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

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

This is very difficult to answer for several reasons. One is that
"species" as defined in bacteria are quite different from the
definition used for animals. In terms of biochemical diversity, a
"species" of bacteria rivals much larger groupings of animals or
plants. Secondly, the change from one species into another can take
several forms. Defining species even within animals or plants is
somewhat contentious, and problematic examples exist for pretty much
any definition. Even when a definition is agreed upon, in many cases
the transition from one species to another is sufficiently gradual to
make it difficult to draw a firm line. Most definitions have some
relationship to having a degree of reproductive isolation, though it
may operate on the assumption that organisms with a certain degree of
difference are isolated enough to recognize as separate species rather
than directly measuring breeding.

One example comes from a flower where a single mutation makes the
flowers either red or white. Doesn't seem like a big deal until you
see the effect on pollinators. White flowers attract moths, red ones
attract hummingbirds, so the pollen almost never goes from one to the
other. They are thus strongly reproductively isolated and seem to
qualify as separate species. Similarly, a single mutation affecting
other breeding-related characters (such as time of breeding, style of
courtship, genes regulating compatibility of egg and sperm, etc.)
could instantaneously produce a barrier to interbreeding.

Another quick way to produce reproductive barriers is polyploidy,
which often results from hybridization. Especially often in plants,
but not infrequently in many animals, a hybrid will have functioning
sets of chromosomes from both parents. It typically can't breed with
either parent due to the mismatch in chromosomes (except in some cases
where a further hybridization event makes yet another novel species),
but if it can reproduce itself either asexually or sexually, it is a
new species reproductively isolated from either parent.

More gradual development of weaker barriers to interbreeding results
in a gradual separation between populations. This could originate in
random variations in breeding-related features that decrease the ease
of interbreeding, coupled with either geographic separation (including
microgeographic separation of favoring slightly different habitats) or
features that allow the organisms to select more compatible mates. In
turn, natural selection would favor strangthening of the barriers to
breeding as interbreeding became less profitable.

> > Why is ID not science ? SImple, it is based on an eliminative
> > argument, and conflates common terminology to lead its followers to
> > conclusions that do not follow from the premise. The abuse of
> > terminology like information, complexity has done a lot of disservice
> > to science and religious faith.

This conflates things a little bit, specifically "Is ID theoretically
amenable to scientific methods" versus "is the general practice of ID
in accord with science?" The above is answering the second question,
and I agree that in practice the ID movement relies heavily on a mix
of bad science and bad theology. For example, Wells, Ross, Colson,
etc. deny that one species can form form another. This is wrong, no
matter what definition of science you use.

It's perfectly true that the standard "keep ID out of science class
because it's not science" has a strong component of "keep religion in
the closet". However, in reality ID as popularly marketed is bad
science and bad theology, no matter how one delineates the categories.
 I don't mind if one wishes to claim that the inference from
fine-tuning or specified complexity or the like to a designer is
science, though I would personally be inclined to define such
inferences as a deduction based on the failure of science to provide
an answer. However, in practice I do not think any of the proposed
methods to identify specified complexity, irreducible complexity, etc.
hold water. Nor do they seem to be legitimately derived from general
comparison of "designed" versus "non-designed" objects; rather, they
seem to reflect a quest for similarities between complex biochemical
systems and some "designed" objects in order to support claims that
complex biochemical systems are designed. I also think biochemical
systems are a bad choice of focus because our knowledge of them is
changing so rapidly. More seriously, I see no Biblical reason to
expect God to work in the way Dembski, Johnson, Dawkins, Provine,
Morris, etc. claim He ought to, and I see very serious Biblical
objections to the false gospel of creationism that is explicit or
implicit in much creation science and ID. In this false gospel, just
as in Galatia, something other than faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior
is claimed to be essential, though here it's holding a particular view
on means and/or timing of creation, there it was Judaism-like legal
strictures. Wells has explicitly claimed that Christianity is about
antievolutionism, which may be how he claims to be a Christian while
denying that Jesus is the Christ and thus qualifying by I John's
standards as an antichristian. Claiming that the doctrine of
creation is essential to evangelism (a standard ICR line) or that
holding different views on creation is proof of non-Christianity
(common from YEC and ID, though certainly a danger for any viewpoint)
or that evolution is the enemy (Ham) or testimonies that tell of being
saved from evolutionism to creationism by the work of creation
scientists all imply that Jesus didn't do enough.

> This has been addressed in various places in PSCF. For example, professor
> of biology Pattle Pun wrote an article dealing with this in Volume 59, No.
> 2, June 2007.
> If someone wanted to seriously argue that the content of these articles is
> "vacuous" then the thing to do is submit a rebutting article (or at least a
> rebutting letter) to the journal.

Something of the sort should be appearing, addressing specifically the
issues related to the Cambrian radiation, although many other claims
made in the article should readily be recognized as contentious by
anyone who follows the ID debate. The picture of the Cambrian
radiation presented by ID advocates matches that found in many
conventional biology texts, but it is quite inaccurate. Perspectives
on an Evolving Creation has a chapter on it, and Simon Conway Morris
has plenty of good information, but to summarize here, the Cambrian is
not a sudden appearace of all major types of animal out of nowhere.
The latest Precambrian fossil record includes primitive animals such
as sponges and cnidarians, as well as early versions of more advanced
phyla. The Cambrian includes significant diversification plus
improvements in the fossil record. However, the Cambrian forms are
characteristically primitive, including forms transitional between
phyla or classes. In other words, the Cambrian doesn't pose a problem
to evolution generally, though there is plenty of research still to be
done with regard to the exact roles of different mechanisms.

-- 
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.