RE: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

Is antibiotic resistance more akin to breeding dogs or to change of one
species into another?

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Campbell
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:46 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

Several questions are concealed within "Is ID science?"

What is science?

What is ID?

Are the claims of ID, in principle, scientific?

Is the practice of ID scientific?

If ID is science, is it good science?

Advocates of ID claim to be using physical investigation of the
physical world to arrive at their conclusions. They claim not to be
rooted in theological presuppositions, at least when claiming that ID
is appropriate in science classes (as opposed to when it is being
marketed as the Christian approach). Thus, there seems to be
agreement that science uses natural methods to investigate the natural
world. It's in the conclusions, not in the methods, where ID wants to
be different, so complaints about methodological naturalism are off
target.

What is ID is far from clear-it seems to be whatever the audience is
thought to want. Definitions aimed at appealing to the conservative
masses tend to focus on antievolutionism; definitions aimed at
sounding scientific tend to focus on detection of "design". The
questions on this thread relate more to the identification of
"design", which needs definition, too. In particular, Christianity,
like most religions, has generally recognized supernatural design
underlying all "natural" events as well as "miraculous" ones. When
advocates of ID, creation science, Dawkinsian foolish atheism, etc.
claim that a physical explanation for an event removes God from the
picture, they are in line with deism rather than Christianity.

It is possible under certain circumstances to identify the work of a
human designer as opposed to the ordinary working of physical laws.
This is a common issue for paleoanthropology. Thus, the definition of
ID that seems to be common in scientific settings, namely the idea
that such intervention-style design can be detected scientifically, is
true in this instance. However, this depends on knowing a fair amount
about (a) what can be achieved by animals, weathering, etc. and (b)
human activities and motives.

There are also certain definitions of "design", "specified
complexity", etc. that are subject to scientific testing. However,
these generally are bad definitions in that they identify
non-intelligent agents as intelligent designers. There are also a
number of untruthful scientific claims promoted under the general
heading of ID, e.g., the claim that one species can't change into
another without intelligent intervention.

> but how would you scientifically detect the action of an alien
biologist if you rule her out a priori?<

Certainly there are good reasons to think aliens unlikely as agents
for anything we find locally. The difficulties of traversing
interstellar space, the numerous flagrantly bogus reports, the
evidence against any complex life elsewhere in the Solar System, etc.
all make it a relatively unlikely option, whereas alien intelligence
is somewhat more plausible as an explanation for some observed pattern
transmitted in space.

Arguments for ID tend to overlook two key aspects that play into
probability estimates, on top of the already problematic assumptions
that go into a number of the explicit factors. One is that the
probability of the existence of a designer must be factored in. Human
agency is quite likely as a factor in the landscape of Mesopotamia and
quite unlikely in the landscape of Antarctica or Mars. Science
doesn't help us in assessing a probability for God's existence. The
other is the probability of this designer acting in a particular way.
This requires knowing something about the designer. Johnson insisting
that he believes in a God who left fingerprints all over is not a very
convincing reason for me to expect random gaps in God's ordinary
running of the physical universe.

> Is there a good example of new complex information observed to have
formed by chance? For example isn't antibiotic resistance is due to the
elimination or damaging of a gene and not the formation of a new one
with new information.<

No, antibiotic resistance is a perfectly good example of new complex
information formed by the ordinary workings of natural law, as are any
number of other novel genetic features observed in organisms. An
overlooked example of complex information being formed by the ordinary
workings of natural law, even partially reflecting natural law in
young-eath scenarios, is the environment. The physical features of
the earth provide a complex set of information. Organisms have to
conform to this (and to the constraints imposed by other organisms) to
survive. An analogy would be a computer program in which the computer
first randomly generates a maze and then has a subprogram that learns
to navigate the maze.

"By chance" is ambiguous. Formed without miraculous nor human
intervention still has God at work in maintaining and sustaining
everything, even though the ordinary working of physical law often
includes mathematically random aspects and humanly unpredictable
aspects that may in some sense be called "chance".

There are two flaws in all attempts to dismiss observed genetic
novelty as merely a degeneration of existing information. First,
every combination of DNA, whether a mutation within an existing gene
or the shuffling and mixing that occurs in sexual reproduction,
provides information, New biological information is made every time a
new individual is produced sexually, every time a mutation happens,
etc. Whether or not the new information is remarkably useful, it is
new information. Secondly, all features of organisms can be dismissed
as negative mutations. Humans are highly intelligent, but there are
enough cases of curiosity killing the person to label it as a negative
with as much justification as labeling antibiotic resistance as really
a detrimental mutation in disguise. All combinations of genes can
biologically be said to be good or bad only in the context of whether
they help or hinder within a particular environment under a particular
set of pressures, and most involve tradeoffs. Fast motion makes it
much easier to escape, to capture something else, and to crash into
something and hurt yourself. Chemical defenses such as antibiotic
resistance may take energy that an undefended species can put into
growth and reproduction, but may be vital to survive when danger
comes.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.