So because our class discussion tonight left me curious about several things (and thanks to Hannah’s encouragement) I’m trying out the message board for the first time… First off I just want to say, I don’t know very much about the Intelligent Design point of view, (or even if there is one standard point of view), but I’m curious about it, which is why I’m taking this class. So, if I say something that mischaracterizes it, please correct me, and also I’d be eager to get a summary of the general ID outlook/stance/point of view. Anyways, tonight we were discussing Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and the arguments that came up included:
-What are Behe’s motives? He states several times that he believes in descent with modification, yet the cover of the book calls it a “challenge to evolution” and in many places in the book it seems he is suggesting his arguments undermine evolution, a.k.a., (as we defined it in class today) descent with modification.
-What ARE the implications of his arguments? Most everyone agreed that even if we decided to grant them all as true, it would have little bearing on 95% of evolutionary biology. Also, that questions about the origin of life are kind of a fringe area of evolutionary biology that aren’t necessary to answer in order to continue with the rest of it… and questions about how particular molecular processes came to be kind of fall into that same category with the origin of life. Even if we said, ah yes, okay, these molecular processes that Behe outlines are the instances where the intelligent designer stepped in, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists could still continue on with their research and their arguments unharmed. Hannah disagreed however, and said she did think his arguments may imply an alternate explanation to descent with modification. One of my questions is, what is this alternate explanation and how do Behe’s arguments support it? (unfortunately the discussion moved on before I got a chance to ask you about it in class, hannah)
-If, again, we accept Behe’s arguments, and say that these molecular processes are a product of intelligent design, is that a dead end? One argument was that it is, that the possibility for further research and exploration about the origin of these processes is closed. Other people said no, that it’s not an end, that it opens up other sorts of questions. Again, I’m curious, what sorts of questions do you then ask, or what research do you do, if you accept that something has been designed?
-Finally, we didn’t actually get into Behe’s actual descriptions of molecular processes and “machines”, or address his actual argument that they are “irreducibly complex” and could not have come about through any other means than design. I guess it’s true that no one in the class really has the biochemistry background necessary for the challenge, but I’m still very curious to hear the theories that more qualified people have about how these processes could have come about without being designed…
Behe from an editorial titled “Darwin under the Microscope” available at arn.org:
“I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word “evolution” carries many associations. Usually it means common descent — the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn’t explain the vast differences among species.”
Behe thinks intelligent designers slowly tweaked DNA code to turn monkeys into humans over many generations. But he thinks the intelligent designers made the cell out of various nano propellers, motors, and trucks in one shot.
Comment by alienward — July 12, 2006 @ 12:09 am
Well, Elena, there are many ways to look at ‘evolution’. That there exist equivocal meanings of ‘evolution’ causes no small amount of problems in the Darwinist/ID debate.
First, there is common understanding of ‘evolution’ which comes from looking at the fossil record where we see a progression of forms appearing over time. This is, more or less, a ‘fact.’ So people go around saying “evolution isn’t a theory; it’s a fact.” This is all they really mean when they say that, and many, if not most, IDers don’t dispute this. But, there are other meanings.
Then there is ‘evolution’ as descent with modification–which is just another, but slightly different, way of characterizing the fossil record. The fossil record is strongly suggestive of ‘common descent’. So, then, the idea of ‘common descent’, being linked as it is with the fossil record, might ‘feel’ like a fact, there are some who quibble with this. (Ten years ago I would have said it is a fact; nowadays, I think this very likely so, but I await further confirmations and such)
But now there’s the third meaning of evolution, and this is what might be called ‘micro-evolution’, where species diversify over particular geographic regions and overlapping eco-systems. Now note this, natural selection is pretty much conceded to be operating at this level by many, if not most, IDers. But this is ‘micro-evolution’, and is pretty much contained under the rubric of ‘adaptations’. Species ‘adapt’ to their environment. Since environments vary, species then vary. Yet, this leaves open the question of whence does major phylogenetic change arise.
So, finally, there is what might be termed ‘progressive evolution’, which, over and above mere adaptation, involves major changes in body-plans, and is often referred to as ‘macro-evolution’. Here’s where the argument starts. Darwinists allege that random mutation, along with natural selection, is sufficient to explain these major changes. IDers, based on probabilites which are themselves a by-product of microbiology, and, specifically, transcription of DNA leading to protein synthesis, answer that the probabilities of such a thing happening ‘randomly’ is almost infinitely small, and, hence, extremely unlikely. And, that, further, based on the ‘genetic code’, and what we know about coding in general (think of computer programs here), seems to clearly represent the output of some intelligence.
I hope this, at least, helps put the spotlight on where the debate is taking place.
Comment by Lino D'Ischia — July 12, 2006 @ 12:52 am
Thanks for writing, Elena! It was fun seeing a new post here :)
To clarify from class: I don’t think Behe’s arguments imply (in any sort of logical sense) any deviation from standard ‘descent with modification’, and I believe (as he states in the book) that most (perhaps all) of what evolutionary biologists do wouldn’t be affected at all even if it was accepted into mainstream biology.
The caveat to that is that if you consider the strength of the case for descent with modification to be dependent on whether or not we have a mechanism for the modification (Warren doesn’t, and I don’t think Behe does; but some other people do) it could affect your evaluation of descent with modification.
The argument then would be like this: “descent with modification + natural selection and the other mechanisms for modification listed last week” constitutes the best and most parsimonious explanation for the variety of life we see around us– if it works. It doesn’t, so the new explanation is “descent with modification + natural selection and the other mechanisms for modification listed last week + design in patches”. This isn’t a terribly parsimonious explanation, so if (and that is the crucial part) descent with modification isn’t independently well-supported, intelligent design without descent with modification might be the better explanation.
That’s why Warren was upset about how the book was being “used” for the “wrong purposes” (i.e., creationism). But if you think that the non-mechanism related evidence is strong on its own, then Behe’s arguments don’t do anything to affect descent with modification.
Actually intelligent design theory as a whole doesn’t take any position on descent with modification or the question of common descent. As far as I can tell the fuss over it is just over the question of bringing the concept of design into biology at all.
Comment by Hannah — July 12, 2006 @ 1:10 am
Regarding evaluating the biochemistry:
I will try not to mention this too much, but this 3 page essay is basically required reading for evaluating Behe’s immune system chapter:
Bottaro, Andrea, Inlay, Matt A., and Matzke, Nicholas J. (2006). “Immunology in the spotlight at the Dover ‘Intelligent Design’ trial.” Nature Immunology. 7(5), 433-435.
The article is free on the NI website. Supplementary Material for the essay (including a long, and a longer, bibliography of immune system literature), and related information, is available at the links listed here.
Comment by Nick (Matzke) — July 12, 2006 @ 1:21 am
Again, I’m curious, what sorts of questions do you then ask, or what research do you do, if you accept that something has been designed?
That’s a very interesting question.
Behe has testified under oath that he believes the designer is his deity which, if I have my ID proponents straight, is the “God” of Catholic Christians.
So, if I understand the “ID heuristic,” if presented with a biological question, i.e., what activities of this enzyme are important to this cell or what activities of this organ are important to this animal, Behe might approach the question as a scientist would approach the question.
But if asked, “How did this enzyme and the enzymes it interacts with evolve throughout the history of life on earth and what is its evolutionary relationship to enzyme x, y or z,” Behe would presumably flick the question away as a pointless exercise. He has his answer.
The more puzzling question is, since Behe’s entire argument is based on scientist’s current lack of understanding of the detailed molecule by molecule evolution of cells and their molecular components, where does Behe draw the line with respect to his skepticism? In other words, if intelligent designers (or Behe’s deity) are in fact tweaking things and creating molecules without anyone being able to reproducibly measure and study these events, then how does Behe propose that we study anything scientifically? Or is it the case that we should include a disclaimer in every scientific paper: “Or the intelligent designers did it”?
Moreover, if Behe is right about intelligent designers and their tweaking but wrong about his belief that his deity is the sole designer, then the search for the designing force used by these intelligent beings would seem to be of paramount interest to scientists.
I realize the course is just starting but it must not have escaped the attention of the participants that scientists are, in fact, profoundly uninterested in searching for this designing force. Surely there is an explanation for the lack of interest.
I guess it’s true that no one in the class really has the biochemistry background necessary for the challenge, but I’m still very curious to hear the theories that more qualified people have about how these processes could have come about without being designed…
Do you mean the particular processes that Behe has identified? Or are you interested in theories about how any other novel cellular activity may have evolved without an intelligent entity purposefully intervening?
Comment by Michael Hubl — July 12, 2006 @ 1:45 am
Lino Darwinists allege that random mutation, along with natural selection, is sufficient to explain these major changes. IDers, based on probabilites which are themselves a by-product of microbiology, and, specifically, transcription of DNA leading to protein synthesis, answer that the probabilities of such a thing happening ‘randomly’ is almost infinitely small, and, hence, extremely unlikely.
I think there is a problem here with the concept of randomness which merely indicates that variation does not preferentially arise as beneficial to the environment but rather that variation contains neutral, beneficial and detrimental mutations.
Random as used here by Lino suggest chance or something we do not understand. In fact, as I have argued elsewhere, selection itself can be applied to the mechanisms of variation and thus mechanisms which in the past have shown to be ‘more succesful’ are likely to increase in prevalence. Good examples are the biases in codon mutations or the hypermutations.
Furthermore, the term Darwinist seems somewhat outdated but let me assure you that even Darwin accepted that selection was not the only evolutionary force, although he considered in one of the more important ones.
Hope this helps clarify the scientific position on evolutionary thought and theory.
Lino
And, that, further, based on the ‘genetic code’, and what we know about coding in general (think of computer programs here), seems to clearly represent the output of some intelligence.
That is at most an argument from analogy which is one of the weakest forms of logical arguments. This is especially so since science has uncovered many aspects of the genetic code which help understand its origins and evolution in more detail than one would consider possible given the 4 billion age of the original ‘code’.
In fact, I’d argue that the indirect code is unique in the sense that mutations happen at the sequence level and selection at the phenotype level. Or in other words, there is the genotype phenotype mapping which adds a unique property to the genetic code.
Comment by PvM — July 12, 2006 @ 1:47 am
Hannah
It doesn’t, so the new explanation is “descent with modification + natural selection and the other mechanisms for modification listed last week + design in patches”. This isn’t a terribly parsimonious explanation, so if (and that is the crucial part) descent with modification isn’t independently well-supported, intelligent design without descent with modification might be the better explanation.
This does not make sense to me.
Whatever your opinion regarding the evidence for descent with modification, there is quite a bit (literally tons, if you weight the paper the data is documented on) of evidence that is consistent with the theory.
In contrast, the positive evidence for intelligent creatures who are capable of designing entire planet’s worth of life forms (and I suppose planets themselves, why not?) is … nil. Is it not? Have I missed somewhere the evidence which suggests that such entities exist?
Assuming that my impression that there is no evidence for such awe-inspiring (indeed, “God-like”) entities, then proposing such entities as creators of all the life forms on earth — with no help from naturally occuring mutations and selection — is hardly “parsimonious.”
At the very least, if your argument is that only intelligent designers could have made such “stunningly complex” structures as the bacterial flagella, then surely the intelligent designers must have required super-duper intelligent designers to design them. And there is even less evidence for the super-duper intelligent designers than for the ordinary intelligent designers.
So who decides when to invoking intelligent designers is no longer reasonable? Or is it not a question of reason?
Comment by Michael Hubl — July 12, 2006 @ 2:03 am
Greetings Elena,
Regarding Behe’s motivation and background, his main aim is to lay out what he believes is true. As the title suggests, he lays his case out by challenging the adequacy of Blind Watchmaker evolution to explain biochemical complexity. The topic of intelligent design is a secondary topic, occupying 25% of the remainder of the book…
Behe received his PhD from an Ivy League school, became a faculty member at Lehigh, and then came across a purely secular book by Australian geneticist Michael Denton. Up until that point, Behe accepted the Blind Watchmaker hypothesis. However after reading Denton’s book, Evolution a Theory in Crisis, he changed his mind.
Behe is not a creationist, but his inclination is that the complexity of life was possibly “front-loaded” into the first life forms via an outside intelligence. He actually seems somewhat agnostic to the actual details of how life unfolded on Earth.
The ID hypothesis makes the very modest claim that biology is consistent with an intelligent origin rather the work of a Blind Watchmaker. The ID hypothesis does not identify the nature of the Intelligent Designer except to say it is intelligent. That’s not to say the question isn’t interesting, and it’s not to say the question might not have an answer, ID theory simply does not attempt to answer that question.
So who is the Designer? And are there Designers who would be able to help create life? Granted ID theory does not answer that question, but ID theory becomes more believable if there is a designer. So I personally never shy away from that question.
My answer for the Designer’s possible identity comes from physics. There have been substantial developments in physics in the past 2 decades that suggest some sort of Ultimate Intelligence is responsible for the universe. These deductions are from physical law alone, especially Quantum Mechanics and Thermodynamics. The fact that physics suggest the existence of some Ultimate Intelligence suggests that there is a Designer with the ability to create life.
I should emphasize, what I just said, is my own view, and it is not necessarily the view of other ID proponents, nor is such a view necessary to understand ID, nor does ID theory even require that such an All-Powerful Intelligence exist. I simply offer this fact as something to consider.
The existence of an Ultimate Intelligence is consistent with some people’s religious beliefs. I do not deny that. But the premises for the existence of the Ultimate Intelligence is argued from physical law alone, with no reference to religious text or authority.
Salvador
PS
FYI: World class physicist John Barrow actually won a 1.4 million dollar prize recently because of his work the issue of an Ultimate Intelligence and on his research into the fine tuning of the universe.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — July 12, 2006 @ 2:22 am
Michael–
How much there is or isn’t is irrelevant here; my statement was purely hypothetical. Yes, I know you can’t quite see the point of a hypothetical like that; but it has to do with a rather involved class discussion I don’t think I can condense here.
Right now you’ll just have to take it at face value; as a description of what hypothetical situation could turn this “challenge to the origin of biochemical pathyways” to a challenge of descent with modification. A hypothetical, though, which Behe and many others completely reject.
Another time we’ll have a debate on whether the evidence supports descent with modification or not. Right now that’s offtopic.
Comment by Hannah — July 12, 2006 @ 9:14 am
Salvadore wrote:
“He [Behe] actually seems somewhat agnostic to the actual details of how life unfolded on Earth.” (emphasis added)
Darwin’s Black Box (DBB), pg. 176: “…I believe the evidence [of cladistic nucleotide and amino acid sequence comparison] strongly supports common descent.”
This isn’t “agnostic”, this is pretty definite, IMO. That is, nothing in DBB even begins to undermine either Darwin’s original theory of descent with modification nor current macroevolutionary theory.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 12, 2006 @ 10:03 am
Well said, Elena! I of course agree, but even more importantly, your views seem cogent and logical.
I hope more members of the class follow your lead, and feel free to share their views for and against ID - as opposed to hearing just from the same small group of usual individuals.
Comment by Dan — July 12, 2006 @ 10:16 am
Funny, whenever ID is shown to be lacking in evidence and whenever IC (behe) or CSI (Dembski) is shown to be flawed concepts, Sal quickly moves the discussion to Quantum Theory and some very speculative arguments.
Let’s stick to the topic shall we and examine the arguments by Behe…
We can evaluate Sal’s arguments, which sound very much like appeals to authority more than appeals to science, at a later date. Needless to say, neither ID’s appeals to CSI, IC etc nor Sal’s appeals to physics have much relevance to ID’s basic thesis.
As far as the identity of the designer is concerned, it should be clear that according to ID’s own thesis, it resides outside of nature (wink wink).
ID’s claims that its approaches are also succesfully used to identify natural intelligent designers such as in archaeology, criminology are fallacious.
Let’s not forget that ID is mostly an argument from elimination and analogies, both are very weak arguments for obvious reasons.
Since ID is unwilling to present any ID relevant hypothesis beyond the negative ones against evolutionary science, it should be clear that despite the impressive sounding ‘arguments’, ID remains scientifically vacuous.
In the case of Behe, the fact that his argument is against Darwinian theory (natural selection) adds no credibility to ID, secondly since Behe admits that indirect pathways exist, although he rejects them somewhat ad hoc as improbable, undermine the reliability of irreducible complexity. And if that is not enough the insistence that IC systems maintain an original function, limits the plausible pathways in an artificial manner, just because co-option in evolution is a common event…
Comment by PvM — July 12, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
Darwin’s Black Box (DBB), pg. 176: “…I believe the evidence [of cladistic nucleotide and amino acid sequence comparison] strongly supports common descent.”
This isn’t “agnostic”, this is pretty definite, IMO. That is, nothing in DBB even begins to undermine either Darwin’s original theory of descent with modification nor current macroevolutionary theory.
This all depends on what you think Behe is proposing instead. Behe explicitly makes the connections to no natural process, and to divine intervention, and if you have divine intervention “poofing” genes and proteins into existence, isn’t that basically special creation, i.e. not common ancestry at least for those bits of genetic material?
(Behe makes one other suggestion, i.e. his front-loaded “supercell” idea, but he seems to have abandoned it as unworkable.)
Comment by nmatzke — July 12, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
I should point out Behe has recently clarified his positions on common ancestry and the age of the earth in the conservative theist magazine First Things.
Behe on common ancestry
In a December 2005 essay, he wrote,
How could anyone possibly be confused by that?
Behe on the age of the earth
In March 2006, Behe replied to letters on his December 2005 piece. One was from a theistic evolutionist, and another was from a young-earth creationist who wrote,
I quote Behe’s response in full:
Like I said, how could anyone possibly be confused?
Comment by nmatzke — July 12, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
whoops, another post in the spam buffer
Comment by nmatzke — July 12, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
Hopefully not. I think it opens the door to discovering biological designs which cannot be well described through the lens of Natural Selection, but can best be interpreted in terms of designs with foresight and purpose. Here are examples where the Darwinian perspective of “reproductive fitness” is less effective than a teleological perspective in characterizing biology. (see: Airplane magnetos, contingency designs, and reasons ID will prevail.) In fact there are examples in biology where complexity exists to such a level that makes the organism slightly less fit than simpler creatures (i.e. compare the extinction rate of birds to bacteria in the last 100 years).
Some argument could be made that a design perspective would have speeded the investigation of non-coding DNA’s function. There are probably many designs that are not consistent with natural selection, and can be better detected with things like ID’s Explanatory Filter.
But to flip the coin over, assume we prove Blind Watchmaker process create biology. Is that a dead end?
The questions change, it becomes one of identifying designs which elude the net of natural selection but which would make sense in terms of design, and in terms of a Designer possible architecting life to be amenable to scientific discovery and elucidation.
The following idea is still in it’s infancy, but I invite you to consider what the Design Perspective may offer biology:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — July 12, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
In regards to comment #16:
Why would an intelligent designer purposefully create complex organisms if simple ones are go extinct less often? Furthermore, why don’t these birds that are going extinct just tap into their front-loaded, hidden data set and regain their ability to fly in a couple of generations (Moa and other extinct flghtless birds)?
Comment by Mike Hannigan — July 12, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
Question: What sort of scientific discovery will win the war for ID?
Answer: Something that will bring healing to the sick and make money for the biotech industry.
If this is the case, then why do ID proponents insist on reciting the debunked (or even retracted) claims of Behe and Dembski?
All you need to do is find a scientist who has made an important discovery and pay the scientist to say, “I made this discovery with ‘intelligent design’ theory,” and make sure that the scientist’s message is spread throughout the land (i.e., by issuing press releases, arranging appearances on prominent TV and radio programs, magazine and newspaper interviews, etc.).
That is how ideological “wars” and political battles are won.
I’m not aware of any scientific controversy that was won in this fashion however. And the fact that life on earth evolved and natural selection was involved in that process is only “controversial” in the minds of a handful of ID proponents and the lay people who are ignorant of the science. In the real world of scientists, there is no controversy about the fundamental mechanisms which causes the life forms on earth to slowly change over the centuries.
Comment by Michael Hubl — July 13, 2006 @ 2:30 am
Hannah
How much there is or isn’t is irrelevant here; my statement was purely hypothetical.
I know your statement was hypothetical.
Your analysis of what is parsimonious according to your stated hypothetical is what does not make sense to me, Hannah.
Introducing intelligent beings who have the power to create everything from scratch is not more parsimonious than introducing intelligent beings who merely tweak things here and there.
If anything, the explanations are equally parsimonious since they both invoke entities (intelligent non-humans with extraordinary powers of creation) for which no evidence exists.
Comment by Michael Hubl — July 13, 2006 @ 2:39 am
Why would an intelligent designer purposefully create complex organisms if simple ones are go extinct less often?
Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Cordova appear to be answering this sort of question in more or less the same way in the comments here: to provide humans with something to think about (e.g., “was this extinction part of the plan of the intelligent designers?”)
I personally do not find it a very satisfying answer and Mr. Bartlett, at least, has indicated that such questions are theological and not scientific.
Comment by Michael Hubl — July 13, 2006 @ 2:44 am
See here for some questions that can be asked from a design perspective which make no sense in terms of Blind Watchmakers:
Marsupials and Placentals: a case of front-loaded, pre-programmed, designed evolution?
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — July 13, 2006 @ 3:04 am
In regards to post #21:
It should be noted that the article Salvador is referencing you to view is not research, and doesn’t prove anything at all. As the author, Salvador states, it is “a potential area of ID research. Who knows how long it may take to uncover, but here is where Explanatory Filter (EF) methods may help and where IDers can make a killer breakthrough for their theory if they succeed. There will be money, fame, and glory if this enigma is solved by IDers.”
So where is the proof?
Comment by Mike Hannigan — July 13, 2006 @ 11:10 am
Mike, you have hit the nail right on its head. Not only does Sal fails to show that these questions are in anyway related to intelligent design, but he also fails to recognize that ID would be competing with evolutionary explanations here.
Once again, the claim that ID has something to contribute in understanding the evolution of marsupials/mammals is a claim that remains unsupported by any logic or argument.
And that my friends is why ID is scientifically vacuous.
Comment by PvM — July 13, 2006 @ 11:40 am
However, Salvador’s focus on the parallel evolution of marsupials and placental mammals does suggest a very intriguing (and I’m guessing very productive) avenue of future research for evo-devo types who are interested in the connections beween homeotic gene regulation and the generation of body plans among the higher taxa of vertebrates.
An exercise for the reader: guess which research program is more likely to get solid empirical results that support their hypotheses?
(Answer: The research program in which people actually do empirical research.)
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 13, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
-If, again, we accept Behe’s arguments, and say that these molecular processes are a product of intelligent design, is that a dead end? One argument was that it is, that the possibility for further research and exploration about the origin of these processes is closed. Other people said no, that it’s not an end, that it opens up other sorts of questions. Again, I’m curious, what sorts of questions do you then ask, or what research do you do, if you accept that something has been designed?
Mark L. Psiaki, faculty advisor of the IDEA Club at Cornell University, addressed that on the IDEA Club’s blog, The Design Paradigm:
…
The principle of irreducible complexity does not give one all of biology, but if true, it serves to divert the biologist from wasting time by trying to answer a question to which there is no scientific answer.
That sounds to me like a “science stopper” and a “dead end” of the worst sort.
Comment by ivy privy — July 15, 2006 @ 11:49 am
Thanks for all the comments and answers! Nick, I found the article on immunology very interesting, and Michael, you asked: “Do you mean the particular processes that Behe has identified? Or are you interested in theories about how any other novel cellular activity may have evolved without an intelligent entity purposefully intervening?”
Well reading Behe’s book is what made me initally curious, but yes, I’d be very interested to learn about evolutionary theories for any cell activities. Also, Hannah, thanks for the clarification. Sorry this is out of date, it’s a little hard to keep up with all the posts between class and work and paper writing, etc. etc.
Comment by Elena — July 26, 2006 @ 1:19 pm