Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Recent Comments
- Tara Smith on February 24, 2005 11:41 AM
- ts on February 24, 2005 11:24 AM
- David Heddle on February 24, 2005 11:15 AM
- Wayne Francis on February 24, 2005 10:53 AM
- David Heddle on February 24, 2005 10:26 AM
- Flint on February 24, 2005 09:48 AM
- GCT on February 24, 2005 09:08 AM
- David Heddle on February 24, 2005 04:50 AM
- Buridan on February 23, 2005 10:37 PM
- Wayne Francis on February 23, 2005 10:00 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Tara Smith on February 22, 2005 10:24 AM
Every now and then, I check in over at The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) to see what new projects they’re up to, as well as to see if they’ve released a particular genome sequence I’m waiting on. Yesterday I noticed this project:
Innovative Metagenomics Strategy Used To Study Oral Microbes
Rockville, MD - The mouth is awash in microbes, but scientists so far have merely scratched the surface in identifying and studying the hundreds of bacteria that live in biofilm communities that stick to the teeth and gums.
In an innovative new project that could help improve the detection and treatment of oral diseases, scientists are now using a metagenomics strategy to analyze the complex and difficult-to-study community of microbes in the oral cavity.
***
In recent years, molecular methods have indicated that there are well over 400 species of bacteria in the oral cavity. But, so far, only about 150 of those species have been cultured in laboratories and given scientific names. Using a metagenomics sequencing strategy, TIGR scientists will be able to identify bits and pieces of the DNA of many of those oral microbes that so far have not been grown in labs and studied.
Now, I know that there are an insane amount of microbes in the mouth, but 400 species? Holy cow.
For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the microbiology of plaque, it’s an incredibly complex mixture consisting of both bacterial and host cells, as well as inorganic material such as calcium and phosphate. The formation of plaque has been fairly well-studied, and can be broken down into several steps.
1) Pellicle formation. This begins as soon as teeth are cleaned. Substances (mainly glycoproteins) in your saliva then adhere to your teeth.
2) In the next step, the pellicle-coated teeth is colonized by a number of gram-positive bacteria, including several strains of Streptococci. These “primary colonizers” produce proteins which allow for attachment and adherence to the pellicle-coated tooth surface.
3) Plaque on the surface then increases as the primary colonizers divide, and as secondary colonizers attach to the primary colonizers, and multiply in number as well. Secondary colonizers include gram-negatives such as Prevotella intermedia and Capnocytophaga species (as well as many others).
4) Tertiary colonizers (generally ~1 week post-brushing—so hopefully most of us aren’t too familiar with them!) These include species of Porphyromonas, Campylobacter, and Treponema, and again, many others. By this time, metabolic reactions in the biofilm may lead to predictable structures in some members of the plaque: for example, a “corn cob” like array of cocci bound to filaments within the biofilm.
While some of the bacteria present feed off of oral nutrients supplied by the host (such as sugars), others within the plaque rely upon nutrients produced by other bacteria within the biofilm. Additionally, some species produce products which inhibit the growth of other species in the biofilm; for example, peroxide or acids. And of course, these acids also play a role in producing the characteristic holes in your teeth that can come from regular accumulation of dental plaque.
Nishihara and Koseki provide this schematic of the current model of dental plaque formation:
Of course, plaque are not the only biofilm we know of. They’re everywhere: on your shower curtain, on medical devices implanted in patients, on rocks in rivers and streams, and in your nose. While the sheer number of different organisms a biofilm may contain makes it a challenge to study, I personally relish that challenge, and would much rather tackle it than throw my hands in the air and say it’s “too complex” to have come about naturally.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/838
Comment #17425
Posted by PvM on February 22, 2005 11:26 AM (e) (s)
Let’s differentiate between religious faith not interfering with science and ID arguing from an argument from ignorance. ID does not provide any scientifically relevant hypothesis that outlines biologically complex systems, how they came about, when, where, etc.
Comment #17440
Posted by Russell on February 22, 2005 12:15 PM (e) (s)
[quote]This is a common error ingrained in the naturalist mindset. Were it actually the case that belief in a designer thwarted the desire to study nature and discover its secrets, e.g., Newton would never have written Principia. There are many serious complaints that can be lodged against design arguments - this isn’t one of them.[quote]
This seems a bit simplistic. Had western civilization not been dominated by the Cosmic Watchmaker mindset, who’s to say we wouldn’t have had 10 Newton-like geniuses?
It seems to me it IS valid to ask how Behe-like defeatism (“couldn’t have happened naturally - had to be the work of something beyond human understanding”) could fail to dampen one’s enthusiasm for asking questions like “How could this have come to be?”
Comment #17441
Posted by Michael Finley on February 22, 2005 12:21 PM (e) (s)
Let’s differentiate between religious faith not interfering with science and ID arguing from an argument from ignorance.
Let’s also differentiate between an investigation of biological systems and an investigation of their origins. The implication of Tara Smith’s comment was that a belief in a designer has adverse effects on the scientist’s desire to investigate biological systems per se: “Why should I study nature? I believe it was designed.”
ID does not provide any scientifically relevant hypothesis that outlines biologically complex systems, how they came about, when, where, etc.
Why is the hypothesis of a designer not scientifically relevant? The biological phenomena are consistent with the hypothesis of a designer. There are predictions that follow from such a hypothesis, e.g., similarities in structure (cf. similarities between different paintings and sculptures of the same artist).
What kinds of explanation (as oppossed to particular explanations) can Darwinism supply that design theory cannot?
Comment #17443
Posted by Michael Finley on February 22, 2005 12:25 PM (e) (s)
This seems a bit simplistic. Had western civilization not been dominated by the Cosmic Watchmaker mindset, who’s to say we wouldn’t have had 10 Newton-like geniuses?
Who is to say? Who’s to say we wouldn’t have had any? I can only look at what in fact occurred: modern science was constructed by men who believed that nature owes its structure to a divine being.
Comment #17446
Posted by Paul Orwin on February 22, 2005 12:47 PM (e) (s)
Aah, nothing like talk of oral biofilms to get everyone to brush their teeth a lot! That is a great schematic, I’ll have to er, use it, for my biofilm lecture. In the second week of micro lab, we have the students scrape the base of their teeth, and look at it under the darkfield ‘scope to see Treponema, They usually can find some…even if they brush a lot!
Comment #17450
Posted by Russell on February 22, 2005 01:00 PM (e) (s)
Michael Finley:
Who is to say? Who’s to say we wouldn’t have had any?
No argument from me there. It’s just that this:
Were it actually the case that belief in a designer thwarted the desire to study nature and discover its secrets, e.g., Newton would never have written Principia.
is false.
Comment #17456
Posted by Michael Finley on February 22, 2005 01:14 PM (e) (s)
Russell:
How is it false? If belief in a designer thwarts scientific inquiry, and, e.g., Newton believed in a designer, wouldn’t it follow that Newton’s scientific inquiry would have been thwarted?
Doesn’t the fact that Newton had the drive to write Principia provide a counter-example to the above antecedent?
Comment #17459
Posted by Grey Wolf on February 22, 2005 01:22 PM (e) (s)
Michael Finley said:
What kinds of explanation (as oppossed to particular explanations) can Darwinism supply that design theory cannot?
All kinds of explanaitions except the universal blanket “he wanted it so” which is the empty explanation intelligent design theory can give. For example: “Why is the sky blue?” “The Designer wanted it so” “Why do so many species exist?” “The designer wanted it so” etc. ID is an empty theory that explains everything with that one answer and, by extension doesn’t explain anything, because if the sky happened to be green or we happened to be the only species in the planet, they would still be valid answers.
In short, ID has only one explanaition which fits every possible question imaginable. Thus, it is useless.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Comment #17461
Posted by Tara Smith on February 22, 2005 01:23 PM (e) (s)
Let’s also differentiate between an investigation of biological systems and an investigation of their origins.
I don’t see much difference there, frankly. The issue is complex systems, and how they could have come to be. A flagellum, for example, is assembled in an analogous manner to a biofilm. Instead of different species of bacteria, it’s different proteins that build on each other, with the final product being quite a bit more than the sum of its parts.
The implication of Tara Smith’s comment was that a belief in a designer has adverse effects on the scientist’s desire to investigate biological systems per se: “Why should I study nature? I believe it was designed.”
Not necessarily on a scientist’s desire to study them, though it could affect that as well. However, I do indeed think it has an effect on non-scientists. I’ve asked this many times and never gotten an answer from a creationist/IDist—if we assume something is “designed,” and that this designer can just jump in and poke around with stuff willy-nilly, why bother investigating at all?
I see this as a fundamental difference between Newton and many early Christian scientists, who sought to further understand God by understanding his creation, and modern-day “intelligent design.” ID claims that such “designs” could not have happened without interference—as such, why bother investigating them at all, if they’re too hopelessly complex for we mere mortals to understand?
How is it false? If belief in a designer thwarts scientific inquiry, and, e.g., Newton believed in a designer, wouldn’t it follow that Newton’s scientific inquiry would have been thwarted?
Depends on what their belief is that the “designer” actually did, as I said above. Clearly many people can, and do, believe in a designer who set in motion the wheels of the universe, so to speak, but didn’t intervene at every little step along the way.
Comment #17463
Posted by frank schmidt on February 22, 2005 01:26 PM (e) (s)
Michael, your statement
Doesn’t the fact that Newton had the drive to write Principia provide a counter-example to the above antecedent?
brings up an old saw that we use in intro science courses: If you were in a burning building and could save only two of the following, which would you allow to be lost: A painting by Picasso, a symphony by Mozart, or the Principia Mathematica?
The answer is easy; for all his genius, the work of Newton would be most expendable, because the laws of mechanics would be independently discovered. After all, like the theories of biological evolution, they are founded on data.
Comment #17464
Posted by Russell on February 22, 2005 01:27 PM (e) (s)
See, that’s where my “simplistic” description comes in. Does “thwart” mean “to absolutely prevent” or does it mean “inhibit”? Clearly the sense in Ms. Smith’s post was “inhibit” - so that’s what I’m going with. The fact that there was an Isaac Newton does not prove that those other 9 potential Newtons were not discouraged by the design paradigm. I’m not saying they were; I’m just saying your example doesn’t provide any evidence one way or the other.
Comment #17470
Posted by Prince Vegita on February 22, 2005 01:54 PM (e) (s)
Why is the hypothesis of a designer not scientifically relevant? The biological phenomena are consistent with the hypothesis of a designer. There are predictions that follow from such a hypothesis, e.g., similarities in structure (cf. similarities between different paintings and sculptures of the same artist).
That analogy only works if you know the nature of the designer (e.g. human). If you find a watch in the forest, you distinguish the fact that it is designed because the implicit statement is that everything surrounding it (rocks, trees, etc) is not designed. In order to prove otherwise, you need to identify the designer.
What kinds of explanation (as oppossed to particular explanations) can Darwinism supply that design theory cannot?
First of all, it isn’t “Darwinism”. Evolution was expanded upon with the re-discovery of Mendel’s work.
Secondly, evolution can provide us with mechanisms. ID can’t. It can’t even identify the designer, so it isn’t anything more than metaphysics. The hallmarks of ID, IC and CSI, are nothing more than Argumentum ad Ignoratum attempts to classify, and empirically they fail at doing so.
Comment #17471
Posted by Michael Finley on February 22, 2005 01:56 PM (e) (s)
All kinds of explanations except the universal blanket “he wanted it so” which is the empty explanation intelligent design theory can give. … ID is an empty theory that explains everything with that one answer and, by extension doesn’t explain anything, because if the sky happened to be green or we happened to be the only species in the planet, they would still be valid answers.
As far as I know, the ID explanation to “Why is the sky blue?” is the same as the naturalist’s answer, viz., because light waves corresponding to the color blue are scattered by the earth’s atmosphere.
While it is true that the last explanation in the series of explanations admitted by ID is “Because the designer made it so,” and is therefore “unexplained,” this fact should not bother critics. Naturalistic science is the same.
The current candidate for “ultimate explanation” is super strings. Physicists hope to answer all questions (e.g., why gravity has just the strength that it does, etc.) in cosmogony through the vibrations of super strings. But any philospher or 3-year-old could follow up with the question “But why are strings the way they are, and why do they vibrate in these ways, and…?”
To borrow a phrase from Wittgenstein: “Explanations come to an end somewhere.” Every series of explanations, whether theistic or naturalistic, begins from first principles that cannot themselves be explained.
Why all the fuss?
Comment #17472
Posted by Michael Finley on February 22, 2005 02:03 PM (e) (s)
ID claims that such “designs” could not have happened without interference — as such, why bother investigating them at all, if they’re too hopelessly complex for we mere mortals to understand?
This the sentiment I object to. The ID claim is not that some biological systems are too complex to understand, but that the complexity that is understood is too complicated to arise without design.
Comment #17474
Posted by Michael Finley on February 22, 2005 02:15 PM (e) (s)
First of all, it isn’t “Darwinism”. Evolution was expanded upon with the re-discovery of Mendel’s work.
Sigh. “Neo-Darwinism” if you insist. Might I suggest a principle of charity instead of rhetorical nit-picking.
Secondly, evolution can provide us with mechanisms. ID can’t. It can’t even identify the designer, so it isn’t anything more than metaphysics.
.
Your correct if you restrict “mechanisms” to “natural mechanisms,” i.e., if you assume naturalism. That may be your preference, but understand that’s all it is, a philosophical preference.
Comment #17475
Posted by Tara Smith on February 22, 2005 02:15 PM (e) (s)
This the sentiment I object to. The ID claim is not that some biological systems are too complex to understand, but that the complexity that is understood is too complicated to arise without design.
And I see that merely as 2 sides of the same coin. Who’s to say that we understand the “complex” systems well enough to be able to claim that they had to be designed?
Comment #17478
Posted by Prince Vegita on February 22, 2005 02:31 PM (e) (s)
Sigh. “Neo-Darwinism” if you insist. Might I suggest a principle of charity instead of rhetorical nit-picking.
As a scientist, I don’t believe in charity. I believe in accuracy. “Evolution” would be a good thing to call it.
Your correct if you restrict “mechanisms” to “natural mechanisms,” i.e., if you assume naturalism. That may be your preference, but understand that’s all it is, a philosophical preference.
Please give an example of a supernatural mechanism. This should be good.
Comment #17479
Posted by ts on February 22, 2005 02:31 PM (e) (s)
This is a common error ingrained in the naturalist mindset. Were it actually the case that belief in a designer thwarted the desire to study nature and discover its secrets, e.g., Newton would never have written Principia.
Strawman and fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. The claim wasn’t that belief in a designer thwarts the desire to study, it was that claims for a designer are presented instead of doing further study. The imputing of motive is yours, not Tara Smith’s, or those with “the naturalist mindset” (I guess that’s the set of rational attitudes).
This the sentiment I object to. The ID claim is not that some biological systems are too complex to understand, but that the complexity that is understood is too complicated to arise without design.
What pathetic equivocation. “understanding” in this context is causal understanding.
I must say, you’re a fancier sort of ID troll than most, but troll you be nonetheless. The charter here is “The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation.”
Comment #17481
Posted by Sarg on February 22, 2005 02:35 PM (e) (s)
But any philospher or 3-year-old could follow up with the question “But why are strings the way they are, and why do they vibrate in these ways, and…?”
As I see it, the difference is:
1- Scientist: “Yes, why indeed? Let’s investigate that. I propose this and this hypothesis and these experiments”.
2- IDer: “Because it was designed to be so”.
All explanations come to an end somewhere, but IDers seem to get to that end faster.
Comment #17482
Posted by Tara Smith on February 22, 2005 02:36 PM (e) (s)
I must say, you’re a fancier sort of ID troll than most, but troll you be nonetheless. The charter here is “The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation.”
C’mon. Though I disagree with Michael, he’s been quite polite in his discussion. Can we please keep it that way on all sides? There can be “good conversation” even with people who disagree.
Comment #17497
Posted by Steve Reuland on February 22, 2005 03:55 PM (e) (s)
Doesn’t the fact that Newton had the drive to write Principia provide a counter-example to the above antecedent?
Even assuming that Newton was driven by his religious faith, how does this validate the central argument of ID which states that anything whose origin cannot be immediately figured out via natural causes should have its origin attributed to divine intervention?
Newton’s belief in a “designer” may have given him inspiration, but he did not rely on divine intervention to explain the previously inexplicable phenomena in question. Had he done so, we would have ended up with some useless apologetics (perhaps in the service of 17th century “cultural renewal”) instead of a rigorous and predictive science.
I would say that Newton’s Principia, and indeed every triumph of science, is a direct counter-example to the ID approach.
Comment #17499
Posted by steve on February 22, 2005 04:05 PM (e) (s)
Inspired by Russell, I rechrisen ID Ineffective Defeatism.
Comment #17505
Posted by ts on February 22, 2005 04:22 PM (e) (s)
Please give an example of a supernatural mechanism. This should be good.
Indeed. I’ve addressed this nonsense over in the Dennett thread. Scientific explanations are predictive; they provide justification for the expectation of an observation: “It would have been reasonable to expect [observation] because [explanation]”. “supernatural explanations” aren’t explanations at all, they are just fancy ways of saying “no explanation”. They don’t bear the proper relationship with the explanandum — to pick it out, among alternatives, as a plausible outcome. “It was designed” — why this way, rather than some other way? Why does this design utilize components from previous designs for other functions? Why are similar designs related in just those ways that evolution suggests? “supernatural explanations” are moot on such questions. Finlay claims that “it was designed” is predictive, because it predicts “similar” designs, as paintings by a single painter are similar. But “similarity” isn’t predictive at all — all paintings are “similar” in that they are paintings; all collections of organic molecules are similar by virtue of that commonality. “it was designed” cannot predict any feature of this “similarity”. What sort of dissimilarity could falsify “it was designed”, especially given the range of variability already observed in nature? All the similarity that Finlay refers to is already observed. What does “it was designed” predict? That all future observed organisms will be “similar” to existing organisms? But the whole point of ID is that there are dissimilarities — that these designs could not, they wrongly say, have evolved from a common ancestor. And who is to say that there is just one designer? Perhaps each species, or each “irreducibly complex” mechanism, was designed by a different designer? How does the evidence support one hypothesis over the other? What evidence could possibly distinguish among them?
Finley says that naturalism is “a philosophical preference”. Well, doing science rather than religion is certainly a matter of preference — the IDists and other creationists are welcome to do religion, or expound philosophy. But science is based on “methodological naturalism” — that’s what makes it science, and it isn’t “a philosophical preference” whether “supernatural explanations” are allowed in science — they aren’t, period. And, like being right vs. being wrong, this preference isn’t neutral — it’s the difference between the epistemological expansion that has resulted from the “natural philosophy” of the enlightenment, and the 2500 years of mental masturbation that has been the result of the misnomered “philosophy” — more like sophophobia, often.
Finley wants to know what all the fuss is about because, after all, any series of explanations bottoms out. But the difference is in being forced to bottom out and choosing to bottom out. It’s like this famous New Yorker cartoon:
http://www.frameworksoft.com/assets/images/miracle_cartoon.g…
“I think you should be more explicit here in step two.” Gee, why all the fuss about a model of biology that has a bunch of “Then a miracle occurs” scattered throughout? What’s the difference between that and a Theory of Everything that contains undecomposable axioms? Perhaps it’s that a) “it was designed” is not an undecomposable axiom and b) we can do, and have done, much better. The difference between naturalists and IDists isn’t just a philosophical preference, it’s that the former produce detailed predictive explanations and theories where the latter not only do not, but they make many factually incorrect claims, such as “irreducably complex systems could not have evolved”.
One of the fundamental tools of science is Occam’s Razor, and it mandates against introduction of such “entities” as “miracle” or “designer” — violations of Occam’s Razor are worthy of a very big fuss indeed. For centuries, Occam’s Razor was considered to be an effective methodological tool, but not a fact or truism. But information theorists have recently proven that Occam’s Razor is a theorem, when expressed in the form “the predictions of simpler (in an information theoretic sense) explanations are more likely to be correct”.
Though I disagree with Michael, he’s been quite polite in his discussion.
Opening a conversation on a site devoted to naturalistic science with “This is a common error ingrained in the naturalist mindset” is not polite, it’s trolling. If he wants to bash naturalists for being naturalists, there are plenty of places where he can find kindred spirits (sic).
Comment #17506
Posted by Flint on February 22, 2005 04:23 PM (e) (s)
I confess to a philosophical preference for arguments backed by evidence. I understand that I’m probably very much in the minority in this preference, for whatever reasons. I also understand that this minority carries an ungrateful, ignorant, and superstitious majority on its shoulders. And that majority uses the very products of the ‘worldview’ they despise (which would never have come to pass without that worldview) to do their jobs, provide themselves with food clothing and shelter, and even write to blogs and bulletin boards to deny the validity of what produces their lifestyle.
It’s kind of a shame that we can’t let those with a philosophical preference for evidence live in one world, and let those with a philosphical preference for magic live in another. I wonder if the lesson would ever penetrate?
Comment #17509
Posted by David Heddle on February 22, 2005 04:45 PM (e) (s)
Just for completeness, the explanation of Rayleigh scattering (preferential scattering of lower wavelengths) for why the sky is blue is incomplete. Otherwise, the wise student should ask “why isn’t the sky purple?” The complete answer is the convolution of Rayleigh scattering and the frequency dependent sensitivity of our eyes.
Our eyes are most sensitive to yellow, of course.
The general idea that ID thwarts science is belied by those of us who are IDers and who, in fact, do science.
Comment #17511
Posted by Jeff Mauldin on February 22, 2005 04:48 PM (e) (s)
One obvious problem with this discussion is this assumption that belief in intelligent design causes a person to have no curiousity about nature and how things work. I believe in intelligent design, yet I am quite curious to dig down and understand how things work. I would call it simple arrogance to say “I don’t believe in intelligent design, and therefore I have greater curiosity than those who believe in intelliegent design.”
Comment #17513
Posted by Ed Darrell on February 22, 2005 04:49 PM (e) (s)
The biological phenomena are consistent with the hypothesis of a designer. There are predictions that follow from such a hypothesis, e.g., similarities in structure (cf. similarities between different paintings and sculptures of the same artist).
If the designer is limited in resources, such a prediction might follow. It does not follow for an omnipotent designer. Be clear what you mean.
Similarities in structure are not required of a very creative designer, nor of an omnipotent one, I would posit. Consider that a mechanical watch can be run either by a springwound mechanism with a regulator, or with quartz-crystal vibrations setting the time and controlling an electric motor. One expects such dramatic variations in design of common-job objects, especially where the design meets other standards (a springwound watch might be good for people in the wilderness, a long way from a supply of tiny batteries, for example).
But otherwise, similarities in structure are required ONLY if there are no other structures that could possibly do the job or if the designer is incapable of conceiving of a different design, as early springwound watchmakers had no concept of electricity and electric motors, or if the designer is incapable of producing the design dreamed of — see da Vinci’s flying machines, for example.
It may also be the case that differences in design argue for different designers. Perhaps the squid has an eye superior to mammals because the squid has a different designer.
Where is the intelligent design lab that is working on any of that?
Comment #17514
Posted by ts on February 22, 2005 04:58 PM (e) (s)
Why is the hypothesis of a designer not scientifically relevant? The biological phenomena are consistent with the hypothesis of a designer.
Anything is consistent with the hypothesis of a designer, making the hypothesis scientifically irrelevant — it is unfalsifiable, and is the grossest possible violation of Ockham’s Razor, since it is consistent with, and adds nothing to, any set of hypotheses. The point of the unfalsifiability of design has been made many times; I suggest that you learn the rudiments of philosophy of science.
There are predictions that follow from such a hypothesis, e.g., similarities in structure (cf. similarities between different paintings and sculptures of the same artist).
This too has been discussed at length. If you think there are such predictions, then offer one. “We can expect similarities of structure” is as semantically empty as the daily horoscope.
What kinds of explanation (as oppossed to particular explanations) can Darwinism supply that design theory cannot?
First, “design theory” is not a “theory” at all in the scientific sense, it’s just a negative claim against the theory of evolution; this too has been discussed at length.
The kind of explanations that the theory of evolution supplies is the scientific kind — causal explanations that have predictive power. Predictive in the real sense that the predictions are specific and non-obvious in absence of the theory, that they are novel — they go beyond what has already been observed, and are not made by competing theories or hypotheses. OTOH, there are no “predictions” of “design theory” that are specific, non-obvious, go beyond what has already been observed, or are inconsistent with the theory of evolution — “organisms have similar structures” fails on all counts.
Here are some specific predictions of evolution; kindly provide anything of the sort that results from so-called “design theory”:
http://www.X.org/creation/evo_science.html…
(replace “X” with “don-lindsay-archive” — it seems this site imposes some sort of censorship.)
You might want to read the whole site — you would advance your knowledge immensely from its current state, and it might disabuse you of your confused, mistaken, and fallacious “mindset”.
Comment #17515
Posted by Henry J on February 22, 2005 05:03 PM (e) (s)
Re “Perhaps each species […] was designed by a different designer?”
Perhaps each species was “designed” by the gene pools of its ancestors? ;)
Re “and let those with a philosphical preference for magic live in another”
Abracadabra! (Heh heh)
Henry
Comment #17516
Posted by Russell on February 22, 2005 05:09 PM (e) (s)
The general idea that ID thwarts science is belied by those of us who are IDers and who, in fact, do science.
See my comments above. I don’t have an opinion about the effect of ID on nuclear physics (well, I do. I just don’t have any data). But there aren’t many of you in biology.
Comment #17520
Posted by jeff-perado on February 22, 2005 05:13 PM (e) (s)
Michael Finley wrote:
To borrow a phrase from Wittgenstein: “Explanations come to an end somewhere.” Every series of explanations, whether theistic or naturalistic, begins from first principles that cannot themselves be explained.
Why all the fuss?
In other words, according to IDist’s, “Why bother to conduct scientific research when no answer can be found?”
Compare this to Michael’s original statement:
This is a common error ingrained in the naturalist mindset. Were it actually the case that belief in a designer thwarted the desire to study nature and discover its secrets, e.g., Newton would never have written Principia. There are many serious complaints that can be lodged against design arguments - this isn’t one of them.
I sense a blatant contradiction….
Comment #17522
Posted by Buridan on February 22, 2005 05:14 PM (e) (s)
Jeff,
As ts pointed out above, the issue isn’t about curiosity it’s about the limiting perspective of ID - the refusal to look for certain explanatory variables due to their interpretive framework. The crucial difference between science and ID is that the former seeks to explain while the latter seeks to interpret. The presuppositions between these two modes of inquiry are miles apart.
Comment #17523
Posted by Buridan on February 22, 2005 05:19 PM (e) (s)
My comment was directed toward Jeff Mauldin (to avoid any confusion)
Comment #17526
Posted by ts on February 22, 2005 05:24 PM (e) (s)
One obvious problem with this discussion is this assumption that belief in intelligent design causes a person to have no curiousity about nature and how things work.
As has already been noted more than once, this is a strawman. It is extremely arrogant to impute to people a much sillier view than the one they profess.
I would call it simple arrogance to say “I don’t believe in intelligent design, and therefore I have greater curiosity than those who believe in intelliegent design.”
It is extremely arrogant to assert that some biological mechanism could not have evolved, rather than explore ways in which it might have evolved. In this case, it is demonstrable that those who don’t believe in intelligent design have greater curiosity about how such mechanisms might have evolved, since it is they, and not the believers in intelligent design, who have actually investigated these matters and shown how many of these mechanisms could have and probably did evolve.
These sorts of assertions are argumentum ad ignorantiam, and have no place in science. One might have hoped that, after such nonsense as that rockets can’t reach the moon, humans can’t survive automobiles going more than 20 miles an hour, the continents could not have drifted, and so on, that we would be done with such nonsense. There are plenty of valid negative claims in science, such as that nothing travels faster than the speed of light and that global entropy can’t decrease, but these are the consequences of positive predictive evidentially confirmed theories. “design theory” is nothing of the sort — it consists of sophistic pseudo-logical deductive “proofs” that evolution isn’t possible, and simply ignores the logic and numerous counterexamples that refute these proofs. It’s an intellectually dishonest and arrogant enterprise from top to bottom.
Comment #17527
Posted by Buridan on February 22, 2005 05:25 PM (e) (s)
To borrow a phrase from Wittgenstein: “Explanations come to an end somewhere.” Every series of explanations, whether theistic or naturalistic, begins from first principles that cannot themselves be explained.
If there ever was a philosopher who argued against first principles, it was Wittgenstein.
Comment #17530
Posted by elephantine on February 22, 2005 05:52 PM (e) (s)
The problem is fairly simple. When arguments for design rest upon the ignorance of a natural explanation, there is a tendency to then avoid finding a natural explanation. Some ID arguments flatly rest on natural explanations being eliminated from the field of explanadum.
No one disputes the capacity for IDists to do science. What is disputed is the capacity for IDists offer scientific explanations for phenomena they’ve already labeled “designed” via a baroque argument from ignorance.
There are no selective hypotheses that flow from the theory of “designer” because that theory is general enough to allow for any observation simply by tweeking the motives and abilities of said mysterious designer. Simply defining one’s designer to have the goals and abilities that obtain the observations in question results in a empty tailor-made hypothesis.
Elliott Sober very effectively argues this in his essay, Intelligent Design and Probability Reasoning
“Intelligent design theorists may feel that they have already stated their theory. If the existence of the vertebrate eye is what one wishes to explain, their hypothesis is that an intelligent designer constructed the vertebrate eye. If it is the characteristics of the vertebrate eye (the fact that it has features F1, F2, …, Fn), rather than its mere existence, that one wants to explain, their hypothesis is that an intelligent designer constructed the vertebrate eye with the intention that it have features F1, F2, …, Fn and that this designer had the ability to bring his plan to fruition. Notice that both of these formulations of the hypothesis of intelligent design simply build into that hypothesis the observations whose explanation we seek. The problem with this strategy is that the same game can be played by the other side. If the evolutionary hypothesis is formulated by saying “evolution by natural selection produced the vertebrate eye” or by saying that “evolution by natural selection endowed the eye with features F1, F2, …, Fn ,” then it too entails the observations.
To avoid trivializing the problem in this way, we should formulate the observations so that they are not built into the hypotheses we want to test…”
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/ID&PRword.PDF#search=…‘Elliot%20Sober%20intelligent%20design’
These type of radically tailor-made explanations are scientifically worthless. The hypothesis yeilds no independent prediction, nor does it yeild any insight into the phenomena. The only evidence for a designer existing having the motive and ability to obtain some feature of reality is the mere existence of that feature. This can be done with literally everything from volcanoes to plaque to weather, which should clue you into why it doesn’t work.
Comment #17533
Posted by Adam Marczyk on February 22, 2005 06:13 PM (e) (s)
I believe in intelligent design, yet I am quite curious to dig down and understand how things work.
That’s precisely the problem: advocates of ID want to understand how things work, but not why. They’re not interested in understanding how things came to be as they are. I’m sure IDists would be perfectly happy if biology was a large pile of unrelated facts, with no deeper explanation (other than “ID did it” - which, as numerous contributors have already capably shown, is really equivalent to no explanation at all since it is equally applicable to all imaginable evidence).
Why is it important to investigate the why as well as the how? Because that understanding often leads us in new directions by enabling us to recognize things we didn’t even recognize as unusual before. Think how many advances in modern electronics, and how many likely future advances, owe their existence to quantum mechanics - which would never have been invented if physicists had not been persistent at crafting a theory that unified and explained several interesting phenomena rather than just describing them and then letting them drop.
Comment #17541
Posted by ts on February 22, 2005 08:38 PM (e) (s)
If there ever was a philosopher who argued against first principles, it was Wittgenstein.
One of the difficulties with using Wittgenstein as an authority is that he presented at least three different and to some degree contradictory philosophical views — and each was a work of genius. The Wittgenstein of Tractatus was very much a believer in first principles, while the Blue and Tan Wittgenstein thoroughly rejected the views of his predecessor, but then the late Wittenstein of On Certainty held that our “language games” are grounded in unrevisable certainty, beyond any epistemological judgments — “first principles” so deep that they are not propositional, but rather are instinctive, animalistic, a matter of how we act rather than what we “see”. For Wittgenstein, “certainty” is in a different category from “knowledge”; it is not the sort of thing we might doubt or even be sure of — it goes beyond that. The question “How do you know?” isn’t even applicable to the certainties he is talking about. For instance, I might doubt that this is my mouse, but I cannot doubt that this is my hand. That this is my hand is descriptive, but no explanation is warranted as to why this is my hand, on what basis I claim that this is my hand. To claim skepticism as to whether this is my hand, is to misuse words. “We might describe his way of behaving as like the behavior of doubt, but his game would not be ours.”, Wittgenstein writes.
Interestingly, there are forms of brain damage that result in people being unaware of or disowning their body parts, so some of the things that Wittgenstein held to be foundational and not propositional may be more propositional than he thought. I believe this is my hand because I am conscious of it, I feel sensation from it, and it seems to move when and as I wish it to, but in the absence of any of those, skepticism might be warranted.
OTOH, there’s something to his claim that to suppose that one is dreaming is to suppose that the supposition itself is a dream and therefore to render it meaningless. David Chalmers approaches this the other way around, arguing in his paper “The Matrix as Metaphysics” (http://consc.net/papers/matrix.html…) that, if his brain is in a vat on an alien planet, being fed by a computer simulating a life as a human being living in Tucson, his belief that he is in Tucson is nonetheless a true belief, not a delusion. It is worth noting that his argument applies to Creationism (which is not what I had in mind when I started writing this post!):
The Creation Hypothesis says: Physical space-time and its contents were created by beings outside physical space-time.
This is a familiar hypothesis. A version of it is believed by many people in our society, and perhaps by the majority of the people in the world. If one believes that God created the world, and if one believes that God is outside physical space-time, then one believes the Creation Hypothesis. One needn’t believe in God to believe the Creation Hypothesis, though. Perhaps our world was created by a relatively ordinary being in the “next universe up”, using the latest world-making technology in that universe. If so, the Creation Hypothesis is true.
I don’t know whether the Creation Hypothesis is true. But I don’t know for certain that it is false. The hypothesis is clearly coherent, and I cannot conclusively rule it out.
The Creation Hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis. Even if it is true, most of my ordinary beliefs are still true. I still have hands, I am still in Tucson, and so on. Perhaps a few of my beliefs will turn out false: if I am an atheist, for example, or if I believe all reality started with the Big Bang. But most of my everyday beliefs about the external world will remain intact.
Actually, I think Chalmers here underestimates the radical nature of his argument. Even if a God outside of physical space-time created the universe, that does not negate atheism. Nor does the proposition that God created the universe less than 10,000 years ago to look exactly as if there were a Big Bang negate the belief that the universe started with a Big Bang. These beliefs are just as correct as the belief that my brain is in my head, even if my brain is in a vat and my head and the brain in it are “a dream”, because the dream is a virtual reality, and the truth or falsity of propositions relating to the facts of that virtual reality are determined solely those facts, and not by anything that can be said of some other or outer or higher-level reality — which I suggest are, for all intents and purposes, figments of the imagination, i.e., “dreams”, since they cannot in any way be confirmed.
Comment #17542
Posted by Michael Finely on February 22, 2005 09:32 PM (e) (s)
[author=TS]One of the fundamental tools of science is Occam’s Razor, and it mandates against introduction of such “entities” as “miracle” or “designer” — violations of Occam’s Razor are worthy of a very big fuss indeed. For centuries, Occam’s Razor was considered to be an effective methodological tool, but not a fact or truism. But information theorists have recently proven that Occam’s Razor is a theorem, when expressed in the form “the predictions of simpler (in an information theoretic sense) explanations are more likely to be correct”.
Anything is consistent with the hypothesis of a designer, making the hypothesis scientifically irrelevant — it is unfalsifiable, and is the grossest possible violation of Ockham’s Razor, since it is consistent with, and adds nothing to, any set of hypotheses.[/quote]
As a doctoral student in the philosophy of language and science, I find your recommendation of more philosophy of science education somewhat humorous. Ockham’s razor is an aesthetic concern with no logical force whatsoever. Given two theories that explain the phenomena (say, the Einsteinian and quantum mechanical explanations of gravity), on being simpler than the other, there is not a non-aesthetic reason to prefer one to the other.
Coincidentally, my dissertation is on the continuity of Wittgenstein’s philosophy. Forget the fact that I was merely appropriating a quote of LW’s for my own purposes; the claim that Wittgenstein was not the man for first principles is ridiculous - what do you call the simple objects of the Tractatus.
I would love to digress into a discussion of Wittgenstein, but I have already been asked to take my ball and go home with respect to criticizing Darwin. Perhaps those among you who don’t want to discuss such matters, should simply ignore me.
Comment #17544
Posted by Ruthless on February 22, 2005 09:42 PM (e) (s)
David Heddle wrote:
The general idea that ID thwarts science is belied by those of us who are IDers and who, in fact, do science.
A strawman.
No one is arguing that someone who believes in god or aliens or Elvis can’t do science. Most here would argue, however, that one cannot do science using “Intelligent Design” philosophy (except where the designers in question are human or at least have manifested themselves in some observable fashion, of course.)
Additionally (and I’m not saying you said this, but this is relevant to this thread), mainstream scientists are not upset that people believe in god or other non-evidenced entities nor do they (nor I) wish to ban such a philosophy. What they (and I) have a problem with is when some believers in “ID” wish to change the definition of science to include specious reasoning, untestable hypotheses, theories which have no explanatory value and lead to no knew insights nor research, theories which cannot be compared against other imagined explanations, mysticism, etc. One may argue “What’s the harm in allowing those things into science?” Aside from the fact that they would not lead anywhere intellectually, the government decides what research gets funded and what research does not; and since our government is run by Christians, it wouldn’t be long before all funded scientific research would have to include the “intelligent designer”. Not long after that, they’d drop the pretense and just say “god”. Not long after that, they’d drop the pretense of being non-denominational and just say “Jesus”. That shouldn’t be hard to imagine; most Americans are Christians, so there’d be little opposition…except from people of minority faiths/philosophies. Anyone not on the bandwagon would become second-class citizens. Later, anyone not on the bandwagon would like be converted or killed.
Sound far-fetched? Read a history book. I’m not saying it will happen soon, but that’s what the ID camp has in mind.
We’ve already seen government dictating science: The current administration is an excellent example. There are numerous reports of pressure to change findings to agree with the White House’s agenda and of the White House silencing and ignoring findings that contradict their ideology. And, of course, the White House cuts funding for science that doesn’t match their ideology.
Comment #17547
Posted by Air Bear on February 22, 2005 09:55 PM (e) (s)
David Heddle wrote:
“Just for completeness, the explanation of Rayleigh scattering (preferential scattering of lower wavelengths) for why the sky is blue is incomplete. Otherwise, the wise student should ask “why isn’t the sky purple?” The complete answer is the convolution of Rayleigh scattering and the frequency dependent sensitivity of our eyes.
“Our eyes are most sensitive to yellow, of course.
“The general idea that ID thwarts science is belied by those of us who are IDers and who, in fact, do science.”
I would be interested to know just how you use ID in your work, how it generates hypotheses, how it leads to discoveries. And how it applies to the case of blue sky.
I’m not talking about ID as a harmless philosphico-religious diversion that is external to science, but as a positive aid in doing scientific research.
(BTW, any graduate of high school physics knows that our eyes are most sensitive to yellow-green, not pure yellow. I hope you’re more precise in your professional work.)
Comment #17548
Posted by Ruthless on February 22, 2005 09:59 PM (e) (s)
This is a common error ingrained in the naturalist mindset. Were it actually the case that belief in a designer thwarted the desire to study nature and discover its secrets, e.g., Newton would never have written Principia. There are many serious complaints that can be lodged against design arguments - this isn’t one of them.
Newton is an excellent example of the utility of Intelligent Design.
Prior to Newton, angels were invoked to explain forces and motion; Newton explained kinematics naturalistically. Which do you think is the more useful explanation?
Newton himself was puzzled about the solar system and concluded that god must be responsible for its form. Laplace then determined—naturalistically—how the solar system formed. Which explanation do you think is more useful?
And finally:
“Intelligent Design” is not a new theory by a long shot. In fact, probably since well before recorded human history, it has been the default theory. Given that it’s had at least a few thousand years, shouldn’t we expect it to have accomplished something? What has been accomplished by appealing to an unevidenced designer?
People used to pray to the sun and moon; they thought they were intelligent beings that controlled their lives. That idea seems pretty foolish today (though some still worship the sun and moon, I’m sure.) People used to think that lightning and storms were the wrath of the gods. Today we have meteorology. People used to think that disease was caused by demons. Today we have medicine. People used to think that comets were messages from god. Today we have astronomy.
ID certainly isn’t a new idea. It’s been around forever. And it has always been steadily replaced by scientific, naturalistic explanations.
Comment #17556
Posted by Dave S. on February 22, 2005 10:23 PM (e) (s)
The biological phenomena are consistent with the hypothesis of a designer. There are predictions that follow from such a hypothesis, e.g., similarities in structure (cf. similarities between different paintings and sculptures of the same artist).
This seems a fair test.
If we compare organisms that function in a similar manner and in a similar environment, they should be more closely related both anatomically and at the molecular scale than those that function very differently.
So what do we find when we compare a whale, a shark, and a cow? Clearly you’d expect based on common design that the similarities should be closer between whale and shark, and the cow should be very different from those two.
Is that what we find?
If this is not a fair test of the “similarities in stucture” argument, then please explain why, and propose what would be a fair test.
The general idea that ID thwarts science is belied by those of us who are IDers and who, in fact, do science.
If they ignore ID, even an ID advocate can advance our knowledge in science. Having a philosophical soft spot for “design” does not mean you can use it in any practical way as a methodology in science. Nor does it mean that any advancement you do make necessarily has anything to do with ID.
Say for instance you decide a certain feature, for example the vertebrate blood clotting cascade, shows evidence of design, based not on any positive case for design but because you don’t think it could have arisen via an evolutionary mechanism. We take this as a given.
OK. What now? How do you continue to investigate it. The obvious questions are who was the designer(s)? How did they do it? When did they do it? Why did they do it. Unfortunately ID “theory” as it exists not only cannot answer any of these, it does not even tell us how to go about finding the answers.
So we have scientists in lab coats sitting around twiddling their thumbs. What are they supposed to do now? What they can do is to find molecular homologies and construct probable pathways and look at other organisms for clues, but none of these activities flow from ID. They flow from evolution.
And if they do these things, it means they are ignoring design as a possibility. They are studying as if the conclusion of ‘design’ was never reached. Unless the design mimicked evolution of course. In any case, what good has reaching a conclusion of design done for us as a tool for understanding nature?
Comment #17565
Posted by Dan S. on February 23, 2005 12:02 AM (e) (s)
From www.evolvefish.com - it really sums it all up for me:
“The Heretical Rod
The first major blow against these biblical superstitions about storms and lightning [that they were caused by demons/spirits] was struck in 1752 when Benjamin Franklin made his famous electrical experiments with a kite. The second and fatal blow was struck later in the same year when he invented the lightning rod. With Franklin’s scientific explanations of lightning, the question that had so long taxed the minds of the world’s leading theologians-“Why should the Almighty strike his own consecrated temples, or suffer Satan to strike them”-could finally be answered rationally.
Thunder and lightning were considered tokens of God’s displeasure. It was considered impious to prevent their doing damage. This was despite the fact that in Germany, within a span of 33 years, nearly 400 towers were damaged and 120 bell ringers were killed.
In Switzerland, France and Italy, popular prejudice against the lightning rod was ignited and fueled by the churches and resulted in the tearing down of lightning rods from many homes and buildings, including one from the Institute of Bologna, the leading scientific institution in Italy. The Swiss chemist, M. de Saussure, removed a rod he had erected on his house in Geneva in 1771 when it caused his neighbors so much anxiety that he feared a riot.
In 1780-1784, a lawsuit about lightning rods gave M. de St. Omer the right to have a lightning rod on top of his house despite the religious objections of his neighbors. This victory established the fame of the lawyer in the case, young Robespierre.
In America, Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of Old South Church, blamed Franklin’s invention of the lightning rod for causing the Massachusetts earthquake of 1755.
In Prince’s sermon on the topic, he expressed the opinion that the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of “points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin.” He goes on to argue that “in Boston more are erected than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! There is no getting out of the mighty hand of God.”
. . .
A typical case was the tower of St. Mark’s in Venice. In spite of the angel at its summit, the bells consecrated to ward off devils and witches in the air, the holy relics in the church below, and the Processions in the adjacent square, the tower was frequently damaged or destroyed by lightning. It was not until 1766 that a lightning rod was placed upon it-and the tower has never been struck since.
…
The Rod Spared
Such examples as these, in all parts of Europe, had their effect. The ecclesiastical formulas for preventing storms and consecrating bells to protect against lightning and tempests were still practiced in the Churches, but the lightning rod carried the day. Christian Churches were finally obliged to confess its practicality. The few theologians who stuck to the old theories and fumed against Franklin’s attempts to “control the artillery of heaven” were finally silenced, like the lightning, by Franklin’s lighting rod and the supremacy of the scientific method. “
Comment #17568
Posted by RBH on February 23, 2005 12:40 AM (e) (s)
Ed Darrell asked
It may also be the case that differences in design argue for different designers. Perhaps the squid has an eye superior to mammals because the squid has a different designer.
Where is the intelligent design lab that is working on any of that?
Almost everyone in this thread persists in using the singular “designer,” when the evidence for a designer (if there is any such evidence) unmistakeably implicates multiple designers. While it’s now proprietary, there’s more actual research directly on questions raised by Multiple Designers Theory than there is from all of the Wells’s, Behes, Dembskis, and those “Darwin-doubting” signers of petitions who unreasonhably cling to a single-designer conjecture. I’m dead serious: as ts indirectly implied above, it is the necessity to hold to a single designer that renders ID explanatorily vacuous by not allowing it to make differentiating predictions.
RBH
Comment #17573
Posted by Gary Hurd on February 23, 2005 01:45 AM (e) (s)
Great post Tara. Thanks for the information.
I was once told that there were forams that lived in human mouths, is that true?
Comment #17574
Posted by ts on February 23, 2005 01:50 AM (e) (s)
As a doctoral student in the philosophy of language and science, I find your recommendation of more philosophy of science education somewhat humorous. Ockham’s razor is an aesthetic concern with no logical force whatsoever.
As I noted, Ockham’s Razor has been proven as a theorem in information theory, so either your education or your ability to absorb it are lacking. Since your education has not only left you with the absurd impression that OR is merely “an aesthetic concern” but has also apparently failed to provide you with the skill to properly refute or confirm a claim such as
“information theorists have recently proven that Occam’s Razor is a theorem”, I will help you out by pointing you to a couple of the many pages that come up in response to googling occam+razor+theorem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam…‘s_Razor
http://eprints.pascal-network.org/archive/00000817/…
We provide a new representation-independent formulation of Occam’s razor theorem, based on Kolmogorov complexity. This new formulation allows us to: (i) Obtain better sample complexity than both length-based \cite{blumer1} and VC-based \cite{blumer} versions of Occam’s razor theorem, in many applications; and (ii) Achieve a sharper reverse of Occam’s razor theorem than that of \cite{board}. Specifically, we weaken the assumptions made in \cite{board} and extend the reverse to superpolynomial running times.
Hopefully you will be able to make some sense of that in spite of any “philosophy of language” that you may have been exposed to.
Given two theories that explain the phenomena (say, the Einsteinian and quantum mechanical explanations of gravity), on being simpler than the other, there is not a non-aesthetic reason to prefer one to the other.
Well, there’s the one I already stated:
“the predictions of simpler (in an information theoretic sense) explanations are more likely to be correct”.
But I guess your graduate level education in philosophy of language and science hasn’t taught you about
http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/usenet_evidence/argument.ht…
…
The Rebuttal Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest argument on the other side of the issue.
…
the claim that Wittgenstein was not the man for first principles is ridiculous - what do you call the simple objects of the Tractatus.
Well, it would seem that ability to absorb is indeed lacking, since I (the apparent referent of “you” above) just wrote
“The Wittgenstein of Tractatus was very much a believer in first principles”
I have already been asked to take my ball and go home with respect to criticizing Darwin.
Darwin is long dead and biological science has moved far beyond him, in part due to the sort of intensive criticism of his views that is at the heart of “the naturalist mindset”. Criticizing Darwin rather than prevailing evolutionary theory is a common behavior of anti-evolutionist trolls, but it isn’t relevant to either science or public policy.
Perhaps those among you who don’t want to discuss such matters, should simply ignore me.
As I noted, the charter here includes “discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education” — if you have a different agenda, your mistaken claims and sophistic arguments against evolution, science, and the methodological naturalism it is based on will likely receive the sort of comment they deserve. It’s worth noting that the charter isn’t complete — due to the open posting policy, anti-evolutionist trolls are a common occurrence, and ripping their fallacious arguments to shreds is considered by some to be a form of sport.
Comment #17576
Posted by DaveScot on February 23, 2005 02:10 AM (e) (s)
this designer can just jump in and poke around with stuff willy-nilly, why bother investigating at all?
Because we can assume that the designer of biological systems is working within the constraints of physical laws just like the designer of the computer you used to write your little missive.
Comment #17578
Posted by ts on February 23, 2005 02:15 AM (e) (s)
P.S.
the claim that Wittgenstein was not the man for first principles is ridiculous - what do you call the simple objects of the Tractatus.
There’s a fallacy implicit in this strawman that should be of particular interest to a student of philosophy of language. Buridan didn’t say that “Wittgenstein was not the man for first principles”. Rather, he said
If there ever was a philosopher who argued against first principles, it was Wittgenstein.
Wittgenstein could well be “the man for first principles” and have argued against first principles — if, say, he rejected some of his earlier work. As someone doing his dissertation on Wittgenstein, you presumably have some idea as to whether that’s the case.
Comment #17580
Posted by DaveScot on February 23, 2005 02:21 AM (e) (s)
Ockham’s Razor has been proven as a theorem in information theory, so either your education or your ability to absorb it are lacking. Since your education has not only left you with the absurd
Where on earth did you come up with that nonsense? Occam’s Razor is a rule of thumb not a theory. It says the simplest solution is usually the correct one. Note it’s not ALWAYS the correct one. Quantum physics certainly isn’t simple compared to Newtonian physics.
And by the way, the simplest solution to the overwhelming appearance of design, is that it’s a design. Tortured and unproven hypotheses to the contrary that attempt to explain how the most complex machine ever observed happened by a long series of random chance defeating virtually impossible odds are NOT what William of Occam advises as the leading presumption.
Comment #17582
Posted by DaveScot on February 23, 2005 02:27 AM (e) (s)
all of the Wells’s, Behes, Dembskis, and those “Darwin-doubting” signers of petitions who unreasonhably cling to a single-designer conjecture
The signers of the petition explicitely doubt mutation + natural selection as being adequate to explain the diversity of life. Can’t you at least get that little bit right? Mischaracterizing the opposition through either ignorance or dishonesty does nothing to further your side’s agenda. In fact it does just the opposite.
Comment #17584
Posted by DaveScot on February 23, 2005 02:51 AM (e) (s)
Who’s to say that we understand the “complex” systems well enough to be able to claim that they had to be designed?
I have designed enough complex computer hardware to recognize design when I see it. I may not know the design team but the design is apparent nonetheless. Just the combination of DNA/ribosome, which is perhaps the best understood subset of cellular machinery at the moment, is very much like a computer controlled milling machine able to fabricate all the parts required to replicate itself. And that just scratches the surface of the machinery of life. One little, but important and moderately well understood subsystem that churns out 3-D protein sculptures to specifications contained in the genetic code. Machines like that don’t just appear out of thin air. At least none are known for a fact to have appeared out of thin air. Especially troublesome to non-intelligent origin is when the storage media for the specifications (DNA) requires the milling machine (ribosome) to produce it and the milling machine requires the specifications for the milling machine parts to be produced. I have yet to see any hypotheses even remotely supportable about how the chicken/egg paradox of DNA/ribosome came about with no intelligent design input. In fact all machines except biological systems are known to be the result of intelligent design. The rational assumption is that machines are the result of intelligent design until proven otherwise. Biological machines are no exception.
Comment #17585
Posted by DaveScot on February 23, 2005 03:04 AM (e) (s)
One obvious problem with this discussion is this assumption that belief in intelligent design causes a person to have no curiousity about nature and how things work. I believe in intelligent design, yet I am quite curious to dig down and understand how things work. I would call it simple arrogance to say “I don’t believe in intelligent design, and therefore I have greater curiosity than those who believe in intelliegent design.”
Very good. In the world of commercial computer design (my professional world), working specifications are often held as trade secrets so the owner can maintain control & profitibility as long as possible. Others who which to capitalize on the capabilities of those systems are then forced to do what is commonly called “reverse engineering” where we figure out how the thing in question works through dissection and experimentation rather than getting a copy of the code or schematics from the original designer(s). Reverse engineering is exactly what science is doing with the machinery of life. The motivation for the effort is not dependant on who or what came up with the design but rather the practical benefits derived from knowing how it works.
Comment #17586
Posted by Randall on February 23, 2005 03:23 AM (e) (s)
Despite claims to the contrary, design theory is not “simpler” in an Occam’s Razor sense than evolution. Evolution assumes that simple processes we have already seen work in the lab can have a cumulative effect over time to create the diversity of life we see today. Design assumes that diversity has to be designed, and that there exists a designer. That’s the thing: In order for design “theory” to have any remote validity, you must first prove the existence of a designer without using the “designed” things as evidence! Why? Because otherwise, your argument looks like this: How do we know this cell was designed? Its intricate parts bear the signature of the designer. How do we know the designer exists and what his/her signature looks like? Because we know this cell was designed. Do you see why that argument is circular? Does design “theory” make any actual testable claims that aren’t question-begging?
Comment #17587
Posted by DaveScot on February 23, 2005 03:24 AM (e) (s)
Clearly you’d expect based on common design that the similarities should be closer between whale and shark
Clearly not. The shark is cartilage boned, cold blooded, and breathes water while the whale has calcium bones, warm blood, and breathes air. At first blush I’d put the cow and the whale closer than the shark and the whale based upon those easy structural observations.
Examples of things you might expect from design is relatively rapid instantiation of new forms followed by long periods of stasis which mutation/selection DID NOT predict. You’d expect to see top-down evolution where new forms appear from a paucity of ancestral forms instead of bottom-up design where new forms appear from a plethora of ancestral forms which mutation/selection predicts. In point of fact the fossil record reveals both rapid instantiation of new forms and top-down evolution. Mutation/selection is perhaps the greatest failed hypothesis since the days when scientists believed the earth was at the center of the universe and everything else spun around it. Its days are numbered. An increasing number of people are examining the evidence and noting how mutation/selection fails to adequately explain it. Darwinian evolution ceased being science a long time ago and became a faith based philosophy much closer to a religion than a science which explains its dogged hanger’s on despite spectacular failures in its predictions.
Comment #17588
Posted by Grey Wolf on February 23, 2005 03:25 AM (e) (s)
the most complex machine ever observed happened by a long series of random chance defeating virtually impossible odds
Tell me, DaveScot, how many times will it have to be pointed out to you that that is not what evolution states before you actually learn about evolution and try to attack it instead of attacking a strawman of your own creation? I mean, for God’s sake, the “evolution means getting a machine by pure chance” cannard has been disproven for what, 100 years now? Not to mention that the odds are extremelly probable (see bellow). Besides, you aren’t even fluent in your own field, which you have demonstrated with your lack of knowledge of information theory, why should I listen to what you say in a field that is not even your own?
To whit: evolution says that complexity arises. It doesn’t predict which of the billions of possible complexities will arise, only that a small subset will. You draw 100000 cards from a million decks, and are amazed at the combination you get. We look at it and note that since any of them would be equally amazing, none really are.*
By the way, speaking now to someone who knows about this kind of thing, has there been any study into the prediction horizon of evolution theory? In case my words are getting mangled in translation, we can predict three days of weather and millions of years of planetary movements, but after that event horizon, chaos makes things “murky” (as stated by chaos theory). I wonder, as I say, what that horizon is for evolution (I’d say a few generations, but is just a guess), so I’d like to know if someone has looked into it and what his or her conclussions were.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
*This is a very simplified version of evolution, since evolution is able to predict that some subsets are more probable to evolve than others - specifically, any subset that is best for the then current environment and can evolve from the subset already in palce
Comment #17589
Posted by ts on February 23, 2005 03:40 AM (e) (s)
Ockham’s Razor has been proven as a theorem in information theory, so either your education or your ability to absorb it are lacking. Since your education has not only left you with the absurd
Where on earth did you come up with that nonsense?
From the fact that there’s considerable literature on the subject, including published proofs, like the one I actually cited in the post you’re responding to, you imbecile.
Comment #17591
Posted by DaveScot on February 23, 2005 03:51 AM (e) (s)
Evolution assumes that simple processes we have already seen work in the lab can have a cumulative effect over time to create the diversity of life we see today.
In other words some perfectly good observations obtained through the scientific method that explain minor scale adaptations over short periods of geologic time to best fit any particular environmental niche have been extrapolated into major form adaptations over geologic timespans. Morever, the predictions of these small scale changes gradually accumulating into a great diversity of species from which new forms are selected has utterly failed to be supported in the fossil record which shows major new forms emerging from a scarcity of species and not emerging gradually but very rapidly.
The extrapolation’s predictions failed. Admit it and move on. The overwhelming appearance of design is not an illusion. It’s real. It’s the only explanation which perfectly fits the facts.
Comment #17592
Posted by DaveScot on February 23, 2005 04:03 AM (e) (s)
From the fact that there’s considerable literature on the subject, including published proofs, like the one I actually cited in the post you’re responding to, you imbecile.
You linked to a wikipedia article that properly calls Occams’s Razor a “principle”. That does not support your position that it’s a proven theorum. Neither does some obscure paper submitted to Information Processing Letters.
Pay attention. Occam’s Razor is a perspective, not a falsifiable or provable hypothesis. Get a clue. Purchase one if necessary.
Comment #17593
Posted by Randall on February 23, 2005 04:04 AM (e) (s)
The minor changes we’ve seen show that organisms adapt to their environments. Whether or not major changes happen over geologically long or geologically short time periods is predicted to depend on whether the environments have changed over geologically long or short time periods. Lab results can give us a rough idea of the maximum rate of evolution, but also predict that if the environment is constant, evolution will asymtotically approach a well-suited organism and then stop making major changes. So any questions about the pace of evolution cannot be answered in the lab; rather, they’ll have to be answered in the field (since we can’t, y’know, figure out what environmental conditions were based on some lab tests).
Comment #17594
Posted by Randall on February 23, 2005 04:07 AM (e) (s)
Oh, and you’re right about Occam’s Razor; the article ts linked to talked about how it’s applied to science. This link shows how it’s a proven theorm of information theory. Hope that helps.
Comment #17595
Posted by DaveScot on February 23, 2005 04:10 AM (e) (s)
that is not what evolution states
“Evolution” is not a precise term.
How many times must I point out to you that I don’t deny that evolution happened? The evidence that a common single celled ancestor unfolded into the diversity we see today is stark and compelling. I don’t deny it. What I deny is the ability of mutation/selection to explain it all, just like the hundreds of scientists that had the courage to sign a statement saying they question mutation/selection’s ability to explain the diversity of life.
Write that down.
Comment #17596
Posted by DaveScot on February 23, 2005 04:15 AM (e) (s)
Randall
I suggest you read the article you linked to. Pay particular attention to “the one generating the shortest overall message is more likely to be correct”.
So it’s been proven to be likely.
Thanks. Statements like that are proven likely to provoke laughter.
Comment #17598
Posted by Grey Wolf on February 23, 2005 04:17 AM (e) (s)
The overwhelming appearance of design is not an illusion. It’s real. It’s the only explanation which perfectly fits the
Comment #17421
Posted by Michael Finley on February 22, 2005 10:56 AM (e) (s)
This is a common error ingrained in the naturalist mindset. Were it actually the case that belief in a designer thwarted the desire to study nature and discover its secrets, e.g., Newton would never have written Principia. There are many serious complaints that can be lodged against design arguments - this isn’t one of them.