>>I wonder if the thought ever flickers across Darwinist minds that the
>>blind watchmaker' is getting more intelligent and less blind every day?
Me:
> I seriously doubt it. I suspect most Darwinists believe this whole
> issue was settled a long time ago and thus would react to claims of
> intelligent design with mild amusement and flippant dismissal.
Pim:
>Dismissal of what? That some people interpret design without any supporting
>evidence other than "well it looked intelligently designed". Behe failed,
>the 'Design inference' failed.
Oh, the irony.
Anyway‰¥Ï
Pray tell, how do you know it failed? It can only fail if it indeed
attributes
design to that which is known not to be designed. It may have failed
to convince you and others, but this doesn't mean it has failed (unless
you think you have direct, objective insight into The Truth).
Me:
> If someone suggests that something might be intelligently designed,
> I suspect most Darwinists would not focus on the question of
> whether it was designed, but instead focus on why in the world
> someone even bothered to raise this question.
Pim:
>Why would one presume that something were intelligently designed when no
>evidence of such exists?
Clearly, you believe "no such evidence exists," but how do you
know this? Others believe there is evidence for intelligent design.
That you are not convinced by their interpretations of the data
does not mean they have "no evidence." They would only
have "no evidence" if indeed their interpretations were wrong
which implies you have true knowledge that design does not exist.
How do you know intelligent design does not exist? Without
this information, your assertions about "no evidence" are, well,
simply assertions about your perceptions.
Besides, what type of data would you consider evidence of
intelligent design? We should explore this because it's starting
to become clear to me that the evidence design critics want
is really something close to an absolute proof of design.
Me:
> But I think it most telling that, while it officially excludes intelligent
> design, biology works because it extensively employs intelligent
> design language and concepts. As a physical scientist, Paul Davies,
> wisely observed in his latest book:
Pim:
>Of course ID is excluded, as it fails to be scientific.
ID is excluded from science because it violates the game rules
of methodological naturalism. That's just the way things
are and I have no complaints about that. But ID clearly
can be 'scientific' in that it does indeed have the ability
to take observations, generate tentative hypotheses, propose
experiments, and then modify these hypotheses accordingly.
Me:
> The fact that biology invokes intelligent design concepts like
> proofreading and quality control in order to make sense of life
> is, to me, very suggestive.
Pim:
>Yes it shows that the use of such concepts is useful in describing the world
>around us.
Nope, they are only that useful in describing life processes, not "the
world." After all, mountains are part of the world too. Were does
proofreading and quality control come into play during mountain
formation?
Pim:
>Of course that we refer to the world with terms that some
>misinterpret to be evidence of design does not mean that there is actual
>design?
I agree. But I don't think in extreme black and white
terms. I make room for things like suggestive evidence.
And I find that biology is so dependent on design concepts
and terminology to be quite *suggestive*, since the only
other science that is likewise as dependent is engineering/
computer science.
>It's just easier to describe nature in terms we are familiar with.
>Just like some attaching human characteristics to their pets.
Is this really what it all boils down to? At first glance, it
may seem this way, but I think it goes deeper. Two things
stand out in my mind:
1. You are missing a subtle, but important point. It's
not simply the use of design concepts, it's the fact that
an *understanding* of our own designed artifacts actually
sheds *real* light on biology (but not geology, astronomy,
physics, or chemistry). The more we understand about
design, the more we understand about life. It's more than
handy metaphors. It's the *applicability* of real design concepts.
Understanding how computers work really does help
us understand cells. And if there is truth to the design
inference behind life, I will predict that as our own designs
improve by becoming smaller, more complex, and more
sophisticated, our understanding of cellular/molecular
processes will likewise improve. I would consider this
one more prediction/implication from an ID "theory."
2. Yes, humans attach human characteristics to pets.
They also attach them to molecules. For example, chemists
sometimes speak of a hydrophobic molecule as those
which don't "like" water. This is all anthropomorphism.
But the design terminology in biology is NOT attaching
human characteristics to things. For example, when molecular
biologists interpret a protein as a "sensor", no one envisions
the protein as a conscious entity that is perceiving things
and responding to what he sees or hears. Instead, when molecular
biologists speak of protein sensors, they use this term in the
exactly the same way an engineer uses it when she builds or
describes a mechanical device. And that is all that is relevant.
It doesn't matter if biological molecules or mechanical components
are not conscious. It matters only if the biological molecules can
be put in the same class as mechanical components designed by humans.
In other words, the language of molecular biological is not in the same
class as anthropomorphic metaphors. It is in the same class
as the actual design terminology employed by engineers.
Me:
> But if biology is supposed to reduce to nothing
> more than chemistry and physics, why do we need to appeal
> to engineering concepts to make sense of biology?
Pim:
>Because such concepts are quite useful in describing nature around us in
>terms we can relate to.
But why are they only so useful in biology and engineering? That you
need these metaphors only in biology says clearly that in some
fundamental way, life is more like something in an engineering
department than something in all other science departments.
>That it now has lead some to confuse this with ID might lead us to
>be more careful in our language. But language is merely a
>description of what we see, that we tend to use 'human terms' to describe it
>does not mean that the world is 'alive'.
By all means, please be more careful with your language and drop
ALL design concepts. Let's see how far you get. This is not an
issue of a slip-of-the-tongue every now and then. Design concepts
and terminology *permeate* biology to its core. Like it or not, biology
depends on the very same terminology that engineers depend on.
Why is this?
Me:
> Where in
> geology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry do we find the
> concepts of proofreading and quality control?
Pim:
>Where do we have concepts of life in these sciences?
You miss the point. Intelligent design terminology is
not very useful in these sciences. The non-biotic world
knows nothing of proofreading and quality control. These
concepts come into play only in engineering (things
known to be designed) and biology (the very things in
question). Proofreading and quality control are at the
very core of life, yet are completely absent from every
area of science except those known to involve intelligent
design. I suppose it's all a strange coincidence, but
I have yet to hear a good argument as to why a mere
suspicion of design is not justified by these observations.
Me:
> It is often said that ID is not science and has contributed
> nothing to science.
Pim:
>Perhaps it has contributed science to be more careful in the use of
>metaphors.
By all means, lead a crusade to eliminate all this metaphorical
language from biology and hand it over to the ID people. If
there is no design behind life, you shouldn't need these metaphors.
So stop borrowing from the engineers and draw exclusively from
the language of the physicists, chemists, geologists, and astronomers.
If your non-design approach is so good, why do you need to steal
ID concepts left and right in order to explore the living world?
You have a whole universe to draw metaphors from and, given
that life is not designed, ought not be so dependent on *so many*
intelligent design metaphors.
Me:
> But how can this be when biology is
> built around ID concepts and language?
Pim:
>Easily. ID tries to extend the metaphors to point to evidence of ID.
>ID has cleverly used the use of metaphors to imply ID contributing
>something to science.
Like it or not, our understanding of intelligent design (things
we design) has indeed contributed to science again and again.
Reread the Davies quote and see above.
Me:
> For example, in trying to explain feedback and homeostasis
> to new biology students, biologists do not draw from basic
> chemistry or physics. They draw from the manner in which
> furnaces and thermostats are designed to work.
Pim:
>Again the use of metaphors to describe a process does not necessarily means
>that the processes are equivalent.
Who was making a necessary claim? That you read a necessary claim
into my words reflects on your perceptions of this debate - one where I
am supposed to come up with a necessary claim. This in turn implies
you are demanding something that necessarily means a designer,
which of course, is an absolute proof. But no one is even trying
to prove anything here.
Me:
> One of these days, someone is going to blow the whistle on the
> fact that biologists are constantly putting their hands in the ID
>cookie jar.
Pim:
>Nope, ID has cleverly used the metaphors to imply something for which they
>have failed to show any scientific support.
Nope. Biologists have cleverly stolen ID concepts and smuggled them into
their methodology and refuse to credit and reference their sources. ;)
It's a tricky way of shutting ID out of science. Take all its concepts,
label them as mere "metaphors," and then act like ID has no place in
science. Then, claim that ID is useless to science because the
only thing left for ID to do is find some vaguely defined "extraordinary
evidence" (allowing one to masquerade a demand for absolute proof
as mere "evidence").
It's starting to look highly suspicious when someone claims ID
has no scientific support when they live and breathe ID concepts
to do their science. Why don't they just abandon ID concepts
and walk the walk of all that anti-ID talk?
But let's look at it this way. Pim insists the ID terminology used
by science is only a metaphor. Maybe, but then maybe not.
What matters is that someone can indeed interpret the
terminology most literally. Pim might interpret a membrane
protein to be like a sensor, while an ID person might
interpret it to be a sensor. Is there any evidence to indicate
the ID person would be wrong? And more importantly, is
there any evidence that a literal, rather than a metaphorical
interpretation, could not guide scientific research?
Now, I certainly don't claim to know that design exists.
Neither do I claim these dynamics prove design. Neither
would I expect Pim to interpret these literally rather
than metaphorically. But one thing is beginning to
come into clear focus for me, namely, taking these concepts
literally not only can produce what science produces,
but might actually do better in some cases.
Mike