Intelligent Design

[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.

[Sy_Garte]

Yes, you read me correctly (not surprisingly). And yes, I deliberately left my definition of design to be very loose. But coming back to ID, what I think the aim should be (after changing the terrible title of the movement, not much better than EC or TE), is to first agree (with Denton) that one way or the other, through one mechanism or another, evolution, including macroevolution is real and it explains biological diversity.

THEN, comes the interesting part. Which is no longer about whether there is evidence (mostly negative) that evolution has been designed by an intelligence (again a terrible word to use in connection with the Lord, God), but is there evidence of purpose, as well as direction in evolution. As you know, I believe that there is, and I think there is scientific evidence for that. That was the subject of another talk, with slides that I didnt show at the ASA group. The issue of teleology in evolution is far from new, and has been the subject of philosophical debate for decades, if not longer. I think there are some good metaphysical arguments in favor, and even some potential scientific ones.

If teleology can be supported in any way along the causal chain for evolutionary mechanisms and direction, then one could precede to the point where ID folks would like to be, since purpose implies a final cause, and an Agent behind that final cause.

I think this is not an easy task to accomplish, and would require a lot of smart people to work on. But I do think it has a much better chance of success than attempts to use analogies from information theory, cybernetics, and engineering to argue against the power of evolution by natural selection.

[Argon]

@Eddie

I certainly am quite willing to see ID transformed by new discovery. I have never felt that it was perfect and have always wanted to see it more carefully expanded and fleshed out, with some claims and some culture-war rhetoric trimmed away. I think that ID might have to give up certain tentative conclusions and arguments, but that is no problem for me. I’ve always been more interested in defending ID as a legitimate project than as a set of particular answers. If ID ends up focusing more on teleology in the broader evolutionary process than on teleology in particular organs, I have no problem with that. For me the point is that if design is found anywhere in nature, even if only in the trajectory of life as a whole, then Dawkins, Coyne, etc. have been disproved.

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.

[Argon]

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.

[Chris_Falter]

@Eddie

Why Wood would put himself in such a position, I don’t know. It would be healthier for both mind and heart if he could simply say that one or the other of the positions is wrong, and abandon it. Has he decided that God has given him a mission to live existentially torn, all his life? I don’t know; I can’t see into the psyche of such a person. But it’s another example of how mechanical literalism generates all kinds of insoluble problems – irreconcilable science/faith conflicts, and destructive inner tensions.

Hi Eddie - Good post. Perhaps Wood sees this difficult tension as the cross God has called him to bear.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@Argon

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.

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."