Why the discussion tonight was singularly futile . . .
. . . or, how not to address an argument.
I’m in major disagreement with almost everyone here, not only because of different points of view on the issues discussed, but also on the far more fundamental matter of the relevance of those issues to the whole discussion. So this is commentary and opinion, not class notes :).
We had a fun, spirited discussion; with lively participation from people on both sides. But in spite of that I maintain that we didn’t manage to make any headway at all–that, in spite of two hours of earnest discussion, our class session was singularly futile– and that this was because we couldn’t bring ourselves to address the content of the book at all.
There are three things you can do when faced with an idea with which you disagree. You can (1) ignore it, and use ad hominem attacks to explain why we shouldn’t be listening to the people who hold that idea anyway. You can (2) address it fully, and, examining its logical base, attempt to make a cogent, compelling case for why it fails. Or you can (3) use a healthy dose of imagination to decide what the disputant meant to be arguing, explain why that is illogical, and then, for good measure, lambast him for equivocating on the point he was “really, secretly” intending to make.
Our class is making– or trying to make– a strong statement against the first. But tonight we managed to get stuck in the third, and somehow failed to get to the middle one at all.
No one meant to make things up; and everyone is certain that their version of Behe is the one that matches reality. But there is something rather doubtful when everyone is so absolutely certain that they know exactly what Michael Behe thinks and intends, even if he doesn’t say it, and even if he categorically denies it several times over in the book.
What does evolution mean? The word appears on our book covers: Darwin’s Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. Behe defines the way he uses the word in the preface: “a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.”
This is not an entirely rigorous definition, and is definitely not the way the word is used among evolutionary biologists. MacNeill will prefer the simple “evolution is descent with modification” definition. Behe doesn’t challenge descent with modification at all; in fact, he believes that common descent is well supported in biology. So is the tagline a blatant effort to mislead the public by pretending the book challenges something it can’t?
No; Behe’s tagline is consistent with his given definition, and his definition is consistent with the colloquial, commonly-used definition of evolution. This isn’t a paper in a biochemical journal, it is addressed to the layman. And– like it or not– this is the way that ordinary people consider the word evolution.
Does he use the word evolution in various senses in the book, in order to attack evolution (= natural selection) and come out having defeated evolution (= all of Darwinism, and especially descent with modification)? This charge also is hardly fair. Time and again he makes very clear which parts of evolutionary theory he rejects and which parts he sees no problem with. He rejects evolutionary mechanisms in certain parts of his field, biochemistry. He thinks “the rest” of evolutionary theory is likely true.
We can decide that he’s lying: Behe really rejects common descent, he just feels that writing a book in which he only addresses the mechanisms of evolution is the best way to support his cause right now. He is trying to get people to think that his book really destroys the case for descent with modification (the paragraphs in which he says he accepts it are meant to throw off the critics, and be ignored by the wider public).
We can, and if you want to decide someone lied and attack their supposed views you have a clear playing field in which to do it in– but none of what you say will have any relevance to the argument they actually made. The only way to deal with ideas is to give the benefit of the doubt on motives and address the arguments that were made– not their supposed intended implications.
Perhaps I feel more strongly about it because I’ve been stuck in the situation several times in the past; and I can tell you it is extremely unpleasant to make a good-faith argument for something you actually believe and then have an ugly strawman version attacked. I don’t mind being ferociously attacked– for things I actually believe. But for those just made up…
What I’m asking– yes, I know you can dream up all sorts of motivations for me, all sorts of things I “secretly believe”, and all sorts of things that I really mean to be arguing though I don’t say it. But if you want to engage my ideas you’ll have to engage more than simply your imagined boogeyman. Please, forget about it all right now, and look at what I actually argued. Can you give me an argument against that?
I’d love comments from anyone in our class who disagrees with me here. Somebody?
Or else let’s get to the ideas.
The problem is that Behe himself does not make it very clear what his arguments really are.
Irreducible complexity is clearly an argument against Darwinian evolution (selection) thus IC cannot be an argument in favor of Intelligent Design since that would be a false dichotomy (arguing that if Darwinian theory is false, ID must be true).
Behe “An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.” (page 39)
Essentially, the argument is that IC is a strong argument against natural selection being able to explain systems which are irreducibly complex.
Yet, several pages later, Behe argues that indirect pathways may indeed exist and argues, without any further evidence, that such pathways will be improbable.
Behe ven if a system is ireducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitely rule out the possibility of an indirect, circutious route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows
Things get even more complicated after Dembski got involved in extending the concept.
From ISCID
Michael Behe’s Original Definition:
A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin’s Black Box, 39)
William Dembski’s Enhanced Definition:
A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)
Michael Behe’s “Evolutionary” Definition
An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
Another problem seems to be ‘original function’
The original definition of IC reads
Behe
Several people have outlined how IC systems may in fact evolve and since such pathways are at least plausible, until IDers can eliminate them based on probability, it seems that ID remains a mostly irrelevant concept.
Even the flagellum seems to suffer from the existence of plausible pathways and thus blocking ID from any meaningful conclusion relevant to ID.
I hope this helps explain some of the disagreements about what Behe really means. In addition, whenever others try to invoke ICness for particular systems, especially systems we know how they evolved, Behe seems to reject them. As such, it seems that IC is something that is somewhat elusive.
I see IC as a mostly irrelevant argument because
1. IC is an argument against Darwinian evolution and cannot thus be an argument for ID
2. IDers accept that indirect routes may exist but reject such pathways a priori without any explanation as to why we should accept this claim
In other words, IC is an unreliable indicator of design, and may at most be seen as a complication for processes which rely solely on natural selection and the maintenance of original function.
Comment by PvM — July 12, 2006 @ 1:24 am
A question for Hannah
Dembski has written that
Design theorists themselves are divided on [the question of common descent]. Dean
Kenyon and Percival Davis, for instance, argue against common descent… Michael
Behe provisionally accepts common descent. Nonetheless design theorists agree that
discussion of this question must not be shut down simply because a majority of
biologists happen to embrace common descent. The limits of evolutionary change
form a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. It is therefore illegitimate to exclude this
topic from public school science curricula. (Dembski 1999, p. 250)
What does it mean “provisionally accept” and what are the provisions?
Comment by PvM — July 12, 2006 @ 1:34 am
Time and again he makes very clear which parts of evolutionary theory he rejects and which parts he sees no problem with.
Well, that part is pretty easy. Anyone can do that.
He rejects evolutionary mechanisms in certain parts of his field, biochemistry.
Yes and he is now infamous for his rejections. Why? Because when Behe is pressed to explain how his “theories” are to be applied to systems to determine whether those systems are in fact “irreducibly complex” or not, his theories turn out to be severely wanting. In a nutshell, they boil down to arguments from ignorance: “You can’t explain it in minute-by-minute molecule-by-molecule detail, so intelligent designers of which I can show you no proof must have done it. However, under oath I admit that I am certain the intelligent designer is in fact my deity.”
Behe’s arguments are simply unscientific.
If Behe’s arguments were scientific, he’d be famous instead of infamous. Or, to put if more directly, if you think that have devised a scientific method of determining whether an enzymatic “machine” evolved without intelligent input or whether a superhuman intelligence designed that “machine” a 300 million years ago, then write it up clearly and collect your Nobel Prize.
Otherwise, perhaps it’s best to spend more time at the bench thinking and less time talking.
Comment by Michael Hubl — July 12, 2006 @ 2:34 am
I’d say it means you accept it based on the evidence you’ve got; and the provision is that new information doesn’t come around that would turn the theory on its head. Here I would paraphrase (rather freely): “My life’s work is not dependent on this particular idea being right; and in fact I have nothing staked on it at all.”
Agreed. It just leaves us all with less excuse for making our own stories of what he rejects or doesn’t.That’s a pretty strong statement; will you back it up or explain why you think so? Are you using induction: i.e., everyone in the history of science who brought up sound scientific arguments has been immediately acclaimed and famous for them, and no-one has become infamous for correct scientific ideas; therefore if Behe’s ideas were correct and scientific, we can assume the reaction would be similar?
Or are you basing this on some private, clairvoyant knowledge of how people would react in this particular case?
Comment by Hannah — July 12, 2006 @ 9:29 am
I take full responsibility for redirecting the bulk of last night’s discussion to what could be called the “meta” question of the “design” of Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box (DBB). In my defense, I would point out that before we could go through the chapters, I felt it was necessary to examine the cover of the book (i.e. the subtitle and cover illustration), as I believe they provide both a gloss on Behe’s “design” of his argument, and an explanation of why so many people on the ID side believe that Behe has “fatally undermined Darwinism.”
To recap: the subtitle of DBB is The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As we all eventually agreed last night (and as Hannah has indirectly indicated here), the term “evolution” is the problem. Had Behe subtitled DBB The Biochemical Challenge to the Theory of Non-Directed Origin of Life and Selected Biochemical Pathways and Processes, there would be no problem.
Darwin himself (as Behe correctly pointed out) never addressed either the question of origins nor biochemical pathways and processes (he didn’t address the latter because the science of biochemistry is less than a century old). Furthermore, Darwin didn’t use the term “evolution” to stand for any of the explanations that he proposed in the Origin of Species… (only the word “evolved” appears, and only once, as the last word of the last sentence in the book).
In the Origin, Darwin addressed two separate but related ideas:
(1) “Descent with modification” (i.e. common descent, what most evolutionary biologists would call evolution - change in the characteristics present in populations of organisms over time). In more recent times, this concept has been included in what S. J. Gould (among others) referred to as “macroevolution”.
(2) Natural selection (i.e. non-random unequal survival and reproduction of individual organisms with particular heritable variations – what Darwin proposed as the principle mechanism of evolution). Again, in more recent times, this concept has been included among those “mechanisms” of evolution lumped together under the heading of “microevolution”.
In other words, “evolution” = “descent with modification” = “change in the characteristics present in populations of organisms over time” = macroevolution”.
As everyone agreed last night (and as both the book and his public comments in many venues indicate) Behe states quite unequivocally “…I believe the evidence [of cladistic nucleotide and amino acid sequence comparison] strongly supports common descent.” (DBB, pg. 176) He reiterates this position in several locations in the book (I can document them with page numbers, if requested), and testified to that effect in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents ).
Therefore, by Behe’s own admission, nothing in DBB directly attacks “evolution”, as defined/parsed above. On the contrary, virtually Behe’s entire argument is for an alternative explanation to the origin of life and selected biochemical processes, which are clearly NOT “evolution”, but rather a mechanism within the domain of “microevolution.”
Indeed, as several people in the class pointed out, Behe (on page 176) states quite unequivocally “…I believe the evidence [of cladistic nucleotide and amino acid sequence comparison] strongly supports common descent.” He reiterates this position in several locations in DBB (I can document them with page numbers, if requested).
In a nutshell, therefore, DBB attacks only part of “microevolution”, and does not attack the core of what we defined/parsed above as “evolution” (i.e. what Darwin called “descent with modification”).
Yet, in numerous locations throughout DBB (again, page refs on request), Behe indirectly implies that his concept of “irreducible complexity” undermines “the theory of evolution”. Furthermore, a great many IDers have cited DBB as doing exactly that. Indeed, as a supporter of ID in our class repeatedly stated last night, “Behe is attacking ‘macroevolution’” and that many creationists/IDers (including himself) “have no problem with ‘microevolution’” (paraphrased).
On the back cover of the paperback edition are the following:
In large bold type: “The [book] that dares to ask, was Darwin wrong?”
“[DBB] sparked a national debate on evolution…”(emphasis added)
“…the one argument that must be addressed in order to determine whether Darwinian evolution is sufficient to explain life…”(emphasis added)
“…No one can proposed to defend Darwin without meeting the challenges [in DBB]….” (David Berlinski)
“Overthrows Darwin…” (George Gilder)
It should be clear from the foregoing that these quotes conflate all of evolutionary theory (micro and macro and everything else) under the heading of “evolution”, and that in DBB Behe has addressed and undermined them all.
Neither of these is true.
Now, as to the cover illustration: it is a photograph of a chimpanzee and a human, facing away from each other. My point in criticizing this illustration is that, viewing it (and not knowing what the book is actually about), one would be justified in assuming that chimpanzees and humans would be discussed in the book, probably in detail.
Furthermore, reading the quotes on the back cover, a person familiar with some of the long-running arguments between creationists/IDers and evolutionary biologists might easily assume that at least one of the arguments that Behe makes in the book would undermine the common ancestry of chimpanzees and humans proposed by evolutionary biologists.
Neither of these is the case.
So, even before opening the book, naïve readers (and even some not-so-naïve readers) are led to starting assumptions about both the arguments in the book and its conclusions that bear virtually no relationship to the actual arguments presented in the book.
Therefore, I believe it is legitimate (when discussing an author’s arguments and the intentions behind them) to ask why this might be the case?
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 12, 2006 @ 9:51 am
Allen–
Alright, I’ll hold you fully responsible :). Though to your credit you didn’t start off with Warren’s position that it is reasonable to assume Behe is lying about his own beliefs.
No, but it does attack “evolution” as defined by him in the preface; and that is the way that many people use the term. So it is unfair to characterize him as deliberately misleading anyone.
No, it isn’t legitimate; and making conspiracy theories about them is also not legitimate, because Behe addresses those supposed assumptions several times throughout his book. If you finish the book unsure about what he is actually attacking you need to work on your reading skills.
If you are as clear as Behe was throughout the argument you can’t be held responsible for how other people use your work.
If you can provide me with evidence that Behe himself designed the cover, I’ll concede you its relevance in a discussion of the book. Currently the most likely scenario is that it was designed by a marketer for his publisher. I’ve written articles in the past that were– to my great annoyance– badly mislabeled, and nothing I could do could change that. Arguing with the publisher often doesn’t help; he considers that his buisness; your buisness is just the content. And it is pretty much futile to argue with people who have decided to use your work for their own purposes; if they’ve made up their mind, that is all there is to it. Definitely you should never have to defend your dust-jacket endorsements.
Comment by Hannah — July 12, 2006 @ 10:21 am
Having also written things that were both grossly misrepresented by publishers and “hijacked” by people who wanted to use my work to make points that I didn’t address, I concede those points.
And I agree: time to get on to Behe’s actual arguments themselves.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 12, 2006 @ 10:39 am
Hi all,
PvM’s point above is a good one.
Rather than set out to grind Allen’s axe on Behe’s book cover (hmm… can I botch a metaphor or what) the class might try something different. (Maybe they’re doing things like this - if so, let us know.) For example, it would be useful if some collection of ID supporters could collect the materials (going way beyond DBB, but limiting themselves to ID theorists), synthesize, and present to the class their best shot at a theoretical costruct of irreducible complexity.
Better still, they might see if they can come up with a theoretical construct of IC that does not refer, explicitly or implicitly, to evolution (in any of its manifestations). This is important - if IC is going to pass judgement on evolution, if “it cannot have evolved” is going to be the argument for design, then the theoretical construct cannot refer to evolution.
That may seem to leave ID critics off the hook when it comes to work. So maybe they could get together and recapitulate, in their own words (”on the board”) the argument(s) presented in Behe and Snoke. Allen could be called upon to fill in the gaps, should things get too far over the heads of students (or should the exercise simply be more than on would ask for a one week assignment in a summer class).
Just a few ideas, for class or perhaps for participants to explore on the blog.
Comment by Art G — July 12, 2006 @ 10:58 am
Falsifiability, as outlined by Karl Popper , is one of the ways to distinguish science from pseudoscience. This means that a good theory should make predictions, and openly say what the theory should prohibit. So where does ID sit with Popper? While Behe states that “you can’t prove intelligent design by experiment” he readily claims that the only possible explanation for the diversity observed in nature is that of an intelligent designer. Recently, he has also stated that Intelligent Design is “beyond the laws of nature.” Michael Behe explicitly states that ID can’t be tested in his testimony during the Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District federal court case.
The fact that it can’t be tested raises serious problems. Is it fair to criticize a scientific method and attempt to highlight its shortcomings while at the same time proposing a hypothesis that is beyond the scope of the natural world and science? This would be akin to playing a basketball game with someone, where they don’t have to dribble but you do, declaring themself the winner despite what the score says, then rejecting your complaints about what is fair by referring to the offical rules of basketball. In my mind this smacks of hypocrisy.
Behe, in his article “Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics”, admits his view of irreducible complexity was flawed because it claims to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address “the task facing natural selection.” Six years later he has yet to produce any means by which to rectify this troubling and egregious error.
Despite such criticism, most scientists agree that the theory that organisms are irreducibly complex, one of the supporting arguments for ID, is open to falsifiability. Behe cites examples from the the biological world including the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system. He states that each of these systems “is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” While Mr. Behe has never bothered to test if the bacterial flagellum is in fact irreducibly complex, others have done the hard work. Their results point out that the bacterial flagellum can function without a complete set of all 30 proteins. As Kenneth Miller points out in his position statement during the Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District federal court case:
The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.
Similar evidence undermines Behe’s claims in regards to the evolution of the vertabrate blood clotting cascade and the evolution of the immune system. This evidence was gathered in the laboratory, unlike Behe whose claims are based upon appearances alone. Many scientists criticize Behe because he simply assumes many organisms are irredcucibly complex because they look that way. Since he has done no actual scientific investigations to prove such organisms are irreducibly complex his thoery, in comparison to that of the thoery of biological evolution, lacks persuasivness. Not surprisingly, it turns out that Mr. Michael Behe has never published new research in a peer reviewed journal supporting ID claims.
While many creationists argue that they are treated unfairly by the scientific community, such complaits should be ignored. This is just a pathetic attempt to sway opinions without resorting to actual science. No student would attempt to prove a mathematical theorem by complaining that they were a nice person and their classmates were mean. Such a tactic would be irrelevant, since either the proof is right or wrong. So I say to those supporting ID, “Where’s the evidence?”
Comment by Mike Hannigan — July 12, 2006 @ 11:18 am
Art —
I’m not sure exactly what you are looking for, but you may be interested in these thoughts about what IC is and isn’t.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — July 12, 2006 @ 11:58 am
The way I deal with issues of credebility and honesty is to say, “all right, let’s just assume the authors have the worst motives for writing a book (like money and power and glory). Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s inquire whether contents of the authors arguments are correct and independently verifiable.”
When Behe came to our school and explained how he coined the term Irreducible Complexity, he made the audience laugh by saying, “I had to come up with a term which would make me sound smart and help me sell books.” The audience was in complete laughter. Behe used a little humor to show, even if he had the worst of intentions or ulterior motive, his arguments were still on the table for discussion. No one during the Q&A raised the issue of integrity, as they realized it was less relevant to the more important issues of the arguments.
One can allow issues of integrity to side track the scientific discussions. If someon tries to attack my integrity when I’m discussing science, I simply say, “Ok, you may, for the sake of argument, assume I have the worst of intentions. But is there a flaw in the hypothesis I put forward?” Then move forward from there.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — July 12, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
Sal’s comments make sense were it not for the fact that science has shown the many flaws in Behe’s arguments and thus motives do become relevant, as they are relevant for intelligent design inferences.
What surprised me most about reading Behe is how easily he dismissed the literature when there are significant papers that discuss that which he seems to claim, is not being discussed.
In addition, science has presented some very plausible pathways for the evolution of the flagellum. When will Behe address these pathways to show that they do not compete well against whatever the ID explanation may be?
As far as ID is concerned, science has shown the many significant flaws in its arguments. So far ID has done little to address them.
So let’s extend the following offer to ID: Address the scientific rebuttals.
Comment by PvM — July 12, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
Let me also point out that motives are important in understanding the philosophical foundations underlying a particular argument.
As Chong Ho Yu argues in his paper
Philosophical assumptions in the discussion of irreducible complexity, naturalism, demarcation criterion, probability, and law
In addition, Behe is skeptical to the naturalistic view of science advocated by evolutionists. His supporters such as Phillip Johnson (2000) and William Dembski (1999) also strongly oppose using methodological naturalism as a means to exclude God as a viable explanation for the origin of life.
Understanding the objections of IDers to naturalism (which they often seem to conflate with methodological naturalism) helps understand the arguments presented.
Ed Brayton recently stated the following in response to the attacks by Calvert on Jack Krebs and “Kansas Citizens for Science”, arguing that they promote an anti-religious position
Ed Brayton
A note to my readers: please do not get sidetracked from the issue here and start commenting on whether evolution really is or isn’t compatible with religious belief in general or any particular religious belief. I’m frankly tired of that argument and it only distracts from the real issue here. One can certainly argue over the question of whether they truly are compatible, but that doesn’t change the truth of what is going on here. Even if you believe that religious people hold dissonant beliefs in accepting both evolution and their religious views (I, of course, do not believe that), that does not transform them into atheists or materialists or whatever other scare term the other side wants to use. It is absurd enough that we have this irrational fear of atheism so common in this culture; it is doubly absurd to smear people who aren’t atheists with that term, whether you think they should be atheists or not.
Comment by PvM — July 12, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
Allen:
The first thought that came into my mind reading this is the old adage: “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” That’s obviously not the way to get into the gist of his argument.
I’m interested in why you didn’t begin the class this way: “How many of you automatically think of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution when you hear the word ‘evolution’.” I would suspect 80-90% would have responded in the affirmative. People in everyday life make no distinction between evolution and Darwinism–it’s synonymous in their heads.
Now, let me bring your attention to this aspect of the equation you’ve written: in every label used in the equation, the term ‘fossil record’ can just as easily be substituted in. As in, for example:
“Evolution: you know, what we find in the fossil record.” “Descent with modification: you know, what we see in the fossil record.” “Change in the characteristics present in populations of organisms over time: you know, the fossil record.” “Macromutation: you know, what we see happening in the fossil record.”
So, using your line of argumentation, you have, in essence, changed the subtitle of Behe’s book to: “A Biochemical Challenge to the Fossil Record”. Wasn’t that really all you were arguing?
But why argue something on the basis of pure equivocation? Why not, as Hannah suggested, argue against ‘his’ definition of evolution? [Of course, that does mean you have to look inside. :)]
This statement strikes me as odd. Allen, we know that there is decent with modification—we only have to look at the fossil record to see that. What’s the point? This seems to completely miss the issue at hand. What’s at issue is HOW did this modification come about. And it is PRECISELY this that Behe is arguing against. Let’s postulate–per the fossil record–descent with modification. (Per you, this is Darwin’s #1 postulate) But, let’s not permit the introduction of natural selection (Which, per you, is Darwin’s #2 postulate). Under those conditions, does a ‘theory of evolution’ exist?
“Descent with modifiction” simply gives Darwin these two king-pins of his theory; namely, reproduction + diversity/plasticity. The third king-pin is NS. Now, moving back to the subtitle, it would seem that instead of understanding Behe as attacking Darwin’s combined theory (all 3 elements), you have simply chosen–for whatever reason–to focus simply on two elements. How about this subtitle: “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to the Powers of Natural Selection.” Maybe it isn’t too late to get Behe to change the subtitle.
I have a copy that I bought in 1996, when it first came out. The cover phot is of a …….. ‘black box’ being opened. Maybe this question should be directed to the publishers. (I bet their answer is: “So we could have a provocative cover and sell more books.”)
Comment by Lino D'Ischia — July 12, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
Here is one, rebuttal of Ken Miller:
Ken Miller’s misrepresentations
Here is two:
Behe Responds to Critics
Here’s more (addressing Adami, Lenski, Pennock, Thomas, Shallit, Elsberry others.)
Tautologies and Theatrics (part 1)
Salvador
PS if people question my motives, for the sake of argument, they can presume it’s for money, fame, and glory. :-)
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — July 12, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
Is it important for us to know what your motives are as we read your arguments here on this thread? Is truth conditioned by motives? If I want to disprove Darwinism through experiments in the lab, and then end up with data that completely confirms Darwinism, does that mean we have to through out the results?
Comment by Lino D'Ischia — July 12, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
This is not the understanding possessed by the creationists on the Kansas Board of Education, who brought Behe to speak at the May 2005 hearings in Kansas, and who ended up putting this line into the science standards:
Comment by nmatzke — July 12, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
In comment #14 Lino wrote:
“What’s at issue is HOW did this modification [referring to the evidence of descent with modification in the fossil record] come about. And it is PRECISELY this that Behe is arguing against.”
And in this comment, you demonstrate precisely my point. In the course of our class last night, it became very clear that everyone in the class who had read the entire book (i.e. virtually everybody) agreed that Behe’s argument in the core of the book (i.e. part 2, chapters 3-7) is limited entirely to an examination of the origin of life from non-living chemicals and the origin of a handful of biochemical processes and pathways (including visual transduction, the eukaryotic cilum, the prokaryotic flagellum, the mammalian blood clotting cascade, intracellular transport in eukaryotic cells, mammalian immune function, and the regulation of AMP synthesis. Yet, in your comment, you tied Behe’s arguments directly to the process by which descent with modification has occurred, as exemplified by the fossil record.
This is exactly why I initiated the discussion that I did: creationists and IDers use Behe’s book (but not the arguments he actually presents between its covers) to undermine ALL of evolutionary theory (that’s why I included the comments from the back cover; because they illustrate precisely this point). And that’s why evolutionary biologists attach his book so vigorously: because Behe “slides” back and forth between a limited attack against the spontaneous origin of life and selected biochemical pathways and an implication that this somehow undermines the whole of evolutionary theory.
We generally agreed last night (including all but one of the ID supporters) that Darwinian “descent with modification” would be left entirely untouched even if Behe’s arguments were accepted without modification. Do you agree?
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 12, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
Since William Dembski’s works will be studied in this class I should point out he came forward with his motivations:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — July 12, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
In comment #14 Lino wrote:
And in this comment, you demonstrate precisely my point. In the course of our class last night, it became very clear that everyone in the class who had read the entire book (i.e. virtually everybody) agreed that Behe’s argument in the core of the book (i.e. part 2, chapters 3-7) is limited entirely to an examination of the origin of life from non-living chemicals and the origin of a handful of biochemical processes and pathways (including visual transduction, the eukaryotic cilum, the prokaryotic flagellum, the mammalian blood clotting cascade, intracellular transport in eukaryotic cells, mammalian immune function, and the regulation of AMP synthesis. Yet, in your comment, you tied Behe’s arguments directly to the process by which descent with modification has occurred, as exemplified by the fossil record.
This is exactly why I initiated the discussion that I did: creationists and IDers use Behe’s book (but not the arguments he actually presents between its covers) to undermine ALL of evolutionary theory (that’s why I included the comments from the back cover; because they illustrate precisely this point). And that’s why evolutionary biologists attach his book so vigorously: because Behe “slides” back and forth between a limited attack against the spontaneous origin of life and selected biochemical pathways and an implication that this somehow undermines the whole of evolutionary theory.
We generally agreed last night (including all but one of the ID supporters) that Darwinian “descent with modification” would be left entirely untouched even if Behe’s arguments were accepted without modification. Do you agree?
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 12, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
Sorry about the double post; I’m still getting used to this system.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 12, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
Sal:
And evolutionary biologists, like Freud, are in it for money, power, and the love of women ;-).
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 12, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
“We generally agreed last night (including all but one of the ID supporters) that Darwinian “descent with modification” would be left entirely untouched even if Behe’s arguments were accepted without modification.”
There are several possible questions you could be asking, each with very different answers.
1) Does the existance of irreducibly complex structures argue specifically against descent with modification? Answer: No.
2) Does the existance of irreducibly complex structures affect the inferences often used to imply descent with modification? Answer: yes.
3) Does the existance of irreducibly complex structures affect the inferences often used to establish phylogenies and make other inferences from the fossil record? Answer: yes.
4) Does the existance of irreducibly complex structures argue against non-telic descent with modification (changes happening at random with respect to fitness, as opposed to changes happening with a specific goal or target)? Answer: possibly. It at the very least lends a lot of weight to people on the opposite side.
I think the problem is that people have trouble viewing these as separate questions. There is a difference between X arguing _against_ Y and X arguing against the assumptions used to prove Y. If X shows that the assumptions used to prove Y should not be taken as assumptions at all, it does not disprove Y, but it does require that adherents to Y either (a) find other reasons for Y to be the only or the best possibility, or (b) allow for investigations both that include and do not include Y.
For example, if irreducibly complex structures are generated over life history, that means that they may have been precoded from the origin of life, but not expressed until later. This means that it is fully possible for two completely independent lineages to establish the same highly complex structure all-at-once.
In addition, if a designed origin-of-life is allowed for, it opens up a whole lot of other questions which are traditionally left out of discussion.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — July 12, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
In comment #23, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
There are two versions of this assertion that I know of:
1) MIchael Behe’s “preloaded prokaryote” hypothesis. However, even Behe has abandoned this hypothesis, as have virtually all other IDers. IMO there are two reasons for this: there is absolutely no support for this idea (i.e. the genetics of prokaryotes make this literally impossible) and it flies in the face of John Stanford’s “genome decay” hypothesis.
So, I believe we can rule this one out.
2) The “front-loaded ID hypothesis. However, as I have pointed out elsewhere, this hypothesis requires that such “front-loading” precede the first appearance of life, very soon after the formation of the Earth. IOW, it’s functionally equivalent to Deism, and as such there can be no empirical evidence to support it. Furthermore, if the “Intelligent Designer” can “front-load” the design of life before it comes about, two questions immediately come to mind:
1) Where did the “intelligent designer’s” reside before there were any living organisms in which they could do so (i.e. in rocks, in water, in air, in space, or somewhere outside of physical reality), and
2) If the “intelligent designer” has the obviously supernatural ability to “front load” the original (and, by extension, all succeeding) living organisms, why was the “intelligent designer” insufficiently powerful to establish sufficient natural laws to make later intervention into the evolution of life (i.e. creating the prokaryotic flagellum, the vertebrate immune system, etc.) unnecessary?
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 12, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
“it flies in the face of John Stanford’s “genome decay” hypothesis.”
I’m not sure I see how. In fact by taxonomic measures, it seems that evolution has slowed down. This would seem to be an expected result of a decay of a genome (less ability to diversify).
“the genetics of prokaryotes make this literally impossible”
First of all, prokaryotes may not be the original life form. Second of all, wouldn’t that be the _current_ genetics of prokaryotes? Are we familiar enough with the prehistoric prokaryotes to characterize their genome?
“front-loaded ID hypothesis”
Are you referring to Denton here? Most people that I know of use front-loading to refer to the above (though not necessarily a prokaryote). Yes, Denton’s view of ID would be functionally equivalent to Deism. I agree with Denton in one way — I do think that the laws of physics were built to support life in specific forms, but that they are incapable of generating it.
The other questions are theological questions. They are certainly interesting, however. If you would like to know my own answers to these, feel free to mail me and we can discuss it. A short answer is that I think, yes, the same designer designed both the laws and the organisms, and the reason why “interventionism” is part of the plan is to let us know that we were designed, among other things. However, I think this is outside the current science’s ability to handle, and as such I think it’s outside this classes parameters.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — July 12, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
Hannah,
In anticipation of you all reading professor MacDonald’s “refutation” I recommend this counter-rebuttal by Michael Behe of MacDonald:
Moustrap Defended
Whether Behe is right or wrong, studying MacDonald and the couter reaction by Behe is a good lesson in the art of rhetoric.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — July 12, 2006 @ 9:02 pm
Hannah, in regards to comment #26 you ight want to recognize that even Behe no longer feels the mousetrap is a valid argument. He admits this in his Response to Critics paper.
Comment by Mike Hannigan — July 12, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
Open question to those feeling “front-loading” is a reasonable idea . . . how does front-loading explain extincitions?
Comment by Mike Hannigan — July 12, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
But I did quite the opposite!—or so I thought. I clearly tried to link it directly to natural selection, and specifically not ‘descent with modification’. In my argument, ‘descent with modification’ represents two-thirds of Darwin’s theory, and NS the other, but critical third. If all you have is random mutation (which is really a Neo-Darwinian notion, and not, strictly Darwinian), then you have NO theory. Randomness, by itself, can’t possibly produce order. There is no Darwinist that I know that would argue that. They tell us: randomness is random; but NS is teleological. This kind of statement has probably already appeared on one of these threads, no?
I don’t understand. The fossil record is not part of ‘evolutionary theory’; it’s simply what appears to be a ‘fact’. Darwinists assert this all the time. And IDers, for the most part, concede this. ID challenges the ‘how’ of what the fossil record presents: the progressive evolution of forms. So, we seem to be in this strange area: Darwinists claim “evolution is a fact”, wherein they want to subsume into this ‘fact’, the theory itself; and, now, you, Allen, seem to be saying that Behe is attacking what every one knows is a ‘fact’, and so he’s lying about what he’s really trying to prove. This is all very strange.
My experience has been that evolutionary biologists attack Behe over his ‘irreducible complexity’ argument, and usually it’s either the bacterial flagellum or the blood-clotting cascade. And this is the first I’ve ever heard of Behe “sliding” back and forth in his arguments. He clearly challenges Darwin’s notion that evolution takes place incrementally and that NS is pivotal in determining whether these incremental steps are successful or not. Anything else strikes me as a distraction.
Comment by Lino D'Ischia — July 13, 2006 @ 12:33 am
I asked
PvM suggested:
So let’s extend the following offer to ID: Address the scientific rebuttals.
and Sal responds with some references to ‘responses’ by Behe which however fail to address much of any of the rebuttals presented.
When Sal is ready to address the rebuttals in a scientific manner, I will be more than willing to discuss them but until then, it seems that once again ID remains scientifically without much content.
Conclusion:
Irreducible complexity is an argument against Darwinian theory and thus cannot be seen as an argument in favor of intelligent design.
How does ID explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum. Show that said explanation is a better one than the ones presented by science.
If IC systems can evolve via natural processes after all and since ID has been unwilling or unable to show the improbabilities of such pathways, IC should not be seen as an argument against evolution, let alone in favor of ID.
Let’s see how ID proponents respond to these simple observations. If history repeats itself, my prediction should be that it is unlikely that such attempts will be made, let alone be succesful in making their case.
After all, Behe himself admitted that IC is an argument against Darwinian theory and he admitted that indirect pathways exist, although rejects them in an ad hoc manner.
What is an IDer to do when presented with these facts?
Let’s hope the answer is not to distract and redirect the discussion although it may be tempting to some to start talking about quantum mechanics and other non sequiturs.
Lino is correct about Behe to some extent namely that Behe addresses merely a scenario which involves selection and allows for no change in function. Of course Darwin himself was clear that selection is not the only mechanism of evolution and certainly nothing Behe has done shows evidence against Darwin’s idea of ‘gradual change’.
So I fail to see how Behe’s claims can be seen as more than an attempt to attack a limited evolutionary scenario in which the only mechanism is selection and variation and the original function of the system is not allowed to change, effectively blocking any relevant evolutionary scenario since the empirical evidence shows that concepts such as neutrality as well as co-option are relevant evolutionary processes.
Is it not time to agree that Behe’s arguments are very limited and quite irrelevant to evolutionary theory?
Remind me again what research has Behe done since he published his book that has a non-trivial relevance to irreducible complexity? The Behe Snoke strawman paper against a limited evolutionary scenario does not count. After all, arguments against a particular evolutionary pathway gives NO credibility to an intelligently designed pathway.
Comment by PvM — July 13, 2006 @ 2:01 am
He clearly challenges Darwin’s notion that evolution takes place incrementally and that NS is pivotal in determining whether these incremental steps are successful or not.
Behe challenges whether evolution takes place incrementally?
And whether natural selection is successful at determining whether an incremental change in an organism affects the organism’s fitness or not?
So how does Behe respond when presented with the fact that we can observe incremental changes in organisms over time and that incremental changes can affect an organism’s fitness?
Comment by Michael Hubl — July 13, 2006 @ 2:06 am
J Bartlett
A short answer is that I think, yes, the same designer designed both the laws and the organisms, and the reason why “interventionism” is part of the plan is to let us know that we were designed, among other things. However, I think this is outside the current science’s ability to handle
It’s not science at all. But your refusal to answer Allen’s questions here with the excuse that the questions are “theological” illustrates Pim’s point: ID is scientifically vacuous.
What good is a scientific theory that makes no testable predictions and precludes asking any obvious questions on the grounds that the questions are “beyond current science”?
This is why ID promoters are asked to show scientists the money. Where is the research which shows that these non-human intelligent designers with awesome powers actually existed? Where is the research which shows that these intelligent designers
Or is “ID theory” merely a mental state of extraordinary skepticism regarding the history of life on earth?
In the absence of any reproducible data or tests which unambiguously suggest that these intelligent designers exist, what option exists besides the latter of the two I just mentioned?
Comment by Michael Hubl — July 13, 2006 @ 2:19 am
“But your refusal to answer Allen’s questions here with the excuse that the questions are “theological” illustrates Pim’s point: ID is scientifically vacuous.”
What’s wrong with science having questions it can’t currently answer? Is there any field that doesn’t have questions which are currently out-of-reach? Does the fact that scientists can’t answer questions about the origin-of-life mean that such research isn’t scientific?
“What good is a scientific theory that makes no testable predictions and precludes asking any obvious questions”
It does no such thing.
“Where is the research which shows that these non-human intelligent designers with awesome powers actually existed?”
The existence of the symbolic code of DNA is a testament to a mind or minds of such existence.
“In the absence of any reproducible data”
I’d say the genome and its function is fairly reproducible. Likewise is the rampant holism (empirically defined by Behe as “irreducible complexity”) expressed in biological function.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — July 13, 2006 @ 10:37 am
J. Bartlett wrote:
“What’s wrong with science having questions it can’t currently answer? Is there any field that doesn’t have questions which are currently out-of-reach? Does the fact that scientists can’t answer questions about the origin-of-life mean that such research isn’t scientific?”
If science can’t answer the question, then why do ID proponents propose an answer with no data to support it? Furthermore, tell me who is doing scientific research trying to identify the Intelligent Designer? Have they had any success yet naming this being?
Comment by Mike Hannigan — July 13, 2006 @ 10:54 am
What I find interesting about som many of these arguments is that, in a peculiar parallel to Godwin’s Law, we eventually come back to the origin of the genetic code, as if the current sorry state of the evolutionary explanation for this somehow invalidates all of evolutionary biology.
As several people pointed out in class, Darwin’s arguments in the Origin of Species did not address either the origin of life or the origin of the genetic code (the latter, of course, because even the basic principles of genetics were unknown in 1859). Therefore, even if one concedes that we have no testable evolutionary explanation for the origin of the genetic code (and may, for various reasons, never have one), that leaves virtually all of evolutionary biology, as originally proposed by Darwin and as exhaustively investigated up through at least 1950, essentially untouched.
As an evolutionary biologist, I can live with that just fine.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 13, 2006 @ 11:08 am
Bartlett seems to forget that science has presented plausible explanations for the origin and evolution of the genetic code.
So why he insists on the additional requirement of a mind seems to be based on the extremely weak argument of analogy.
Occam is having a field day here
Comment by PvM — July 13, 2006 @ 11:36 am
I wrote
If Behe’s arguments were scientific, he’d be famous instead of infamous.
and Hannah wrote
That’s a pretty strong statement;
No it’s not. You do not have to be a “clairvoyant” to recognize that if someone actually had actual evidence and a compelling scientific alternative explanation to explain the diversity of life forms throughout the history of earth, that “someone” would be very very highly regarded by biologists around the world.
Likewise, if a physicist came forward with actual evidence and a compelling alternative explanation supporting an earth-centered solar system, that physicist would become a superstar in the community.
I am 100% confident this either of these events is not going to happen and that also has nothing to do with clairvoyance.
Comment by Michael Hubl — July 13, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
Bartlett
I’d say the genome and its function is fairly reproducible.
I’m talking about a hypothesis that can be tested by independent objective scientists who reach the same result.
Again: ID promoters will never get anywhere in the scientific community if they do nothing but complain about gaps in the data, claim to be unconvinced by the work of evolutionary biologists, and point to every unexplained feature of biological organisms and say “That’s a testament to the existence of some intelligent entity for which I refuse to present any independent objective evidence.”
Comment by Michael Hubl — July 13, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
Allen said (comment 35):
“What I find interesting about som many of these arguments is that, in a peculiar parallel to Godwin’s Law, we eventually come back to the origin of the genetic code, as if the current sorry state of the evolutionary explanation for this somehow invalidates all of evolutionary biology.”
I took issue with Freewaru on The Design Paradigm blog over a similar theme. I wonder, Allen, what criticisms you have of the work of Yarus and co-workers, that you can describe their field as being in a “sorry state”? Or that you can claim that “…even if one concedes that we have no testable evolutionary explanation for the origin of the genetic code…”?
IMO, their work opens fascinating new and testable avenues of investigation. I’m curious as to where I’m going wrong here.
Thanks.
Comment by Art G — July 13, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
Michael–
Alright, but you’re not answering my question. I understand that you are 100% sure, but a great many people are sure of a great many things, and their level of confidence doesn’t do anything to bolster the truth value of the opinions they hold. So, if you’re not basing your statement on clairvoyance, what are you basing it on? Are you basing it on induction, and if so, would you lay out your reasoning?
Comment by Hannah — July 13, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
“as if the current sorry state of the evolutionary explanation for this somehow invalidates all of evolutionary biology.”
It doesn’t “invalidate all of evolutionary biology”. It _does_, however, leave many questions open which are currently considered closed by non-ID’ers.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — July 13, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
In comment 39, Art said:
Sorry, Art, my comment was more of a testimony to my ignorance than to the current state of “origin of code” research. I rely far too much on Google Scholar searches (a common failing, it seems) and not enough on the library. Could you send me a few references, so that I can go and educate myself (adm6{AT}cornell.edu)? Thanks, and keep up the good posts!
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 13, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
In comment 41, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
Ok, then list at least a dozen such questions, pertaining to specific topics in evolutionary biology NOT limited to the question of the origin of life and the origin of the genetic code (empirically testable quesitons only, please). This would help the tiny cadré of evolutionary biologists whose minds are not yet firmly closed to new ideas to find promising new avenues of research, and we would be very grateful!
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 13, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
Allen said: “Sorry, Art, my comment was more of a testimony to my ignorance than to the current state of “origin of code” research. I rely far too much on Google Scholar searches (a common failing, it seems) and not enough on the library. Could you send me a few references, so that I can go and educate myself (adm6{AT}cornell.edu)? Thanks, and keep up the good posts!”
Thanks, Allen. I’ll send along some references. But I was (secretly) hoping that Hannah might be moved by my prodding to talk this over with you. (That’s why I didn’t post the references.)
BTW, Hannah, I apologize if I’m being too pushy or presumptive on this issue. But I would be happy to find that you and Allen had discussed this particular point, with the references from the other blog.
Comment by Art G — July 13, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
A reminder that Behe’s primary focus is the criteria Darwin himself gave for refuting his theory (DBB 1998 ed. p 39):
Similarly in his essays Exercise Your Wonder, ARN.org Howard Glicksman, MD, gives numerous detailed descriptions of the complexity of the human body. In each essay he presents a number of challenges for evolutionists advocating macroevolution.
Comment by David L. Hagen — July 13, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
Hanna’s summary suggests that much of the discussion involved an Appeal to Motive, a subset of ad hominem - Circumstantial. This is very prevelant in origin’s debates to:
1) Discredit the opponent when lacking evidence.
2) Defend one’s worldview by attacking the opponent’s.
3) Use the courts to silence opponents based on the Establishment clause.
Using the Establishment Clause to forbid mention of a Creator is de facto establishment of atheism. This inverts the Founders’ intentions. I.e., The Declaration of Independence founded the USA by explicit appeal to unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, and to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. The principles of the Declaration remain the basis for equal standing mutually required by all States.
Comment by David L. Hagen — July 13, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
Um, I don’t mean to pile on, but Google Scholar shows a huge amount of research on the origin of the genetic code.
I’m not sure if this is where you got the idea that there wasn’t any research, but just because IDists something that sounds reasonable, don’t necessarily make it so.
In my own reading I found this article particularly impressive:
Comment by Nick (Matzke) — July 13, 2006 @ 11:21 pm
Hi Nick (and Allen, and class members),
I haven’t yet compared the “chronology” of Trifonov with the results summarized by Yarus, Caparoso, and Knight (”Origins of the genetic code: The escaped triplet theory”, Annu Rev Biochem 74, 179-198, 2005).
Here’s the abstract:
“There is very significant evidence that cognate codons and/or anticodons are unexpectedly frequent in RNA-binding sites for seven of eight biological amino acids that have been tested. This suggests that a substantial fraction of the genetic code has a stereochemical basis, the triplets having escaped from their original function in amino acid–binding sites to become modern codons and anticodons. We explicitly show that this stereochemical basis is consistent with subsequent optimization of the code to minimize the effect of coding mistakes on protein structure. These data also strengthen the argument for invention of the genetic code in an RNA world and for the RNA world itself.”
I’m not sure that there needs to be a correspondence here, and it’s probably true that the issue isn’t properly addressed until the amino acid SELEX experiments are done with all 20 amino acids (I’m not sure this has been done). But the different approaches have the possibility to inform each other, I suspect.
Regardless, what makes the work of Yarus (and other who are also taking the SELEX approach) interesting and exciting is that it is a wet-bench experimental approach, and has already yielded one (at least) “negative” result. This validates the approach, and suggests an hierarchy in the evolution of the genetic code. And the follow-up hypotheses are testable on the bench (and the computer).
One more thing, related to something ID proponents like to assert. The studies I point out here pretty clearly show that the genetic code is not arbitrary. This ID canard needs to be re-thought and probably buried.
(Sorry for spilling the beans, Hannah.)
Comment by Art G — July 13, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
Sorry, I only have a half a dozen.
If the genetic code was indeed designed by an intelligent agent, it reopens up the following biological questions:
1) Can higher-order systems develop spontaneously from lower-order systems, or must such systems come from still-higher-order systems?
2) What mechanism is the primary driver of animal form in diversification? Might diversification be much more internally driven than externally driven?
3) Does high homology between parts of different ancestors necessarily indicate that the arose from an ancestor which shared those parts, or might they simply be activating a similar code path individually? As a quick case-in-point, does the high homology between flavobacterium and pseudomonas nylon-digesting enzymes result from a common source of the gene through plasmids, or might they both instead be separately generated through a common mechanism?
4) If an intelligent agent is required for the creation of the genome, how would one determine how many times this occurred?
5) If life arose more than once, might it have occurred at distinct times?
6) Is there adequate justification to say that the higher taxonomic categories must have arisen via common descent versus separate creation?
7) It opens up the possibility that “mind” is not the result of physics, but instead a separate causal order from material causes.
On your own blog, you wrote “And so, by the rules of empirical science, since the evolutionary explanation is both sufficient to explain the phenomena and does not require causes that are outside of nature …, evolutionary biologists are fully justified in accepting the evolutionary explanation”
This raises two issues. First of all, you make the claim that the evolutionary explanation is sufficient to explain the phenomena. There is no evidence for that claim. We only know in the vaguest sketches how organismal form is even produced. [as a side note, there is evidence that the cause is not even fully genetic].
The second issue is that of “causes outside of nature”. The question is — are causes of “mind” considered outside of nature? If they are, why? If they are not, why is one specific mind considered out-of-bounds? Are minds part of nature or not? If they are, then there is no reason why simply a larger, more powerful mind should be ruled out. In fact, even many Creationists do not believe that any actions of God violated any laws at any time, but instead worked within the bounds of physical law, just as any other mind would do, taking advantage of the open-ness of physical law. This is not different in kind than the way that a “natural” mind would work, only that it is a different mind which operates on a larger scale.
Then you go on to say:
“Only in the case that the kinds of natural causes described above (especially the ability of evo-devo processes to constrain the development of overall form via purely natural means via the known biochemistry of development) can NOT explain the patterns we observe in convergent evolution should we entertain other hypotheses (especially if those other hypotheses are not empirically testable). Only then, and not before…and therefore certainly not now.”
Why not now? If not now, when and under what specific circumstances? If a possibility can ever be considered, why is it unscientific at one point and not another?
You act as if design is kind of a final give-up attitude. Instead, design is a new beginning. It opens up a completely new set of questions. The way that life works mimics design in so many ways, and as you have pointed out, a lot of biological work can be done by saying “how would I have designed such a thing?” So why is it then considered out-of-bounds to simply admit the obvious, and tackle the possible implications head-on? Maybe it’s right, and maybe it’s wrong. But why should a line of inquiry be cut off, and its implications ignored merely because some people find it distasteful?
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — July 13, 2006 @ 11:50 pm
For purely informational purposes to feed people’s curiosities, I wanted to show how different the back cover was. My copy which I purchased a while back 1999-2002 (can’t recall) did not have the above quotations in the back, although the front was the same. Here is the back of my book:
Both Robert Shapiro and James Shapiro are respected scientists and are not IDers.
Berlinski is officially not an IDer.
Was the back cover the work of the publisher or Behe? I don’t know.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova, IDEA GMU — July 14, 2006 @ 12:21 am
Jonathan Bartlett: You act as if design is kind of a final give-up attitude. Instead, design is a new beginning. It opens up a completely new set of questions.
No it does not. Intelligent Design relies on the elimination and provides as such no foundations for its claims beyond “science cannot explain X’.
This has nothing to do with distasteful but rather with vacuity. Sure, there is nothing wrong to use analogy to stimulate the formulation of hypotheses but such hypotheses have no relevance to ID.
If ID were indeed such a contributor, how come that ID has failed to contribute much of anything to our scientific knowledge, and certainly nothing relevant to the concept of intelligent design.
The proof is in the pudding and the absence of much of anything relevant indicates to me that ID, has failed… IDers are quick to argue that ID is rejected a priori when in fact it is rejected a posterio because natural explanations exist and ID refuses to present its own explanations.
The observation that evolution is not just genetic but may also have other epigenetic components once again does little to undermine evolutionary theory. Genes are but one way to transfer variation to the next generation.
If God worked within the bounds of natural law then natural law can explain the system and thus ID is blocked from making its inference.
It’s that simple. Why is this so hard to accept?
Comment by PvM — July 14, 2006 @ 2:12 am
Art wrote: Here’s the abstract:
“There is very significant evidence that cognate codons and/or anticodons are unexpectedly frequent in RNA-binding sites for seven of eight biological amino acids that have been tested. This suggests that a substantial fraction of the genetic code has a stereochemical basis, the triplets having escaped from their original function in amino acid–binding sites to become modern codons and anticodons. We explicitly show that this stereochemical basis is consistent with subsequent optimization of the code to minimize the effect of coding mistakes on protein structure. These data also strengthen the argument for invention of the genetic code in an RNA world and for the RNA world itself.”
Yes, yes, yes… And these findings are nothing new although recent work has strenghtened these pathways. So in fact, the genetic code is in part guided by natural law (chemistry/physics). There is so much work done on the genetic code which addresses the origin of transcription, two and triplet codon encoding, and much more. Science in other words is looking back 3.5 billion years in time and slowly unraveling the ‘mystery’ of the genetic code and the data are quite suggestive of plausible natural pathways.
Many recent review papers could have helped IDers to familiarize themselves with the current state of affairs.
Not only does ID remain empty handed in its explanations of the genetic code but science is showing how hard work can resolve many questions that some considered to be unanswerable and thus a safe place for a design inference to ‘hide’.
There are so many instances were ID continues to make claims, often founded in creationist origins, even though science has progressed significantly.
So ID in more than one way is scientifically vacuous and in fact, I argue scientifically dangerous at it encourages an attitude of ignorance rather than one of knowledge. After all, any time knowledge helps us formulate natural pathways, ID inferences are further weakened.
Comment by PvM — July 14, 2006 @ 2:19 am
I have saved this one for some time now and it seems timely to point out how science, once again, shows why evolutionary processes may lead to convergent behavior.
Our study indicates that the possible universe of complex networks is actually rather constrained. Networks display scale-free architecture but also small assortativeness. The search algorithm, instead of assuming the presence of a given predefined mechanism of network growth, simply searches for candidate solutions to an optimization algoritm trying to approach simultaneously some amount of network heterogeneity and correlations. The result is that indeed networks are scale-free and involve low degree of correlations, but such situation is constrained to a well-defined domain. This domain is remarkably similar to the one inhabited by real graphs. Outside this domain, it is not feasible to find graphs simultaneously satisfying the two requirements.
The impact of SF architecture on biological and artificial networks is clearly different. Although
the first can take advantage of the high homeostasis provided by scaling laws the second are completely dependent on the correct functioning of all units. Failure of a single diode in a circuit or of a single component in a software system leads to system collapse. Thus, homeostasis can not be a general explanation for scaling. We have conjectured that the leading force here is an optimization process where reliable communication at low cost shapes network architecture in first place (Sole et al., 2002). The need of a sparse graph can be a consequence of different requirements. In an electronic circuits, saving wire is a strong constraint. In metabolic or genetic networks, it might be important in order to reduce the impact of unstable positive feedbacks. This can be satisfied
by means of sparse graphs displaying scale-free architecture.
…
Such a constrained set of possibilities fits very well the view of evolution as strongly dominated by intrinsic constraints (Jacob, 1976; Alberch, 1989; Kauffman, 1993; Goodwin, 1994; see also Gould, 2003 for a critical discussion). Under this view, the outcome of evolutionary searches would be not any possible architecture from the set of possible patterns but a choice from a narrow subset of attainable structures. In this context, in spite of the contingencies intrinsic to evolutionary dynamics and history, the same basic repertoire of architectural motifs would be observable if the tape of evolution were rewound and played again (and this includes the evolution of technology).
Although monsters are in principle possible (figure 10) they are unlikely to occur (the software graph shown in figure 8b would be an example). The surprising convergence of complex networks towards heterogeneous, scale-free grahs might become a good example of the role of structural constraints to evolutionary dynamics.
Source: Ricard V. Sole eand Sergi Valverde Information Theory of Complex Networks: on evolution and architectural constraints
Science has many excellent papers on information theory and few if any reference the work by Dembski or Behe. Their work seems largely irrelevant to scientific research as it focuses on that which we do not know and uses the weak methods of elimination and analogy to make their case, when in fact science actually proposes positive hypotheses, empirical evidence, and hard work to support its claims.
Comment by PvM — July 14, 2006 @ 2:27 am
In comment 41, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
by which I meant “…questions…which are currently considered closed by non-ID’ers.” The list of seven questions you provided are NOT currently considered closed by non-ID’ers. On the contrary, each one is at least peripherally related to ongoing research in evolutionary biology, and several are central to it:
(1) “Can higher-order systems develop spontaneously from lower-order systems, or must such systems come from still-higher-order systems?”
It’s hard to translate this question into standard scientific terms, but if I understand it correctly, I think it simply asks “can natural selection alone produce complex biological structures and functions?” This is the core of most of the evolutionary program since 1859, and the overwhelmingly supported answer is yes.
(2) “What mechanism is the primary driver of animal form in diversification? Might diversification be much more internally driven than externally driven?”
This is a core question currently being investigated by researchers into macroevolution and evo-devo. Specifically, the source of “diversification” of any lineage from any other is the “engine(s) of variation” of those lineages. Contrary to the ID straw-man, random mutation alone (i.e. DNA point mutations, upon which all of Dembski and Stanford’s arguments are based) is only one “engine” of variation. In addition, there are (in order of increasing effect on both genotype and phenotype): nucleotide insertions/deletions, nucleotide sequence inversions, intra-chromosomal nucleotide sequence translocations (in eukaryotes), intra- and inter-DNA translocations via transposons and other parasitic genetic elements, single gene (i.e. chromosome segment) inversions, single gene translocations, multiple gene inversions, multiple gene translocations, equal inter-chromatid recombination (i.e. “crossing-over”) within a double-stranded chromosome, unequal inter-chromatid recombination (i.e. “crossing-over”) within a double-stranded chromosome, independent assortment (during meiosis), partial inter-chromosome translocations, balanced Robertsonian (i.e. whole chromosome) translocations, unbalanced Robertsonian (i.e. whole chromosome) translocations, transformation via partial genome incorporation (via plasmids and viruses), transformation via complete genome incorporation (via cellular fusion), endosymbiosis/cell fusion of unrelated cell lines, sexual recombination, allopolyploid hybridization, autopolyploid hybridization, developmental plasticity via epigenetic processes, and developmental plasticity via altered homeotic regulation. Please note that this is a highly condensed list (off the top of my very sleepy head), and almost certainly skips several other sources of genotypic and phenotypic variation, which is the raw material upon which natural selection operates. All of these processes have been, are, and will be intensively studied by scientists in the mainstream (i.e. Darwinian) tradition. Note that many of these involve interplay between internally driven and externally influenced forces that can drive diversification.
(3) “3) Does high homology between parts of different ancestors necessarily indicate that the arose from an ancestor which shared those parts, or might they simply be activating a similar code path individually? As a quick case-in-point, does the high homology between flavobacterium and pseudomonas nylon-digesting enzymes result from a common source of the gene through plasmids, or might they both instead be separately generated through a common mechanism?”
Mind if I only mention your case in point? I just finished reading the paper, and it’s clear to me that the authors used standard phylogenetic analysis (i.e. cladistic comparisons) to determine that the most probably source of the genes in question was via plasmid transfer. This is, of course, a standard explanation of gene-level homology in otherwise unrelated (or at most distantly related) prokaryotes, and as the research paper itself indicates, is a currently very hot field of study (i.e. the question is NOT considered closed).
(4) “If an intelligent agent is required for the creation of the genome, how would one determine how many times this occurred?”
Before one could even address this question, it would first be necessary to devise an empirical method by which one could determine “If an intelligent agent is required for the creation of the genome”. How would you do this using standard empiric techniques?
(5) “If life arose more than once, might it have occurred at distinct times?”
Again, before one could address this question, it would first be necessary to devise an empirical method by which one could determine “If life had arisen more than once”. How would you do this using standard empiric techniques?
(6) Is there adequate justification to say that the higher taxonomic categories must have arisen via common descent versus separate creation?
There is overwhelming empirical evidence that points to descent with modification from common ancestors. Michael Behe himself endorses this position on page 176 of Darwin’s Black Box. There is, by contrast, no empirical evidence at all (at least none published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature) for the creationist position, nor is it clear what kind of empirical evidence would be necessary to validate this position (if any).
(7) “It opens up the possibility that “mind” is not the result of physics, but instead a separate causal order from material causes.”
This sounds like a statement, not a question. IMO, the mind is composed of information, not physical stuff at all. Therefore, it is not constrained by the “laws” of physics (or any other natural law, for that matter…pun intended, of course).
This is not to say that mind can exist independently of matter, any more than a computer program can exist independently of some matter-based vehicle for its existence (i.e. either a silicon or carbon-based “computer”…like the very sleepy one inside my skull).
Good night…
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 14, 2006 @ 2:50 am
“Intelligent Design relies on the elimination and provides as such no foundations for its claims beyond “science cannot explain X’.”
Incorrect. First of all, you are confusing Design Detection with being all of ID. In fact, this is only part of it. ID, as I have pointed out earlier, is a theory of causation. So anything dealing with the way agency interacts with the material world is included. This includes things as diverse as Jeffrey Schwartz research on brain pathways that can be modified by the mind (with the mind as a controlling element of the brain, rather than the electrochemical properties of the brain being primary) and using design principles to discover functionality within biological systems.
Second of all, design detection is only eliminative in one component. The other component compares a given phenomena to the kinds of products produced by minds to see if the given phenomena matches.
The inference of design can then be used as a heuristic to ask additional questions or elucidate additional functioning of the system. Jonathan Wells is using this to ask questions about Centriole mechanics.
An unnamed colleague of Dembski is likewise using such an inference to help him in modelling cerebral blood flow. ID likewise appears to be the unifying force of Lonnig’s work on plant transposons. It led axe to ask the question of how sensitive proteins were to amino acid changes. Marc Henry used ID principles to resolve thermodynamic paradoxes in water in living systems, the result of his essentially lifelong investigation into that and related subjects.
I have not had the opportunity or man-power to test this yet, but I have used ID principles to propose a new function for N and P elements in V(D)J recombination (R14).
I imagine that there are a lot of other people using ID on an ongoing basis, and simply keeping quiet about it.
“If God worked within the bounds of natural law then natural law can explain the system and thus ID is blocked from making its inference.”
You are confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. Think about any sort of information-generation. The writing of very post is consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry. However, the laws of physics and chemistry do not explain the post itself, and in fact the post would not have come into existence without a mind. Mere physics alone does not have the causitive power to produce it.
ID examines mind without restricting it to a reductionist framework. It recognizes mind as a cause which must be dealt with if science is to have the fullest explanatory power. Why be so limitting as to not include what is perhaps the most often and universally experienced causal force?
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — July 14, 2006 @ 8:08 am
Bartlett: Incorrect. First of all, you are confusing Design Detection with being all of ID. In fact, this is only part of it. ID, as I have pointed out earlier, is a theory of causation. So anything dealing with the way agency interacts with the material world is included
So ID is more than about elimination but really, ID as it is popularized is all about elimination because elimination is the only way for ID to not have to address anything about the designer.
Is it a theory of causation? ID refuses to deal in pathetic issues such as pathways (just ask Dembski).
So all ID is a framework to ask questions. Fine… of course these questions have little relevance to ID itself but I understand that in the past many scientists found it helpful.
There is so much wrong with Bartlett’s claims and although he admits that one component is elimination (a major one at that, just look at how ID treats evolution) he also insists that another component is a positive one of how mind works. Of course such an argument from analogy is a very weak argument.
As Bartlett has shown, ID is irrelevant scientifically as all the examples he gave led to natural pathways.
It’s at most ‘helpful to some’ as a tool to formulate their hypotheses. But that is hardly something new, scientists have used teleology often to formulate hypotheses.
The idea that mind is not causative or reducible to regularity and chance are just simply unsupportable.
The claim that when such processes are eliminated what remains is design is based on a presumption that the mind is somehow supernatural.
Information generation is just a filter which takes the possible and constrains it. Nothing magical here. Information arises all the time via natural processes.
Comment by PvM — July 14, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
Question for ID proponents:
Since ID has failed to present its own explanations for scientific observation, is it perhaps, as Bartlett seems to suggest, scientifically useful as it helps formulate hypotheses which help find the regularity and chance processes which explain the system?
If such teleological thinking however has been part of scientific thinking, then what does ID really have to contribute here?
It seems to me that the role for ID is a very minimal one at most and even there, ID fails to really be a scientific ‘metatheory’ for much of the same reasons it is scientifically vacuous.
Mind as a cause is scientifically quite well covered as archaeology, criminology have shown. That mind is governed by ‘laws’ is self evident from much on the research which shows the importance of genetics as well as environment on how people behave. After all, much money is succesfully spent on predicting consumer behavior.
Mind is nothing much different from regularity and chance. Both are guided by law like principle with a component of ‘chance’ which is merely an placeholder for choices made for which we lack sufficient information to determine its cause.
While Bartlett may object to such reductionism, I find his rejection of reductionism when it comes to mind interesting and I believe his position could benefit from explaining how the mind is different from natural processes of regularity and chance? How does ID explain the success of science to explain the mind quite succesfully in processes of regularity and chance? What are these processes that are not reducible to regularity and chance?
Since the premise is that design is outside the realm of natural processes, it seems quite important that we determine actual support for this and explain, what is involved.
In the mean time profiling, consumer context and personalization engines seem to be quite succesful in predicting consumer behavior and interests.
Comment by PvM — July 14, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
PvM —
This is one of the reasons I wish that “Reason in the Balance” had been chosen for one of the books for this course. If I remember correctly, Johnson makes a good case for why reason and reasonableness themselves require a view of the mind beyond chance and necessity.
An interesting look at the issue can be seen in Voie’s Biological Function and the Genetic Code are Interdependent.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — July 14, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
Here’s a hypothetical conversation:
“Joe to Philip: ‘You know, I’ve got water leaking into my bedroom. That darn roof isn’t worth a darn.’
Philip to Joe: ‘But you just had your roof replaced.’ ‘Yeah, I know,’ Joe goes on, ‘but I’m sure it’s the roof.’ ‘But Joe,’ Philip insists, ‘I was just up in your attic last week when it was raining, right over your bedroom, and I didn’t see a drop of water coming through the roof up there.’ ‘Yeah, yeah, you’re right. But I’m still convinced it’s the roof.’”
Now Philip couldn’t tell Joe what was causing the leak; but isn’t it helpful information to know that it “isn’t” the roof?
I think the analogy is obvious. If Darwinism is wrong, then the sooner it’s dropped, the better off all of biology will be. It would have been better if Philip could have told Joe that when he was up in the attic the week before, he noticed a leaking pipe. But Joe will never get around to that theory if he never lets go of “it’s the roof!” (”evolution did it!”)
And, so, it’s a complete distraction whether, or whether not, ID answers all the questions. “Eliminating” possibilities is equivalent to an “advance.” As the baseball saying goes: “A walk is as good as a hit.”
Comment by Lino D\\\'Ischia — July 14, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
Bartlett: This is one of the reasons I wish that “Reason in the Balance” had been chosen for one of the books for this course. If I remember correctly, Johnson makes a good case for why reason and reasonableness themselves require a view of the mind beyond chance and necessity.
Of all the people, you seem to rely on Johnson. Perhaps you could outline the reasoning behind this claim as I find the claim highly unsupported in either logic, empirical evidence or theoretical foundation and contradicted by that which we do know namely that intelligence can be quite well captured in terms of regularity and chance. If there is a third component however that is missed here, then I would love to hear about it.
Lino is correct that if Darwinism is wrong, it is better dropped sooner than later. So the alternative should be that if Darwinism is right, it should be embraced?
ID however fails to answer any questions, let alone whether or not Darwinism is wrong. It in fact embraces Darwinism to a large extent and leaves open design for a few systems.
An interesting look at the issue can be seen in Voie’s Biological Function and the Genetic Code are Interdependent.
Interesting at most but a lot of unsupported claims.
Comment by PvM — July 16, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
For those interested in Voie and the problems with the argument see
Peer Reviewed Bad ID Math Mark C. Chu-Carroll at
scienceblogsDOTcom/goodmath/2006/07/peer_reviewed_bad_id_math.php
Conclusion
So… To summarize the points of the argument:
1.Dualism: there is a distinction between the physical realm of objects and machines, and the idealogical realm of symbols and functions; if something exists in the symbolic realm, it can’t be represented in the physical realm except by the intervention of an intelligent mind.
2.Gödel’s theorem says that self-referential systems are impossible, except by intervention of an intelligent mind. (wrong)
3.Gödel’s theorem says that incompleteness statements are true.(wrong)
4. Biological systems are a combination of functional and symbol parts which form a self-referential system.
5. Therefore, biological systems can only exist as the result of the deliberate actions of an intelligent being.
As Taner Edis has shown:
Abstract. Godel’s Theorem is often used in arguments against machine intelli-
gence, suggesting humans are not bound by the rules of any formal system. However,
Godelian arguments can be used to support AI, provided we extend our notion of
computation to include devices incorporating random number generators. A com-
plete description scheme can be given for integer functions, by which nonalgorithmic
functions are shown to be partly random. Not being restricted to algorithms can be
accounted for by the availability of an arbitrary random function. Humans, then,
might not be rule-bound, but Godelian arguments also suggest how the relevant sort
of nonalgorithmicity may be trivially made available to machines.
Taner Edis in How Godel’s Theorem Supports the Possibility of Machine Intelligence in Minds and Machines Issue: Volume 8, Number 2 Date: November 1998 Pages: 251 - 262
It’s the ‘randomness’ involved in choice which may hold the answers.
Comment by PvM — July 16, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
Let me try to explain Edis’s argument
G2) Human intelligence is not bound by rules, or restricted to any particular set of algorithms. We can succeed in cases where algorithms must fail on account of being algorithms, even though we do not have meaningful oracles available to us.
In other words, algorithms are bound by strict rules and those familiar with the rules can always outperform it.
For example
We can illustrate oracle-free nonalgorithmicity by a very simple cop-and robber game (Figure 1). There are two houses which a cop and a robber can move in between. The cop and robber start in different houses. Each turn, the players have the option of changing houses, or staying put. If they end up in the same house, the robber is caught and
the game is over. Let us say the cop conducts her house-to-house search according to regulations in the police manual. However, there is no general algorithm for catching the robber. For if the robber follows the same algorithm for switching or staying – perhaps having learnt the contents of the police manual – he will never be caught.
In other words, the robber can avoid the algorithm from catching him. However the addition of randomness to the algorithm turns matters upside down. Now it becomes inevitable that the robber is eventually captured.
If the cop acts randomly, tossing a coin to decide whether she will switch or stay, she will catch the robber in a finite number of turns. Capture is certain if the robber behaves according to an algorithm, and it has probability 1 otherwise.
Edis then continues to address the completeness of algorithmic and randomness.
Comment by PvM — July 16, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
If Edis’s argument shapes up the way you are describing, it appears that Edis actually isn’t addressing the argument at all. She is merely extending slightly the number of algorithms representable algorithmically by adding random number generation. It doesn’t address the issue at all.
I’m also not sure GoodMath has understood Voie’s paper. Here is a lay version of Voie’s argument. It may even have been written by Voie, though I’m not sure:
—–
A property that is essential for life is the property of reproduction. The quest for a self-
replicating machine has for long time been a hot topic. Visionary scientists have pictured man
sending out self-replicating machines to other planets in order to populate them and carry out tasks such as mining etc. What does it take for a system to reproduce? Are there any requirements for its design? Actually the task seemed for many years unsolvable for logical reasons. It has been proven impossible for a system to reproduce merely by inspecting its own parts. It is impossible for a mechanical machine to have a complete description of itself. Von Neumann believed that life was ultimately based on logic, and so there should be a logic construct that should be able to support the reproduction as observed in life. In order to solve the implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, von Neumann had to introduce a blueprint of the machine. The trick is to employ representations or names of objects, which code can be smaller than the objects themselves and can indeed be contained in that object.
Von Neumann’s abstract machine consisted of two central elements: a Universal Computer and a Universal Constructor. The Universal Constructor builds another Universal Constructor based on the directions contained in the Universal Computer. When finished, the Universal Constructor copies the Universal Computer and hands the copy to its descendant. As a model of a self-replicating system it has its counterpart in life where the Universal Computer is represented by the instructions contained in the genes, while the Universal Constructor is represented by the cell and its machinery. In order to replicate, the necessity of a symbolic self-reference is a general premise in logic and life.
——
I won’t reproduce the whole thing, but you can email me for a copy of the whole thing. But the core argument is there. The self-replicator needs to have the symbolic self-referencing system in-place already before it is functional. An abstract replicator cannot function without a system of self-representation in place.
Comment by Jonathan Bartlett — July 16, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
Let’s for the moment assume that Voie is correct even though he has not presented the supporting evidence that a symbolic self reference is a general principle.
Does this mean that self referential systems could not have arisen naturally? The question once again becomes on of the plausibility of the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code etc. What if the original role of the self-referencing system was one founded in natural law and only over time an internal symbolic system arose? Even in present days we see how the environment plays a very relevant role in embryology.
In proteins we see how ‘folding’ comes naturally under the forces of physics. The membrane may have evolved from something as simple as globs of fats which form ‘cells’ under forces of nature.
The origin of the coding system meant that the ‘organism’ was able to free itself from the constraints of physics and could explore more open ended forms.
Also, Godel’s incompleteness theorem is very relevant to the concept of self-reference. Resolving the completeness paradox via randomness certainly seems quite relevant here.
Now one may argue, where did the laws of nature come from which serve as the original self-representation for the system? However I fail to see why there is a problem here for evolution and/or origin of life
Comment by PvM — July 17, 2006 @ 12:53 am
As an example Fox protocells come to mind. They are guided by simple natural law and still ‘reproduce’ and show some indicators of what people would consider life.
Extend the existence of simple self reproducing protocells and linear polymers to a scenario in which the two systems merge, and eventually ‘evolve’ a genetic system.
What is so interesting is the evidence that early genetic code may have had its origins in chemical affinity, thus showing how the original genetic code was (largely) guided by natural law.
Kauffman in The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. (1995) argued that autocatalytic systems can evolve without the need for coding. In other words, the genetic code came later and the sign and interpreter arose instantaneously.
Comment by PvM — July 17, 2006 @ 1:16 am
Hannah, you asked whether my reasoning was “inductive” as the following claims
if someone actually had actual evidence and a compelling scientific alternative explanation to explain the diversity of life forms throughout the history of earth, that “someone” would be very very highly regarded by biologists around the world.
Likewise, if a physicist came forward with actual evidence and a compelling alternative explanation supporting an earth-centered solar system, that physicist would become a superstar in the community.
Gee, Hannah, I have to say: I don’t know or really care. This is common sense. If you want to argue about the odds that the atmosphere of earth is going to consist mostly of nitrogen or chocolate ice cream tomorrow and what kind of “reasoning” it requires to predict “nitrogen” with 100% certainty then be my guest.
You are the one that appears to be extraordinarily skeptical regarding the evolution of life on earth, not me.
Do you apply the same skepticism to all questions or just particular questions? Have you ever asked yourself why you choose to be skeptical about certain things and not others?
I think those are interesting questions. The odds that Behe will become famous and respectfully recognized for his scientific claims vis a vis evolutionary biology are extremely low. Do you disagree? If so: why? Your answer is more interesting than my claim because my claim is, well, mundane.
Comment by Michael Hubl — July 17, 2006 @ 2:26 am
Michael, you have a point that if ID were right, the science would prove them right sooner than later. As such the lack of relevance of ID is an indicator to the contrary but by itself it cannot be seen as evidence that ID is wrong as it is based on the same false duality that troubles so often creationist arguments.
Showing how the arguments are fallacious is a much better way of arguing against ID than claiming that it has failed to earn a nobel prize, so to speak.
Since ID also ‘argues’ that ID is being surpressed by the mainstream science and that it lacks money and resources etc etc, the argument also seems to be little compelling to ID proponents as it merely reinforces the belief that ID is being surpressed. Of course, the evidence of such is mostly lacking but that does not mean that such fear can be used to strengthen the conviction of ID proponents. Rather than trivializing ID, it seems that encouraging ID proponents to actually go through the arguments and reach their own conclusions may be much more effective and this is what Allen’s course is trying to achieve.
Knowledge is power and the more familiar ID proponents become with the theory of evolution as well as the claims of ID, the better they can judge for themselves.
Comment by PvM — July 17, 2006 @ 3:00 am
My point is that it isn’t; though it may look “reasonable” on a superficial level, if you try to examine the grounds for your hypothesis you find it entirely baseless.
A great many questions, I promise you; usually more than is comfortable to question at any given time :-). But just because you’ve got to come to terms with the idea that there are very few things you can know absolutely doesn’t mean you need to avoid analyzing them to find how much basis (if any) they actually have.
Why belive something without any logical grounds?
Comment by Hannah — July 17, 2006 @ 8:44 am
In comment #58, Jonathan Bartlett lamented that Phillip Johnson’s Reason in the Balance was not one of the required readings for this course.
Let me assure you that it was in the running, as were his Darwin on Trial and The Right Questions. I also considered Wiker’s Moral Darwinism, as all of these books very clearly demonstrate that ID is primarily a political and social movement, rather than a scientific one.
However, I settled on Johnson’s The Wedge of Truth because in it Johnson tackles all of these questions and embeds them in an explicitly political, social, and theological context.
Which should indicate why any soi dissant “scientific” theory of ID is simply an oxymoron. As Judge Jones was able to determine from the actions and testimony of the ID supporters themselves, ID theory as it is currently practiced isn’t about science at all. It’s about promoting a particular political, religious, and social point of view in the public schools, and as such it violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
Johnson’s books have become something of an embarassment to the “scientific” ID crowd, as he descends ever deeper into gay-bashing, Muslim-bashing, and evolution-bashing via ad hominem arguments. However, I believe that it is as important for people involved in an extended exploration of this debate to understand the philosophical and theological roots of the disagreement. That’s why I chose “The Blind Watchmaker” as an exemplar of Richard Dawkins’ version of evolutionary theory, and why I chose “The Wedge of Truth” (and the so-called “wedge document” produced by the Discovery Institute) as an exemplar of the ID movement’s founding convictions.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 17, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
We’ll debate this later, but the missing piece here is the connection between (your version of) Johnson’s beliefs and the (in)validity of ID theory, or Dawkin’s beliefs and the (in)validity of evolution. Without that, going into the theories of motivations can be a huge waste of time.
Dawkins can say whatever he likes about evolution, and connect it with watever he likes about evil creationists or child-abusing religious people, but an examination of his opinions there is completely irrelevant to any of the questions in this debate. Only if someone gave up on attacking evolution itself and wanted a rhetorical way to save face would it help to bring them in as an argument.
And even then it is likely to backfire. It was slightly ironic, for instance, to read the words “ad hominem” in the first sentence of your last paragraph.
Comment by Hannah — July 17, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
I’m curious now, though– if you really wanted to look into the supposed “religious roots of the disagreement”, why did you choose something as mundane as Blind Watchmaker to represent Dawkins? That is probably him at his most polite. You might have screened his highly amusing documentary, Root of All Evil.
Comment by Hannah — July 17, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
Hannah: We’ll debate this later, but the missing piece here is the connection between (your version of) Johnson’s beliefs and the (in)validity of ID theory, or Dawkin’s beliefs and the (in)validity of evolution. Without that, going into the theories of motivations can be a huge waste of time.
It helps understand why ID, despite being without much scientific merrit has managed to acquire a believing following. In order to understand this, one has to understand the philosophical arguments of ID proponents like Johnson who conflate naturalism and methodological naturalism to instill an unnecessary fear into believers that atheism is about to take over the schools, science and our world. As such, ID arises to counter what is seen as a basic evil of evolutionary theory as it is seen as some to reject the need for a deity.
Once one understands the perceived cost of failure, it helps understand the persistance of some in arguing in favor of ID, and the nature of the ‘arguments’.
Such as the focus by Behe on natural selection only as if it is the only relevant evolutionary force, and similarly Behe and other IDers who seem to consider any objection to natural selection as a fatal blow to evolutionary theory.
Understanding why Dembski concludes that science without God is impossible.
As Pennock observes
n a 1990 article in Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith he presented such purported gaps as a test of Christianity: [T]here are, he writes, gaps which theology says science shall never fill. Intelligent design, Dembski said in a 1999 Touchstone article, is just the logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. In the Beginning was the Word. (Hmm, is there really, as he claims, no justification for seeing ID as a variation of biblical creationism?)
In Kitzmiller dover transcript we find more goodies
While understanding the motivations of ID proponents is not sufficient to explain why we see such papers as Meyer’s on the Cambrian or Behe on ‘evolution’ which ignore much known research and make various unsupported claims worthy of a rule of engagement like this board has.
Understanding that IDers are convinced of the truth of their position, one can understand why so little effort seems to be spent on actual scientific work and why even the slightest discrepancy is seen as a fundamental flaw of evolutionary theory while ignoring the shaky basis of their own claims.
Motivation is essential to understand the history of the arguments, its relationship to creationism, and its reliance on negative eliminative arguments as this is the only way to really argue in favor of an unembodied (read supernatural) designer. But as such the arguments suffer from much of the same flaws as earlier arguments that were meant to prove the existence of a God.
As an ex young earth creationist, I have seen how uncritical people accept the statements by people they see as being of impeccable reputation. Failing to realize that a minister hardly is an expert on geology, physics or even biology, his statements are seen as irrefutible, after all God tells us so. Even the social pressures are built around teams of believers who sponsor a new believer and inform him how the bible should be interpreted correctly. Questions are not encouraged, especially not challenges that involve scientific questions. I have seen how these situations create an atmosphere where critical thought is eliminated or actively discouraged. As a scientist and Christian I see such attempts to be extremely destructive as they undermine the nature of science and faith.
Understanding Johnson and others helps understand the fears which have led to an authoritarian acceptance of questions of faith and science. After all, the bible tells me so, well the minister tells me so, but he is a servant of the Lord.
Now I could point to research which shows how acceptance of authoritarianism is linked to religiosity and how fear serves to strenghten the link to authoritarianism but that would get too far away from this thread.
I have viewed part of the Root of all Evil and found it quite interesting. I am not sure what you considered to be amusing, I have not seen the final episode yet but the arguments are very worth considering. Nevertheless Dawkins is much better known for his book on the Blind Watchmaker than on his documentary the Root of All Evil which has little to do with the issue of evolution.
Johnson, who is not a scientists but a lawyer needs to be studied in his role in establishing the ID movement. Understanding the foundations of the ID movement help understand its arguments, its fears and its hopes.
Dawkins however is merely one voice of many within the world of (evolutionary) science.
It may be that Dawkins has contributed significantly to the fear by IDers of atheism taking over but that’s where Dawkins role seems to end. He is mostly a rallying point to represent ’science’ when in fact he is merely a strawman. Let me point out that anyone who uses science and claims that it proves or disproves any particular faith is abusing faith and science. If that includes Dawkins then let it be so, I have no patience for those who abuse science, one way or the other. The difference between Dawkins and Johnson is that Dawkins has philosophical arguments and scientific arguments (although sometimes mixed) while Johnson’s arguments are mostly philosophical as his scientific arguments suffer from many of the same flaws as earlier creationist arguments. Lamoureux, in his review of one of johnson’s books, mostly destroyed Johnson’s arguments of science and lamented the conflation of the terms philosophical and methodological naturalism.
and yet this conflation of terms still continues, instilling an unneccessary level of fear into many faithful who are looking to others for guidance in faith and are served ’suspicious science’.
Let me end by stating explicitly that I do not consider all IDers to have similar motivations as it is a big tent. I am focusing in my arguments mostly on the leadership of ID and some of its more vocal supporters.
I am sure that there are those who are sincerely convinced that science can answer these questions of faith. I hope that these people come to understand that such a search may cause significant damage to science and faith while failing to resolve the ultimate question. as long as ID insists on an eliminative approach, I feel that they are doing much damage to science and faith.
hope this explains my position, although a bit rambling….
Comment by PvM — July 18, 2006 @ 1:46 am
Thank you, Pim, for making my argument better than I could. Indeed, understanding the motivations of the founders of the ID movement are not only relevent, they are essential when attempting to determine why people hold the positions they do.
It explains, for example, why Michael Behe could claim under oath that a stack of journal articles and books did not change his position on the origin of the immune system. When one is faced with a choice between doctrine and evidence, one’s motivations become decisive. My reading and conversations with many IDers has indicated to me that no amount of evidence will shake them from their position, because that position is not taken on the basis of evidence.
This is particularly the case for Phillip Johnson, the person that many IDers (most notably Michael Behe and William Dembski) credit with founding the “ID movement.” In reading Johnson’s books (including The Wedge of Truth, I have come to the conclusion that he came to the position he has and has held it throughout this controversy because that position is absolutely necessary to justify a political, social, and especially theological position that he literally cannot change, much less repudiate.
By contrast, I can say with confidence that such is not the case for most of the scientists with whom I am acquainted and about whom I am aware. On the contrary, to be a scientist is to be dedicated to the proposition that every theory is “up for grabs” in the face of new, disconfirming evidence. I have changed my mind many times in course of my career, and expect I will do so again, if the evidence demands that I do so. If there were sufficient empirical evidence to the contrary, I would even give up the theory of evolution, as it is only the preferred theory to date because it explains the preponderence of the evidence. There is, in other words, nothing “sacred” about any scientific theory, nothing that would make it impossible for me (or any other scientist) to change my mind about it. Can any IDer reading this thread say the same?
Comment by Allen MacNeill — July 18, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
Do I qualify as an ID’er, Allen? I definitely can.
Comment by Hannah — July 18, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
Likewise, if a physicist came forward with actual evidence and a compelling alternative explanation supporting an earth-centered solar system, that physicist would become a superstar in the community.
That reminds me, there’s an article in the latest issue of Discover magazine (August 2006) about the main proponent of MOND, an alternative to dark matter for explaining the failure of current physics (relativity) in describing the rotation of galaxies. Sorry I don’t recall his name right now, but if his theory works out, I’m sure that at some point in the future his name will be known to all schoolchildren.
BTW, he is not asking for his theory to be taught in K-12 schools before there is substantial confirming evidence.
Comment by ivy privy — July 18, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
Seems I was mostly on the right track with my objections to Voie. I had no idea that this was both a relatively old issue and quite well addressed by the various players in this area.
Such as Pattee and Rocha, Peter Wills,
See BioSystems Vol. 60, No. 1-3
Autocatalysis, Information and Coding by Peter Wills
Evolution with Material Symbol Systems by Luis M. Rocha
The semiotics of Control and Modeling Relations in Complex Systems by Cliff Joslyn
From Complexity to Simplicity: Nature and symbols by Arantza Etxeberria and Alvaro Moreno
If interested I would love to discuss this since it seems that many of the objections by Voie have already been dealt with.
Comment by PvM — July 18, 2006 @ 11:23 pm
Also relevant to Dembski’s Needle In the Haystack arguments in “searching large spaces” is Pattee’s comment
Finally, I will summarize some of the physical requirements for successfully bridging the epistemic cut. In effect we are answering von Neumann’s “most intriguing, exciting, and important question of why the molecules . . . are the sort of things they are.” First is the search problem. It was a problem for Darwin, and with the discovery of the DNA helix and the code that precisely maps base sequences to protein sequences the search problem appeared worse. By assuming that molecular details are significant one sees a base sequence space that is hopelessly large for any detailed search. But while this assumption is correct for the symbolic side of the cut we now know that the assumption is wrong for the function on the other side of the cut. Bridging the epistemic cuts implies executing classifications of physical details, and the quality of the classifications determine the quality of function. We know that protein sequences are functionally highly redundant and that many amino acid replacements do not significantly alter the function. We also know that many base sequence aliases can construct proteins with essentially the same shape. Also, simplified models of RNA secondary folding suggest that the search is not like looking for a specific needle in an infinite haystack, but looking for any needle in a haystack full of needles that are uniformly distributed (e.g., Schuster, 1994). There is also evidence that the search is far more efficient than classical blind variation. Artificial genetic algorithms have shown unexpected success in finding acceptable solutions for many types of search problems that appear logically or algorithmically intractable.
Pattee is the person who originally raised the closure problem and seems to be the foundation for Voie’s arguments.
Seems that Pattee is addressing two ID proponents’ claims here :-)
Pattee H.H.. [2001]. “The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut”. Biosystems. Vol. 60, pp. 5-21.
Comment by PvM — July 18, 2006 @ 11:30 pm
That reminds me, there’s an article in the latest issue of Discover magazine (August 2006) about the main proponent of MOND, an alternative to dark matter for explaining the failure of current physics (relativity) in describing the rotation of galaxies.
This is Mordehai Milgrom.
Comment by ivy privy — July 19, 2006 @ 3:17 pm