Reflectorites
Subject: Re: ID vs.?
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:40:37 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
>CH>...I don't have anything against the idea of ID.
>SJ>...if Cliff is truly a Darwinist, then he would *have* to have *everything*
>"against the idea of ID" because if ID were true, then Darwinism, as a
>general theory, would be false.
FJ>Of course not. Since ID cannot eliminate a natural designer then Darwinism
>can easily survive the idea of ID.
Perhaps I should have said "Darwinism" *as its leading proponents present
it*, i.e. as a `blind watchmaker' undirected, purposeless, natural process,
"would be false".
If design is empirically detected and Darwinists manage to `mutate' and
`adapt' Darwinism to it or else be `naturally selected' out of existence, I
would have no problem!
But the fact is that leading Darwinists *at the moment* in fact do "have
*everything* "against the idea of ID".
FJ>You will notice that both Dembski's ID and
>Behe;s IC/ID fail to exclude natural pathways as the designer.
ID, by its explanatory filter, does exclude *unintelligent* "natural
pathways" like law and chance "as the designer".
If someone wants to claim that there are "natural pathways" that are
intelligent, they can so, but I don't think they will get very far with it.
>CH>But, that is my belief based upon faith with no scientific data to
>>support it.
>SJ>It is a tautology to speak of a "belief based upon faith". If Cliff has
>a "belief" it must be based on *evidence*.
FJ>Why?
Because *all* beliefs are based on evidence of some sort.
Since "belief" and "faith" are synonyms, a "belief based upon faith" is a
tautology, like say one has a belief based upon belief or a faith based upon
faith!
>SJ>And if Cliff has a belief in creation by "some supernatural deity",
>based on the evidence of nature, then Cliff has made a design inference.
FJ>Not really. If things were that simple Dembski et al would not be struggling
>with that issue.
It *is* "that simple" to make "a design inference". People do it intuitively
all the time. Dembski gives an example of a corrupt electoral official who
put one party at the top of a ballot paper 39 times out of 40. Everyone
intuitively knew that he was rigging the system but no one could prove it.
What Dembski is "struggling with" (to use FJ's words) is trying to put what
people intuitively feel onto a sound scientific footing.
>SJ>And it is a "scientific" inference, even if not formulated rigorously.
>It is the task of the ID movement to give scientific rigour to such
>design inferences.
FJ>Why is it scientific? And how do you believe ID movement is going to give
>rigour to such inferences and if ID cannot exclude a natural designer what
>would be the relevance of a reliable scientific design inference?
The rigour will be in excluding *unintelligent* natural causes like law and
chance. If someone wants to come up with a new category of intelligent
natural causes they can try to do so.
>CH>I would be thrilled if the basic hypothesis of ID was shown to
>>be scientifically valid.
>SJ>Not if Cliff wants to be a consistent Darwinist he wouldn't be.
>Darwinism is the claim that a "mindless procedure could produce design
>without a designer":
FJ>This shows that SJ is somewhat confused about design and Darwinism.
It is not *me* who is "confused about design and Darwinism". I am a
member of the ID movement and I own, have read and quote from leading
Darwinist sources to make my points.
But FJ by his questions and statements shows he knows little about the ID
movement (does he own or has read any of IDers' books for example?) and
by his claim that "Darwinism can easily survive the idea of ID" shows he
does not understand Darwinism either (does he own or has read any of
Darwinists' books for example?).
FJ>Since the
>ID hypothesis merely identifies design an ID hypothesis would still not be
>able to show that a designer was needed.
ID's task is to empirically identify *design*, i.e. the marks of intelligent
causation in natural history. It is not ID's task to speculate who the
"designer" might be.
That is the task of those philosophies and theologies to are based on the
assumption of a designer.
But I think FJ underestimates what will be the impact if ID "merely
identifies design". It will IMHO be a more profound impact than SETI
discovering the marks of extraterrestrial intelligence.
FJ>After all if it fails to exclude
>natural forces then indeed there is a problem.
See above. ID does exclude *unintelligent* "natural forces".
FJ>Secondly, Darwinism does not exlcude a designer,
Maybe FJ should send Dawkins a message about misleading
advertising:
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393315703/qid%3D968821707/102-4959383-2271354
The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals
a Universe Without Design
by Richard Dawkins ...
Paperback - 358 pages reissue edition (September 1996)
W.W. Norton & Company; ISBN: 0393315703 ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.95 x 8.20 x 5.49
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 3,473
------------------------------------------------------------
FJ>it merely states that no such (supernatural or
>intelligent) designer is required.
Which is the same as excluding design.
Anyway, I am happy to accept FJ's definition for my purposes. If
Darwinism "merely states that no such ... intelligent... designer is required"
then it differs from the ID movement which states that unintelligent natural
causes alone were insufficient to explain the origin and development of life
and therefore intelligent design was required.
FJ>[snip quotes that do not support the assertion'
At least I supply quotes to support *my* assertions!
>CH>However, that is not what the leaders of the ID movement are engaged
>in. They call ID science, but refuse to hold to the standards of science.
>SJ>What does Cliff think Mike Behe's irreducible complexity hypothesis
>is?
FJ>A hypothesis that states that IC systems cannot arise naturally.
Strictly speaking IC does not claim that "IC systems cannot arise
naturally." IC claims that "IC systems cannot arise" is a step-wise fashion
as Darwinism claims they must have:
"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural
selection carried a heavy burden:
`If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,
slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'
It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about
Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement.
From Mivart's concern over the incipient stages of new structures
to Margulis's dismissal of gradual evolution, critics of Darwin have
suspected that his criterion of failure had been met. But how can we
be confident? What type of biological system could not be formed
by "numerous, successive, slight modifications"?
Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By
irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several
well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function,
wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to
effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot
be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial
function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by
slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any
precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is
by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological
system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to
Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose
systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot
be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit,
in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on."
(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," 1996, p.38)
FJ>How does this relate to ID
IC is a class of scientific theories within the overall paradigm
of ID.
FJ>and how does this make IC a 'scientific' hypothesis?
If Darwinism is "a 'scientific' hypothesis", and Darwinism claims that a
single case of an IC system would falsify Darwinism:
"Darwin wrote (in The Origin of Species):
`If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,
slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'
One hundred and twenty five years on, we know a lot more about
animals and plants than Darwin did, and still not a single case is
known to me of a complex organ that could not have been formed
by numerous successive slight modifications. I do not believe that
such a case will ever be found. If it is - it'll have to be a really
complex organ, and, as we'll see in later chapters, you have to be
sophisticated about what you mean by 'slight' - I shall cease to
believe in Darwinism." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker,"
1991, p.91)
then the claim that there are examples of such IC systems, backed by
evidence, is "a 'scientific' hypothesis".
If FJ claims that "IC" is not 'a 'scientific' hypothesis" then he is just adding
to the evidence that Darwinism is unfalsifiable in the minds of Darwinists.
FJ>Assuming design when no mechanisms have been found is
>harldy scientific in my opinion.
See above on Darwin's test. If the Darwinist defence to examples of IC is
"no mechanisms have been found" then that shows that Darwinism is
unfalsifiable in the minds of Darwinists.
What FJ is doing is not unusual. It is the usual pseudoscientific way that
Darwinists try to protect their theory. Instead of dealing fairly and squarely
with the evidence, they deny there *can* be any evidence against
Darwinism and try to rule those proposing it out of science altogether.
SJ>He has proposed it as a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and
>his scientific critics have in fact subjected it to scientific
>criticism:
FJ>Pseudo science also can expect scientific criticism and
>can be falsified.
No. If a claimed "Pseudo science...can be falsified" then that makes it
*real* science, but wrong. The classic mark of a pseudoscience, as Popper
formulated the term, is that they *cannot* be falsified, at least in the minds
of its adherents.
The Darwinism that FJ is defending is a classic example of pseudoscience.
Darwinism claims that there is no design, but FJ claims that even if design
is detected, "Darwinism can easily survive" it, by postulating a new,
unknown category of natural intelligent design.
Darwinism claimed that the existence of IC structures would falsify it. But
FJ, by a variety of stratagems including ruling IC and ID out as scientific,
appealing to unknown future naturalistic "mechanisms", makes sure that
Darwinism would never have to actually face such a test, or if it did face it,
that it would always survive it.
FJ>Does that make it more scientific?
See above. There is no such thing as "more scientific". It is like being more
or less pregnant. Something is either "scientific" or it is not.
FJ>Behe has yet to show that design exists in nature.
Behe aim was to show that there are systems in "nature" which are so
irreducibly complex that they could not plausibly have arisen by a step-wise
Darwinian process.
Those who deny absolutely that "design exists in nature" will of course
*never* be convinced.
But it is *their* position which is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
Behe's position is both falsifiable and scientific.
FJ>Behe's ID argument is based on a logical fallacy to
>link IC with ID
Not really. If step-by-tiny-sep Darwinism is claimed to be the best (indeed
the *only* in principle) naturalistic alternative to design:
"Cumulative selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the
explanation, the only workable explanation that has ever been
proposed, for the existence of life's complex design. The whole
book has been dominated by the idea of chance, by the
astronomically long odds against the spontaneous arising of order,
complexity and apparent design. We have sought a way of taming
chance, of drawing its fangs. 'Untamed chance', pure, naked chance,
means ordered design springing into existence from nothing, in a
single leap. It would be untamed chance if once there was no eye,
and then, suddenly, in the twinkling of a generation, an eye
appeared, fully fashioned, perfect and whole. This is possible, but
the odds against it will keep us busy writing noughts till the end of
time. ... To 'tame' chance means to break down the very improbable
into less improbable small components arranged in series. No
matter how improbable it is that an X could have arisen from a Y in
a single step, it is always possible to conceive of a series of
infinitesimally graded intermediates between them. However
improbable a large-scale change may be, smaller changes are less
improbable. And provided we postulate a sufficiently large series of
sufficiently finely graded intermediates, we shall be able to derive
anything from anything else, without invoking astronomical
improbabilities." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991,
pp.317-318)
and Darwin proposed that IC would falsify Darwinism, then Behe's IC
demonstration of IC is linked with ID.
FJ>Perhaps
>Steve can explain to us how such a link has been made using the definitions
>of IC and ID?
See above.
BTW if FJ is Pim we have been through all this on the Reflector before and
he knows (or should know) the answers. One of the hallmarks of Pim was
to ask the same questions over and over again (I presume either because
Pim was in denial mode or in some vain hope that the answer would
eventually mutate to his liking?) So I am only answering this for other
people's benefit.
>CH>Basically, the purpose of the movement is to get rid of naturalistic
>science.
FJ>No. "the purpose of the movement is to" separate "naturalistic"
>*philosophy* from "science".
Agreed!
>SJ>Cliff probably thinks that "science" *is* just applied "naturalistic"
>philosophy" or maybe he doesn't even realise that modern science is based
>on a philosophy that is itself outside of science?
FJ>A philosophy that has worked extremely well in explaining the data.
Applied "naturalistic philosophy" has "worked extremely well in
explaining" *some* "data", chiefly in the more physical of the sciences (e.g.
physics and chemistry). But it has not worked all that well in explaining
*origins* and matters relating to the human mind.
Besides, Materialist-Naturalists have enforced a monoply so they cannotr
really claim theirs is the best explanation.
A Design / Creation paradigm would explain all that "naturalistic
philosophy" explains, plus it could also explain origins and the human mind.
That those who espouse "naturalistic philosophy" must know this at some
level is evident by their desperate attempts to keep the Design / Creation
paradigms off the table. If they were really confident of their position they
would *welcome* competitors as an way of demonstrating their position's
superiority.
>CH>I would say that they are trying to prevent others from speaking out in
>>opposition.
>SJ>How exactly are they doing that (even if they wanted to-which they
>don't)?
>It is the *Darwinists* who are in power and have the full support of the
>government, the law, the educational authorities, the scientific journals
>and the mainstream media.
FJ>:-)
I guess even FJ has no argument against that!
>CH>The leaders will say that ID is a scientific enterprise, but then
>>have a meeting with congressmen to get ID taught in the classroom. This
>>is not how scientists operate.
>SJ>Is Cliff trying to claim that mainstream science does not give briefings
>to Congressmen? And what exactly is wrong, in a democracy, with briefing
>Congressmen?
FJ>Nothing, just don;t pretend it's science.
The don't "*pretend* it's science". It *is* science. It is those who want to
suppress competing claims by political power and legal threats
"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that
convinces me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse
once it becomes possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the
way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they
are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A
real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to
prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely upon
enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official
story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would
welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they
would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to
caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely
upon the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson P.E.,
"The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism,"
2000, p.141)
who are the *real* pretenders:
>CH>IDers say that they have empirical data to back
>>up their claims, but have refused to make it public (I know because we've
>>asked for it).
>SJ>What does Cliff think Darwin's Black Box is and Behe's irreducible
>complexity claims on his ARN web pages are - chopped liver?
FJ>Where is the empirical data of design? The absence of an evolutionary
pathway?
See above.
>SJ>Other
>scientists like Jerry Coyne have no problem finding it and critiquing
>it.
FJ>Of course not, but does that make it scientific? Does that make it supported
>by empirical data?
Does FJ *seriously* think that leading scientists like Jerry Coyne and
others would bother critiquing claims that are not "scientific" and not
"supported by empirical data"?
>SJ>ID researchers like Behe have proposed tests of irreducible complexity
>for several molecular biological systems. If Cliff wants to falsify them, he can
>try.
FJ>Since it has already been shown that IC systems could arise naturally, it
>seems that Behe's thesis has been disproven.
Maybe FJ could give an *example* of where one of Behe's "IC systems
could arise naturally"?
FJ>Perhaps his thesis is now that
>some systems that are IC might still be designed?
It is of course possible that IC might prove to be false and still design
could be true. IC is not all there is to ID and ID is not all there is to design.
FJ>Perhaps Behe can provide
>us with some evidence that does not rely on absence of data and mechanisms?
It is good that FJ admits that there *are* "an absence of data and
mechanisms" to explain how complex systems like the blood-clotting
cascade and the bacterial flagellum arose.
Behe has proposed a hypothesis that would explain that "absence of data
and mechanisms".
Science (indeed Evolutionary Biology) does contain examples of theories
whose main evidence is the "absence of data and mechanisms", namely
Punctuated Equilibria.
In any event, FJ seems to forget that he was earlier in this post relying "on
absence of data and mechanisms", namely: 1) unknown intelligent natural
mechanisms (other than law and chance); 2) unknown future mechanisms
which would explain IC.
>CH>You should go to the ARN website. It is not opponents to ID that have
>>brought up the space alien scenario, it is the IDers that use it to respond
>>to the notion of God as the designer.
>SJ>I have explained the context of that in Behe's Darwin's Black Box. There
>Behe was pointing out that the detection of design would not compel belief
>that the design was caused by a supernatural Designer. He says that
>"persons with philosophical commitments against the supernatural" (p.248)
>would be able to posit a number of alternatives, including Directed
>Panspermia and time-travel. Behe was not saying that any IDers would
>claim this, although they could.
FJ>Interestingly enough Behe forgot to mention that design could also include
>natural forces. So my question again: What does ID have to offer?
See above. FJ sounds like a broken record (as Pim used to). He only needs
to ask the question *once* and await my reply!
>CH>Behe, Meyer, and Dembski have all said
>>that ID doesn't make any claims on the nature of the designer and that ID
>>is not all about God.
>SJ>That is correct. ID is about detecting *design* not about making claims
>about "the nature of the designer", e.g. that it was "God".
FJ>Huraah and as such it cannot exclude natural forces as the designer.
See above.
I wonder why FJ is so keen to *include* "natural forces as the designer"? It
obviously hasn't occurred to him yet, that that would destroy Darwinism
itself (as I have pointed out in a previous post)?
>SJ>There is simply *no way* that ID can, by its methods, like the
>Explanatory Filter, or Irreducible Complexity, do any more than detect
>*design*.
FJ>Heck, if they could show that it could even detect design in a useful
>definition of the word then I would be impressed.
Maybe FJ would state in advance what he would agree is "a useful
definition of the word" "design" such that he would be "impressed" if ID
did detect it?
FJ>But certainly within biological sciences they have not done this.
See above. This is meaningless until we know FJ's "definition" of "design"
that he would be "impressed" if ID did detect it "within biological
sciences".
BTW why the distinction "within biological sciences"? Is FJ admitting that
design has been detected in other sciences?
>SJ>It is up to philosophy and theology to take it further and make "claims
>>on the nature of the designer" e.g. that it was "God".
FJ>Or nature. So we are where we started.
No. See above.
>CH>I would love to see some real scientific research on intelligent design
>>being conducted without the huge sociopolitical agenda of the Discovery
>>Institute.
>SJ>Well, "the Discovery Institute" don't have a monopoly on "scientific
>research on intelligent design."
FJ>What research?
Behe's evidence for IC for starters.
>SJ>If Cliff would *really* "love to see some real scientific research on
>intelligent design being conducted" and if he "would be thrilled if the
>>basic hypothesis of ID was shown to be scientifically valid" then Cliff himself
>could start his own ID research.
FJ>Why? Should we not expect our dear ID friends to do some hard work to
>show that ID is not just founded in absence of evidence?
See above on alleged "absence of evidence".
>CH>But, until the agenda is dropped, I cannot (will not) accept the ID
>>movement.
>SJ>Cliff is perfectly free to "not ...accept the ID movement" I am sure
>with the ID movement's blessing. I have said before that the ID movement
>does not need to convince committed Darwinists of design (that
>probably cannot be done), but they only need to convince a large
>part of the majority of the general public who already believe in
>design.
FJ>Ah, there we are getting closer to the real issue. Through equivocation it is
>attempted to imply that ID can support design. But those who believe in
>design believe in a designer that ID cannot support since it cannot exclude
>natural forces. As such ID has added nothing to the scientific discussion but
>might confuse enough people.
See above and my previous messages.
>CH>I just don't like being lied to (and yes, they have lied to me).
>SJ>I have commented before on this List how easily evolutionists assume
>that their creationist / IDer opponents are not merely intellectually in
>error (i.e. wrong) but are also *morally* in error (i.e. "lied").
FJ>I am sure that you realize that your conclusion does not follow logically
>from CH's remarks?
No I don't "realize" that. I wouldn't have posted it if I did!
Rather than one-liners, if FJ/Pim is interested in having a meaningful debate
(which may of course not be the case), I suggest he expand more on what
he means? I am not a mind-reader!
FJ>So where's the beef? If ID cannot exlcude natural forces as the designer,
See above.
FJ>if ID cannot even show that it is a reliable detector of design,
What evidence does FJ have for this?
FJ>what does ID have to offer?
See above.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 18:51:17 EDT