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.
…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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
I note you truncated my sentence. The statement was “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”. Can you provide any evidence that these mysterious people you’re unable to identify, whose qualifications remain a secret, and whose academic publications can’t be found anywhere, have made any impact on the current consensus?
Evidence please. Note that evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life (lots of creationists get that wrong).
Point 9:
"We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God."
Socratic, It would be convenient if you were to disavow purposeless processes right now … while we are thinking about it…
I may not quite be following what you are asking. So I’ll just point out:
(1) Whether or not my position happens to have all, a little, or even nothing in common with Biologos’ position is something I’ve never paused to ponder.
(2) I’m a Molinist. I do not see any reason for God to “step in” because his sovereignity doesn’t require a time-bound intervention. No, God made his decisions and exercised his sovereignty when he chose the particular “reality path” [my term] which would unfold as the history of the universe we observe around us.
(3) Yes, I view evolution as much like gravity and light and countless other processes: they function as they do and without some inherent mind or “governance” within them. Yet, they are not operating contrary to God’s will because God chose what reality would unfold even before the foundation of the world. Does gravity have a purpose? The question sounds like it imparts anthropomorphistic intentions to a mindless process. Of course, God has a purpose for gravity. And God has a purpose for light. And for evolutionary processes as well. But a mindless entity cannot have a purpose rooted in its own consciousness. Obviously. It only has purpose because God ordained a role for it within the created universe. So I’m not really sure what you are aiming for in your post.
God intended his creation—his universe—to be TOV (“good”.) Many Young Earth Creationist misunderstand that to mean some sort of undefined (except by them) “perfection”. But the Hebrew word TOV captures the description of a state of existence in which that universe is exactly what God meant for that universe to be. The universe was said to be “very good” because the completed universe was exactly as God intended.
Whether or not the universe happens to fit my expectations----or perhaps failed to meet Eddie’s expectations----is not something the Biblical text seems to care much about.
@Socratic.Fanatic… but you would agree, yes?, that when God answers prayers, those actions are a time-bound intervention … even if the answers are sometimes NO.
And when God raised Jesus, unless you think he used natural law to do this, that was a time-bound intervention.