Fri 29 Jan, 2010
The Evolutionists’ Complaint: It’s Wrong to Argue For ID By Arguing Against Evolution (Part 3 of 3)
2:00 pm Comments (76) Filed under: Origins and ScienceTags: Evolution, Intelligent Design
- The Evolutionists’ Complaint: It’s Wrong to Argue For ID By Arguing Against Evolution (Part 1 of 3)
- The Evolutionists’ Complaint: It’s Wrong to Argue For ID By Arguing Against Evolution (Part 2 of 3)
- The Evolutionists’ Complaint: It’s Wrong to Argue For ID By Arguing Against Evolution (Part 3 of 3)
This is the third post in a series exploring The Complaint of evolutionists: that Intelligent Design’s (ID’s) negative argumentation against naturalistic evolution (NE; defined here as the development of life and its complexity through undirected random variation coupled with natural selection) is somehow illegitimate, unscientific, or otherwise weak or wrong. (This is not the place to begin if you have not read the first two posts; start here instead.)
So far I have shown that if NE and ID are the only explanations on the table for discussion, The Complaint is unjustified. I have also begun to address the possibility that NE and ID are not the only options; we have to consider that some currently unknown naturalistic theory (UNT) could surface someday as a third possibility. Using probability math, I have expressed two ways UNT could enter into consideration:
A.
p(NE) + p(UNT) = 1;
p(ID) = 0
B.
p(NE) + p(ID) + p(UNT) = 1;
0 < p(ID) < 1;
0 < p(UNT) < 1
And I showed in the last post that A is question begging.
But there is a non-question-begging way to introduce UNT into analysis, and that is B. It doesn’t assume ID is false and naturalism is true. So on first appearance it seems more hopeful, for those who would want to justify The Complaint. Could they be right, under B? Let’s take a look at this.
First, let’s recall that The Complaint has to do with how ID theorists use evidence against evolution in favor of ID. So let’s introduce our term E now. We’ll assume that at time T1 our confidence in NE was perfect: p(NE) = 1. But now we consider E, and find that it is evidence against NE, so that at time T2, our confidence in NE is reduced by n: p(NE) = 1 – n at time T2.
We can substitute 1 – n for p(NE) in our equation from B:
(1 – n) + p(ID) + p(UNT) = 1
Which is equivalent to
p(ID) + p(UNT) = n
Both terms on the left side of this equation are greater than 0 and less than 1. The question that The Complaint addresses is, can we rightly conclude that p(ID) varies directly with n? If p(ID) increases when n increases then negative evidence against evolution is positive evidence for Design.
It’s possible, mathematically, for p(ID) not to vary directly with n. It could happen in either of two ways:
Mathematically it’s possible that p(ID) is constant. In that case p(UNT) varies directly with n. Whatever evidence E appears that counts against NE, counts equally in favor of UNT. That’s really just a special case of what I argued in the previous post, however: no matter what evidence comes in at any future time, it cannot under any conditions count in favor of ID. All evidence is evidence for one naturalistic explanation or the other. For the deliverer of The Complaint to resort to that as support would plainly be question-begging.
It’s also mathematically possible that p(ID) varies inversely with n. That would require p(UNT) to vary directly with n, with some multiplicative factor such that when n increased, p(UNT) increased even faster. But that would be strange, to say the least, especially since UNT is by definition unknown. To assume that its probability varies with n that way is to assume that we know something quite unexpected and remarkable about the unknown. For The Complaint to rely on that would be nothing but special pleading.
But it’s worse than that, in reality, for in fact we do know something about UNT: it hasn’t been thought of yet. Richard Dawkins says it doesn’t even exist. So while we can’t eliminate the possibility of UNT completely, we can safely set its value near zero. And the closer p(UNT) is to zero, the more likely it is that p(ID) varies directly with n.
So how shall we assess The Complaint now? We have to allow that it is conceivably legitimate, but only if p(UNT) varies directly but multiplicatively with n. Only if we resort to special pleading, in other words. My conclusion is that negative evidence against evolution can legitimately be taken as positive evidence for ID.
This has been an extended argument with multiple branches. I have attempted in my ham-handed way to illustrate it through the following diagram, which may be useful as a guide to you in re-reading and re-evaluating these three posts. Or (since my space was limited, and so is my experience with these things) it may not be that helpful.
Tom:
I agree with most of what you write, but I think there’s several ways that one could take the definition of UNT (Unknown Naturalistic Theory). Here’s what I come up:
1) key to the origin and/or evolution of life and synergistic with random variation coupled with natural selection (RVNS).
2) key to the origin and/or evolution of life and a direct consequence of RVNS.
3) key to the origin and/or evolution of life but not synergistic with RVNS.
Examples of 1 or 2 (that is, new discoveries which answered certain past arguments against NE, demonstrating that said arguments were not helping creationism/ID at all, but leading to new and different arguments against NE, I grant): For 1, the discovery of the ability of clay surfaces to catalyze formation of RNA. For 2, the discovery of self-catalyzing ribozymes
For 3, I don’t have any examples, and I think Richard Dawkins would be referring to definition 3 when he implies UNT doesn’t exist.
So, I would agree that p(UNT) under definition 3 is very close to 0 and therefore, an argument against NE is very likely an argument for ID.
But p(UNT) under definition 1 or 2 is certainly not 0 and, here, an argument against NE would just as likely benefit p(UNP) as not.
When Meyer made the argument in Signature of the Cell that conditions for the building blocks of RNA were necessarily incompatible, his argument was refuted by the discovery of a previously unknown natural process fitting definition 1 (reference provided by Darrell Falk). In that case, an argument against NE favored UNT, not ID. However, when Meyer argues that information can not evolve, only a UNT of definition 3 can refute that I believe (but only if his argument is valid).
Thanks for the good, thoughtful comments, woodchuck64. A couple of responses:
1. I’m not sure what your options 1, 2, and 3 do to the analysis, if anything, other than (as you said, and I agree) showing that p(UNT) need not be virtually zero as I suggested (following Dawkins). I’ll have to think it through. What are your thoughts on that?
2. You said,
No dispute there. I am not saying that my conclusions or analyses imply ID instead of UNT. It could be that p(UNT) increases as much as p(ID) in some cases. Because UNT is by definition unknown, we can’t assess that relative difference in ∆p. But we can still conclude that p(ID) increases, and thus there is evidence in favor of ID.
Meyer’s argument that information cannot evolve is based on much more than negative evidences regarding evolution. I hope I made it clear enough at the beginning: this is not about all Intelligent Design argumentation. It is only about that portion of ID argumentation that relies on evidences against NE.
Yes, it’s based on totally ignoring the literature on the evolution of new genes with new functions. Literature which is almost completely ignored by the ID movement in general, by the way.
And this highlights a more general problem with the whole argument presented here. The biggest problem with the ID movement’s “evidence against evolution” is that it almost always based on the ID movement’s own misunderstanding, ignorance, unrepresentative quote mining, etc., not the actual state of affairs in the actual science.
A post in three parts—with a flow chart! That’s above my pay grade.
Tom, would you care to apply this whole thing to my favorite example? How did p(ID)—the quantity you are most interested in—vary in time? How did p(UNT) vary?
Nick,
1. If that’s the only thing you can complain about in this article, then I’ll take that as a compliment. You had to look really hard to find it. You chose one of the very few sentences I wrote that wasn’t on the main topic of my three combined posts here. You must have been really determined to look for it.
2. If I had a nickel for every time ID opponents have misrepresented ID’s arguments, I’d be rich enough to come have this talk with you over coffee in Berkeley. Which I would enjoy doing if I had the opportunity, I’m sure.
3. Does putting the words “evidence against evolution” in quotes mean that there is no evolution against evolution anywhere in all of nature? If you think so, then consider yourself to be in one of the boxes I marked “question-begging,” and feel free to re-read why that descriptor applies to you.
olegt:
I think I’ve already answered this. At least I think I have, depending on what question your example is meant to be. Your question might be, “what about evidence that turns out not to be against evolution?” If so, please read the seventh paragraph in my first post in this series, where I addressed that issue.
Or your question might be, “don’t you think this indicates that science is on a path toward answering all these questions?” If that’s your question, please see the second-to-last paragraph in the second post in this series, where I addressed that issue.
Or your question might be (since I don’t really know where you were heading with the sarcasm you opened with), “Tom, I don’t care to read your long article, but I want you to explain how it answers my objection anyway.” If that’s the case, please consider this your opportunity to re-think your question.
Hello woodchuck64
[...] his argument was refuted by the discovery of a previously unknown natural process fitting definition 1 (reference provided by Darrell Falk).
Have you read the article?
That’s why I don’t have faith in evolution… too many miracles.
We are making a lot of assumptions here, aren’t we? I first noted this rhetorical trick when reading Freud, who would begin a speculative chain with the words, “If x…” or “We might imagine…” and then progresses through “We can see now…” to “we now know”, the whole chain built upon an initial assumption of dubious worth and absolutely no objective evidence. These “hypotheses” (and I use that term reluctantly) are filled with conditional modifiers (if, may, could, might…) prefacing extremely improbable conclusions.
Under controlled laboratory conditions, with great foresight and much design, we managed to demonstrate how “cells” could replicate in a natural environment…? The next section, which I will not quote, observes the fatty acid “protocells” (oils) obsorbing more oil from the “environment” (growing) then “reproducing” (breaking into smaller “protocells” when disturbed by waves… Hmmm…. oil… water… wow!
And voila! life begins. I don’t know what all the fuss is about, it’s really quite simple.
Hi Tom
Since, as has been noted by some of your critics, NE and ID are not mutually exclusive, a criticism you acknowledged as valid by introducing UNT, but which leaves unacknowledged the possiblity of an UTT (Unknown Teleological Theory). I still suspect that your divison would be somewhat more effective if it was teleological vs ateleological, intentional vs unintentional, guided or stochastic. The terms are mutually exclusive, there can be no overlap, and there is no middle to muddle the argument. It is designed or undesigned, it is intentional or it is unintentional.
Thanks, Dave, and thanks for the information in your prior comment, too.
I decided to stick with more standard terminology, though your comment on this last week did spur me to be more specific when I defined terms in the first post. It’s probably worthwhile to reiterate it, since, as you say, there can be confusion. My definition for ID encompasses theistic evolution, for example.
The distinction between guided and unguided was in my thinking all through this, though that may not have always been apparent.
Tom,
At this point I’m not even criticizing your meta-theory, I am trying to see whether there is anything to criticize. Let me state once again what I am trying to get out of you.
In your first post you wrote:
This has the look of a mathematically precise definition. The problem with it is that you never actually evaluate any probabilities. I asked you to apply this probabilistic analysis to one particular case, but you refuse to do so. If you don’t want to work with solar neutrinos, perhaps you could pick up another example?
Your meta-theory assumes that these probabilities can be computed, at least in principle. I am not even sure they are well defined. That’s why I am asking you to provide a simple example where you actually evaluate them. I previously expressed my doubts that you can, even in principle. If my doubts are not misplaced, your meta-theory is not even wrong.
Tom:
I don’t think it changes it, but it does introduce a criteria for evaluating ID negative arguments. I would summarize my thoughts this way.
To the extent that negative ID arguments can be overturned by an UNT of definition 1 or 2, the formula is p(ID) + p(UNT) + p(NE) = 1, and I would expect that ID proponents would want to avoid these kinds of arguments (or not spend as much time on them). They’re not guaranteed to help ID and if discoveries turn out to benefit UNT instead of ID, the ID hypothesis appears weakened (even if it is not actually weakened).
To the extent that negative ID arguments can only be overturned by an UNT of definition 3, the formula is p(ID) + p(NE) = 1, and I would expect that ID proponents would want to find and use more of these kinds of arguments. You’re right that the information argument is not strictly a negative argument, so then I don’t have an ID argument example that implies an UNT that fits my definition 3.
olegt,
Using probability variables in this manner is a time-honored and accepted practice in philosophy. It does not require that the probabilities can be computed, even in principle. The conclusion that ∆p(ID) > 0 is sufficient to show what I was intending to show. I am sure you know enough math to evaluate whether I have got that right.
In the case of solar neutrinos, ∆p(ID) < 0. That means that these do not provide evidence for ID. If you had read the seventh paragraph of the first post you might have seen that this does not particularly upset me: I never claimed that every evidence would stack up in favor of ID. That would be rather silly of me, wouldn't it? It's what some evolutionists seem to say about evolution (which is also silly) but I wasn't saying it about ID.
Oleg, for all your expertise in physics, which far outstrips my own, sometimes I genuinely wonder over the way you can miss the point in philosophical discussions. What was the central point of this whole article? Was it to show that all evidence favors ID? Of course not! It was to show that negative arguments against evolution can legitimately be employed as positive arguments for ID. You have tried to refute me, apparently, by pointing to a positive argument in favor of evolution. Let me state this clearly for you in case it wasn’t sufficiently obvious in the first place: I wasn’t trying to show that positive arguments in favor of evolution should be employed as positive arguments in favor of ID. I wasn’t even talking about positive arguments for evolution.
How is it that you could have missed that?
Thanks for that clarification and your further thoughts on this, woodchuck64. I think that makes a lot of sense.
Dave:
(quoting this article):
I’m not sure why you highlighted this sentence, it’s simply descriptive of 2-amino-oxazole.
You’re missing the point of this paragraph. It’s describing a natural distillation-like process that results in purification and concentration of the molecule. Volatile means easily vaporized, not easily decomposed. Since the molecule has a different condensation point than water, a simple temperature grade could allow later purification and concentration of 2-aminoxazole after small amounts initially form in diluted chemical pools. Temperature grades occur naturally almost everywhere.
I’m not sure why you highlighted this sentence, the article goes on to show that ultraviolet light destroys the “incorrect” ones, leaving the “correct” ones.
I don’t see any miracles in the quoted part. Based on your misunderstandings above, I don’t think you read the article carefully. You’ve got to take enough time to get the details right before you’ll have any chance of fairly evaluating the work.
The remainder of the article refers to other research which is not directly relevant to my point and your objections seem to fall in two categories:
1) controlled experiments can tell us nothing about natural processes. It seems trivial to disprove this. Experimenters are simply trying to determine what is possible by replicating any and all real or imagined environments and conditions to see what happens.
2) if, based on a cursory reading of an article, you aren’t convinced it can it happen, it can’t happen. If you have a background in molecular biology I might give this more weight. But if not, I think you need to be more specific about your objections.
Tom Gilson wrote:
So all these mathematical definitions are just windows dressing? You imagine that someone can calculate probabilities, then claim that the probability change is positive (without any proof whatsoever) and call it a day? If that’s what philosophy is, I can do it in my sleep. Sign me on!
That actually wasn’t the point of my example with solar neutrinos. Dispense with the fancy math and follow my logic. I’m asking you to evaluate the situation prior to the discovery of neutrino flavor oscillations in 2002. Before then, evidence showed that the Mainstream Scientific Theory was in error. Your meta-theory, applied to this situation, would say that p(MST) went down as a result of this evidence and consequently p(ID) went up. Is that right? Again, forget that we are in 2010 and imagine that you are in 2001. What do you think about this?
Olegt, I have already answered your challenge presented in the second half of your comment just now. And I have already reminded you that I have already answered it.
As for the first part of your comment, your dismissal of the argument tells a lot more about yourself than it does about the argument.
If you had followed the logic of the original post on this page, you would have known how I concluded what I did about the probability change. As the old saying goes, Do the math. I think you can probably keep up with it. Even though it only uses variables.
Of course there is some logic in there, too, in the parts where I address the possibility of ∆p(ID) being negative in some circumstances. Either you didn’t bother to read that, which would be a pretty despicable way to prepare for commenting on what you think is wrong with what I wrote; or else you couldn’t keep up with the logic. Which is it?
Tom,
You did not answer my question. It wasn’t about evidence for “evolution” being evidence for ID. It was about evidence against “evolution” being evidence for ID.
Prior to 2002, measurements of the neutrino flux were in contradiction with the standard models of particle theory and star formation. My reading of your meta-theory suggests that this should have been counted as evidence for creationism. In fact, it was. What’s your take on that? Please spell it out.
I did spell it out. I’ve reminded you of it twice now. Did you read it? Have you read anything I’ve written on this at all?
Let me be more plain about it: I have told you three times now that I have an answer to your question. You have two options: you can read what I wrote about it and tell me what you think is right or wrong about what I wrote about it, or you can keep telling me I didn’t answer you. The first option is a pretty good way to conduct an argument. The second option is, as I have already noted in another a comment a few minutes ago, “despicable.”
Let me hold your hand and lead you to where I answered it, just so we don’t have to go another round on that. See comment 5 above, this portion:
Note also that in that same comment I said I wasn’t sure what your question was, and that I offered two possible routes I thought you might be headed with it. Maybe I got both of them wrong. Maybe if that’s the case you haven’t bothered to clarify it and explain what your question really was.
I have given “my take” on what happened between 2001 and today. I put it in general terms, with respect to changes in evidences over time, in the second-to-last paragraph of the second post of this series. I answered specifically with respect to solar neutrinos in comment 12 in this thread. What in blazes more than that are you looking for?
Tom, you pointed me to a number of paragraphs in your three posts saying that they addressed what you thought were my questions. I have read them all. There is no answer to the question I’ve been trying to have answered.
Maybe I’m just a little dense and can’t navigate this maze. If that’s the case, can you please answer that question one more time? Here it is, again.
At the end of the 20th century, there was experimental evidence that contradicted the standard models of particle theory and star formation. Could that be taken, at that time, as evidence in favor of creationism? If the answer is yes, and given what we know now, how does your meta-theory fare?
Thank you.
Tom Gilson wrote:
That’s NOT what I’ve been asking! I wanted you to evaluate the situation prior to 2001 by using your theory!
Well. You have clarified your question. Thank you.
Prior to 2001, the solar neutrino evidence appeared to stack up against evolution, and based on the knowledge at the time it could have been reasonably regarded as evidence in favor of ID.
It can’t be regarded that way now, based on what you have told us about it. (That’s what I was getting at earlier when I said ∆p(UD) < 0. In other words, I thought I already answered this. Pardon me for not getting it more on target with what you were looking for.)
What this shows is that evidence can change; that our information and/or interpretations can be incomplete and/or false.
You asked, “given what we know now, how does your meta-theory fare?” Just fine, I think, thanks for asking. How do you think it fares? You see, the way this works is, if you think there’s a problem with someone else’s argument, the usual thing to do is to state what you think that problem is.
Instead, since you have only clarified one of your questions, I am left to guess what that problem is, and this is my guess. I’m guessing you would say this is an instance of the march of science etc. that always seems to keep finding more and more naturalistic explanations for things, and keeps displacing more and more design explanations over time. My meta-theory (as you put it) has addressed that already, as I have reminded you numerous times. Let me actually copy that famous second-to-last paragraph in the second post and paste it in here. In fact I’ll paste the whole context in here.
But I was only guessing what you thought might be the effect of solar neutrinos on my meta-theory. If I answered the wrong question, please tell me which question I should answer instead. If I answered the right question but you don’t agree with my answer, please do me the courtesy this time of not saying, “Tom, you haven’t answered me!” (Note that my answer here is a quote of what I wrote previously. It has never been true, since I wrote this set of posts, that I have not addressed your question as I understood it.) Please explain why you are saying I didn’t answer your question.
Tom — if you and other ID advocates can’t get basic, elementary scientific points correct, everything else is pointless. As long as you get that stuff wrong, ID will be a joke in the scientific community, and rightly so. The ID position that only intelligence can create new functionally specified sequence information is as wrong as the idea that the Earth is flat. Once one is at all familiar with the relevant biology, the claim is ludricrous.
So I might as well just give fight on those narrow points, where the facts and literature are clear, rather than engage in a pointless verbal dispute that relies on incredibly vague notions, e.g. NE, ID, UNK.
I.e.:
“Naturalistic Evolution” — What?? There are an infinite number of varieties just within this category. E.g. even just with completely standard mainstream evolutionary theory there are dozens of proposed, plausible influences and causes of the Cambrian non-explosion, all testable to various degrees, and some or all of them may be true, i.e. if several factors combined to produce the radiation.
“ID” – in any form whatsoever, also infinite
“unknown naturalistic theory” — also infinite
The “probability” of each of these is basically unassessable, because getting the probability of each involves summing over the probability of each of the sub-hypotheses found within each category, of which there are an infinite number, and most of which are completely unstated.
Hi woodchuck64
I’m not sure why you highlighted this sentence, it’s simply descriptive of 2-amino-oxazole.
The sentence, as a description of 2-amino-oxazole, may well be 100% correct and I have no argument with the description, however, it is a description in the context of the question “How did the code which we have named RNA arise?” This is the persistent error of reductionism, the belief that if you can explain the parts you can explain the whole.
If we define ‘writing’ as ‘ink marks on paper’ we have an accurate description as far as it goes but it would be the height of folly to think we have defined or explained ‘writing’. If you doubt the analogy just hand a pen and some paper to a three year old.
The difficulty with RNA, DNA, and the rest of the OOL search, is how to explain the source of the code with which RNA, DNA, and epigenetic processes, build, preserve and reproduce living organisms. To suggest that under the ‘right conditions’, water, iron oxide, and charcoal, might have concentrated in a manner suitable for the production of ink, and that, at some later date, cleluose fibers compressed into flat sheets by the effects of water and pressure came into contact with the ink leaving marks on the paper which we call ‘writing’, asks us to accept a series of fortunate coincidences so improbable that they could only be described as miraculous.
And the final result of all these forutious, even miraculous, events does nothing to explain ‘writing’. Writing is not ‘ink marks on paper’, as our experiment with the three year old clearly demonstrates. Writing is a system of specific ‘ink marks on paper’ which convey information.
You’re missing the point of this paragraph. It’s describing a natural distillation-like process that results in purification and concentration of the molecule.
Natural distillation results in diffusion rather than concentration. That’s why bootleggers make stills. BTW, while investigating this I found the paper by Sutherand.
From the Executive Summary
http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/E032753/1
I don’t see any miracles in the quoted part. Based on your misunderstandings above, I don’t think you read the article carefully. You’ve got to take enough time to get the details right before you’ll have any chance of fairly evaluating the work.
Oh really? No miracles?
We have a that which can be viewed as a fragment of sugar – not, I must point out, a fragment of sugar, but that which can be viewed as a fragment of sugar.
This hypothetical fragment of sugar could, perhaps, possibly, form spontaneous chains of sugar phosphate, which could, perhaps, possibly, become associated with ‘fatty lipids’ (one is forced to wonder; from whence come the fatty lipids?), and which could, perhaps, possible, in the serendipedous presence of the correct chemicals, duplicate itself in situ. The provientially formed compounds of fatty lipids and sugar phosphate then ‘reproduce’ through shaking (not stirring) the host liquid “(such as might occur as wind generates waves on a pond) caused it to break into a number of smaller, spherical daughter protocells, which then grew larger and repeated the cycle.”
You might realize that the ’system’ described herein ignores completely the grand problem of OOL – from whence came information?
reCaptcha
“and sucrose”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100125123219.htm
In the case of echolocation, however, the explanatory power of convergent evolution seems to come up short. Not only do both bats and dolphins echolocate, but the genetic mechanisms and mutations underlying the ability is nearly identical in both animals. Team member Stephen Rossiter of the University of London explained how surprising the discovery was:
Providential, no?
reCaptcha “findings erase”
As long as the qualified “only” is there, such an assertion rises only to the partially correct. The bigger problem is evolutionismists presuppose “information” without accounting for what it is, i.e., what its full ontological import is. Either through ignorance or through intentional disregard, “information” is reduced to mathematical formalisms they can understand, but chucking away (through such an abstraction) the thing itself.
Without understanding what “information” is, they naturally fail to distinguish between per se information (that actually generated by a rational being) and per accidens information (something formed by a non-rational cause but from which only a rational being may “extract” or “impose” upon material things).* The IDers, curiously, share the error: they try to “see” a designer (they try to capture the exemplar and final causes) through information theory–a non-starter. Evolutionismists are far worse: with their self-imposed blinders they arrogantly dismiss anything not captured by MES tools and methods.
* An example is the surf bringing together three pieces of drift wood to form an arrow. No rational agent “made” the driftwood arrow, and therefore it means nothing… unless, of course, a beach bum sees the driftwood configuration and says, “Hey, there’s an arrow pointing to the way to the party!” Instantaneously the driftwood really takes on meaning from the external rational agent–it really means something at that point. It is the form of the driftwood (the formal cause as an accidental unity) imposed by the beach bum externally (without even touching it!) that in-FORMS the driftwood with meaning, i.e., with in-FORM-ation.
Curiously, it is only for such artifacts of rational agents that the Nominalists are correct: the definition (the whatness) of the thing is contained within the words or import of meaning–not within the wood itself.
All this, of course, points to whether the information, say “in” DNA, is merely externally physically imposed (what evolutionismists presuppose) without need for a rational agent or whether the imposition of the “information” is “inserted” into the very nature of the living being by an external immaterial mind by “in-FORM-ing” the matter (what IDers believe). Sadly, both employ science as a reductionist tool in vain attempts to “prove” their points… and both fail miserably.
Nick Matzke & Holopupenko,
You say “The ID position that only intelligence can create new functionally specified sequence information is as wrong as the idea that the Earth is flat.”
I’d like to know what you offer as proof for this.
You pointed out ID’s position is “based on totally ignoring the literature on the evolution of new genes with new functions.” I don’t dispute the existence of either the literature, or even that new genes with new functions can evolve. I’ll even assume that these genes and this evolution have been observed in the laboratory. But I don’t see how even observation of as much in the lab proves that intelligence had no role in evolution, even of those particular genes.
You also mention that the number of possible ID explanations is infinite, the number of possible unknown naturalistic explanations is infinite, and therefore “The “probability” of each of these is basically unassessable, because getting the probability of each involves summing over the probability of each of the sub-hypotheses found within each category, of which there are an infinite number, and most of which are completely unstated.”
Doesn’t this mean that science is useless when it comes to determining the truth or falsity of either ID or naturalism? That really seems to be what your words are adding up to here.
But if that’s the case, then what science has provided for so long isn’t really “naturalistic explanations” or “ID explanations”. At best, it’s provided explanations which are capable of fitting into either ID or naturalistic views.
This is primarily aimed at Nick Matzke, but I would also appreciate Holopupenko’s input on this question if he’s so willing.
Thank you.
Tom Gilson wrote:
Thanks, Tom, that’s precisely the kind of answer I’ve been looking for. You didn’t quite spell it out in your previous comment, which only dealt with the post-2002 state of affairs.
Examining the solar neutrino affair over a longer stretch of time demonstrates vividly the perils of the God-of-the-gaps approach. Arguments of that sort rely on our ignorance, rather than knowledge, and as the knowledge tends to expand there is a risk that any given gap will be filled squeezing God out. We have just revisited in slow motion the closing of the solar-neutrino gap, and that’s hardly a unique example. Here is a long list of discredited God-of-the-gap arguments from Creation Ministries International: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.
Earlier I stressed a key difference between science and creationism: the former relies on knowledge, the latter thrives on ignorance. Established scientific theories are here to stay. Classical mechanics will live forever. Geometrical optics is true knowledge. So are quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and general relativity. There will be new developments that will expand our understanding of the Universe and bridge the currently known gaps, but these old theories won’t be thrown away. That cannot be said of God-of-the-gap arguments. Their shelf life is limited. Smart people in Vatican understood that a long time ago.
I agree: God-of-the-gaps type arguments can turn around, and often do. That’s why ID also uses positive arguments based on what we know of nature. Negative arguments against evolution need to be couched in terms of current knowledge with appropriate tentativeness, because knowledge can certainly change. The same goes for positive arguments in favor of evolution.
Tom,
I disagree quite strongly with “the same goes” line. Common descent of man and animals has been well established and no amount of further research will undermine it. It’s a fact that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, give or take 50 million years.
I think that opinion could be couched in terms of current knowledge with appropriate tentativeness, don’t you? What’s appropriately tentative for one conclusion is not the same as it is for another. I don’t have a problem with your beliefs on the age of the universe, certainly—did you think I would? And common descent is not the point at issue, either.
Sure, Tom, all scientific knowledge is provisional. However, some of that knowledge has withstood pretty grueling empirical testing over decades and sometimes centuries. It’s a safe bet that Newtonian mechanics is true knowledge. (Contrary to a popular meme, classical physics has not been dethroned by quantum mechanics. It is still correct in its domain of applicability: low velocities, weak gravitational fields, large enough objects.) The age of the Earth and common descent are in the same category.
Here is a standard review:
Long et al. (2003). “The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.”
…free online at Google Scholar. See also e.g. the discussion here: http://biologos.org/blog/on-reading-the-signature-a-response-to-stephen-meyer/#comment-3668
So, to save the assertion that natural processes can’t produce new information now you’re saying that there was divine intervention even in the lab under the noses of the investigators?
The existence of natural mechanisms for the evolution of new genes refutes the common ID statement, of Meyer, Tom, and others, that natural processes are incapable of producing new information.
But yeah, I agree that this doesn’t disprove ID. It makes ID unparsimonious as an explanation, but as I’ve said before, that is different than disproving something. ID is an unconstrained hypothesis, it could well intervene to change things even when they are under direct observation.
Olegt:
You really are a slabyi fisik: “all scientific knowledge is provisional.” Really? So absolutist coming from someone allegedly promulgating non-absolutism. Off the top of my head I can give you at least a dozen MES conclusions that are 100% certain with no possible chance of altering that knowledge as new knowledge comes on the scene. How about the human heart: in a non-pathological specimen, a heart is part of the closed circulatory system of a human being represented by a four-valved, four-chambered muscle organ that pumps blood throughout the human body for the exchange of oxygen, nutrients, gases, hormones, blood cells, etc. to and from cells in the body to help fight diseases and help stabilize body temperature and pH to maintain homeostasis.
Do you seriously claim that this description of functionality, largely described by William Harvey based on his own investigations and compiling historical accounts, will change with “new” information? Are you really going to try to mal-equivocate this certain knowledge with the contingent and fundamentally different understanding of motion and time proposed by either by relativity or quantum mechanics to alter Newton’s account?
Nick:
You did it again. The following is not only unsupportable (i.e., it is an unscientific emotional outburst on your part), but it is also–given the tone and implication–Aristophanes stupid: [ID is] based on totally ignoring the literature on the evolution of new genes with new functions.
Joseph A.:
I’ll try to get back to you within a day or so. VERY briefly: I’m largely exposing the inherent presuppositions regarding WHAT functionality (which demands a telos) and information ARE–in their full ontological import–on the part of evolutionismist but also IDers. My critiques are not MES-based but philosophical based upon MES-input, and as much as the evolutionismists’ eyes glaze over (especially olegt), that type critique precedes (not temporally but in the order of knowledge) their disordered interpretations of what they suppose neo-Darwinism implies.
Holopupenko,
Sorry, pal, but you have reading comprehension problems. Please go back and read my comment beyond the first sentence. I made a point diametrically opposite to the one you thought I made.
And while my professional standing hardly makes a difference in this case, I’m not sure that you are qualified to judge it.
olegt:
Your own words do you in. You categorically asserted: “all scientific knowledge is provisional” (to which I provided only one example to debunk). I did read beyond the first sentence: the text you provide doesn’t retract the assertion–in fact, if provided interpretation, it might further support your assertion. (Did you actually understand the distinction I drew in my second paragraph which addresses your most recent attempt to escape-by-qualification your own assertion?)
And, this is even beside the point that you fail to understand that science writ large (mediate intellectual knowledge obtained through demonstration) is certain knowledge. But why split hairs with you about what science is and what makes science possible in the first place? Your general condescension toward philosophy and theology makes that a non-starter discussion.
So perhaps plokhoi is a more accurate characterization than slabyi? Because, it’s not your professional standing that was ever questioned (such a criticism would be better directed at JHU)–it’s your competence as a fisik qua fisik for making a categorical, un-scientific, pseudo-philosophical assertion that’s at issue… which in turn is amplified by the scientism you sneak into these comments hoping no one will notice.
I’ve been trying like heck to restrain myself reading your latest slew of comments. Frankly, olegt, you’re in way over your head when you step outside the bounds of your own competence… which, of course, we’ve just seen you yourself compromise. I again urge you to skim some wisdom from Berdiaev and Soloviev: there’s much more to reality than meets your eye.
Holopupenko,
I don’t think you read beyond the first sentence. If you did, you would have seen that I had used the very same example—Newtonian mechanics—that you tried to use to debunk what you perceived as my claim.
The phrase all scientific knowledge is provisional is a tired cliche. Anyone who read beyond the first sentence saw what point I was making. You chose to jump at the first sentence. Big surprise.
And I’ll repeat: you’re not qualified to judge how good a physicist I am, so drop the insults.
Your words fall on their own, and the comments which expose them remain. There were no insults (maybe I should have said fisik qua uchënyi): having one’s errors pointed out, as much as it may be uncomfortable, does not mean one can hide behind “not fair!” Such a tactic only makes it worse. Yet again: Berdiaev and Soloviev are great examples of intellectual and moral humility–take them to heart.
Hi Nick Matzke
Dr. Meyer’s point is not about recombination as much as it is about origin. However, even accepting your sweeping assertion that he has ‘ignore’ contrary evidence, it seems the the ’standard review’ isn’t quite the rebuttal you might hope. Random change is nearly always deleterious whereas the capacity to repair and upgrade existing structures implies a degree of foresight. A designed redundant system may be a more parsimonious explanation for the limited adaptability we observe in living organisms.
Long et al. (2003). “The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.”
New Genes… 3mya? I was more than a little surprised at this version of the dating game. You do realize that any such date is an assumption based upon, among other things, the belief that Gene A must be a precurser to Gene B. It could easily be the opposite, or neither.
With the speculative 3mya “young” gene the rate of ‘evolution’ is rather questionable. I am not sure why this is even hypothesized unless the alleged parent/child matchup is less than adequate. There is also a preuspposition in this section that one parent gene hadn’t ‘evolved’ at all while the child gene underwent accelerated ‘evolution’. Even so, I think we have a typical Darwinian fairy tale.
This recalls the above posting about bat and whale echolocation. Curious that an unguided process of random mutation and natural selection should develop not only similar functions but “nearly identical sequences” in the genome in otherwise unrelated creatures. Providential, is it not?
I always find these comparisons fascinating… It illustrates a strong conservative tendency in the genome while at the same time it reveals the explanatory inadequacy of genetics alone. Some recent discoveries in epigenetics are illuminating the situation, but they often raise more questions than they resolve.
Well Nick, I’m happy you didn’t try to foist another hypothetical “just so story” onto us. This is well documented and accurate portrayal of the present condition of “speculative science” regarding genetics and evolution. And, quite frankly, it does nothing that I can see to refute, or even weaken, Dr. Meyer’s hypothesis. Furthermore, it says nothing about the origin of the genetic code, it deals entirely with the shuffling of pre-existing genetic material.
I tried to explain that to Nick (here) when he brought it up the first time. I guess he doesn’t think it is relevant, but he would be wrong.
Not really true; probably most random mutations are neutral or close-to-netural. But regardless, evolutionists have always said beneficial mutations are rare. This doesn’t matter, because selection preserves the rare beneficial mutations and discards the rest.
So do you agree with Long et al. that we have dozens of examples of the evolution of new genes, or not? This statement implies that you do.
What limits? Where are they, how do we identify them? The only method that anyone has proposed, the YEC baraminologists, define the limits of “kinds” with the Bible first, data later.
You obviously haven’t read much about this. Evolutionary biologists weren’t born yesterday and have to make their assertions in the peer-reviewed literature testable like everyone else in science. It is easy to establish which gene came first with high statistical confidence. E.g. if gene A is found in 200 Drosophila species, and gene B with a closely related sequence is found in only Drosophila melangaster, and especially if gene B is more closely related to Drosophila melanogaster gene A than any other gene A, then it is effectively dead certain that gene B is more recent than A, and that it duplicated *after* Drosophila melanogaster split off from its (almost identical) sister species.
This kind of thing is really remedial, basic science in this area — I hope you can see why scientists would be very unimpressed with your critique.
PS: The Drosophila gene Sdic is particularly cool, in that it is clear that some of the exons came from a gene adjacent to it on the chromosome on one side, and the other exons came from the gene adjacent to it on the other side (and one of the exons came from a formerly noncoding intron in one of those adjacent genes…so much for creationist probability estimates of random sequence being useful). In other Drosophila species, all you have is those two ancestral genes, next to each other on the chromosome. The whole gene origination event is right there in the genome sequence for anyone who is open-minded enough to see it.
PPS: There is even a drop in polymorphism diversity around Sdic, which indicates a recent selective sweep where natural selection spread the new Sdic gene throughout the population. Thus the origin of new genetic information by duplication/mutation/selection is entirely within the abilities of standard, “microevolutionary” population genetics, which creationists normally say they accept.
Really? I already explained a little bit about how you know what happened first through phylogenetic means… but haven’t you heard of synonymous and nonsynonymous mutations, and how scientists can tell the difference, and thus tell whether or not a sequence is evolving through stabilizing selection (which slows down sequence change), neutral evolution, or directional selection (which speeds up sequence change). It’s very easy. Bioinformatics 101 stuff. Why should scientists take your critique seriously if you don’t understand the very basics of what they are talking about?
This case is very well known. Thr-Ala-Ala is a motif that blocks the formation of ice crystals — i.e., acts as antifreeze. All that selection had to do was favor mutations that duplicated that motif. Are you really going to say that this is beyond the capability of natural selection?
I guess you are talking about ORFans here, ORFs (open reading frames) that are unique to a particular species. As we’ve seen, evolution can produce new genes, so I’m not sure why this is a problem, but you are also missing numerous other prosaic causes of ORFs — sequencing errors, annotation errors, genuine ORFs produced by a mutation creating a start codon, but which produce no protein because they have the wrong regulatory environment, etc. Why should any scientist aware of this stuff take your unsupported statement about the “explanatory inadequacy of genetics” seriously?
Really? That’s your critique? You’re just doing the typical half-baked creationist stunt of finding some statement of uncertainty — such statements exist in every scientific article in any active field — and then assuming that it means scientists actually have no idea about how e.g. new genes arise. But the whole article is testimony against you. Table 1 lists the many known mutational mechanisms that produce new genes (with references). Table 2 lists 20-something examples. On any fair assessment this is powerful evidence that evolution can produce new genes with new functions, and that we basically understand how this happens. Of course, creationism is pretty much based on failing to do fair assessments.
As for what Long et al. are really talking about in that passage — they are talking about the fact that only handful of very recent (last few million years) gene origination events were known (in 2003), thus making generalizations about rates of origin, etc., are difficult.
Whoa! Not every single scientific article answers every random question a creationist might come up with over breakfast. News flash!
C’mon, be fair. We were talking about the origin of new genetic information/new specified complexity. This article answers that question. If you want to talk about the origin of the genetic code, go look up the hundreds of scientific articles specifically on that topic (go to pubmed or Google Scholar and type in keywords like: origin genetic code. I dare you).
Final comment: We can resolve the importance of the Long et al. 2003 article very simply. If a gene is duplicated, mutates, and acquires a new function, is that new genetic information, or not?
Meyer asserts that natural processes cannot produce new information/specified complexity, and that only intelligence can. His entire argument relies on this generalization. But I have shown that natural processes can create new information, and that it is actually quite a simple thing for natural processes to do. Thus Meyer’s argument:
…fails, and a whole bunch of people who supported his argument should be chagrined, for failing to do basic scientific due diligence to see if Meyer’s basic facts were right.
Nick Matzke at his “best”:
probably most random mutations are neutral or close-to-netural
Good unscientific hand-waving, that.
define the limits of “kinds” with the Bible first, data later
Unsubstantiated bigotry, that.
This kind of thing is really remedial, basic science in this area — I hope you can see why scientists would be very unimpressed with your critique.
But it’s okay to promulgated pseudo-philosophical nonsense… at least for evolutionismists.
The whole gene origination event is right there in the genome sequence for anyone who is open-minded enough to see it.
Psalm 19:1… for anyone who is open-minded enough to see it.
It’s very easy. Bioinformatics 101 stuff. Why should scientists take your critique seriously if you don’t understand the very basics of what they are talking about?
Once Nick can define information beyond the mind-numbing reductionism to numbers, critical thinkers may begin to take it seriously.
You’re just doing the typical half-baked creationist stunt of finding some statement of uncertainty — such statements exist in every scientific article in any active field — and then assuming that it means scientists actually have no idea about how e.g. new genes arise.
Again, reading into statements that express the contrary. Oh well, par for the course. At least we’re on better ground to affirm, for example, “You evolutionismists are just doing the typical half-baked reductionist stunt of claiming that morality is allegedly subjective – such statements exist in the writings of every philosophically-challenged new atheist – and then assuming that is means scientists can fully explain morality by means of neo-Darwinian tautological games (altruism serves the survival of the species, therefore the species survive).”
Sigh. I’m tired of shooting this fish in the barrel. I’m certainly not in the group of those critiquing the valid neo-Darwinian points Nick makes, but the bigotry, imposed presuppositions, not-defining-terms (especially “information”) is intellectually-bankrupt.
Nick Matzke,
So, to save the assertion that natural processes can’t produce new information now you’re saying that there was divine intervention even in the lab under the noses of the investigators?
Why would I? I haven’t taken part in this conversation until now, nor would I necessarily agree that natural processes can’t produce new information. And I haven’t said anything about divine intervention, nor did you in what I quoted.
I’m asking you what leads you to say that having a natural process produce information means that intelligence is not involved. I’ll give another example: Let’s say a group of investigators examine another evolutionary process in the lab. In this one, new genes with new functions evolve, just as in the other laboratory. There’s one difference: All of the organisms in this experiment, complete with their genetics and their propensity to evolve and so on, were designed and created by humans. Would you say then that everything the investigators observed could be sufficiently explained by natural processes rather than intelligence? And if so, would this be the same sense in which you’d say the other investigators were able to explain the development of new information without needing to talk about intelligence?
But yeah, I agree that this doesn’t disprove ID. It makes ID unparsimonious as an explanation, but as I’ve said before, that is different than disproving something. ID is an unconstrained hypothesis, it could well intervene to change things even when they are under direct observation.
First, how is ID unparsimonious? I’ll note that here, you seem to no longer be talking about a specific ID claim, and are talking about ID in the broader sense of intelligence or a designer being implied by the operations of nature. That would include people who disagree that nature cannot produce new information, and whose thoughts in fact rely on nature doing exactly that (Mike Gene, Simon Conway Morris, Michael Denton, etc.)
Second, if you’re saying that breadth of ID is unparsimonious, then wouldn’t the claims of the view opposite to ID (that nature is blind, purposeless, unguided in any sense) be unparsimonious as well? Eugenie Scott certainly seemed to think so when it came to the NABT’s use of words like “impersonal” and “unsupervised” with regards to evolution. In fact, she said that claiming such about evolution was unscientific. Unparsimonious would follow.
Holopupenko,
I understand, by all means do so at your leisure.
Hello Nick Matzke
You obviously haven’t read much about this. Evolutionary biologists weren’t born yesterday and have to make their assertions in the peer-reviewed literature testable like everyone else in science.
Would that be the “peer reviewed literature” published by the Smithsonian? The one which persecuted Richard Sternberg for publishing “peer reviewed literature”?
From the Report to the U. S. House of Representatives
Of course, if you publish Darwinian Fairytales, no matter how improbable, they will be published and you will receive a pat on the back for being a team player.
http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Fairytales-Selfish-Heredity-Evolution/dp/1594032009/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265003597&sr=8-1
It’s like watching the IPCC cover its butt after getting caught making up the data for their climate change con. A file of programming code is particularly enlightening. Since then there have been more revelations of “peer review” hanky panky.
Since the materialists have a lock on the literature, and the power structure, the IDers might as well be Galileo struggling against the Church of Darwin. The sentence – stay at home and don’t publish – the same sentence the Roman Inquisition placed upon Galileo… imagine that.
Dave:
While on the other points you’re more or less fine, be careful with the metaphor: you’ve inadvertently painted the IDers into the corner the opposition demands (and, from my perspective, they’re generally correct). The Church didn’t say “stay at home and don’t publish,” they put him in a palace with access to resources and said PROVE IT, THEN publish (Galileo could not – at that point in time – provide proofs for his assertions). Isn’t that what the science world is about? (You understand I’m not criticizing your other points — the “team player” and IPCC points you make are excellent. They’re afraid and protecting their turf… and they’re doing it by less-than-admirable means.)
Hi Holopupenko
My apologies for Galileo… Perhaps I succumbed to the easy target of pot? kettle? black?
And speaking of “peer reviewed literatute” (twaddle), ha’ ye nae haer’d aboot “Modular Evolution“, laddie? I hadn’t until this morning but a Google search shows its gaining traction. What’s interesting is that modular evolution is another implicit admission of the inadequacy of evolution.
Links? What do you mean links? There are no missing links…
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/44284-pterosaur-discovery-points-to-modular-evolution
Natura non facit saltus
No, I was just talking about Stephen Meyer’s narrow claim/argument, which is that information e.g. in DNA lets us deduce the action of ID as the non-natural cause — because allegedly ID is the only known cause of new information/specified complexity, and there are no natural causes. Once you have cases of natural causes producing new information/specified complexity, Meyer’s argument falls to pieces.
ID in general might still be true based on some other arguments, and it is particularly hard to rule out (or in) God as the cause behind e.g. existence itself, but I wasn’t talking about those broader questions.
Nick,
Help me understand this…
If the theory that information can come from an unintelligence source is a scientific and falsifiable theory, then how is it that ID theory is neither scientific nor falsifiable?
Nick Matzke wrote:
“ID in general might still be true based on some other arguments, and it is particularly hard to rule out (or in) God as the cause behind e.g. existence itself, but I wasn’t talking about those broader questions.”
What do you personally see as GOOD arguments for ID?
Hi Nick
The argument is that the only known source of complex specified information is mind. We find a large amount of complex specified information in DNA. Recent discoveries are revealing that the information content of DNA is not limited to the genome. That information contains instruction with which organisms construct, repair, and reproduce themselves. The possibility that in the preocess of construction, repair, and reproduction some segments of the genome may be modified does not explain the source of the complex specified information which guides the construction, repair, and reproduction.
Your argument is akin to suggesting that Microsoft Windows© evolved through natural selection because we can detect different code in different instances of Microsoft Windows©. The capacity of sophisticated computer software to modify itself according to the particular environment (i.e. chipsets, motherboard, etc.) is a reflection of the intelligence of the programmer.
Tell me, why do you find the concept of a designing intelligence so intolerable that you would close your mind to such powerful evidence?
Captcha “create sensed”
A similar, yet unrelated argument, is the response to one of the naturalist’s arguments – that belief in God isn’t required to do good. Pointing out the fact that non-believers can do good without believing in God doesn’t explain the elephant in the room, which is the good.
Completely off topic, but I am so impressed with this I thought I would share it with you…
http://www.utah3d.net/panoramas/DoubleArch2_swf.html
More here
http://www.utah3d.net/panoramas/
and here
http://www.utah3d.net/
The testable theory is not some vague “unintelligence source”, it is the theory of evolution by mutation (including duplication) & selection. E.g. if evolution is the source of new information, then current genomes and genes should show signs of these mutational and selection processes having produced them. And the evidence of duplication, mutation, selection in the genomes (google e.g. selective sweeps and Dn/Ds ratios for the selection bit) is ubiquitous and everywhere and well-known to everyone who is actually in the relevant field (which does not include Stephen Meyer).
All this doesn’t *falsify* or even really *test* ID, because — as even people in this thread have stated — even if natural processes are known to be adequate, God could have intervened anyway, or God could be using natural processes so it looks totally natural, or any of a gajillion other untestable possibilities that the ID people deliberately leave open through terminal, tactical vagueness.
So, all that having a natural explanation does is (1) falsify Meyer’s *negative* claim *about evolution* (his claim that evolution cannot produce new information; note how claims about evolution are testable; but this claim is not a positive claim about ID). This does not falsify his positive claim (such as it is) about ID being involved, it just renders it unnecessary, i.e. unparsimonious.
This is an important conclusion and it does make ID less appealing to scientists, but my point is just the narrow one that saying that something is unparsimonious is not the same thing as saying that something is falsified.
This kind of response is basically implicitly admitting that evolution happens and does give rise to new genes with new functions, i.e. new genetic information — but then attempts to protect ID anyway through word games, basically by relabeling natural evolution as ID. And then not being frank about the game being played, and hoping people don’t notice. Good luck…
“Word games”?
Another example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Matzke (the pot – unscientifically bigoted against anything that challenges his views) again refuses (yes, refuses) to tell us what his personal understanding of the term “information” IS.
The IDers (the kettle – who assume they can “see” design through science) also presuppose “information” without telling us WHAT it IS. [“Infer” design? What does that mean, i.e., who or what can “infer” anything and what does that imply?]
Did it not occur to either side that once it is known WHAT information IS, “seeing” it is determined by that “whatness”?
If design is immaterial by its nature (meaning its origin is in the immaterial mind of a rational agent), then science alone is not enough to “see” design propagated through descent with modification. If design and information are reducible to the material, then the MESs alone are enough… and we should be afraid-very afraid.
Nick Matzke,
This kind of response is basically implicitly admitting that evolution happens and does give rise to new genes with new functions, i.e. new genetic information — but then attempts to protect ID anyway through word games, basically by relabeling natural evolution as ID. And then not being frank about the game being played, and hoping people don’t notice. Good luck…
It’s not really a word game to point out that intelligent agents absolutely and certainly use and design natural processes (including evolutionary ones!) for purposes and goals – and then to ask on what grounds we suppose that “natural evolution” is fundamentally different from demonstrably real intelligent design. What I’m saying here is that expressing surprise and dismay that people are finding intelligence and design in the “natural” world shouldn’t come as a shock. It’s in large part a reaction to past and present scientists and academics banishing intelligence and design from the “natural” world. And, frankly, doing so either with horrible arguments (“Bad design”), or no arguments at all. (And ‘it just is’ really is a stellar example of having no argument.)
All this doesn’t *falsify* or even really *test* ID, because — as even people in this thread have stated — even if natural processes are known to be adequate, God could have intervened anyway, or God could be using natural processes so it looks totally natural, or any of a gajillion other untestable possibilities that the ID people deliberately leave open through terminal, tactical vagueness.
Probably true. However, naturalists leave these same doors open. They leave open the possibility that things can occur with no cause at all, that we live in a (unguided, of course) multiverse, that we are extremely lucky, etc. Anything someone can claim an intelligent can do, a naturalist can and will claim non-intelligent forces can do. I think Holopupenko is on to something when he points out that these really are pot-kettle situations (meaning in the broader sense, not against you in particular.)
Hi Joseph A:
Thanks for that excellent critique of Nick’s comments… and thanks for obliquely reminding me I owe you an expansion on a previous comment. Could you please remind me (reference) where that is?
Hello Nick
“This kind of response is basically…” erecting the usual ’straw man’ argument that ID and creation assert ‘fixity’ of species. In the case of ID no such assertion is made, and in the case of creation the assertion is qualified with the caveat that “species” is not synonymous with the created “kind”. Since time immemorial humans have bred plants and animals for particular qualities, so absolute fixity is, and always has been, a fiction conveniently co-opted for ’straw man’ arguments such as this.
Like the term evolution, “species” is a very ambiguous word, and we have observed and documented cross-species, and even cross-genus, hybridization. Even within the human classification of “species” we observe and document an incredible degree of variation (Darwin’s pigeons for example). These observations indicate that the human classification of “species” may not be as definitive as you apparently believe. Rapid Speciation
This kind of response is basically implicitly admitting that evolution happens and does give rise to new genes with new functions,[...]
Your “new” gene with new functions was formed, if it formed at all, from pre-existing genetic material within a matrix of functionally integrated construction and repair mechanisms. Even allowing for the claim, in no way substantiated, that this is a “new” gene, you run headlong into the probabilistic limits of forming the 25,000 plus genes in the human genome alone by chance mutation – and that doesn’t even begin to account for the epigenetic regulation of construction, function, and repair.
[...] but then attempts to protect ID anyway through word games, basically by relabeling natural evolution as ID.[...]
If making observations and basing hypotheses upon those observations, hypotheses which may be tested and falsified, is “playing word games”, then, yes, I am playing word games. But word games are far better than the dogmatic materialism you are proselytizing.
Sure, someone can vaguely claim that some unknown natural process can do something, but this is not what scientists are doing in the case of the origin of new information. Instead, we are citing a well-known, well-understood, well-evidenced, well-published natural mechanism, i.e. gene duplication + mutation + selection. The ID people IGNORE this known mechanism and keep on blithely, blindly asserting that the only known source of new information is intelligence, despite direct, vivid, published contradiction.
Heh. It’s you creationists/ID people who think that all 25,000 genes (more like 23,000 according to the latest estimates) had to have formed all at once, not the evolutionary biologists. In reality, virtually all of these genes are shared with other primates, and declining portions are many are shared with e.g. invertebrates, plants, single-celled eukaryotes, archaea, bacteria, and viruses. The genes arose piecemeal, not all at once (with some exceptions, i.e. there is evidence of two whole-genome duplications through polyploidy in the common ancestor of fishes + tetrapods).
So far, no one has given any reason why any scientist should disbelieve the evidence that natural processes can give rise to new genes with new functions. Until this changes, Meyer is sunk, and so is his argument that information only comes from an intelligent cause.
Tom: My jaw dropped at how ignorant Nick’s latest rant is against ID. He is so blinded by his own arrogance and fear of criticism that even the most straight-forward response by Dave is greeted with anti-intellectual bigotry (conflating creationism with ID) masquerading as scholarship. Really: what possible straw man gymnastics animated the jump from Dave’s “chance” as improbable cause to “formed all at once”? How many times has he been called to explain what “information” is, yet all we see is Monty Pythonesque “run away!” Speaking as neutrally as possible from the pedagogical perspective, no self-respecting biology department could hope to be proud of such deficient “reasoning,” and Berkeley should be shamed for admitting him… unless, of course, they share the same widely-held anti-scientific ideology of evolutionism.
I believe even Harry G. Frankfurt would be stunned at the audacity of the BS.
Didn’t you know, Holo, that information IS physical matter arranged in a particular way? That new information IS merely a new arrangement? That thoughts and ideas ARE unique arrangements of brain cells?
We know that the brain creates new information. Parsimony requires that YOU – the intelligent creater – be removed from the creation of this new information, just like parsimony requires the same when it comes to new information created at the cellular level. Natural processes can explain it all. Evolutionary mechanisms, you know. There’s no room for YOU in the explanation. The scientific method has demonstrated it to be true.
Nick Matzke,
Sure, someone can vaguely claim that some unknown natural process can do something, but this is not what scientists are doing in the case of the origin of new information. Instead, we are citing a well-known, well-understood, well-evidenced, well-published natural mechanism, i.e. gene duplication + mutation + selection. The ID people IGNORE this known mechanism and keep on blithely, blindly asserting that the only known source of new information is intelligence, despite direct, vivid, published contradiction.
Again, Nick: I’m not disputing the presence of those papers, or even of those mechanisms. What I’m disputing is that jump from “we have identified a mechanism that can take place in nature” to “and that means intelligence wasn’t involved!” But intelligent agents demonstrably can and do create and use “natural mechanisms” to accomplish things. Again, they’ve even made use of evolutionary mechanisms and processes. Do you see why this adds up to a stunning problem for anyone who would claim that identifying a natural process capable of achieving X means that X took place sans-intelligence?
Remember that I’m largely responding here to your complaint that ID proponents are in effect turning “natural evolution” into another instance of ID. My response was that they have some grounds to do so, especially given that their naturalist opponents (the kettle to their pot) dig in their heels and say “if nature did it, intelligence wasn’t involved”. With little to no argument.
Heh. It’s you creationists/ID people who think that all 25,000 genes (more like 23,000 according to the latest estimates) had to have formed all at once, not the evolutionary biologists.
Equating ID with creationism, especially this sort of creationism, is one of the major complaints of ID boosters. You yourself know (given your posts in this thread) that ID views go vastly beyond this caricature. So why say this?
Holopupenko,
It was a question I had back at post 28 in this thread. And thank you for the reminder, I really was curious to read your views on that.
Hi Nick
Heh. It’s you creationists/ID people
Q. What common attribute do creation and ID possess that so disturbs the placid psyche of homo intellectualis, that spurs him to conflate the two, and drives him to evermore strident denunciations of both?
A. Teleology – the declaration that purpose and design are evident in nature. The end of teleology is the emancipation of homo intellectualis; “and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=2PFnDIA2-SYC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=%22end+of+teleology%22&source=bl&ots=8W11x-7Dmq&sig=s3DXyREsyTNaSc–UyOvoZoZxPk&hl=en&ei=dYJxS4OONsqknQfPxJ2JCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22Nietzsche%E2%80%99s%20object%22&f=false
(p. 84 end)
who think that all 25,000 genes (more like 23,000 according to the latest estimates)
Don’t be pedantic…
In reality, virtually all of these genes are shared with other primates, and declining portions are many are shared with e.g. invertebrates, plants, single-celled eukaryotes, archaea, bacteria, and viruses.
The car you drive (or perhaps you ride a bicycle), the books you read, the house you inhabit, all share common components. That does not mean that they derive from “natural” causes. The assumption of common descent does not follow from the observation of similar components. The argument from “irreducible complexity”, while too reductionist for my taste, demonstrates this fallacy.
IMO life itself is irreducibly complex; the search for irreducibly complex components is akin to overlooking the forest for all the trees. Reductionism confesses that we can know the whole from the parts alone, but it is only in context of the whole that the parts have significance.
The genes arose piecemeal, not all at once (with some exceptions, i.e. there is evidence of two whole-genome duplications through polyploidy in the common ancestor of fishes + tetrapods).
The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)http://www.tbiomed.com/content/6/1/27
There exists a distinctive disposition in homo intellectualis to approve any plausible hypothesis, no matter how improbable, so long as that hypothesis denies teleology. Teleology is the defining attribute which conjoins creationism and ID, and it is teleology which the naturalist must overcome if he is to attain the god-like autonomy he so desperately seeks.
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/casey.html
Did it ever occur to Nick that when he denies teleology he does so (a) pseudo-scientifically (i.e., he’s misappropriating the findings of science to draw non-MES conclusions), (b) that science itself is one of the most teleological of human endeavors, i.e., our goal or purpose (at least for critical thinkers) is to seek truth, (c ) if the non-rational (as opposed to irrational) parts of nature don’t display any directedness (i.e., any teleonomy) then there is no reason for doing science (which tries to find causes and principles… which presupposes consistency and directedness), and finally (d) if rational agents don’t act teleologically, then what possible end, purpose, or intention could Nick have in trying to convince us to buy his disordered ideas? To what possible end? Why? Does he have an intention in mind? Isn’t he acting with great strength of purpose? Doesn’t he utilize (and hence affirm) that which he tries so vainly to deny?
“Thinking” not thought through… spiced with arrogance and bigotry and fear.
Nick Matzke:
The gene duplication process presumes the existence of genes and that in turn presumes an existing coding convention mapping codons to functional sequences of encoded end products i.e. RNA or amino acids of proteins. Citing gene duplication as a mechanism does not explain the origin of information. It presumes molecular components required to transmit and store the information laden in nucleic acids.
What’s the name for the logical fallacy which presumes the existence of a consequence in order to prove that consequence?
Off topic: there’s an interesting blog post at (http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2010/02/making-of-atheist-how-immorality-leads.html) on the psycho-pathology known as atheism. Atheism, it turns out (though not surprisingly) to be irrational not only in and of itself, but “practiced” by people who are themselves irrational and intellectually dishonest (witness DL’s, Matzke’s, Geoff’s, and other atheist commentators’ obsessive-compulsive equivocations of creationism with ID) as animated by their atheism. Perhaps, Tom, it would make for a “lively” discussion if you were to produce a post commenting on the Spiegel book.
Hi Holopupenko
This reminds me of an essay I read a couple of years ago, “The Psychology of Atheism” by Professor Paul C. Vitz. I sent it to a guy who was lecturing me about “wishful thinking” and belief in God. He went ballistic on me. Go figure…
8^>
I guess they don’t like having the shoe on the other foot.
reCaptcha “many overcame”
Just up at ENV
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/judge_joness_misguided_ncsescr.html#more
Congratulations Nick!
Didn’t I say “intellectually dishonest”?
I’ve always wondered about the phrase intellectually dishonest. The qualifier is absolutely redundant. Have you ever met someone who is physically dishonest? Neither have I.
So I have two theories about the origin of the phrase. One is that it was invented by academics who were too timid to call their opponent simply dishonest for fear of being kicked in the rear. Saying My dear opponent, you are intellectually dishonest sort of softens the insult by shifting the accusation of dishonesty from the person to his intellectual position. The problem with this theory is that I haven’t heard this phrase in academe.
The other theory is that it was invented by populists, for pretty much the same reasons.
olegt:
It’s an intentional oxymoron (how’s that for redundancy?) — like “wise atheist” — and I used it to that effect.
With regard to (your implication of) the PC that continues to ravage much of secular academia (re: “dishonest”), you’re pretty much spot on. Evolution-ISM is only one of many examples.
(Did you understand I’m NOT critiquing any of the neo-Darwinian theories out there but the unscientific and pseudo-philosophical interpretations of the findings… like the Copenhagen-ISM imposed upon the branch of science known as quantum mechanics?)
Thanks for that info in comment 70, Dave, as I catch up near the end of another busy week.
Nick complains that ID people ignore what evolutionists say:
Then he writes this:
That’s not an ID position, Nick, and there is direct, vivid, published contradiction available to it. Holopupenko’s jaw dropped when he read it. If I weren’t so used to Nick’s apparently intentional misrepresentations of ID, I would have had the same reaction.
And this just moments after the pot-kettle-black issue was raised.
And then this!
Meyer’s case with respect to OOL, that no evidence has been given that natural processes can give rise to new genes with new functions, is bolstered quite solidly by the fact that really nobody has ever brought forth any solid evidence that natural processes can do that.
As for evolution of living systems and new information, the evolutionists’ case remains very weak. It’s like looking in a pile of scrambled letters for Shakespeare’s Hamlet, finding “weasel,” and pronouncing victory.
I see that Nick continues to beat the drum over at Telic Thoughts.
Do those published studies explain the origin of this new information from old information via the cogs and wheels of the evolutionary mechanism, Nick? If so, nobody really cares to make a fuss about that. It bothers nobody on the ID side of the aisle that new information comes from old information via some mechanism. Computers do that all the time. We’re interested in new information coming from non-information. We’re interested in explaining the ‘operating system’ that governs the mechanism, and the evolutionary mechanism doesn’t explain that. What do those published studies have to say about this?
Isn’t it just precious how naturalists, when confronted with intellectual honest critiques of their point of view, respond with irrelevancies, such as the rhetorical validity of a word or phrase?
But speaking of “physically dishonest” – I suppose it depends upon the meaning of the term dishonest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmDTtkZlMwM
Irrelevancies, followed by the obligatory ad hominum….
Although I am not sure what the relevance of “populism”, a political phenomenon, is to the discussion of ID and evolution. One would hope that the discussion could remain within the bounds of philosophical and evidentiary arguments.