for beneficial non-random mutation in the future were produced by selected random mutations?
Science is not about authority, and, lacking any sort of experimental or theoretical justification for the ability of random mutations to produce a highly structured mutational space, I see no reason why I should take her authority on it in the face of the theoretical difficulties, and the fact that she just admitted the failings of random mutations as the substrate for selection in the present.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — July 1, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Yet, you expect to impress us with your endless repetition of one basic point: “It looks designed to me, therefore it must be designed”. An assertion from authority if there ever was one.
Comment by Don Baccus — July 1, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
Actually, it’s more of an argument via analogy, which as I have pointed out elsewhere (see http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/identity-analogy-and-logical-argument.html ) is by far the weakest form of logical argument.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 1, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
But IDers insist on inserting ‘intelligence’ as an explanation while it is self evident that the mechanisms of evolution (in particular selection) is strongly teleological.
And you would be arguing a strawman. I am merely observing that selection is a telic mechanism.
In small steps. Look for instance at the genetic code. The existence of degeneracy both increases robustness and neutrality (and thus evolvability). So the question now is how did this neutrality evolve in the genetic code? Much work is going on in this area and it seems that it is combination of chance, selection and chemistry (or in other words: regularity and chance to use ID-speak)
Aha I notice you are arguing a purely naturalistic explanation for evolution, or in other words, telic but natural. Fine, but that seems to be the end for ID since it is based on elimination of such pathways.
The existence of ‘non random’ mutations is hardly a surprise given the feedback loop between selection and variation. Caporale and others have pointed this out yet many of them still accept the relevance of Darwinian evolution.
How does ID explain all this I wonder?…
Poof?
Comment by PvM — July 1, 2006 @ 7:38 pm
Nonsense, there is no reason to accept the existence of function in “junk DNA” from an ID perspective UNLESS one realizes these ‘predictions’ come from a creationist/religious foundation not ID itself. Well’spaper on the centrioles has NO relevance to ID. Is this how desperate ID has gotten that it has to make such fallacious claims? It would help if ID would stop misleading people and especially people of faith. The cost of such will eventually be significant when people come to realize that the emperor has no clothes.
So explain in detail what you consider to be the ID foundational principles and how Junk DNA is a logical prediction from them.
I predict you will show strong support for my thesis.
Comment by PvM — July 1, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
Anything is compatible with front loading my dear friend and you suggestion that the author does not provided any other explanation suggests that you either did not read the book or did not get her message. Caporale is quite clear…
From the abstract…Hope this helps.
Comment by PvM — July 1, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
Jonathan is changing his tunes from ‘no explanation’ to ‘no support’. Even thoughJonathanis wrong here as well, it is sad that Jonathan had to portray the work by these authors and not giving any explanation as to how…
Jonathan wrote:
Now you are equivocating on the terms directed. Selection is what can select for function which improves the random but biased variations in the genome. Check out the work by Mark Toussaint for instance. A well argued and supported thesis.
Jonathan continues down the wrong path
Answer neutrality which improves both evolvability as well as robustness. In other words, evolution via selection once again
Perhaps you also need to understand the concept of random mutation and how it relates (or rather does not relate) to Darwinian theory.
Perhaps Jonathan may want to familiarize himself with the vaste literature in this area before claiming that this is merely an argument from authority. So far his argument is mostly one from ignorance.
Comment by PvM — July 1, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
It’s a combination an eliminative argument where the ‘positive’ argument is formulated in terms of ‘analogy’. As Allen correctly points out this makes the design inference one of the weakest arguments and combined with Dembski’s assertion that if the filter captures false positives it would render the filter useless, it is clear that the explanatory filter in most cases is just that ‘useless’. Which explains why few examples of a successful application of said filter exists. And the ones that do exist are trivial and often even fail to take the steps required.
Comment by PvM — July 1, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
So let’s provide the necessary information which Jonathan believes is missing
Caporale is one of the better known proponents in this area
http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/caporale/LHC-Scientist.htm
This should be self evident and is known as the ‘representation problem’ or more recently as ‘evolvability’. Wagner, Fontana have done extensive work in this area. And as I said, Mark Toussaint presents the mathematical foundation for the concept of evolvability and shows how neutrality is an essential component of evolvability. And guess what neutrality is a selectable trait.
Caporale’s book “Darwin in the Genome” is also very readable.
What these authors focus on is the concept of fully random variation. It is important to understand the concept of randomness in evolutionary theory which merely describes that variation is not exclusively beneficial.
It seems to me that ID is using the work of these scientists to ’support their case’ and yet are quick to reject any arguments presented by these scientists which does not support their thesis.
I’d say that the work by these scientists has minimal relevance to ID.
Comment by PvM — July 1, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
the entire concept of “front-loading” is so full of pitfalls, evolutionary biologists should be cheering as the ID “theorists” traips down it. Why? Because one of their own supporters, John Stanford at the Cornell/Geneva Experimental Station, has written extensively about what supposedly happens to genomes over time: they degenerate. If so, then all of the “front-loaded” goodness that Type 3 ID is supposed to rely upon is constantly and inexorably degenerating: that is, it is constantly losing genetic “meaning” and becoming pure information-free gibberish.
That’s John Sanford.
Front-loading (the kind that is not identical to natural selection) requires not just a one-time miracle to create the front-loaded information, but a sustained miracle lasting millions or billions of years to preserve that information until it is needed.
Comment by ivy privy — July 3, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
ID is so full of self contradictions
It claims that Junk DNA must have function after all at the same time it argues that the genome is deteriorating. It claims that the genome is front loaded when at the same time the genome is deteriorating over billions of years.
It should be clear by now that ID is able to explain anything and thus nothing.
Good observation Ivy
Comment by PvM — July 3, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
Morgan’s Canon of Interpretation) remains a fundamental precept of comparative (animal) psychology. It states that:
In no case may we interpret an action as the outcome of the exercise of a higher psychical faculty, if it can be interpreted as the outcome of the exercise of one which stands lower in the psychological scale. (Morgan, 1894, p. 53).
Morgan, C. L. (1894). An introduction to comparative psychology. London: W. Scott.
Morgan (1903, p. 59) later revised the Canon as follows:
In no case is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms of higher psychological processes, if it can be fairly interpreted in terms of processes which stand lower in the scale of psychological evolution and development.
Lloyd Morgan’s Canon is usually thought of as a special case of Occam’s razor by virtue of its presupposition of simplicity that lower level interpretations are more parsimonious than higher level ones.
Morgan, C. L. (1903). An introduction to comparative psychology, 2nd edition. London: W. Scott
I’m sure I don’t understand the reasoning of the Wiki’s here. This “canon” does not strike me as an appeal to the principle of parsimony, but rather the principle of abstraction (or analysis), which is just selective observation. The presupposition of simplicity, that lower level interpretations are more parsimonious than higher level ones, is not intituitively evident to me.
I hate to be a bastard about it (Actually I love it!) but I think “Morgan’s canon” is just a typical example of lazy ass science. All Morgan’s told me is that he has made up his mind and won’t admit any further complications. Arrive at the “interpetation” one feels most comfortable with, and then rather than “explain” anything, appeal to a “principle, a “canon,” a “rule,” a “law,” etc. There is always something more “parsimonious” about a short-cut to science.
In any case, these sorts of psuedo-heuristics, such as parsimony and simplicity, are more often appealed to than observed by scientists.
“Therefore, the building of a beaver dam, wasp’s nest, honeycomb, bird’s nest, etc. are all interpreted as innate behaviors, motivated by and caused by the “wiring” in an animal’s nervous system, modified by chemical signals from its hormonal system. In no case can we (nor should we, nor is it necessary to) assume that the animal producing the particular “artifact” in question is either conscious or “intelligent”, nor that its consciousness (if any) has anything to do with the construction of the supposedly “intelligently designed” artifact.
For that matter, there is no way for me to directly empirically verify (or falsify) the hypothesis that any other entity in the universe besides myself is either conscious or intelligent.”
If you have any reason for believing that you are “conscious and intelligent,” and just for the sake of argument I will assume that you do have some good reasons for believing it, then I think you have the basis for a hypothesis that can be extended to others like yourself and even unlike yourself (e.g., beavers, wasps, birds). And I see no reason why such a working hypothesis cannot be tested empirically either directly or indirectly, verified or falsified. This sort of generalization (extending a hypothesis about your own intelligence to others) is perfectly consistent with the principle of parsimony. In comparison to the hypothetical generalization, the hypothesis that no other entity in the universe besides yourself is either conscious or intelligent, isn’t “parsimonious” at all, because it requires at least two hypotheses, one to explain yourself to yourself and (at least) another to explain to yourself all those other entities. Two hypotheses is less parsimonious than one. It’s not really parsimony that is being appealed to here at all, but rather solipsism, which is no basis for a science of behavior.
But lets try a thoughtexperiment and see if Morgan’s canon is as reasonable as it may sound. I am an animal psychologist. (Is there such a thing? If there is it would seem to be a discipline based on the assumption or hypothesis that animals have a psyche. Is that more or less, or just the same thing as assuming or hypothesizing the “presence of consciouness and/or intelligence”?) I am observing wasps build their brood nests. I decide (for whatever reason) to build a wasp nest of my own. If this requires of me “the exercise of a higher psychical faculty” (whatever that means), then why should I assume otherwise than that it requires the same of the wasp? It is always more parsimonious to not assume. But little would ever be done scientifically if we didn’t. Is it more parsimonious to assume that the performance of the same task by the wasp does not require “the exercise of a higher psychical faculty”? Plainly, it is not more parsimimonous to make two assumptions rather than one. But I didn’t assume that when I reproduced the wasp nest that it required me to engage my “intelligence” to perform the task. I observed myself directly, my thoughts and my actions. It is not parsimonious to assume otherwise of the wasp what I know to be true of me.
Comment by Rock — July 3, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
Uh, researchers have subjected various animals to a barrage of psychological tests for a very long time. Nothing I’ve heard of would support your notion that a wasp has anything like the intellectual capability of humans.
Comment by Don Baccus — July 3, 2006 @ 8:59 pm
Oh, c’mon now, Don Baccus. I bet you’d agree with me if I said that some people don’t have the brains God gave a flea.
It is not my “notion that a wasp has anything like the intellectual capability of humans.”
Is it more parsimonious to assume that the performance of the same task by the wasp does not require “the exercise of a higher psychical faculty”?
It is no less parsimonious to assume that it requires no “exercise of a higher psychical faculty” of the animal psychologist than it is to assume the same of the wasp.
Does that clarify anything? (Probably not.)
Like I said, It is always more parsimonious to assume nothing and I will add it is never scientific to assume anything one cannot test.
“Intelligent design” is a bit pleonastic.
And the contrast between the wasp and his mimic only illustrates that one can automate desogn processes. Call it instinct, intelligence, call it whatever you want… It’s all design.
Comment by Rock — July 4, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
Is it more parsimonious to assume that the performance of the same task by the wasp does not require “the exercise of a higher psychical faculty”?
The wasp constructs its nest never having seen one built. The animal psychologist is copying a design he has seen. Why should we assume these proceed by the same path?
Comment by Anonymous — July 4, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
I’m sure I’m misunderstanding, Anonymous, but what you are suggesting to me is that the animal psychologist is intelligent because he can reproduce (mimic was my word) the behavior of the wasp, i.e., in the design and construction of some or any object or process (in this case a wasps’ nest) that is not properly attributed to “intelligent design,” but properly attributed to… just about anything other than “intelligent design.”
(That designs are mutiply realizable, and even that any number of paths to the same design may be actualized is not, IMO, an “argument against design.” So, I’m not sure that was really the crux of your argument, Anonymous.)
Comment by Rock — July 4, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
pleonastic:
Comment by