Intelligent Design

[Chris_Falter]

Another thought, @Eddie. When Behe outlined what a research agenda for ID-influenced biology would look like (pp. 230-231), he started by pointing out that research at the cellular level or above would be largely unaffected. At the molecular level, though, a large amount of effort would be poured into determining whether various systems have significant specificity between components–in which case they would be deemed irreducibly complex and thus the result of information injection from an intelligent designer–or if they were sufficiently simple/irreducible to be explained by nondesign mechanisms. Besides calling balls and strikes on the design vs. nondesign issue, research would explore several design-related themes:

'Work could be undertaken to determine whether information for designed systems could lie dormant for long periods of time, or whether the information would have to be added close to the time when the system became operational. Since the simplest possibles design scenario posits a single cell–formed billions of years ago–that already contained all information to produce descendant organisms, other studies could test this scenario by attempting to calculate how much DNA would be required to code the information (keeping in mind that much of the information might be implicit). If DNA alone is insufficient, studies would be initiated to determine if information could be stored in the cell in other ways–for example, as positional information. Other work could focus on whether large, compound systems (containing two or more irreducibly complex systems) could have developed gradually or whether there are compounded irreducibilities.

Such an agenda is anything but open-minded. If a molecular biology system has significant specificity between components, it is classified as designed, full stop. Research would then move to (presumably) more fruitful design-driven biology, such as classifying borderline cases as designed vs. not designed.

It’s not hard to see that Behe’s research agenda would have prevented most, if not all, of the advances in molecular biology that have emerged from research labs over the past two decades. Instead, precious resources would have been diverted into barren, unfruitful activities.

ID’s inability to explain a growing mound of molecular evidence is sufficient to explain why it has not gained traction in the scientific community. But if you’re looking for motivations beyond the purely rational, the effect that the success of ID would have on the biology research program would be worth pondering.

Cheers,

EDIT: Added page numbers, corrected a tttyppppoooo

[Socratic.Fanatic]

@Chris_Falter

ID’s inability to explain a growing mound of molecular evidence is sufficient to explain why it has not gained traction in the scientific community

Yes, that and the fact that Intelligent Design theory is philosophy, not science. That is why the Discovery Institute version of ID and others we commonly hear about are:

(1) mostly about personal incredulity fallacies and argument from ignorance fallacies; [See Michael Behe’s Dover Trial testimony.]

(2) never provide a formal comprehensive scientific theory of ID which one would expect to see systematically presented in a peer-reviewed journal—and never will;

(3) never propose a falsification test regimen for the never-formally-defined scientific theory;

(4) and as my favorite professor and colleague liked to emphasize, never get around to providing a useful set of heuristic rules allowing one to determine “intelligently designed” or “not intelligently designed” for any entity or phenomenon X.

If ID proponents were to ever actually try to cooperate with the scientific method and the peer review community, I might be more impressed. Yet I get the impression that after years of this charade, the Discovery Institute associated IDers (at least, if not most others also) actually depend upon this continued state of ambiguity, confusion, and lack of basic scientific rigor.

If this status quo ever changes and I see a a version of “ID theory” that actually starts looking like science instead of poorly executed philosophy masquerading as science, I will be delighted to take it more seriously. I definitely believe that God intelligently designed the universe in terms of creating it so that it would operate consistent with God’s plan, including God’s will for the laws of physics which inevitably brought biological life and the evolutionary processes which adapt and diversify that life, just as God intended.

And before anyone runs wild with misunderstandings of what is and isn’t Deism, I’ll just point out that I’m a Molinist. I believe God chose the “reality path” which produced all that we observe, including a wonderfully, “intelligently designed” physics which produced the evolutionary outcomes we observe all around us—and which we are as humans created in the Image of God. I don’t consider this to involve “tweaking” because God is outside of the time dimensions he created and he need not interfere or nudge in order to bring about what he has already ordained and chosen as the Sovereign Creator of all. Everything we observe is the reality path God established.

If ever an actual scientific theory of intelligent design is published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, I will be delighted to see what develops. If it survives peer review and years of falsification testing, I will praise God as I excitedly explain it to my students and even preach it from the pulpit. Nevertheless, in the meantime I don’t tend to get too caught up in hypotheticals, especially when the track record for ID “theory” thus far is so very appalling. Embarrassing even. And very lamentable. For the most part, it’s been very damaging to the Great Commission because of extremely negative associations with evangelical Christianity. (William Dembski’s clickable fart-machine on the website he built to protest the Dover Trial decision and his various “evolution defending” enemies is one of many sad memories that I wish I could permanently erase from my mind.)

Sadly, even the term “Intelligent Design” is probably damaged beyond any possible positive reclamation. (After all, it has become a virtual synonym for pseudo-science at best, and origins-ministry propaganda entrepreneurship at worst.) And that’s a shame. If a credible version of the ID concept were to arise—representing actual science and not just amateur philosophy— it will probably require a new term, at least within the academy.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Socratic.Fanatic

Yes, that and the fact that Intelligent Design theory is philosophy, not science. That is why the Discovery Institute version of ID and others we commonly hear about are:

(1) mostly about personal incredulity fallacies and argument from ignorance fallacies; [See Michael Behe’s Dover Trial testimony.]

(2) never provide a formal comprehensive scientific theory of ID which one would expect to see systematically presented in a peer-reviewed journal—and never will;

(3) never propose a falsification test regimen for the never-formally-defined scientific theory;

(4) and as my favorite professor and colleague liked to emphasize, never get around to providing a useful set of heuristic rules allowing one to determine “intelligently designed” or “not intelligently designed” for any entity or phenomenon X.

Absolutely. The very fact that they are self-declared agnostics about the age of the earth, proves they are not doing science. They’re doing theology, philosophy at best.

[Chris_Falter]

Hi @Eddie -

@Eddie

Are you in a position to say who is expert and who is non-expert in the extremely complex field of evolutionary biology?

My level of expertise in biology is probably about the same as yours, Eddie. I do read a good bit outside of Biologos, paying particular attention to sources pointed out by biologists in the public eye such as Sean Carroll.

But we happen to have reliable survey data about what scientists believe. The 2014 Pew Research polls show that the science community overwhelmingly rejects ID. 90% of the AAAS members surveyed agreed with this statement about evolution:

“Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection.”

Only 8% agreed with the opposing proposition:

“A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today”

Note that the two responses could overlap: some respondents could be like Richard Denton and affirm both statements (or so I understand from what others have said about Denton). So it is entirely possible that both numbers (90% and 8%) should be higher, and should total to greater than 100%. The important point is that it would be highly unlikely that scientists who affirm the first proposition (“humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection”) would agree with Behe’s model, according to which an intelligent designer acting outside of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology has injected information into the evolutionary process. The injection of information by an intelligent designer, after all, does not figure in standard biology textbooks.

It is also worth noting that the trend is against ID: the 90% agreement with evolution by natural processes is up from 87% in 2009.

What do you think, Eddie: do you disagree with my statement that evolutionary biologists, as a community, overwhelmingly reject ID? What evidence would you adduce against it?

You seem to be saying that defining evolution as common descent, or descent with modifications, is good enough. I agree that it suffices for some purposes. However, most scientists I know and read seem to care deeply about mechanisms. To take an extreme example, the RATE report professes belief in physics, insofar as it claims that the acceleration of radioactive decay was the result of a change in a fundamental constant, rather than a change in the laws of physics themselves. But the views of the RATE report are far outside the bounds of what the overwhelming majority of physicists would accept. In the same way, your notion that the scientific community should accept Behe’s model as just another pea in the pod of evolutionary mechanisms does not appear very palatable to the scientific community, if Pew Research can be trusted.

@Eddie

You are writing more like a journalist than like a scientist.

Indeed. But a biologist like @Swamidass has said basically the same thing. He also liked my post you are challenging. Since you seem to be in a mood for posing rhetorical questions: are you saying you are better qualified than Dr. S in judging the evidence?

@Eddie

You read Behe’s paragraph that you quote in a very unsympathetic, chip-on-the-shoulder way. Your generalizations in your analysis that follows are wild and unsubstantiated, and don’t seem to follow from Behe’s words in the passage.

Wow. I seem to have touched a nerve.

Perhaps you are right. On the other hand, perhaps I am able to read Behe’s passage more accurately because I do not have a prior commitment to harmonizing Behe’s views with evolutionary biology.

I have quoted the passage at length, and I have provided adequate information for the curious who might care to investigate the context. I will leave the judgment about which of us is being more accurate to those who care to investigate the matter for themselves.

Enjoy your day, @Eddie. Carpe diem, and may you enjoy the Lord’s blessings!

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@Socratic.Fanatic

Intelligent Design theory is philosophy, not science

Thank you! That was my criticism the moment they started trying to use the political process to cram their philosophy into science textbooks. Shameful and shortsighted.

[Chris_Falter]

Hi Eddie -

Here in SC, a thunderstorm is cooling the weather. July has been a scorcher! Hope your are getting at least some enjoyment from summertime weather.

@Eddie

You can see some of his comments on it in a QRB paper of 2010.

I searched the Quarterly Review of Biology and found the article, which I would enjoy reading. Here’s a link for those who are interested in reading it.

Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall.

@Eddie

So you are now seem to be criticizing Behe for miraculous intervention into the evolutionary process, whereas before you seemed to think that Behe called for design only at the very beginning of the process, with the formation of life, after which evolution proceeded wholly by natural causes.

It was Behe himself who advanced both possibilities in the same book. The first scenario (entirely front-loaded) was on p. 178; the second scenario was on p. 231. To refresh your memory with regard to the second:

@Chris_Falter

[Quoting Behe:] Work could be undertaken to determine whether information for designed systems could lie dormant for long periods of time, or whether the information would have to be added close to the time when the system became operational.

Both scenarios (front-loaded and intermittent) involve the injection of information by an intelligent designer outside of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. Moreover, this injection can be reliably detected, according to Behe.

BEGIN EDIT:
I want to clarify that I am not at all opposed to the idea that God might have injected information into the evolution of life. What I oppose is the idea that any such injection can be reliably detected–in particular, by scientific means. In fact, God’s injection of information outside the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology in a manner that can reliably be detected might make a good working definition of a miracle.

I support the idea that God injected information into the evolution of life in a manner consistent with (and therefore indistinguishable from) the laws of physics, etc. One way of formulating this is to think of the laws of nature as an expression of information, per se. If I have understood our friend @GJDS, this framework is consistent with the Orthodox view of creation. Polkinghorne formulated a different way: God can inject information in a “hidden” way that does not permit detection by scientific means. I am open to both ways; perhaps both are true!
END EDIT

@Eddie

scientists … have differing understandings of what Behe is claiming.

Perhaps they are reading different passages written by Behe.

@Eddie

How do you, as a non-scientist, measure who knows more?

As I already mentioned, I’m voting with the overwhelming majority of biologists who reject ID.

@Eddie

The whole thing is very subjective.

90% vs. 8% seems quite mathematical to me.

@Eddie

Behe has more peer-reviewed publications than Venema, Applegate, Giberson and Falk put together, by a huge margin,

That is an irrelevant comparison. A more appropriate comparison is the number of peer-reviewed publications representing an ID perspective on evolutionary mechanisms vs. the number of peer-reviewed publications representing a nondesign perspective. Which biologist wrote any of the papers shouldn’t really matter.

And with that I bid you adieu, my friend. Carpe diem, Eddie! May the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, guard your heart and your mind in Christ Jesus.

Chris

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

How do you, as a non-scientist, measure who knows more? Do you go by journal publications? Do you assume that someone who has published more, knows more?

You keep dragging this out as if it’s a valid argument. But most tellingly (leaving aside the fact that what you’ve written here is totally irrelevant), you never actually address the science.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

And why would it be so upsetting to any Christian if God did create the first life, or instigated the Cambrian explosion, etc., by a miracle?

What evidence can you present that any Christian at all would find that upsetting?

@Eddie

But you are forgetting that the majority of biologists, as poll after poll shows (and if anything, the numbers for specifically evolutionary biologists are higher), are philosophical materialists, and therefore must deny design – no matter how plausible it might seem in a given case – in order to maintain their worldview.

This is completely false. Neither methodological nor philosophical materialism requires denial of design.

@Eddie

If you looked only at the biologists (or scientists generally) who self-identified as Christians or at least theists of some kind, the numbers wouldn’t be 90 to 8.

This is just the tired old argument “They’re biased because they’re atheists”. It’s not enough to simply rehearse this ancient trope, you need to actually prove they’re wrong.

@Eddie

That might be a reasonable comparison if people who held to an ID perspective weren’t – as we know happens – sabotaged from ever finishing grad school (if their sympathies are known), prevented from getting jobs once they graduate (and thus barred from access to the labs and grants and professorial summer leisure time to write papers), etc.

What absolute nonsense. This is just a baseless appeal to conspiracy. You provide no evidence that the lack of peer reviewed ID publications is the result of this kind of systematic opposition.

@Eddie

Remember, we are in a world where climate scientists conspire behind the scenes to de-certify journals which don’t stick to their party line on global warming;

Wow, you don’t even accept the established science on global warming? That is very telling.

@Eddie

(e.g., the leftist, America-hating worldview of the AGW crowd) or a religious worldview

There’s a red flag phrase right there; “leftist America-hating”.

@Eddie

If you think that the full and complete explanation of why ID is rejected by most biologists is due to technical scientific objections, I would say that you do not understand modern academic culture very well.

No, it’s because he understands it very well. Every tin foil hat conspiracy theorist complains that their personal lunacy isn’t taken seriously because of systematic orchestrated opposition in the academy. It’s not enough to simply make the claim, you need to prove it.

@Eddie

In any case, what you are overlooking is that a good number of biologists, including some important evolutionary biologists, have said that some of the ID critiques of traditional evolutionary theory are good ones. So whereas Coyne and Matzke and many EC leaders look at ID books and denounce them as 100% worthless science, people who actually are more adept in evolutionary theory do not have that judgment.

But they don’t conclude that the arguments for ID are good ones. So you need to spend some time figuring out why that is. And your claim that those who say “some of the ID critiques of traditional evolutionary theory are good ones” are “actually more adept in evolutionary theory” is mere rhetoric.

@Eddie

As I said in my comments on Sy Garte’s excellent talk, the ECs in the audience were all bobbing their heads with interest, and without hostility, as Sy went through the critiques of classical evolutionary theory and stressed how much evolutionary thought was in ferment nowadays, whereas when ID people have made those same points, here on BioLogos or in ASA venues, they have been met with nothing but scorn.

In other words they were being polite. But were they convinced by his arguments? Did they stand up and say “That’s it, I am throwing evolution away”?

@Eddie

As someone who takes a more Socratic view of things, I find this type of partisanship utterly deplorable.

Quoted for breathtaking irony value. You do not take a Socratic view at all. You post lengthy screeds of rhetoric, rehearsing exactly the same small collection of arguments (which avoid actually addressing the science), arguing dogmatically for only one view. You’re entirely partisan.

[Chris_Falter]

Hi Eddie -

It’s always good to converse with you. Sorry I’ve been absent from this discussion for a while; life is like that sometimes.

@Eddie

In other words, are you saying that Behe has not yet successfully made his case, because his inferences of design in particular instances are not sound, or are you saying that Behe should not even try to make such a case, because there never will be any way of detecting the injection? If your position is the first one, we are not in complete opposition, since I have no problem with anyone criticizing any particular ID claim of detecting design. But if your position is the second one, then we won’t be able to get any further, because that position strikes me as doctrinaire on both the metaphysical and epistemological level, and I don’t accept it.

I’m primarily saying the first (Behe has not yet successfully made his case). However, the second does not strike me as unreasonable. As Polkinghorne has noted, a scientist cannot ever declare that science has proven a miracle; the nature of the scientific method would always suggest that some as yet undiscovered law of nature might exist that would explain the purported miracle. If you’re interested in more details, I’ll provide a more exact citation to Polkinghorne. I’m quite sure it’s in The Polkinghorne Reader.

@Eddie

If you looked only at the biologists (or scientists generally) who self-identified as Christians or at least theists of some kind, the numbers wouldn’t be 90 to 8.

Actually, the Ph.D. Christian scientists I have known have believed that the evolution of life can be explained by natural mechanisms. They also believe that God designed the universe so that, according to its created order, it would bring forth life. They would probably vote with the 90 rather than the 8.

Of course, my experience is a tiny sample size. Do you have any data that would provide a more reliable basis for answering the question? I would be interested to see if there’s any evidence on the issue, so we don’t have to rely on speculation or highly limited personal experience.

@Eddie

Remember, we are in a world where climate scientists conspire behind the scenes to de-certify journals which don’t stick to their party line on global warming; academics try to strangle rival ideas in the crib, especially when those rival ideas threaten either a political/social worldview (e.g., the leftist, America-hating worldview of the AGW crowd) or a religious worldview (atheist secular humanism). If you think that the full and complete explanation of why ID is rejected by most biologists is due to technical scientific objections, I would say that you do not understand modern academic culture very well.

I haven’t done an anthropology of scientific culture, but your description of it does not align with the behavior and attitudes of the scientists I have known. I will readily concede that everyone, scientists included, is heavily influenced by his or her worldview. At the same time, one of the interesting and unique things about science is that both atheists and believers can collaborate productively in the scientific endeavor because discussions of purpose and first cause are set aside. This is manifestly not the case on the humanities side of the campus.

@Eddie

a good number of biologists, including some important evolutionary biologists, have said that some of the ID critiques of traditional evolutionary theory are good ones.

Yet these biologists are still arguing for natural evolutionary mechanisms, correct? I’m not arguing for neo-Darwinism and against the Third Way, neutral theory, etc. Thus I am puzzled why you are citing critiques of neo-Darwinism by proponents of the Third Way or neutral theory. They don’t pertain to the argument that I am making, which is that the community of biologists has overwhelmingly rejected intelligent agency as having any scientific value with respect to the evolution of life. That “good number of biologists” that you cite agree with me on this point, if I am not mistaken.

EDIT: May the peace of God which surpasses all understanding guard your heart and your mind in Christ Jesus, Eddie!

[Chris_Falter]

Hi Eddie -

Thanks for the detailed and heartfelt exploration. I hope you will excuse my inability to answer in kind, due to a shortage of time,

I am very much a proponent of the anthropic principle in physics, and I think it can be fruitfully applied in biology. I consider it to be a philosophy and faith endeavor, rather than a scientific one.

To the extent that ID proponents advocate something like the anthropic principle, I am in full agreement with them.

Where I part company with ID thinkers is in their inference to design from irreducible complexity (Behe), information science (Meyer), or the alleged inability of natural evolutionary mechanisms to account for biological diversity (both of them). The fact that evolutionary biologists agree with some of their criticisms of older evolutionary theory does not support Behe’s or Meyer’s inference to design, in my view. Their specific examples (e.g., Cambrian explosion, chloroquine resistance in malaria vectors) have not withstood careful examination by biologists.

Have a great day!

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

I am convinced that there is proof or very strong evidence for design in nature.

Then why not deal directly with the evidence you are convinced exists, instead of dealing only in rhetoric?

For starters, what specific evidence (no names) has convinced you?

[Sy_Garte]

@Chris_Falter

Where I part company with ID thinkers is in their inference to design from irreducible complexity (Behe), information science (Meyer), or the alleged inability of natural evolutionary mechanisms to account for biological diversity (both of them). The fact that evolutionary biologists agree with some of their criticisms of older evolutionary theory does not support Behe’s or Meyer’s inference to design, in my view.

I quite agree with this statement by Chris, and I think it holds the key to much of this argument. @Eddie, I read above your references to my recent talk, and I appreciate your comments. But its important to note that the people defending the extended evolutionary synthesis, and the data coming from those fields, does not dismiss Darwinian evolution, but expands (extends) it. The real problem with classical ID (and here I am taking a page from your many comments showing that ID is a very big tent with many points of view) is that it is based almost entirely on negative arguments, as implied by Chris’ points. That was NOT the case in Denton’s recent book, as you know, and as we stressed in our review here in February.

As far as design, everybody agrees that there is design in life, from Darwin to Gould to Dawkins to Coyne. The question is how did it come about. That turns out to be a harder problem than it appears. Neo Darwinians, especially if they are atheists will attribute all design to the action of natural selection on genetic variation. No Designer required. The Third Way folks take a broader view, including some much less random influences such as two way interactions between genomes and environment, and epigenetic effects of environmental influence. But, again, no Designer required.

My problem with ID is theological. I believe we will always find that no Designer is REQUIRED, because it isnt possible to prove the existence of God. But the lack of a requirement (which is what some IDers are seeking) does not equate to the absence of a Designer. I think if we want to understand God’s role in biology, we need a much better understanding of biology. I dont see any purpose in looking for God driven design by probability analysis, or any other means, since for me, it is self evident that all of life (and the rest of the universe) is all part of God’s design. Trying to prove that to be true using our scientific tools is simply not a good idea, and doesnt really help us.

What would be a better idea, I think (and we have been discussing this with Jon Garvey at a variety of venues) is to find some way to more deeply explore the world of life (which is God’s world) using some new kinds of methods, which might lead us as far astray from “normal” biological science as QM and relativity did to physics. But that is a whole different topic.