I would like to see ID come to grips with their proposals as well. I’d like to see critical assessments of the various mechanisms and modes they’ve presented. I would love to see ID drop the ‘open to all’ approach that downplays significant incompatibilities, get digging into the nitty-gritty details and begin laying out a base of reasonable science that most scientists can agree with: e.g. largely common descent over billions of years. The ‘we’re all one big happy family, don’t criticize others’ approach is atypical in the history of scientific progress.
2 Likes
I agree the ID needs to make a positive case. Unfortunately, most of the proposals assert the negative, i.e. that certain evolutionary mechanisms cannot do ‘x, y or z’, or that the evidence for common descent between certain groups is indeterminate. ‘Specified complexity’ and the several different versions of ‘Irreducible Complexity’ are largely based on negative arguments.
Are there positive propositions?
I recall one case where some people were trying to compare patterns of human design to systems found in nature but as far as I know, that hasn’t gotten anywhere. That would have been discussed by Dembski in his blog in the early 2000s, I think. That it hasn’t progressed isn’t surprising. In my mind, the systems expressed in living organisms have traits that appear very unlike typical products of human design. Also, attempts at classification for comparison didn’t look like they would go anywhere.
The notion of ‘No junk DNA’ is promoted as a positive prediction for design but unfortunately, there seems to be no explanation or ‘first principle’ basis for that prediction. Whether junk DNA would exist in a genome under ‘design principles’ depends entirely on how and when the design is implemented and whether any sort of drift would be actively curtailed by a designer. If design is via ‘front-loading’, junk DNA would be expected.
Unfortunately, it seems one really can’t make design arguments in vacuo. To create a reasonable science of design or at least positive case for design, one needs to posit specific propositions about how a designer operated and then derived expected outcomes on those bases Then those expectations need to be put forth, tested, evaluated and critiqued for their strengths and weaknesses. Maybe, that will catch on within the movement but it’s rare and it’s lost almost entirely in the noise surrounding ID.
One way to go at this:
Todd Wood and a few others are working the field from a Biblical & scientific basis. At least they’re working under a set, defined principle that various species were created from distinct sets of ‘kinds’ or ‘baramins’, sharing no relationship via common ancestry across baramins. They’re trying to work out a testable classification scheme that will show such patterns in life. What makes Wood unusual is that while working under a YEC paradigm, he is attempting to make the best scientific approaches. If one method appears to fail, he’ll present the failure publicly, makes refinements and moves on. This is akin to how most of science progresses – Idea, test, evaluate, LEARN, REMEMBER, refinement, etc. If they can get a system that is coherent, fairly objective and working, they stand a better shot at getting broader interest. However, for now, work continues and they are remaining both pretty honest & modest in their self-assessments.
3 Likes
Hi Eddie - Good post. Perhaps Wood sees this difficult tension as the cross God has called him to bear.
This is an interesting point for the person of faith, especially when considered with Isaiah 55:8-9 –
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts."
Todd Wood has faith / particular beliefs and is acting accordingly. However, he is attempting to perform his research within a scientific context. While his project is not succeeding scientifically, he is operating within the methodology.
The thing is, Todd doesn’t expect scientific discoveries to necessarily buttress or preserve his faith. This is probably why he can readily concede that the data can look strong for evolution and that the YEC & baraminology positions are far outliers. He has already chosen his position via faith, not science. Evolution is not something he believes but he understands why others could see it differently.
I don’t expect Wood to have much impact in evolutionary research and I doubt most in the mainstream are even aware of him. However, I do cite him as a model for how to handle disparate positions with some objectivity. He understands the current strength of evidence for evolution. Todd comprehends that his ideas are not well supported by evidence. He realizes that the only way he can hope to demonstrate his ideas is to buckle down, do the research and make a construct a positive argument explaining how it works. He’s certainly not going to declare victory and complain that others don’t see it that way without first having things nailed down. It’s a useful approach that much of ID could do well emulating.
How do ‘they remain suggestive’? Is this distinct from how Klingons design? Jay313 (Jay Johnson), I think, hits the nail with his quote.
Just to provide a conclusion to the original proposal and not suffer it to linger in the wilderness…
The proposal was not just that there was a designer but that the designer operated similarly to how humans designed and implemented plans. Dembski was looking for a statistically relevant signature of comparison to examples of human engineering. They didn’t find it and the project hasn’t seen the light of day since.
In fact, I think the inverse of what Dembski expected is happening. We are employing mechanisms found in nature to help solve problems and improve human engineering. Genetic algorithms, neural networks and other, biologically inspired concepts & discoveries are finding a place in human engineering methods.
2 Likes
Like, you know, evolution.
3 Likes
…and like evolutionary algorithms, where a random number generator can produce very complex solutions and even machines from relative simple but mindless assemblages of computer code. Yes, the God of the Bible I worship is capable of creating a universe where the mathematics and physics can interact to produce complexity from simplicity without any intelligent mind stepping in!
As a researcher, I’ve used relatively small computer programs to solve very complex problems which I couldn’t figure out in a lifetime—and craft intricate solutions with capabilities I can scarcely imagine. Those who don’t understand the computer science insist that I have “imparted intelligence” into the code, but that lame claim only convinces me that they’ve never bothered to learn how evolution algorithms (aka genetic algorithms) operate. Their amazing beauty is bolstered by the realization that they are NOT the product of an intelligent mind. (Yes, here’s where the clueless dilettantes will exclaim, “You were the intelligent mind! You were the programmer! Isn’t that obvious?”)
These kinds of software projects gave my mind the kind of “boost of intuition” so that now I can see how the powers of evolutionary processes are so obvious in how they led to Common Descent. Now I can understand how God’s plan for the diversification of life on earth has to be the grandest possible tribute to his amazing wisdom and power. By designing the physics of this universe as he did, God made life inevitable and the adaptations of that life to every environment imaginable a daily hymn of praise to God that is so obviously visible in the biosphere around us, every single day of the year.
Truly, I sincerely wish for every evolution-denying creationist the joy and wonder which comes from having the scales fall from your eyes when you grasp and appreciate this marvelous evolution-symphony which floods this green and vibrant planet with the plan of God every where we look. To miss out on the evolutionary chorus is to see the biosphere in monochrome black-and-white while remaining deaf to the harmony of teaming choruses of evolving biologic praises which never sing the same song twice in a row!. To fail to see God creative evolutionary processes operating all around us is to be sentenced to a bread-and-water diet in a limitless grand buffet!
5 Likes
Eddie, it’s one thing to say one is ‘inspired by a design paradigm’ but another to nail down design and investigate the nature of design. The latter is a formal elucidation of ideas synthesized into a theory. Let’s look through the work of the people you’ve indicated:
From what I’ve read of Doug Axe’s work, he is exploring the limits of natural mechanisms. Likewise Ann Gauger. That’s anti-evolution, not a positive theory of design.
Sternberg is doing work with systematics but in way in which he suggests is compatible with evolution and design. This is accommodation of design with natural mechanisms, somewhat similar to Denton.
The DI indicates that Scott Minnich is working with a design paradigm but what I’ve seen is that he pushes the idea of irreducible complexity, particularly with regard to the bacterial flagellum. This is parallel to Behe’s work. Again, that’s an anti-evolution paradigm, not a positive theory of design.
Kirk Durston appears interested in measurements of ‘functional complexity’ in biology. The point being that if a biological system presents a functional complexity about a certain threshold then a ‘design origin’ is presumed. Again, an anti-evolutionary paradigm, not a positive design paradigm – Design is being defined by what evolution presumably cannot do.
What I’m calling for are positive, working models of design: How it was manifested, when it was manifested, and operational constraints that permit testing. Todd Wood is starting with the hypothesis that groups of species are separately created. That’s a positive claim and paradigm. He’s trying to develop a taxonomy of life based on empirical observations that permit the identification of baramins.
In contrast, the majority of researchers you’ve cited are operating under the rubric of, “not evolution, ergo design”. Design is claimed as what is left over, outside of natural mechanisms. What they should be investigating is what sort of case or theory can one construct of design, without reference to evolutionary theory.
3 Likes
I’ve seen that thought before. It’s “magic bullet” thinking: the idea that one example can blow away an entire theory. That’s a bit of a myth and akin to what dcscccc was trying to do with his arguments that a few bad radioisotopic dating results would invalidate the entire work.
No, a better way to support design would be to find orthogonal evidence for the presence of a designer operating at a particular location and time. This is similar to what we use to evaluate whether a rock may have been shaped by humans or accident. If we can find evidence of fire pits or human habitation, it strengthens the case. If ‘spores’ were found in decent numbers in space, that would make a stronger case for panspermia. If monoliths were found buried under the moon’s crust or if spaceship-like wreckage were found, that might make the case of material intervention. If we received messages that indicated how or when a particular evolutionary transition occurred and there were other identifiers like neutral sequences also included, then we could validate the possibility of a particular intervention. We can assume that God was always present but did he leave orthogonal evidence of his interventions at particular points in the history of life?
Come to think of it, neutral sequences or traits would probably be the most likely locations to encode evidence of manipulation if a design chose to leave a signature. Such regions are some of the best evidence for constructing solid molecular taxonomies. A designer could also encode a distinct and decipherable message in the genome. Now, that would be a positive, design research program. And there are people who’ve tried this approach but I don’t think it’s work directly supported by the DI.
1 Like
My point was that Dembski some years ago promoted the idea that a systematic comparison of human design and the structure of living organisms was underway. This was during the early heyday of ID’s search for projects. Haven’t heard a peep about it since or what happened. Was anything learned or communicated to the ID research establishment? Granted, negative results are seldom published but it’s a rare or terrible experiment that yields no useful information.
Aside:
Yes, such work may achieve something in the future, but clearly it won’t if nobody is working on it. You’ve got to place your resources were you think they’ll have the most impact.
You said such “similarities may not amount to proofs, but they remain suggestive”. I think that’s about the best one can say about work in that direction. Are you in favor of continuing that research program?
Also, which ID programs today do you think are the best? And which ones should be put on the backburner or eliminated? Surely there must be some ideas that are far better than others. Some will be more likely to uncover the nature of design and provide a positive theory. If you were a granting agency, which projects would you fund?
1 Like
I admit that I am somewhat ignorant of ID research. What is an example of how you would set up a study to confirm or refute ID?
Do let us know when they have published their findings in the relevant peer reviewed literature and made any kind of impact on the current consensus. As someone once said, “I wish you would argue with specific evidence rather than bravado”.
The Darwin industry. You heard it here first.
He does. That’s why he doesn’t accept ID as the best explanation; they can’t even tell how old the Earth is.