ID Censors Their Own

Faith & Science Conversation
25

Jay; Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I want to point out a few things, one of which I hope will change your impression…

Needless to say, the strength of an analogy is directly proportional to how alike the two things are; especially on the most important aspects. A few years ago, while researching the ID position, I wrote down the following definition and showed to both an IT professional and a retired physics phd with a strong background in biology:

" a linear string of discreet symbols which prescribes nontrivial function"

I asked the IT professional if this was a good definition of computer code, and if so, how good. Then I asked the physics phd if this was a good definition for protein coding dna, and if so, how good. Both replied that the definition was excellent. If the exact same definition that describes computer code can be used to describe genetic code, it seems to me that both are code by definition. Code cannot be separated from language. As Yockey noted long ago, “it is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy here.” I remain convinced, with excellent reason, that dna is code by definition, not merely by analogy.

How do you know that Torley “wanted Axe’s position to be true?” Certainly, if we take the OP on its face and do not question it at all, I can see how we might automatically adopt this assumption, but let’s take a peak behind the curtain:

As Dr. Swamidass points out, UD is one of the top two pro ID sites; the other one being Evolution News and Views, the news site for the Discovery Institute. Indeed, the DI is widely recognized by both friend and foe alike as the leading ID think tank. Now you would be hard pressed to find someone who follows the ID movement closer than I do. You could find such a person, but you would be hard pressed. Having never heard of Dr. Torley, I plugged his name into the search engine at ENV. There are only two references to him. The older reference is simply a brief quote on animal minds, but the more recent should shed some light on this particular forum. It concerns a controversy over an article he wrote. Are you ready for the title? “In Defense of Dr. Swamidass”!

It is not my intention to impugn either dr. Swamidass or dr. Torley. At the end of the day, I am happy to count Swamidass as a brother in Christ and Torley as like minded in being convinced that ID has the better argument. But from the small sample size constituted by his review of Axe’s book and his article defending dr. Swamidass (which was written prior to the release of Axe’s book), it seems to me that it is more appropriate to consider Torley more of a maverick who sees the controversy on his own terms than “one of (ID’s) own.” I have no problem with such a position, but let’s be honest about it. It is also not inappropriate, if we intend to be seduced by the impression dr. Swamidass wants us to take away from this forum, to note that the two enjoy at least a bit of a mutual admiration that goes back farther than Axe’s book. And thus, any pretense of intellectual moral high ground here might be better understood less nobly but perhaps more accurately as a-priori bias.

In that light, perhaps what you should find very compelling is that despite his published objections against ID proponents, he still sees ID as the best position. In the meantime, as I have said before, I have seen the work of Doug Axe criticized, and I have seen Doug Axe handle his critics very well. The jury is still out on Torley’s charges.

ID has not been offered as a “proof” by either Axe or me or anyone in the ID movement. All it needs to be is the most reasonable causal explanation for the origin and evolution of life based on the evidence. And that is all we are saying.[quote=“Jay313, post:17, topic:5625”]
Back to my reflections. Consider just the following descriptions: overstating, over-interpreting, fallacious, questionable, misrepresentation, errors … This is a serious problem for the ID movement. In their zeal to “prove” that God created, some authors seem willing to overstate the case or (in the extreme) bend and ignore facts to make their case. This is not the way for Christians to make their case for the Lord. It dishonors him and discredits honest Christian intellectuals in pursuit of truth
[/quote]

I’ve seen this charge and I’ve also seen it addressed. Please remember that everyone has an agenda. I am sure there are some true examples of this. I could put examples on the table of ECs and TEs guilty of the same charge. But I hope that neither you nor I would ever focus on these examples and make them the story. The important question remains: which causal account is true? Where does the evidence lead?

What leads you to believe this?

26

Aren’t we getting a bit silly here? Here’s the copy-and-paste of what I said:
" But the differences that do exist between human designs and biological systems all have to do with the fact that biological systems are far more technologically advanced than what we are capable of."
Have you ever heard of, say, for example, a respiratory system or a nervous system? My exact words, as you can see, deal with biological systems. To point out the technological brilliance of such systems is not to say that people are machines. When I talk about the advanced data processing of living organisms do you suppose I am saying that people are data processing systems?

Please! Let us stay focused on the issues at hand.[quote=“Swamidass, post:23, topic:5625”]
I believe God used evolution to create and design us. He endowed the “land” with the ability to “give forth” plants and animals, just as it teaches in Genesis, and He intervened as He pleased to direct evolution as He saw fit
[/quote]

I would like to focus on this: “He intervened as He pleased to direct evolution as He saw fit.” Would you say that these unspecified interventions were necessary because the laws of nature by themselves do not provide a sufficient causal account for the origin and evolution of life? Note that I am not saying this is what you are saying, I am asking. Thanks

27

I wish this site was swamidass.org.

28

please see my reply to Jay just a few posts down from here. In the meantime, I would love to hear your argument against my claim that the amino acid table is purely formal and abstract. Here is why I make the claim:

*There is absolutely no physical/chemical explanation for the codon table.
*The codon table clearly manifests abstract meaning. Consider, for example, the stop codon. From a purely physical standpoint, the three mers in sequence do not physically compel any sort of growing chain of molecules to “stop.” Yet in the context of the ribozome they always convey the command for the growing chain of AAs to stop. The command to stop is an abstract meaning. There is nothing physical about it.

Now, let’s hear your counter…

29

[quote=“deliberateresult, post:28, topic:5625”]
*There is absolutely no physical/chemical explanation for the codon table.[/quote]
That doesn’t make it symbolic.

When we humans write a table, it certainly does, but we humans are creating the abstractions!

However, in the context of translation, there’s no abstraction or symbolism whatsoever. The term is used metaphorically.

You’re inserting vitalism where there is none. There is no command. That’s what it symbolizes to you, but it’s purely chemical in the context of translation. And what’s a “mer”?

There is no abstraction. There is no command.

[quote]There is nothing physical about it.
[/quote]It’s all physical because it’s chemical. You haven’t shown any abstraction at all, just asserted it.

Joe, why would an Intelligent Designer choose RNA for peptidyl transferase?

2 Likes
30

Hi, Joe. Thanks for the reply. I still plan to get to that word study one day. Haha. On to the show…

Before responding directly, I should say that I seem to have given the wrong impression. My interests lie in the area of evangelism. I have only a tangential interest in the debate on evolution, and that only because it is part of the same complex of issues that are creating barriers to belief in the younger generation and the unchurched. I will not go into specifics in this thread, but you are welcome to peruse my comments in threads like How do we “bend the curve” and Eastern v Western angles on truth.

The statement that I challenged was that genetic code = language. To me, you were making the claim that genetic code and human language were not analogous, but identical by definition. I definitely would challenge this, as human language is far more complex fluid than I think you realize. If you are claiming that genetic code = computer code, I would not argue with that, but I don’t have the expertise to judge that claim either way. In any case, I also would note that computer code is also not identical to human language, but is similar only by analogy. Computer code may be directly comparable to genetic code, but both codes are related to real human language only by analogy, which shouldn’t be confused with the real thing (actual language as spoken by actual human beings).

Because Torley was praising Axe’s book to high heaven in the Methodological Naturalism thread prior to writing the review. I didn’t have the energy to go look up his posts there, but you’re welcome to verify it for yourself, if you’d like.

See above. Also, Torley said in his review that he had only changed his mind in the last few weeks. Do you have reason to doubt this? Perhaps if you used Google search instead of just ENV you would find a long history of Torley writing about and defending ID.[quote=“deliberateresult, post:25, topic:5625”]
it is more appropriate to consider Torley more of a maverick who sees the controversy on his own terms than “one of (ID’s) own.” I have no problem with such a position, but let’s be honest about it. It is also not inappropriate, if we intend to be seduced by the impression dr. Swamidass wants us to take away from this forum, to note that the two enjoy at least a bit of a mutual admiration that goes back farther than Axe’s book.
[/quote]
“Seduced”? Really? Are we comparing Swamidass to the snake in the garden? haha.

From my outsider perspective, it seems that all the players in the ID/DI/EC/TC/YEC/OTHERRIDICULOUSACRONYMS camps know one another. It’s a pretty small circle. To say that Torley and Swamidass know one another and respect one another’s opinions is one thing. To insinuate that this is proof of bias is something else entirely. So, despite your stated intention that you don’t intend to impugn them and despite invoking Christian brotherhood, you go ahead and do exactly that. Pretty lame, if you ask me.

This actually illustrates a good point, though. I found it interesting that Torley changed his mind based on input from Christian scientists. (I always hate saying that. Reminds me of Mary Baker Eddy. Eeeek!) Usually, the criticisms of ID arguments are coming from “atheist scientists,” which makes it all too easy to write off their points as biased. BUT … when Christian scientists criticize a particular ID author’s arguments, they, too, are accused of bias. What is going on here?! Is everyone who criticizes an ID author guilty of bias???

Honestly, this so-called “controversy” between ID/EC/TE is a tempest in a teapot, and I’m just about done with it.

Torley isn’t a prosecutor. Let’s hear some thoughts on the arguments, rather than the person, for a change. Trying to discredit the messenger is a typical political tactic. Makes me want to vomit. You’re better than this, Joe.

Evidence? You mean the evidence you were trying to dig up to discredit Torley? Discuss the ideas, then.

2 Likes
31

It means that there is no material explanation (which you seem to implicitly concede) . A codon is not the AA it specifies. It merely represents (in the abstract) the AA it specifies. The codon TGG is not tryptopan. But int the rybozome it (TUU) symbolically means tryptopan. It does not become tryptopan. It prescribes tryptopan. We know this is the case because when the codon TUU is presented in the rybozome, tryptopan is added to the growing chain of AAs, absent any physical cause-and-effect explanation for why it should be. Prescription is immaterial and abstract. [quote=“benkirk, post:29, topic:5625”]
When we humans write a table, it certainly does, but we humans are creating the abstractions!
[/quote]
Not only that, we are also capable of discovering abstractions, such as abstract language, as when we break a code, for example. [quote=“benkirk, post:29, topic:5625”]
You’re inserting vitalism where there is none. There is no command. That’s what it symbolizes to you, but it’s purely chemical in the context of translation.
[/quote]
Do you understand what translation is? What translation means?

It is chemical in the process of translation, but there is no chemical explanation for why. The codon is not the AA. It only symbolizes the AA. Just as the physical symbols of computer code are not the messages they prescribe, the codons are neither the AA, nor the 3D protein they eventually prescribe. And just as the translation process of computer code is physical, so too protein synthesis is physical. In both cases, the physical process is prescribed by abstract concepts conveyed by physical symbols which carry abstract meaning. You see Ben, its not simply that a stop codon symbolizes the command to stop to me. It symbolizes it to everybody and everybody can plainly see this. This is because, as I observed above, the code has been cracked. I am not inserting anything here. I don’t need to. I am observing what has been known and recognized since Crick’s Sequence Hypothesis. If you want to call it vitalism, go ahead. [quote=“benkirk, post:29, topic:5625”]
There is no abstraction. There is no command.
[/quote]
So you say Ben. So you continue to (merely) assert. Please explain why the three molecules TAA in sequence constitute a stop codon without appeal to symbolic meaning.[quote=“benkirk, post:29, topic:5625”]
It’s all physical because it’s chemical. You haven’t shown any abstraction at all, just asserted it.
[/quote]
Ink and paper are physical and chemical but there is nothing physical or chemical about encoded messages written in ink on paper. We observe that thyamine and adenine are molecules and we know from a physical/chemical standpoint how and why they can chemically bond together, but we could look at them from a purely physical/chemical standpoint and never understand that in a specific sequence, they symbolically represent a command to stop, which they do in protein synthesis. It is silly and objectively false to say that they do not. We understand that a stop codon is a stop codon not by physics and chemistry, but by understanding language and code; abstract concepts. Sorry Ben, its not all physical.

I pray that some day you will have the opportunity to ask Him :slight_smile:

“Information is information, neither matter or energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day” Norbert Weiner, the father of cybernetics.

1 Like
32

Jay: I am both sad and sorry that you took my post the way you did. It seems that we are both misunderstanding each other and being misunderstood be each other now…[quote=“Jay313, post:30, topic:5625”]
Evidence? You mean the evidence you were trying to dig up to discredit Torley? Discuss the ideas, then.
[/quote]
You have to ignore a lot of my post to reach the cruel conclusion that I am trying to discredit Torley and you have to ignore virtually all of my posts to infer that I do not or am not willing to discuss ideas (to that end, my invitation to discuss common descent remains on the table). Indeed, in light of your post to me, it might do you well to take a peek in the mirror.

Now, to your point on dr. Torley’s praise for Dr. Axe’s book. This is what you are referring to:

“In that case, you need to read Dr. Douglas Axe’s latest Book, “Undeniable.” It really supersedes all other books on Intelligent Design (I’ve just received my copy), and I don’t think anyone will write a better book on the subject, in my lifetime. What Dr. Axe does is to show that the case for Intelligent Design actually rests on a very powerful intuition shared by virtually all people, which he calls the Universal Design Intuition. This intuition is enough to tell us that living things were designed. You don’t need to be a Ph.D. to have a justified reason for believing that. Intelligent Design arguments are just a way of formalizing this argument, mathematically. I really suggest you read this book. Compared with it, anything I’ve written on the subject of Intelligent Design is so much straw (to cite a metaphor used by Aquinas).”

It seems to me that he reaffirms this praise in his review.

33

That is a good question. I would say that we know from Scripture that His intervention was required. At the very least, He is the one who call us forth, and gave us the Image of God. The rest? I’m sure He has done much more than is recorded in scripture. Science, however, does not tell us this.

34

Honestly it sounds like you are seeing people as machines, even in this quote. Of course we make analogies between living systems and machines, language, technology, etc. That is how humans work. We reason about often this way. You, however, seem to think the there is not analogy, that this is actually describing the reality.

You say, DNA is actually a language, no metaphor, right? The only differences between humans and machines are because we are much more brilliantly engineered. Right?

I’m fine with using the metaphors, but you seem to be taking them very literally. I am not comfortable with that. It leads to very poor thinking, and in the case of calling humans and example of technology, it makes me ethically and theologically squeemish.

I don’t think I’m being silly here.

@deliberateresult, do you at least concede that in all these cases this is all just analogies? That there isn’t a this strong equivalence that you seem to be arguing for at times? If so, that would put me at ease. If not, I’m glad I raised the point, and I just can’t go there with you.

2 Likes
35

Yeah, I’ve been called bias so many times on this. People seem to forget that I was an ID advocate and a YEC, even when I remind them. I wanted them to be right. It was the science that changed my mind, and reading the Bible that freed me to change my position.

For the record, I met Torley online less than 6 months ago. He was and is part of the ID movement (see this article at ENV Debating Common Ancestry | Evolution News). We have formed a friendship accross the aisle because we are both pursuing peace. To call him biased because of his friendship with me is just plain sad.

36

If this was all you were saying I would agree with you. Of course God is the most reasonable causal explanation. However, that doesn’t make all the ridiculous ID arguments correct or good science. Even though you are ultimately right, the science is really bad in ID arguments.

38

this fascinates me. You agree that ID is the most reasonable causal explanation based on the evidence? Can you elaborate on the evidence that makes ID the most reasonable explanation?

39

I never said that the superior technology and data processing of life were the “only” difference. Life - all life - is truly amazing and an amazing testament of our Creator (Romans 1). Of course life is more - so much more than simply technology and data processing. Yet without data processing, life would not be possible. This goes beyond just protein translation. Consider that the human brain (literally) processes data faster than any computer can. ( Just to be clear, I am not calling humans data processing systems :)). Moreover, the molecular machinery of life exceeds the best efforts of our engineers. Entire scientific sub disciplines have sprung up devoted to the study of such “systems:” Bioinformatics, biomimicry, and systems biology, to name a few. Moreover, all of these are realities that in my mind constitute strong, solid evidence for ID. If you want to call them analogies, that’s fine with me. But please, let’s not kid ourselves: it is human technology that pales in comparison to the vastly superior designs of life.

Here’s what makes me ethically, theologically, and scientifically squeamish: the position that the exact same fundamental forces of nature that we know to be responsible for phenomena in the inanimate world are also responsible for the fundamentally different phenomena of life.

40

Perhaps I overreacted. But I’m fairly good at this reading thing, having practiced quite a bit, and I don’t see how you expected what you wrote to be taken any other way.

This pretty clearly implies that we should question the OP’s (Torley’s) truthfulness in regard to his review of Axe’s book. In short, we should not “take the OP on its face,” but should “peek behind the curtain” and find … What??

Guilt by association and bias, put in pretty strong and unmistakable terms. I don’t think I misread you here, Joe. The language is clear, and so is the conclusion. Personally, I think you owe those guys an apology, but that’s up to you. As for me, I apologize for my own strong language, but I’m not angry with you, and I’m sure we can get past this little bump in the road.

We all agree that God is the most reasonable causal explanation. The disagreement is the best way to interpret the evidence and construct the argument.

41

I freely confess that every friendship of mine makes me biased in favor of my friends. All things being equal, I will defend a friend and come to the aid of a friend more readily than a non friend. I will paint a friend in a deliberately kind light. This is my accusation, which, by the way, I was directing more toward you than dr. Torley. You Created the deliberately sensational heading, “ID Censors One of Their Own.” Pointing out that the only two recorded encounters between Dr. Torley and leading ID advocates with the DI cast dr. Torley in an adversarial role, helps to put a better light on what is really going on here: We should not be surprised when dr. Torley opposes DI members and it seems reasonable to see him as more of a maverick who sees the controversy on his own terms than one of “ID’s Own.” I reiterate here what I said then: that’s perfectly fine.

So I apologize for any offense. None was intended. I was simply trying to put a better light on what I frankly see as a deliberate (not sinister, simply biased) attempt on your part to strike a blow against the credibility of the ID movement at large.

42

The written word has limitations that the spoken word does not :slight_smile:
Like I said, Jay, you have to ignore a good bit of my post to reach the conclusions you reached. And it appears you still hold them. So be it. Rather than rehash things, let me refer you to my recent post to dr. Swamidass.

1 Like
43

No because I was wise enough not to go public in high school and college.