A plethora of thoughts on Intelligent Design

[Argon]

@Eddie

I have not yet, in ten years of reading ID critics, found even one suggestion from those critics for how ID could positively, as opposed to by elimination, establish design.

Given life and conditions we see today -or- how things could be if designers were actually present and persistently active?

Today, you’re basically left with common descent and modification in stages rather than special creation or release of unrelated species/organisms. If you’re looking for evidence of design, it’s probably best to examine test cases where we can know the most about the initial and final conditions for a putative, design event.

One heavily worked example is the human/ape split. That’s relatively recent and most predictions for where ‘design case’ arguments could be made center around the dissimilarities in genomes between chimps and humans. One claim was that the emergence of humans required a large number of genetic changes that would be hard to account for via known biochemical mechanisms. One idea was the the number of ‘ORFans’ for which no related sequence similarities are known would increase as we compared more of the various primate genomes. (pace Paul Nelson. In fact, the number of unaccounted-for ORFans dropped with better sequence data). One signal that remains persistent is a strong correlation between then time since proposed divergence and differences in sequences. There is no a priori reason why that would be the case if species were specially created, but alas, that’s not the pattern observed.

Front-loading was proposed at one time (also be panspermia proponents), but not much workable research has emerged to date. Plus, front-loading would be largely consonant with much of the evolutionary change we’ve inferred.

With this and many other cases for which we have the most reliable coverage data, it would appear that a designer likely implemented their design in ways that make it hard to differentiate from understood mechanisms we see in cells today.

Old-Earth design is admittedly, harder to differentiate from current scientific theories than young-earth proposals. With YEC, you’ve got proposed physical events like the Noachian deluge and massive, recent, population bottlenecks across many species that should present very strong and unambiguous evidence.

So, given the strong signal of descent over time with modification, one might investigate:
Orthogonal coding in DNA sequences (steganography, independent of a functional role in cells)
Identification of design-capable intelligences present during much of Earth’s history: i.e. relics of occupation, communications, & etc.
…Admittedly, those would provide more direct evidence for an agent of design operating at any particular point in Earth’s history. But confirmation in any of those areas would greatly raise the support for direct, manipulation by a designer.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Argon

Given life and conditions we see today -or- how things could be if designers were actually present and persistently active?

That has been well discussed in the literature. Indeed, papers and books have been written on the topic of how design could be detected and how the presence of a designer could be demonstrated, and models have been proposed and investigated by secular writers. This is the irony; secular writers have done more of the necessary background work than the ID movement. In fact secular writers have done most of the work for them, but IDers still don’t take the step of proposing an empirically testable model and then actually testing it robustly through experimentation. And then some of them even claim that this wouldn’t be counted as science, despite the fact that such models have already been proposed in the literature.

The possibility of a designer is not ruled out by methodological naturalism.

Nor can science categorically exclude the existence of the supernatural a priori.

Of course we can also make specific empirically testable predictions about what should be observable given the existence of specific deities.

Even if we don’t understand a mechanism, that doesn’t mean we can’t attribute it to a supernatural explanation.

There is nothing stopping ID proponents from doing what you’ve suggested.

The problem is, ID proponents just typically don’t. They make all this noise about how it should be possible, and then don’t actually do it.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

Actually, it would make no difference at all – at least, to most the vocal critics of ID on blog sites, in the NCSE, etc. – how much empirical work was done. The vast majority of them are on record as saying that “design” doesn’t belong within the world of scientific explanation on principle.

Yet anthropologists use it all the time! What they’re saying is that your pseudoscientific, wishy-washy version is pseudoscientific as you define it.

It would be nice to see one or two examples of “vocal critics” saying what you claim, using the specific language that you used.[quote=“Eddie, post:96, topic:5673”]
In fact, in practice I don’t think it is possible to prove design anywhere, even in human affairs, except by the elimination of the alternatives, i.e., chance and natural law. One can tell when something is designed, but one can’t formally prove it.
[/quote]
Science doesn’t formally prove anything, but I think you already know that.

Again, anthropologists deal scientifically with design every day. Why can’t you?

@Eddie

I have not yet, in ten years of reading ID critics, found even one suggestion from those critics for how ID could positively, as opposed to by elimination, establish design.

It’s your job, not theirs, and scientists hypothesize designs and specific designers. Then they test those hypotheses empirically. Your phrasing gives you away, Eddie. You reject science itself.

@Eddie

They attack ID for merely negating chance explanations, but they won’t commit themselves as to what sort of positive and non-eliminative method of identifying design they would count as “scientific.”

We’re all committed to empirically testing our own hypotheses. No ID advocate will do it. Look at Behe’s incoherence on the stand in the Dover trial:

Q. And you also propose tests such as the one we saw in “Reply to My Critics” about how those Darwinians can test your proposition?

A. Yes.

Q. But you don’t do those tests?

A. Well, I think someone who thought an idea was incorrect such as intelligent design would be motivated to try to falsify that, and certainly there have been several people who have tried to do exactly that, and I myself would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors.

Q. Professor Behe, isn’t it the case that scientists often propose hypotheses, and then set out to test them themselves rather than trusting the people who don’t agree with their hypothesis?

A. That’s true, but hypothesis of design is tested in a way that is different from a Darwinian hypotheses. The test has to be specific to the hypothesis itself, and as I have argued, an inductive hypothesis is argued or is supported by induction, by example after example of things we see that fit this induction.

That makes no sense at all.

[quote=“Eddie, post:96, topic:5673”]
You can be the first. What method of identifying design would you in principle accept, that didn’t ultimately rely on eliminating the non-design alternatives?[/quote]
Empirical tests of ID hypotheses, of course. I’ve made that clear as day.

[quote]Unless you are willing to stick your neck out and commit yourself, there is no point in the ID people working for years piling up empirical data, because you could always simply say that you don’t accept the kind of argument being made.
[/quote]That’s not how science works. If you have a hypothesis, you test it empirically. You don’t pile up data for years without testing hypotheses, if you have any sense.[quote=“Eddie, post:96, topic:5673”]
If you can’t give even a broad outline of the kind of evidence you are looking for,…[/quote]
Oh, but I can. For example, if there was a design event during the Cambrian, it predicts discontinuities in trees constructed from sequence data. Easy!

[quote] …there is no reason why the ID people should try to please you. They might as well just go on using their traditional eliminative approach, and give up trying to win over people who won’t accept eliminative approaches.
[/quote]Their traditional non-empirical, rhetorical approach, you mean.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@benkirk

Again, anthropologists deal scientifically with design every day. Why can’t you?

Yep. And I’ve just shown example after example of the kind of statement which IDers say is never found in the scientific literature and has never been said by any ID critic in the entire history of the universe, ever. Which just goes to show you how little familiarity they have with the relevant literature. And you show them this stuff and they just fall silent until the next round of arguments, when they will again start by saying no ID critic has ever said these things, ever.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@benkirk

Oh, but I can. For example, if there was a design event during the Cambrian, it predicts discontinuities in trees constructed from sequence data. Easy!

[quote=“Eddie, post:101, topic:5673”]
I thought you were championing empirical science! How can you empirically investigate the genomes of creatures which lived during the Cambrian?[/quote]
I don’t have to! I have the sequences from phyla that are hypothesized to have arisen during the Cambrian!

Do we have a shred of surviving DNA from the Cambrian? What you must be talking about is the hypothetical genomes of Cambrian creatures which you reconstruct by back-reasoning from present-day genomes.

No, Eddie, I’m not talking about anything of the sort. I’m talking about genomes of today’s creatures. No hypothetical genomes. (content deleted by moderator for lack of graciousness)

And without actual DNA from the period, you have no way of testing to see if your reconstruction is valid.

I don’t need anything of the sort, since I’m not reconstructing anything.

Of course, many ID proponents have cited articles from the primary scientific literature…(emphasis mine)

Um, Eddie, we’re talking about why ID proponents don’t publish empirical articles in the primary scientific literature. (content deleted by moderator for lack of graciousness)

… showing that there are conflicts in the genomic data resulting in incompatible evolutionary trees (and by the way, why are you talking about “trees,” when not long ago you were chiding people here for speaking of trees rather than “bushes”?).

I chide people for talking about ladders rather than bushes or trees. As in Denton’s first book.

You are free to look up the claims of Wells, Nelson, Luskin etc., and go to the primary literature they cite, and show either that the primary researchers were in error or that the ID folks have misinterpreted them. I look forward to your detailed, article-length refutations, set forth in prose paragraphs rather than terse one-line objections, in this or any other venue.

There’s no need to write refutations of the way in which people with zero relevant expertise cite the primary literature. (content deleted by moderator for lack of graciousness)

Besides, this thread offers devastating evidence. The author of the ENV article saw no discussion of point mutations in Joshua’s paper, when its very subject was mutations, the vast majority of which are point mutations. Fun fact: How many mutations were discussed in Joshua’s paper?

Given that indisputable fact, why should I or anyone else take an ID proponent’s mere citation of the primary literature seriously?

ID doesn’t say that there had to be a “design event” at any time.

Anthropologists study design events. If design occurred, it is one or more events that had to occur at some time, no?

And remember, “ID” doesn’t say things. People say things. There’s nothing preventing anyone from sincerely testing a hypothesis regarding when design occurred.

Meyer thinks there have to be “design events.” Not all ID theorists do. You’re again confusing design with miraculous intervention.

Then Meyer’s hypothesis is testable but he won’t lift a finger to test it, and he’s far more representative of “ID” than a pseudonymous commenter here. That’s precisely my point!

[quote]…I won’t try to coax a coherent methodological discussion out of you again. I know that it will never be forthcoming.
[/quote]I’ve been and am being very forthcoming. You’re trying to avoid the fact that ID is pseudoscience as you and its other proponents, particularly Behe, define it.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@benkirk

Look at Behe’s incoherence on the stand in the Dover trial:

Q. And you also propose tests such as the one we saw in “Reply to My Critics” about how those Darwinians can test your proposition?

A. Yes.

Q. But you don’t do those tests?

A. Well, I think someone who thought an idea was incorrect such as intelligent design would be motivated to try to falsify that, and certainly there have been several people who have tried to do exactly that, and I myself would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors.

Q. Professor Behe, isn’t it the case that scientists often propose hypotheses, and then set out to test them themselves rather than trusting the people who don’t agree with their hypothesis?

A. That’s true, but hypothesis of design is tested in a way that is different from a Darwinian hypotheses. The test has to be specific to the hypothesis itself, and as I have argued, an inductive hypothesis is argued or is supported by induction, by example after example of things we see that fit this induction.

That is a just unbelievable exchange. Behe is totally incoherent. Do you do tests to see if your hypotheses are correct Mr Behe? No I don’t, I think people who don’t believe in ID should do tests to see if my hypotheses are correct. But don’t most scientists actually do their own testing of their own hypotheses Mr Behe? Well yes they do, but ID is not a hypothesis like scientific hypotheses are, we don’t do things the way scientists do things.

This is the kind of stuff which helped convince me that ID is a non-starter. The more I read ID literature, the more I could see the holes. It’s the emperor’s new clothes.

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@Jonathan_Burke

That is a just unbelievable exchange

You are right. It is unbelievable. For quotes as controversial as this you need to provide a link to quality source (which I hope would exist if you posted this). I recommend you edit the post to do so, or remove it. Just IMHO.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Jonathan_Burke

Well, I think someone who thought an idea was incorrect such as intelligent design would be motivated to try to falsify that, and certainly there have been several people who have tried to do exactly that, and I myself would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors.

Well I quoted it from Ben Kirk, but you can find it in the official court transcript, which is available freely online. Look here.

A. I have published a book, or – I have published a book discussing my ideas.

Q. That’s Darwin’s Black Box, correct?

A. That’s the one, yes.

Q. And you also propose tests such as the one we saw in “Reply to My Critics” about how those Darwinians can test your proposition?

A. Yes.

Q. But you don’t do those tests?

A. Well, I think someone who thought an idea was incorrect such as intelligent design would be motivated to try to falsify that, and certainly there have been several people who have tried to do exactly that, and I myself would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors.

Q. Professor Behe, isn’t it the case that scientists often propose hypotheses, and then set out to test them themselves rather than trusting the people who don’t agree with their hypothesis?

A. That’s true, but hypothesis of design is tested in a way that is different from a Darwinian hypotheses. The test has to be specific to the hypothesis itself, and as I have argued, an inductive hypothesis is argued or is supported by induction, by example after example of things we see that fit this induction.

Q. We’ll return to the induction in a few minutes.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

Is the trial transcript good enough?

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, PM: Michael Behe

Are you not familiar with Behe’s testimony?

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

Just insisting on a link.

[Chris_Falter]

@benkirk

benkirk: I have the sequences from phyla that are hypothesized to have arisen during the Cambrian!

Eddie: Do we have a shred of surviving DNA from the Cambrian? What you must be talking about is the hypothetical genomes of Cambrian creatures which you reconstruct by back-reasoning from present-day genomes.

benkirk: No, Eddie, I’m not talking about anything of the sort. I’m talking about genomes of today’s creatures. No hypothetical genomes.

Actually,it seems to me that you and @Eddie are both talking about the same thing–a reconstruction of the genome of a Cambrian common ancestor of modern species. Bayesian statistics and processes are used to perform this analysis, if I understand it correctly. It’s good science; it’s fundamentally no different than reasoning from multiple seismograph observations to the time, epicenter and magnitude of an earthquake, or from a recent set of observations about the location of planets to their location in the night sky in the first century.

I think @Eddie will accept the soundness of this scientific methodology, given that he accepts inference to design under far greater uncertainties and with far more controversial priors.

EDIT: Clarified dialogue by adding writers’ names.

[Argon]

@Eddie

I’m not interested in establishing direct manipulation by any designer. I’m interested in establishing only the fact of design.

The former is the most direct and straightforward evidence for design. The latter can be much more difficult, especially if there are alternative mechanisms to consider, and particularly if the '‘design’ is enacted proximately via natural mechanisms. All ‘designers’ with which we are familiar enact their designs almost exclusively via direct manipulation of some medium. Why would someone not consider that possibility in formulating any ‘design hypothesis’? This is almost presuming we already know what we’re not going to find.

RE: Messages from a creator in DNA: That’s an idea that has been around a long time. At the simplest level, it’s like encoding a serial number in the sequence within unused bases or in the the third positions of codons (often degenerate with little effect on expression), in a gene. Google ‘messages in DNA’. The Star Trek: Next Generation episode, “The Chase” revolved around a similar idea.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

[quote=“Chris_Falter, post:111, topic:5673”]
Actually,it seems to me that you and @Eddie are both talking about the same thing–a reconstruction of the genome of a Cambrian common ancestor of modern species.[/quote]
Hello Chris,

Actually, since I clearly replied “no” to Eddies misrepresentation of what I was talking about, that’s incorrect.

[Jon_Garvey]

@Argon

All ‘designers’ with which we are familiar enact their designs almost exclusively via direct manipulation of some medium.

One or two caveats here, Argon. The first is the real issue of analogy, which is agreed, or should be, on all sides - that God creates as his direct action ex nihilo, and we only manipulate existing materials. Even when God might be governing a “natural process” (which therefore must be seen as primarily the way he is “manipulating” materials), the “creation” aspect is over and above a process of change.

Example: the “manipulation” God uses in generation of babies are studied by embryology, etc. But the means by which he creates speciifically John the Baptist, or Martin Luther, or any other individual he purposes, involve no measurable means. The same might be said of the origin of the reproductive process itself, as opposed to some other process or none at all. The “design” is, to use a modern phrase, in the “intellectual property”.

That leads to my second caveat. Granted that if I write a book or design a toaster or some other original work, I will manipulate some medium directly to bring it into the world. But thereafter, it may be pirated, plagiarised, translated, turned into a film, vaguely remembered and retold, without my even being aware of it, or even alive. Yet people would still be entitled to say that the designer was me (and my executors might even win some money for my heirs by proving it).

So the fact that no design can be instantiated apart from a material medium does not make it invalid to differentiate design (taken broadly as “creative act”, not merely in engineering terms) from execution. This goes back at least to Aristotle as formal causation: one can study form quite separately from materal and efficient causation, though they never exist apart. Though not in science, sadly, which has deliberately excluded formal causation since Bacon’s time.

[Argon]

@Eddie

Yes, I’m aware of that notion. It’s a “gimmicky” idea, and I hoped you were talking about something more profound than that. I don’t expect that God put “Made by me, God” in the DNA of any organism, and I don’t know any design theorist today who is looking for such messages.

Honestly Eddie…
I understood that ID was intended to be agnostic as to whether the designer of biological life was God. You’ve said that. Why would one not expect a designer to possibly leave a signature or a message? There are certainly a number of ‘design theorists’ who have examined whether DNA sequences carry additional coding for such messages. What makes it a gimmick unworthy of investigation?

Clearly, if no message is found, that tells us nothing about a designer’s non-existence. That would be a wash. However, if a message is found, that would be positive evidence for a designer. In an earlier exchange a few months ago I chided you for not being willing to indicate which of the current ID arguments or research areas you might be willing to lay aside as likely to be unfruitful. Finally we find one, but I can’t see the reason why. If someone found a strong signal in the DNA sequences of various organisms, would you hesitate to cite it as positive evidence for design?