Is Intelligent Design Science?
Well, fivestar, the question you raise is a good one.
Let's pretend the year is 1600 A.D. and no one knows about bacteria. Yet they observe that food rots. The observation is a mutual one, with the same facts about the rot available to and verifiable by all. That makes it a scientific observation.
The next step would be to create a hypothesis to explain the rot. One person may propose that the rot is the result of invisible creatures eating the food. "Science"-minded people might have laughed at the "invisible creature" explanation and characterized it as an appeal to monsters, ghosts or demons. The idea could be labeled as "religious" and it could be said that science doesn't deal with such stories.
Of course no respectable scientist would claim that a belief in bacteria is religious. If something is unseen that makes it mysterious, that doesn't make it religious and that doesn't mean that we don't see evidence of it.
We don't see quanta, for example, and we don't understand how it works. That doesn't make quantum theory a religious belief. The purpose of science is to gain an understanding of existence, not to arbitrarily throw away explanations.
I see this as relating to the question of ID as science. Contrary to what critcs claim, design is not necessarily supernatural. As humans, we design things all the time. Is this supernatural or natural? If it is natural, then the argument that design must be supernatural is false. Or, if design by human intelligence is supernatural, how then can science acknowledge human design, it being unable to acknowledge any supernatural thing? Of course, science does acknowledge design (including breeding and genetic engineering). Further, we have no knowledge that design was not possible at any given time in the history of existence.
If someone wants to suppose that modern man has a monopoly on design in the entire history of everything that has ever existed, they should attempt to justify the supposition rather than making it an arbitrary ground-rule for science.
To further illustrate that knowledge of the nature of a designer is not necessary in order to scientifically infer design, imagine the reaction in the scientific community that would follow the discovery of "signs of life" on Mars. With no direct knowledge of life and no real understanding of the nature of the lifeforms, the scientific community would be abuzz with excitement at the discovery of "life on Mars." The signs of life could be simple, primitive tools or sculptures similar to what we may find in an archeological dig on earth.
Or a discovery could come in the form of a signal. Consider SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. This program seeks to identify radio telescope data complex enough to scientifically infer an intelligent designer or designers. The University of California at Berkeley has now started "SETI at home" which it describes on its website:
"SETI @ home is a scientific experiment that uses internet-connected computers in the search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). You can participate by running a free program that downloads and analyzes radio telelscope data."
Consider the words of the late Carl Sagan, revered by fellow scientists, in his influential paper The Quest for Extraterrestrial Intelligence:
"It is easy to create an interstellar radio message which can be recognized as emanating unambiguously from intelligent beings. A modulated signal ("beep," "beep-beep," ) comprising the numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 1 7, 19, 23, 29, 31, for example, consists exclusively of the first 12 prime numbers-that is, numbers that can be divided only by 1, or by themselves. A signal of this kind, based on a simple mathematical concept, could only have a biological origin. No prior agreement between the transmitting and receiving civilizations, and no precautions against Earth chauvinism, are required to make this clear.
"Such a message would be an announcement or beacon signal, indicating the presence of an advanced civilization but communicating very little about its nature..."
Clearly, prior knowledge of a potential designer is not necessary to identify the existence of design, at least not by scientific standards anyway.
Science accepts that intelligence is capable of existing, and accepts intelligent design as an explanation for all sorts of things. It is not always the best explanation, but often (as in the case of Sagan's radio message) it is.
All evidence is a matter or probability. That is a crucial and often unrecognized facet of science. Often, the probabilities aren't even worked out exactly. There is a discipline, for example, devoted to ascertaining whether an ancient "rock" is actually an artifact. Upon examining such things as the angle of fracture, it is determined that "rocks" are actually the product of design. It taken as scientific fact that cavemen were the ones responsible for shaping the rocks. Why cavemen? Again, a matter of probability. Other animals would be capable of doing the same thing, but it is too unlikely to be considered.
Consider other examples. Any evidence you can think of is ultimately a matter of probability. A study is released detailing the effect of a new drug on cholesterol levels. It is true that the results of the placebo group or the study group could be a statistical anomaly, but it is considered unlikely enough that the possibility is easily marginalized.
So, rather than dealing with the fact that ID deals with actual probabilities (ie- actual evidence), the anti-ID crowd attacks it as a supernatural and religious appeal to miracles. They call ID a "dead-end" and "the lazy way out" yet they don't describe other scientific design inferences as "the lazy way out". They don't look at a well-kept garden and say that nature did it. They give up on nature and take the "lazy way out"-- they say a person designed it. The issue is probability. The ID crowd is arguing as an issue of probability, as they should. Calculations of probability are a scientific matter. The argument that comes back from the elite scientific community however is not that the calculations are wrong but that they are supernatural and ought not be looked at.
Design is not supernatural or miraculous. It is true that a God would be capable of design and ID does not declare that existence of God is impossible. However ID does not speculate or otherwise comment on the nature of potential designers (it is the critics and on-lookers that are doing that). Are ID advocates supposed to claim that the existence of God is impossible? Nothing in science declares that the existence of God is impossible, so it would be unreasonable to expect ID science to.
This is logic 101. The fact that one who is omnipotent and omniscienct would be capable of design does not mean that one who designs is necessarily omnipotent or omniscient. ID does not throw away the possibilty, but good science is not about throwing away possibilites.
Who cares what label it's called. It's correct.
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
I think there is an argument for ID not being science in so far as it does reach outside the materialist assumptions which are the ground floor for modern science, and in the scientific process are necessary heuristcs. The solution is to recognize the limitations of science: it can only comprehend the mechanisms before it and can have no bearing on the value inherent in them, and so should not have any on the value we assign.
By all that I mean that scientific methods can prefectly describe a flower without conveying or even taking notice of its beauty, can comprehend the chemical reactions in our brains without having a word to say about the content of our consciousness. Modern life places a great deal of value on science, as it should, but will often place far too much.
Some good comments there, wcay.
It's true that this debate forces everyone to reevaluate the definition of science. If science is our effort to understand the truth about how the natural world functions then origin-of-life or origin-of-the-universe questions themselves are beyond the scope of science. (regardless of what theory you use) But if science is our effort to understand the truth about reality--that which is "real"--this brings origins into the scope of science. The other side is trying to have it both ways. They want to limit science to what is natural, but they want to claim that science has an explanation as to where that nature came from. If there's a natural explanation, then they've just given themselves something else to find a natural explanation for, and so on. Under their own definition of science, it's impossible to even ask where nature came from. You must simply assume it always existed.
Cameron
"Let's pretend the year is 1600 A.D. and no one knows about bacteria....One person may propose that the rot is the result of invisible creatures eating the food. "Science"-minded people might have laughed at the "invisible creature".
Interestingly, the scenario you outline is not too far from a true event. The "Miasma theory of disease" was a theory that was popular during the middle ages up through the 1800's that disease was caused by "miasma", a kind of foul toxic air. It was supposed to be toxic due the the presents of miasmata, invisible little particles of rotting material.
The Miasma theory of disease even provided a degree of predictive ability. Stagnant stinky water was supposed to be a source for the production of miasma and hence a source of disease. If the theory was correct, then the cleaning up of these stagnant pools should result in a reduction in disease. In fact, the removal of polluted standing water in areas of human habitation, especially prior to potable water systems and bug zappers does indeed result in a reduction in many disease including cholera, typhoid malaria, etc. All of this bolstered the belief in the Miasma theory of disease.
The only problem is that it was all wrong.
In the case of Miasma, the theory preexisted the discovery of microscopic organisms and so can be considered a reasonable (given it's weak predictive ability) if inaccurate attempt to answer the question "why do we get sick" in lieu of any known alternative.
Miasma is one of many examples of why the reliance on an "invisible creature" or mystery aether to explain a phenomenon is inherently questionable and in the presents of a known and capable alternative completely untenable. In the words of Franciscan friar William of Ockha "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything".
Cameron
"We don't see quanta, for example..."
You quite literally see billions of light quantum (AKA photon) every time you open your eyes.
honeypot wrote:
"Miasma is one of many examples of why the reliance on an "invisible creature" or mystery aether to explain a phenomenon is inherently questionable and in the presents of a known and capable alternative completely untenable."
I gather you mean that Darwinism is the known and 'capable' alternative? Well, it may be known in the sense that people are familiar with it. But it's far from known in the sense of having been exhaustively explained and explored, and it's even further from being capable. So there go that rhetoric right out the window.
I submit to you that Darwinism is the "mystery aether" and intelligence is the "known and capable" alternative. You've got it backwards.
When has Darwinism ever demontrated the ability to produce information (complex specified information) from nothing?
Darwinism reminds me of the ancient belief that fallen leaves morphed into frogs; this was once the explanation for the origin of frogs.
goatmilton would be absolutely correct if we're discussing "information" in general. I can provide papers myself if need be. But what is relevant to ID is CSI. Provide an example of a non-intelligent mechanism capable of producing CSI and ID will either need to be reformulated--assuming that mechanism applies to special cases only--or it will be dead. I keep track of the most prominent Darwinism apologists and the answer is silence. At least on that front. Instead of providing evidence they usually attack the person or peripheral topics or redefine terminology. Either that or Darwinism as a framework is imposed on the evidence and it's inferred, not shown directly, that Darwinian mechanisms are capable of producing CSI.
See this previous discussion:
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/forum/design_inference
TRoutMac
"...it may be known in the sense that people are familiar with it. But it's far from known in the sense of having been exhaustively explained and explored"
Mutations, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift have been observed and measured numerous times and their existence is not even being questioned by ID. The claim is not that they don't exist, only that they are insufficient to account for all that we see.
ID does not even argue against micro-evolution. If you accept micro-evolution you are accepting that the active forces for macro-evolution are in fact real.
There is no magic wall between micro and macro evolution. They rely on the exact same processes. If ID accepts that micro-evolution occurs, then the burden of proof is on ID to show why those processes stop before crossing the species barrier.
TRoutMac
I submit to you that Darwinism is the "mystery aether"
Well you can do that, but as I mentioned above, not even ID argues that mutations, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift do not exist, so you will be left to argue your point alone. What evidence do you have to suggest that those processes are in anyway mysterious?
TRoutMac
and intelligence is the "known and capable" alternative. You've got it backwards.
OK, I'm willing ot examine your evidence. To start, please provide a description of this known and capable intelligence.
TRoutMac
"When has Darwinism ever demontrated the ability to produce information (complex specified information) from nothing?"
The Theory of Evolution and all the processes involved do not start with nothing. I'm not sure where yo got the bit of misinformation, but it is incorrect.
TRoutMac
"Darwinism reminds me of the ancient belief that fallen leaves morphed into frogs; this was once the explanation for the origin of frogs."
Care to elucidate why it reminds you of mythology? I have not seen anything in the Theory of Evolution that claims that leafs become frogs, sticks become snakes, dirt becomes man or any such silliness.
There is no magic wall between micro and macro evolution. They rely on the exact same processes. If ID accepts that micro-evolution occurs, then the burden of proof is on ID to show why those processes stop before crossing the species barrier.
You just repeated dogma. You might find this statement by Dr. Allen MacNeill interesting:
One of the central tenets of the "modern synthesis of evolutionary biology" as celebrated in 1959 was the idea that macroevolution and microevolution were essentially the same process. That is, macroevolution was simply microevolution extrapolated over deep evolutionary time, using the same mechanisms and with essentially the same effects. A half century of research into macroevolution has shown that this is probably not the case.
MacNeill is a Darwinist who places his hope in evolutionary developmental biology. Unfortunately, research into such alternative mechanisms has only just begun and many claims are extremely tentative and disagreed over by Darwinists in competing camps. In short, his hopes lie in the unknown. This new line of research may or may not support his beliefs, but he's hopeful.
OK, I'm willing ot examine your evidence. To start, please provide a description of this known and capable intelligence.
The fact that you even say that means you are either (1) not that familiar with ID at all or (2) purposely using a distortion of ID in an attempt to make a point.
The Theory of Evolution and all the processes involved do not start with nothing. I'm not sure where yo got the bit of misinformation, but it is incorrect.
Some well known people claim that "evolution" in a general sense is a universal acid that applies to many diverse topics. It's true that TRoutMac's statement is more relevant to Origin Of Life (OOL) and that TOE assumes a self-replicating organism capable of error correction and many other things as a starting point.
Care to elucidate why it reminds you of mythology? I have not seen anything in the Theory of Evolution that claims that leafs become frogs, sticks become snakes, dirt becomes man or any such silliness.
The human brain is estimated to be capable of 100 petaFLOPS (Nick Bostrom of Yale). As a comparison the Japanese MDGRAPE-3 is capable of performing approximately 1 petaflop and Japan recently decided to fund the construction of a 10 petaFLOPS system by 2011. According to Wikipedia "MDGRAPE-3 consists of 201 units of 24 custom MDGRAPE-3 chips (4808 total), plus 64 servers each with 256 Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors (codename "Dempsey"), and 37 servers each containing 74 Intel 3.2GHz Xeon processors, for a total of 40,314 processor cores." That machine consumes energy like crazy, takes up a lot of space, is limited to certain tasks (it's not general purpose), and generates a lot of heat. On the other hand the human brain is massively parallel, has a very large storage capacity in addition to its processing power, consumes very little space, can handle all sorts of computational tasks (albeit being better at certain types), runs comfortably at 98.6F (I believe those Xeons often get up to over 130F), and can run on beer and potato chips.
I would consider it equally as silly to assert that serendipity is responsible for such a remarkable machine as the human brain.
Mutations add information and that is the long and short of it! (If you want papers on examples i can provide them.)
I was just looking at this paper in protein science:
protein science
The paper discusses evolution by gene duplication and point mutation. Behe shows that population in order for this to work the population size would have to be prohibitively large and the and would require numorious generations.
"MacNeill is a Darwinist who places his hope in evolutionary developmental biology...."
First of all, the only place I can find any reference to that quote is from your posts on this site. Please cite your reference.
Second, MacNeill is an evolutionary biologist who discounts ID. Therefore unless you care to post the context of that quote or at the least cite the reference I have to assume you are intentionally misquoting.
"The fact that you even say that means you are either (1) not that familiar with ID at all or (2) purposely using a distortion of ID in an attempt to make a point."
Why, because I ask for a description of the intelligence? Tom above clearly states that the ineligence was "known". Why would you not be able to describe it? If a thing interacts with the natural world, then it's interactions can stand as the basis for a description of the thing itself. I am not aware of any aspect of Intelligent Design that suggest that the intelligence is beyond description as you seem to be claiming.
Aliens for example, how is an alien inherantly indescribable?
"Some well known people claim that "evolution" in a general sense is a universal acid that applies to many diverse topics."
Well those people are not speaking for the scientific Theory of Evolution which clearly describes it relm of applicaition.
"The human brain is estimated to be capable of 100 petaFLOPS..."
And what does that have to do with evolution and leaves turning into frogs?
honeypot (or is it firebird now?) wrote:
"OK, I'm willing ot examine your evidence. To start, please provide a description of this known and capable intelligence."
and
"TRoutMac above clearly states that the ineligence was "known"."
You misunderstand my statement. What I mean is that intelligence, in general, is known to produce the same kinds of features we see in biology. I don't mean that we know who or what this particular intelligence is. Big difference.
Intelligence is known to be capable of producing complex specified information. No one disputes that. Furthermore, no one has ever provided hard evidence that anything but intelligence is capable of producing CSI.
Just a bunch of wishful thinking, circular logic and "trust me, chance and necessity can produce CSI" from Darwinists, that's all.
TRoutMac
"honeypot (or is it firebird now?)"
Correct, there seems to be a glitch in the forum and my account was blocked. I'm sure it was just a glich since I was respectful and I doubt the moderators would not try to squelch respectful dissent.
TRoutMac
"You misunderstand my statement. What I mean is that intelligence, in general, is known to produce the same kinds of features we see in biology."
When has intelligence ever resulted in the creation of a living organism from scratch?
firebird wrote:
"When has intelligence ever resulted in the creation of a living organism from scratch?"
Please don't distort my words. What I said was that intelligence is known to produce the kinds of features we find in biology.
Your question should have been: "What kinds of features are you talking about?"
ffirebird wrote:
"What kinds of features are you talking about?"
Intelligence, as mentioned before, is the only known producer of complex specified information, which is exactly the kind of information contained within DNA. DNA is a digital code which carries instructions.
Intelligence is the only known producer of codes by which complex specified information is transmited and stored.
Intelligence is the only known producer of information processing systems which are able to extract the stored information and make it useful.
Intelligence is the only known producer of irreducibly complex, functionally integrated machines. Molecular machines. Microscopic, functional parts arranged and configured in such a manner as to complete specific tasks, and which are comprised of a minimum number of parts, without any one of which would render the system completely functionless.
1) What is your definition of "complex specified information"?
2) What is your evidence that "complex specified information" is the kind of information contained in DNA?
3) What is your evidence that intelligence is "is the only known producer of complex specified information"?
1) CSI is information which is both highly improbable and conforms to an independently given pattern. I believe I've written that in a way that is consistent with the definition William Dembski would give, since it's my understanding that he coined the term.
2) The specific arrangement of the base pair in DNA is highly improbable and conforms to any independently given pattern. The "pattern," as I understand it, would be the Universal Genetic Code.
3) No one has ever seen chance or necessity produce CSI.
One thing I omitted from my earlier definition is that there is a threshold, in terms of bits of information, below which information is not complex and specified. I'll illustrate this briefly:
Take a bag of scrabble letters and pick letters out one by one at random. Occasionally you will produce a short word like "CAT" or "RUN". These sequences, as I understand it, carry so little information that they can be produced by chance. But obviously if you choose even a short sentence which you INTEND to spell out with scrabble letters picked randomly from a bag, you will never get there. To form a sentence which you specify in advance requires that you employ intelligence to choose the correct letters and choose them in the right sequence.
I'm sorry if this has been gone over before - I don't quite understand. Firstly why does the pattern have to be "independently given"? DNA isn't - surely it is incredibly improbable but only specified by one dependent algorithm - the one that defines a high-fidelity copy of patterns that produced a reproducing phenotype? Secondly I just don't get how the Universal Genetic Code is a "pattern", nor how the nucleotide sequence is "consistent" with it - which nucleotide sequence wouldn't be consistent?
I think the easiest way to understand this is to compare DNA with language. And I'm not the first to do this, by the way… just think of the terms associated with DNA and how those terms relate to language. Translation, transcription, code, encode, decode, and even terms like grammar, sentence, punctuation. So naturally I won't expect any Darwinists to claim that DNA is nothing like a language. A quick google of "DNA" and "language" will show you MANY sites referring to DNA as language.
Moving on… the English language (any language, actually) has an over-arching set of rules and conventions regarding grammar, sentence structure, spelling, definitions, etc. These rules determine the meaning (or perhaps the lack thereof) of a sentence. Most of us know English so well that we may not even realize that we store that set of rules (well, some more so than others) in our brains and constantly compare what we read against those rules so that we can determine meaning. And those rules exist whether we're reading something or not. Well, the stuff you're reading right now is complex specified information because the arrangement of letters and words is highly improbably AND it conforms to an independently give pattern. That "pattern" could be said to be the rules of English.
Well, the Universal Genetic Code is a lot like the rules of English language. It exists apart from the DNA itself, and it determines the meaning (that is, which proteins will be built) by what nucleotide sequences. That's the pattern.
Some people like to point out that the "Universal Genetic Code" is not really "Universal." That's true, it's not quite. But that's irrelevant, because even if there' more than one genetic code, remember that there's also more than one language. English, German, French, etc. All devised by intelligent agents. (in this case, humans)
Firebird/Honeypot/whatever.
Correct, there seems to be a glitch in the forum and my account was blocked. I'm sure it was just a glich since I was respectful and I doubt the moderators would not try to squelch respectful dissent.
No, I've purposely blocked you twice. We maintain a zero tolerance policy on OE. Bill has specifically told us, the moderators, that OE is intended as a safe haven for students interested in ID. As in, not Darwinists. If you want to make your arguments try them on UD where the moderation policy is more lenient.
Second, MacNeill is an evolutionary biologist who discounts ID. Therefore unless you care to post the context of that quote or at the least cite the reference I have to assume you are intentionally misquoting.
So essentially you accuse me of being a liar or at least purposely distorting what Dr. MacNeill said. Not a good way to endear yourself to a moderator. No, I didn't paraphrase that portion or break it up into pieces. The full quote is available on UD. Now I did paraphrase MacNeill's position that we'll find the necessary mechanisms through further research into EvoDevo. Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting him there. His full quote mostly lists various areas where he believes we'll find evidence, such as the work of Lynn Margulis and Will Provine.
The point is that I quoted him to correct your understanding of the modern TOE. I purposely quoted a Darwinist just so you wouldn't suspect bias. This is how he ended his discussion:
"So, as I said before, "the modern synthesis is dead; long live evolutionary biology!""
Obviously Allen and I disagree on whether we'll actually find the mechanisms required for Darwinism to survive as a theory long term but I'd definitely support him in any effort to research EvoEvo, Endosymbiotic Theory, etc. Such research will lead to a greater understanding of genetics and as such will provide technological and medical benefits.
Why, because I ask for a description of the intelligence?
If you were familiar with ID at all you'd know that while a design inference can be made there isn't a logical chain that can be formed--at least with the current tools in ID's arsenal--to link to the Designer(s).
Well those people are not speaking for the scientific Theory of Evolution which clearly describes it relm of applicaition.
I'm assuming Daniel Dennett knows what he's talking about.
And what does that have to do with evolution and leaves turning into frogs?
Simple. The human brain far outstrips any human-made supercomputer. If it isn't immediately obvious why that resembles mythology where leaves turn into frogs then there isn't much more I can say. You're a true believer with great faith.
In any case, I blocked you initially for a reason. Please refrain from commenting here any further. Next time I will simply delete your profiles and any comments.
I will add that I myself am normally very lenient when it comes to moderating. But this is not my site. If you want to be readmitted you can try emailing Dembski.
To follow up on Patrick's post,
While Bill Dembski does not run this site--he has, inherently, turned it over to the moderators--he has made it clear that it is to be a site for students to discuss the matters of intelligent design. As a moderator, I completely agree. As you can see, there are evolutionists on OE and some of them contributing very much to the discussion, but again, this site is mainly for students to disucss ID. Yes, we allow non-students on the site, but only those who contribute to the discussion. For those of you evolutionists who are not students but seek merely to post about the awfulness of ID, there are plenty of sites for you. Go to Panda's Thumb or Talk Origins, not here.
What makes something a science? Personally, I think science is about discovering the world through observation. Sometimes, we discover things that were designed. So, if somethings in the world have been designed, it makes sense that science could include their discovery.
login or register to post comments | 2 points