Reflectorites
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:52:24 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
RW>Sorry, I couldn't resist jumping in....
I regard this as a Freudian slip. Richard often describes what I write as
"nonsense" (he even says it in this post) yet he feels he has to apologise to
himself for not being able to "resist" answering it!
[...]
>SJ>If that is the case, then Cliff sure does gives a good imitation of it! The
>>fact is that 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.
RW>That depends on the definition of ID (which we're still waiting for).
Well wait no longer! Here is a "definition of ID" from Dembski that is easily
accessible on the web.
"ID is the scientific claim that there is evidence of intelligent
causation in the biological nature that is empirically detectable.
What is science going to look like once Intelligent Design
succeeds? To answer this question we need to be clear what we
mean by Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is not repackaged
creationism, nor religion masquerading as science. Intelligent
Design holds that intelligent causation is an irreducible feature of
the bio-physical universe, and furthermore that intelligent causation
is empirically detectable. It is unexceptionable that intelligent causes
can do things which unintelligent causes cannot. Intelligent Design
provides a method for distinguishing between intelligent and
unintelligent causes, and then applies this method to the special
sciences." (Dembski W.A., "The Explanatory Filter: A three-part
filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from
intelligent design," The Real Issue, 16 May 1997.
http://www.origins.org/real/r19602/dembski.html)
Here is another shorter definition from Dembski's home page:
"What has emerged is a new program for scientific research known
as Intelligent Design. Within biology, Intelligent Design is a theory
of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that
intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-
rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically
detectable. (Dembski W.A., "The Act of Creation: Bridging
Transcendence and Immanence", Presented at Millstatt Forum,
Strasbourg, France, 10 August 1998, .Access Research Network.
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_actofcreation.htm)
Stripped to its essentials my `first draft' definition of ID is:
"Intelligent design (ID) is the scientific theory that there is
empirically detectable evidence of intelligent causation in biological
nature."
I would add that ID could be regarded is a more limited subset of the
overall Argument from Design (or just Design), or it could be regarded as
standing alone. From the former perspective (which I share) all ID is
Design, but not all Design is ID.
ID differs from Design in general in that: a) ID's focus is only on biological
nature; b) ID aims to find evidence in biological nature that cannot
reasonably interpreted as anything other than the effect of intelligent
causation (as exists already in sciences like archaeology, forensic science
and SETI); c) such evidence would be *empirical* and therefore *public*
just like any other scientific evidence; d) it would not depend on subjective
religious faith but ordinary objective knowledge; and e) it would not
depend on or entail any particular theory of who he designer was; f) those
who are Christians would infer from the evidence that ID provides that the
designer was the Judeo-Christian God, but they could not *prove* from
that ID evidence alone that the designer *was* their God.
Irreducible complexity (IC) is a limited subset of ID. If IC is found to be
true then ID would, at least to that extent, be true, but if IC was found to
be false, then ID would not necessarily be false.
RW>Darwinism (which I take to mean mainstream evolutionary theory) is only
>concerned with biological evolution. ID could be detected in the origin of
>the universe, or of the first organism, without invalidating Darwinism.
No, as I have posted before, ID is only concerned with *biology*. It is
Design in general which is concerned with the origin of the universe:
"In its treatment of design, this book focuses not so much on
whether the universe as a whole is designed but on whether we are
able to detect design within an already given universe. The universe
provides a well-defined causal backdrop (physicists these days think
of it as a field characterized by field equations). Although one can
ask whether that causal backdrop is itself designed, one can as well
ask whether events and objects occurring within that backdrop are
designed. At issue here are two types of design: (1) the design of
the universe as a whole and (2) instances of design within the
universe. An analogy illustrates the difference. Consider an oil
painting. An oil painting is typically painted on a canvas. One can
therefore ask whether the canvas is designed. Alternatively one can
ask whether some configuration of paint on the canvas is designed.
The design of the canvas corresponds to the design of the universe
as a whole. The design of some configuration of paint corresponds
to an instance of design within the universe. Though not perfect,
this analogy is useful. The universe is a canvas on which is depicted
natural history. One can ask whether that canvas itself is designed.
On the other hand, one can ask whether features of natural history
depicted on that canvas are designed. In biology, for instance, one
can ask whether Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical
machines are designed. Although design remains an important issue
in cosmology, the focus of the intelligent design movement is on
biology That's where the action is. It was Darwin's expulsion of
design from biology that made possible the triumph of naturalism in
Western culture. So, too, it will be intelligent design's reinstatement
of design within biology that will be the undoing of naturalism in
Western culture." (Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design, 1999,
pp.13-14)
[...]
>SJ>It is a tautology to speak of a "belief based upon faith". If Cliff has a
>>"belief" it must be based on *evidence*.
RW>Perhaps Stephen would care to correct this apparent typo.
What typo?
RW>Presumably he
>means that a belief must be based on *faith* (I don't agree by the way).
No. I mean what I said: "a belief must be based on *evidence*"
As I have pointed out to someone (FJ? Chris?) "Belief" and "faith" are
synonyms. In the New Testament they are actually the same root Greek
word pistis, from which comes epistemology.
So to speak of a "belief based upon faith" is equivalent to speaking of a
"belief based upon belief" or a of a "faith based upon faith", and is thus a
tautology.
RW>If, on the other hand, Stephen really does think that a belief must be based
>on evidence, then "belief based on faith" is not a tautology but an oxymoron.
No. It is a *tautology*, a way of saying the same thing with different
words:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tautology
... tautology ...
1 a : needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word b : an
instance of tautology
2 : a tautologous statement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
not an oxymoron, which is a contradiction in terms:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=oxymoron
... oxymoron ... a combination of contradictory or incongruous words
(as cruel kindness)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no contradiction in speaking of a "belief based upon faith".
It is simply meaningless.
>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.
>>
>>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.
>>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":
RW>Stephen seems unable to recognise the fact that some people can change their
>opinions, based on new evidence.
No. I recognised that Cliff could change his view to embrace design, but
then he wouldn't be a "consistent Darwinist".
RW>He apparently assumes that people *want* to
>be Darwinists despite the evidence, rather than that they *are* Darwinists
>because of the evidence.
That doesn't follow from what I said. I can and do accept that Darwinists
can be "Darwinists because of the evidence".
But I do maintain that they have gone wrong at a deeper philosophical
level. That is they *misinterpret* the evidence based on their materialist-
naturalist philosophical assumptions.
I assume that most (if not all) Darwinists are 100% sincere in their beliefs,
and are *genuinely* baffled and outraged by creationists like me.
In the main their problem is that they cannot bring themselves to look
objectively at the metaphysical foundations of their belief-system, and ask
themselves whether it could be wrong. This is in fact what Dembski said in
the very Metaviews article that Cliff got so enraged about:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://listserv.omni-list.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind00&L=metaviews&D=1&O=D&F=&S=&P=3423
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:29:13 -0500
Subject: 027: Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame, by William Dembski
[...]
Metaviews 027. 2000.03.16. Approximately 2150 words.
[...]
By itself a scientist's lack of tentativeness poses no danger to
science. It only becomes a danger when it turns to dogmatism.
Typically, a scientist's lack of tentativeness toward a scientific
theory simply means that the scientist is convinced the theory is
substantially correct. Scientists are fully entitled to such
convictions. On the other hand, scientists who hold their theories
dogmatically go on to assert that their theories *cannot* be
incorrect. How can a scientist keep from descending into dogmatism?
The only way I know is to look oneself squarely in the mirror and
continually affirm: *I may be wrong* ... *I may be massively wrong*
... *I may be hopelessly and irretrievably wrong* -- and mean it!
It's not enough just to mouth these words. We need to take them
seriously and admit that they can apply even to our most cherished
scientific beliefs.
[...]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most (if not all) Darwinists that I have encountered are dogmatists who
cannot entertain the thought that they hold a basic metaphysical position
that really could be "massively ...hopelessly ... wrong."
Before anyone jumps in with a counter-attack let me say straight away that
I freely admit that I, Steve Jones, could be "massively ... hopelessly ...
wrong" about Christianity being true and that the atheists could be right.
Now it will be interesting to see if Richard (or any atheistic evolutionist on
this List) can honestly and unequivocally affirm that they are fully self-
aware they could be totally wrong about there being no God and that
Christianity could be right.
RW>Perhaps, if genuine scientific evidence of ID in
>biological evolution were forthcoming,
Notice how the *philosophy* controls the perception of the evidence?
There is "scientific evidence of ID" which has been presented to scientific
journals and critiqued by leading scientists, but it is deemed to be not
"*genuine* scientific evidence of ID".
There *never* can be "*genuine* scientific evidence of ID" to those whose
minds are controlled by materialistic-naturalistic philosophy.
It would be like an atheist (which in fact Richard is) concluding that God
exists. The moment he/she did so, he/she would no longer be an atheist.
RW>then Cliff would cease to be a Darwinist.
Similarly, if a Darwinist accepted the reality of design in biology, he/she
would no longer really be a Darwinist, although it may not be as
immediately obvious as in the case of the atheist accepting that God exists.
FJ/Pim can claim that a Darwinist could believe in design because the
contradiction is not that obvious. But even FJ/Pim might have trouble
maintaining that one could be both an atheist and believe in God!
Of course one *could* be both an atheist and believe in God if the words
"atheist' and/or "God" are emptied of their ordinary meaning. Similarly one
could believe in Darwinism and design if one or both of these terms are
emptied of what they ordinarily mean today!
[...]
At this point Richard posted another post which overlapped some of what
he had written in this one. I have appended his new post to where the
text overlapped and deleted the duplicated text.
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:26:36 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
RW>Correction. I wrote:
[...]
>>>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? He has proposed it as a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and
>>>his scientific critics have in fact subjected it to scientific
>>>criticism:
>RW>I note that, despite my lengthy explanations, Stephen *still* doesn't
>>understand the meaning of falsifiability.
And I note that "despite my lengthy" replies Richard "*still* doesn't
understand" that I *do* "understand the meaning of falsifiability"!
RW>I didn't read Stephen's paragraph carefully enough.
I thank Richard for the admission.
RW>Since it followed on
>from Cliff's paragraph on ID, and since Behe himself usually talks in
>terms of falsification of ID, I assumed Stephen was talking about the ID
>hypothesis, which I have already shown is not falsifiable.
Richard hasn't "shown" any such thing! The "ID hypothesis" is that there is
evidence of intelligent causation in biology which is empirically detectable.
All that is required to falsify ID is to show that Darwinism (which is the
negation of ID and indeed any form of real design in biology) is true.
If Richard claims that ID "is not falsifiable" he is effectively saying
that Darwinism is unverifiable (i.e. it might not be true).
RW>Now I see that
>Stephen was talking about Behe's *IC* hypothesis.
"Behe's *IC* hypothesis" is a hypothesis within the overall ID paradigm or
research program.
RW>Now, I don't think Behe ever refers to an "IC hypothesis" as such, so it's
>not entirely clear to me what Stephen means by it. Rather than ask others to
>provide clarification of what this hypothesis is, it would be more
>appropriate for Stephen to say what *he* thinks it is, since he's the one
>supporting it. But, I doubt he'll do so.
On what grounds does Richard "doubt" that I would so?
I am not even sure what Richard's question is. Is he *seriously* saying that
he has been criticising Behe all this time and he is not even aware of what
"Mike Behe's irreducible complexity hypothesis" is?
If so, here it is defined in Behe's Darwin's Black Box which Richard claims
to have bought recently (but presumably hasn't got to page 39 yet?):
"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)
RW>I guess Stephen means something
>like this: "Certain biological systems possess a property called irreducible
>complexity, and systems with this property are necessarily the result of
>intelligent design."
I would not say "necessarily". I would say that the *best explanation* for
"irreducible complexity" is "intelligent design". I realise (and so does Behe)
there are other logically possible (but implausible) naturalistic alternatives.
RW>To falsify this hypothesis, it would be necessary to demonstrate that a
>particular IC system evolved without ID.
No. All that would be needed is to provide a *plausible naturalistic
explanation* of the claimed "IC system" and IC in that case would be
falsified.
RW>Given that the mechanism of ID is
>totally unspecified and is allowed (by its proponents) to be supernatural,
>such a demonstration is impossible.
Of course its not. All that is required is a plausible naturalistic explanation
of the claimed "IC system". This is in fact what some Darwinists are
claiming to have done.
RW>No matter how carefully organisms were
>observed, it would never be possible to establish that no intelligent
>designer interfered in their evolution.
It is not necessary to "establish that no intelligent designer interfered in
their evolution". All that is necessary is to provide a plausible naturalistic
explanation. ID's Explanatory Filter allows chance and law unintelligent
cause explanations to trump intelligent cause explanations.
RW>A demonstration of the theoretical
>possibility of an IC system evolving naturally would be possible, but I
>don't think this would count as a falsification, and I'm sure it wouldn't be
>accepted by IDers. Behe could always claim that such a demonstration was not
>detailed or realistic enough to convince him.
Agreed, and so would most (if not all) molecular biologists. A `Calvin &
Hobbes' `cardboard model' explanation that satisfies armchair Darwinists
would not satisfy molecular biologists.
RW>Furthermore, for the IC hypothesis to be falsified, it would be necessary to
>have a more rigorous definition of IC, which would enable us to definitively
>say whether a certain system is IC or not. Otherwise, it is always open to
>Behe to argue that the system in question is not IC after all. (It would, of
>course, be embarrassing for him if this were a system that he'd already
>declared to be IC, but I doubt that that would stop him from changing his
>mind if necessary.)
There is no need for this definitional hair-splitting. The definition is clear
enough and everyone knows what IC means-it is not rocket science and it
is implicit in what Darwin wrote on his Origin of Species about "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". Molecular biologists are, after all, some of
the smartest people in science and they know what Behe means. No
molecular biologist AFAIK has asked Behe what he means by "irreducible
complexity".
Behe says that before he became an IDer, he and his fellow molecular
biologists talked informally together often how these systems could have
arisen step-by-step. One only has to look at such molecular machines and
the thought instantly arises "how did *that* get put together". In my
Biology class our atheist lecturer put up a slide of the DNA transcription-
translation system and she stared at it for a few seconds and then
involuntarily said "amazing"!
Behe has proposed a number of systems as IC like the blood-clotting
cascade and the bacterial flagellum. These are just the tip of the iceberg.
There are *hundreds* of IC molecular systems which defy a Darwinian
step-by-step explanation. The problem for Darwinism is that some of these
machines (like DNA transcription-translation and the ATP Synthase rotary
proton-powered motor and pump) are universal to *all* life and thus need
to be in existence for Darwinian processes like mutation and natural
selection to work in the first place.
His claim is that no one in the peer-reviewed molecular biological literature
has proposes a plausible, biochemically rigorous, chance - law unintelligent
cause explanation for these systems that is acceptable by molecular
biologists. So if someone can do that then Behe's IC hypothesis would be
falsified and it wouldn't matter if Behe changed his mind.
RW>Incidentally, I wonder whether Stephen deliberately chose to mention the IC
>hypothesis rather than the ID hypothesis, or if he simply failed to
>differentiate between the two.
I usually "differentiate between the two". But I used Behe's IC hypothesis
as an example to answer Cliff Hamrick's charge that: "the leaders of the ID
movement ... call ID science, but refuse to hold to the standards of
science."
BTW I had prepared *lengthy* point-by-point replies to Cliff's posts but he
left the Reflector so I felt it was not fair to post replies that he could not
answer.
RW>Probably the latter, as this is the kind of
>mistake that Behe himself makes:
>
>"In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental
>rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In
>Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was
>irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip
>side of this claim is that the flagellum can't be produced by natural
>selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To
>falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a
>bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for
>mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a
>flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my
>claims would be neatly disproven.(1)"
>(http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=445)
This is no "mistake". All IC is ID but not all ID is IC! In other words, IC is
a hypothesis within the ID paradigm. Arguments for ID are arguments for
ID, but arguments for ID are not necessarily arguments for IC.
This is pretty elementary logic and it is hard to believe that Richard, with
his superior intellect :-) cannot seem to grasp this.
RW>Note that Behe confuses rebuttal of his *argument* for intelligent design
>with falsification of the ID hypothesis (the title of this section is "Is
>Intelligent Design Falsifiable?"). He then puts forward a more limited
>hypothesis for falsification: "that the flagellum can't be produced by
>natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent
>process." Now, if we take only this more limited hypothesis, and if Behe is
>prepared to deny the possibility of an unknown designer interfering in the
>experiment he suggests (and I don't know what the basis for such a denial
>would be), then this hypothesis is falsifiable in principle (though probably
>not in practice, since the amount of time and number of organisms available
>to the experimenters would be miniscule in comparison to those that were
>available in the wild).
This is baseless. Titles *have* to be brief. But Behe makes it clear that it is
"my argument for intelligent design" that he is talking about.
As for it being "limited" only *one* example of a complex IC system
would falsify Darwinism. Not only Darwin said it, but one of his modern
disciples, Dawkins did also:
"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. Emphasis Dawkins')
RW>The remainder of my response still stands...
It was not not clear which was the "remainder" and which was not so I have
responded to everything that Richard wrote. If he no longer maintains
some of what he weote he can indicate what it is.
[...]
RW>Not that falsifiability alone is
>sufficient to make a claim scientific anyway--evidence is required.
Agreed, but which demarcation criterion (or criteria) one adopts to
separate science from non-science depends on which philosophy of science
one adheres to. The fact is that there is no clear-cut, universally accepted
criterion of what is science as opposed to what is non-science.
My personal view is that *the* essential mark of science is hypotheses
about reality that are testable against the evidence. In that view so-called
`pseudosciences' like astrology and young-Earth creation would be
scientific but *wrong*. This is historically true to fact because these things
were once considered to be in the scientific mainstream but were later
tested against new evidence and found to be wrong.
I also believe that science should be permanently open-ended. IOW
astrology and YEC could in principle come up with new evidence or
arguments and be accepted as true-not as science because they never lost
that.
I also think that attempts to rule out some things as scientific is
fundamentally *anti*-scientific. Those who do it are following not a higher
rational principle but a lower tribal instinct to exclude rivals. When science
starts navel-gazing and erecting arbitrary demarcation criteria to exclude
outsiders, it has started acting like a cultic religion or political clique, and is
losing its way.
In my view science should not be trying to exclude rival views but warmly
and enthusiastically *include* them, the only requirement being that they
should be tested *fairly* against the evidence, and definitely *not*
according to some preconceived philosophy of what reality *must* be like
because that is how scientists *want* it to be like.
Only in that open-ended way has science progressed in the past and can it
progress in the future.
RW>Stephen's idea that scientific criticism of an argument makes that argument
>(or the hypothesis it purports to support) scientific seems to be on a par
>with his idea that, for a theory to be considered scientific, there must be
>a telling argument *against* it.
See above. I never said that "scientific criticism of an argument makes that
argument ... scientific". My point has always been in the form of: *if* the
criterion of science is .... then .....
Demarcationist are famous for setting up criteria like "falsification" to
exlude their rivals but then when the rivals point out that their views have
actually been claimed by those on the demarcationists' side to have been
falsified, then they usually say something like what Richard says above, e.g.
"but we never said that falsification was the *only* citerion of what is
scientific.
So the demarcation always turns out to be just a sham rationalisation of
what the demarcationist really wanted to do by raw power in the first
place!
RW>In other words, it's nonsense.
Richard's problem is that (as usual) he does not take the time to *really*
listen to what his opponent is saying.
If Richard could get over his unfortunate disabling handicap of imagining
that everyone who does not think like he does must be "irrational" and
spouting "nonsense" then he might actually *learn* a thing or two!
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Here, I assume without proof that natural selection was the key
evolutionary mechanism and that, consequently, the organic world is to be
understood as highly adapted." (Ruse M., "Homosexuality: A Philosophical
Inquiry," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1988, p.131)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 19 2000 - 18:16:43 EDT