From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>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!
I was apologising to other subscribers, many of whom are quite capable of
seeing your nonsense for what it is, and perhaps feel that my responses to
it only add to the noise level. I also feel guilty for reneging on my
earlier promise not to do this!
I'm sure Freudians would have all sorts of fascinating things to say about
the thought processes that lead me to act in this way, but I don't think the
term "Freudian slip" applies in this case.
>[...]
>
>>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."
That doesn't get us very far. All you've done is replace "intelligent
design" with "intelligent causation". It doesn't help us answer the question
of whether intelligent design necessarily requires a conscious designer.
[...]
>>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.
OK. If you think that "belief" and "faith" are synonyms, then "belief based
upon faith" is a tautology. But I don't think they're synonyms in this
context.
[...]
>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.
On the contrary, I have discussed the metaphysical foundations of my belief
system in this forum.
>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.
>
>[...]
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I quite agree with Dembski on this point. But it seems to me that IDers are
far more dogmatic than most mainstream scientists.
>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.
Yes. As I think I said here a long time ago, there is almost nothing of
which I'm absolutely certain. And I do accept that I could be wrong, and
that there could be a God.
>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".
Alleged scientific evidence of ID has been presented. But, on closer
inspection, it turns out not to be valid evidence of ID.
>There *never* can be "*genuine* scientific evidence of ID" to those whose
>minds are controlled by materialistic-naturalistic philosophy.
Why? By your own statements, ID does not necessarily require anything
supernatural. (And I don't consider myself a "materialist-naturalist", as
I've yet to see a clear definition of what this means.)
[...]
>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).
But that's exactly right! *All* scientific theories are only accepted
provisionally and may turn out to be false in the light of new evidence.
This point has been made so many times that I'm surprised Stephen still
needs to be reminded.
>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?
You are again confusing hypotheses with arguments. I'm well aware of Behe's
*argument*. But I don't recall seeing him refer to an "IC hypothesis".
I was asking for clarification of what you mean by this term.
>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.
OK. So the "IC hypothesis" seems to be: "Certain biological systems possess
a property called irreducible complexity, and the best explanation for the
origin of such systems is intelligent design."
Note that, as usual, it's left to the opponent of ID to come up with a clear
formulation of the hypothesis.
(Note, by the way, that Dembski doesn't talk only about "best explanations".
He claims that his design inference produces no false positives.)
>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.
But plausible to whom? No explanation of a historical event can ever be 100%
complete, so Behe can always say that it isn't detailed enough to persuade
him. On the other hand, to me and many others, the explanations currently
available, though not detailed, are plausible.
Popperian "falsification" is not about giving alternative explanations.
It's about making an *observation* which is inconsistent with the
hypothesis.
>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".
I'm in the process of writing a web page where I'll take a closer look at
Behe's definition, and show why it's inadequate. Sorry, you'll have to wait
until then for more info.
>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"!
Oh, I quite agree that they're amazing. And I found Behe's descriptions of
these systems fascinating. I often think to myself, when I look at living
creatures, "Could this really have come about without a guiding hand?" But,
as rational thinkers, we have to be careful to look beneath the surface of
these intuitions, and not to jump to hasty conclusions.
>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.
Again, you're confusing arguments with hypotheses.
>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.
My point is that this is typical of the sloppy writing of ID proponents,
which leads to the confusion of which we see so much, in this forum and
elsewhere. Behe could have written "Is the IC hypothesis falsifiable?" And
it isn't only the title. He refers to falsification of "intelligent design"
throughout that section. (And, again, you're confusing an argument with a
hypothesis.)
>As for it being "limited" only *one* example of a complex IC system
>would falsify Darwinism.
Sloppy... The issue is not whether there exists a complex IC system, but
whether such a system is best explained by ID.
>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.'
This is something of a red herring, since you've admitted that IC systems
could *possibly* (but, according to you, implausibly) be produced by
naturalistic evolution.
> 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 put ID in the same category as astrology and YEC (and flat-earthism). If
you want to define science in such a way that this category is referred to
as science, then ID would be science. But I don't consider that a very
helpful way of using the word. It would lead (among other things) to demands
that those subjects be taught in science classes. Do you want flat-earthism
to be taught in science classes?
>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 .....
Let me quote from above:
>>>>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:
I'll leave other readers to decide whether I interpreted you fairly.
>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!
I speak only for myself. As far as I'm concerned, the reason that ID falls
on the wrong side of the line is that it's based on invalid arguments.
>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.
Stephen's problem is that he doesn't take the time to really listen to what
*he* 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!
I imagine no such thing. I've had some pretty strong disagreements with
Brian (among others), but never described his posts as irrational or
nonsense. But I believe in calling a spade a spade. And when I see nonsense,
I'll say so.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 28 2000 - 12:16:28 EDT