Hello George.
Agreed.
Yes, Spetner has his critics. Indeed, inasmuch as ID is an enemy of the âclub,â every ID advocate who has ever published their support of ID, no matter how well credentialed,no matter how modestly or cautiously their claims are stated or how well referenced and meticulously researched their work is, they will have critics and their critics will be loud and often times vicious and unforgiving. Yet the funny thing is, the ID movement continues to grow and in spite of threats to careers, tenure, grants, and status, more and more professionals are joining the ranks. Imagine the groundswell that would be under way if the ID position were simply tolerated!
Once again Chris, you have invested some time in a response to me. And once again, your energy has been invested in putting together an ad-hominem attack. This is the last time I will say address it, because it should certainly be very obvious by now - even to your friends. I refuse to feed this monster.
An ad hominem attack would ignore a researchers actual work and attack the character or motives of the researcher. How is it ad hominem to point out perceived flaws in a researchers methodology or models? Thatâs all I see in the quote you provided from Chris.
Brother Joe,
You seem to have a very unique definition of âad-hominem.â So much so, I am not sure I even understand what you are trying to say. So I would like you to explain how just one of my statements is ad-hominem, as opposed to evidential. Here, letâs try this one:
âHis model eliminates neutral changes from consideration, in contradiction to biologistsâ experimental evidence.â
How is this ad-hominem?
Meanwhile, I pray you and yours enjoy the power of the Resurrection on this Lordâs day.
Chris
the question from the beginning has always been, what is the source of the information. This is my third and final analogy for you to consider: Now let us suppose that it is neither my secretary nor miss Random making the mistake. Now let us suppose that Hamlet is being transcribed from the spoken word to the written word by way of a voice recognition devise (VRD). But when the phrase, âMeet me by the wall,â is read, the VRD understands âMeet me by the wellâ instead, and faithfully transcribes that phrase. According to your logic, the source of the information is the VRD. But this is a machine incapable of generating any functional prescriptive information on its own. It is merely programmed to faithfully transmit what it receives. By itself, it will never generate any functional prescriptive information. It is not capable of doing so. Yet, in the course of transmission, if it should erroneously record a word, your logic would dictate that this machine, incapable of generating any functional prescriptive information, has done just that! Really, the best you could say is that the VRD is the source of the mistake, not the source of the information.
A mistake in transcription (which is exactly what a point mutation is) cannot be the source of the information. It can only be a mistranslation of the original source. Here is the logical argument:
p1. absent an original text of information (i.e. a source), no mistake in the translation can possibly occur.
p2. a mistake in translation can only occur to an existing piece of information.
from these two premises, we can draw two conclusions:
c.1 therefore, the mistake in translation cannot possibly be the source of the information; it can be nothing more than the source of the mistake.
c2. therefore, the source of the information is the original text.
I understand why you want to say that the mutation is the source: The evolution of life has required massive inputs of functional prescriptive information. This much is common knowledge; so much so that even the atheist recognizes it. But in order for the TOE to account for this influx of functional prescriptive information, it must be true that purely natural processes are capable of producing it. If one wants the TOE to be true, it is much more palatable to see mutation as the source of novel genetic information rather than what it clearly is: a copying error.
Empirical observation confirms that massive inputs of novel genetic information have been required to account for all the diversity of life and all the novel body plans of living systems. Your logic claims that all of this information can be attributed to a long stream of copying errors. One of the many challenges the TOE faces is that for every novel body plan, there must exist an adaptive functional continuum which can be wholly accounted for by the mutation/ selection mechanism. For all the novel body plans of life, the mutation/selection mechanism has yet to provide even one empirical example of such a continuum.[quote=âglipsnort, post:1049, topic:4944â]
As far as I can tell from you entire response, the word âinformationâ in your statements has no meaning at all. It doesnât mean semantic information â meaning of the message â because the meaning of the final message was not present initially. Itâs not the string of symbols being output, as it would be in information theory, because they werenât present initially either. Perhaps you can define what youâre talking about in some way, because at present I see no way of having a rational discussion about an undefined term.
[/quote]
Again, our dispute revolves around the source of the information. Thus, it would be helpful for you to shift your focus from the word âinformation,â to the word âsource.â[quote=âglipsnort, post:1049, topic:4944â]
I cannot think of any definition by which human DNA has novel information while B cells donât. In both cases, thereâs a DNA sequence that is replicated with random modifications, yielding a new sequence.
[/quote]
You contend that in both cases, the process is the same. It is not. In the case of the immune system, the story is not the mutations, but the system, which is a coordinated response mechanism involving the deliberate, goal oriented, programmed activity of several sub-systems interacting with one another in a precise, coordinated effort to achieve a specific purpose. This is from immunologist dr. Donald Ewert:
âWhen the ânaturalâ mechanisms that generate antibody diversity are examined as an integrated system, it becomes apparent that, unlike Darwinian evolution, they are not âblindâ or ârandom,â but rather are highly regulated both temporally and physically to achieve specific purposes while maintaining the integrity of the surrounding genome. If these processes tell us anything, it is that the immune system leaves very little to blind chance, but instead is designed to allow organisms to adapt to changing environmental conditions without altering the integrity of their genome.â
Nutt and Lee add:
âinstead of a simple transcriptional hierarchy, efficient B cell commitment and differentiation require the combinatorial activity of multiple transcription factors in a complex gene regulatory networkâŚ[T]he transcriptional network controlling B cell specification and commitment is not a simple linear cascade but involves multiple combinatorial inputs and feedback loops.â
and dr. Ewert concludes:
âThe evidence from decades of research reveals a complex network of highly regulated processes of gene expression that leave very little to chance, but permit the generation of receptor diversity without damaging the function of immunoglobulin protein or doing damage to other sites in the genomeâŚit is just the kind of system one would design for independent survival of an organismâ
Earlier, you made the claim that there is zero evidence that organisms are programmed to produce specific beneficial mutations and abundant evidence that they produce random mutations. Yet the immune system is designed to allow random mutations for the specific purpose of protecting the organism in a process that is tightly controlled and regulated. If this is darwinian evolution in action, then I submit that we have empirical evidence that mutations bear evidence of intelligent design.
@Glipsnort and @deliberateresult
Do you two realize you are both arguing for Godâs role in animal populations
being derived from common ancestral populations?
You both believe that the Earth is millions of years old. You both believe in God.
You both think God added something to the process of changing life forms.
The only thing you two disagree on is epistemology ⌠the epistemology of God:
"Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, the rationality of belief, and justification. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas:
(1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification,
(2) various problems of skepticism,
(3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and
(4) the criteria for knowledge and justification."
Thatâs pretty dry stuff!
No, I didnât realize I was arguing for that. In fact, Iâm quite puzzled to learn that Iâm arguing for that.
Iâm quite doubtful that I think that.
I thought we were disagreeing about whether information processing in life was good evidence that life requires a creator.
gbrooks9:
You both think God added something to the process of changing life forms.
Glipsnort said: Iâm quite doubtful that I think that.
Ha! Well the laugh is on me then! You donât think God had anything to do with the emergence of life? Then why are you at BioLogos? You donât think God even added purpose?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
gbrooks9:
The only thing you two disagree on is epistemology ⌠the epistemology of God:
Glipsnort said: I thought we were disagreeing about whether information processing in life was good evidence that life requires a creator.
Disagreeing about whether information processing in life was good evidence - - that is Epistemological question. You are disputing the issue of how we come to know things⌠a classic dispute on the source of knowledge.
As I said before, without a useable definition of âinformationâ, your argument is quite literally meaningless. You might was well be offering premises about the source of flubber in a message.
Let me try once again: is âinformationâ something you can quantify? Can we detect its presence? What is this discussion even about?
A word of advice: Inventing motives and assigning them to your opponents may make you feel good, but it doesnât advance your argument. Work on making your argument less porous rather than on telling me why I think things. Frankly, you lack the standing to do the latter.
Whatâs the point of focusing on the source of something, if you wonât tell me what the something is supposed to be? Are you able to define âinformationâ or not? [quote=âdeliberateresult, post:1060, topic:4944â]
You contend that in both cases, the process is the same. It is not.
[/quote]
The generation of functional information from random mutations is indeed the same.[quote=âdeliberateresult, post:1060, topic:4944â]
In the case of the immune system, the story is not the mutations, but the system, which is a coordinated response mechanism involving the deliberate, goal oriented, programmed activity of several sub-systems interacting with one another in a precise, coordinated effort to achieve a specific purpose. This is from immunologist dr. Donald Ewert:
âWhen the ânaturalâ mechanisms that generate antibody diversity are examined as an integrated system, it becomes apparent that, unlike Darwinian evolution, they are not âblindâ or ârandom,â but rather are highly regulated both temporally and physically to achieve specific purposes while maintaining the integrity of the surrounding genome. If these processes tell us anything, it is that the immune system leaves very little to blind chance, but instead is designed to allow organisms to adapt to changing environmental conditions without altering the integrity of their genome.â
[/quote]
That might be the story you want to tell, but it doesnât address the actual source of the information in my B cells, which continues to be the random mutation of my DNA. Nothing youâve quoted deals with that fact.
This quotation seems to have nothing to do with determining the source of information coding for antibodies.
It leaves very little to chance. . . except the all-important generation of new information. Which is what weâre supposed to be discussing.
I agree that random mutations are used by the immune system to serve a specific function. That fact is entirely consistent with my previous statement. [quote=âdeliberateresult, post:1060, topic:4944â]
If this is darwinian evolution in action, then I submit that we have empirical evidence that mutations bear evidence of intelligent design.
[/quote]
But you havenât presented any empirical evidence that intelligent design was involved â just the assertion that it was.
2 Likes
I didnât say that. I said that I didnât think âGod added something to the process of changing life forms.â Your formulation suggests that there are processes that exist and operate independently of God, and that he sometimes interacts with them. That may be true, but Iâm pretty sure I donât think it is.
Nah. Itâs a subject that could raise epistemological questions, sure, but the actual question weâre considering is whether a particular kind of information is always observed to have an intelligent source (when one can be identified). Thatâs seems like more of an empirical question to me, at least so far.
Steve, I certainly didnât intend to suggest that. My intention was to use a linguistic formulation general enough to accommodate both your views.
My own view is that there are no processes that operate independently of God. You say yourself you think there are any either. Iâm pretty sure @deliberateresult doesnât think so either.
So âŚlike I said⌠you two are âworryinâ some pretty dry bonesâŚ
Steve
If we take the case (or analogy, as one prefers) of any human âmeaningful informationâ, it is equally hard - I would say impossible - to define scientifically. And that is because such information is inherently about a message from a purposeful sender with a specific end in view. And that is a case of final causation, which is excluded from the scientific method in principle.
Yet there is absolutely no doubt about the existence of such human information, since it is what we handle every day. That being in no doubt, one could start by attempting a scientific definition of âmeaningful informationâ - if that proves difficult, it suggests the problem is methodological, not evidential.
Yeah, my reply was a little curt. Sorry about that.
From my perspective, itâs an empirical claim about something I study (genetics), a claim that has potentially sweeping theological and philosophical implications. So Iâm inclined to discuss it. (And of course, thereâs also the âSomeone is wrong on the internetâ thing.)
2 Likes
Iâm not looking for a rigorous scientific definition, just some indication of what Joe could mean by âinformationâ that would make his claim about biological information (or his analogous claim about human messages) true. His original formulations of the claim mentioned information theory, a âsignificant amountâ of information, and Crick-style information in DNA. All these suggest a pretty straightforward meaning: DNA sometimes encodes functional, prescriptive information (FPI) for making biologically useful proteins. Thatâs a fine meaning, even without a rigorous definition, and one I can easily work with. You can tell (with some fuzziness) whether that kind of information is present in DNA and you can quantify it in base pairs or in bits, and ask what the origin of a particular piece of information was. That seemed to be the kind of information his claim involved, and was the basis for my counterexample. For that kind of information, his claim is plainly false.
The analogy to human communication introduces a fuzzier semantic meaning for âinformationâ, but it doesnât help Joeâs case any. If the received message is âMeet me by the wellâ and the sent message was âMeet me by the wallâ, then most of the information received (âMeet me by something that starts with a Wâ) came from the intelligent sender, while one piece of information (âby the wellâ) was generated by faulty transmission. But that latter is something Joe canât allow, so heâs not using this meaning either. The bottom line is that I donât think there is any meaning of âinformationâ by which Joeâs original claim is true. Thatâs why Iâm pushing.
Joe now seems, in fact, to be arguing something different from his original claim. Something about the existence of a message with FPI requiring an intelligent source, maybe, or the existence of a mechanism for carrying or generating FPI? In any case, my example was directed at his original claim.
Plainly, Joe cannot be relying on this kind of information for his argument because then heâd be assuming his conclusion.
(I will note that, even if âmeaningful informationâ in human communication canât be defined rigorously, quite a lot can be said about it. In fact, entire literatures treat it in one way or another. Cognitive science, linguistics, semiotics and philosophers from Wittgenstein to Searle to Gadamer all touch on it â not to mention the episode âHushâ from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I wonât pretend to have expertise in any of these except the last one.)
4 Likes
Steve
I can see your point, now. But looking at things from the assumptions of a truly theistic evolution, rather than in terms of an ID âproof of designâ approach, I see both the problem and a possible solution.
In human messages, the kind of noise Joe presents (âwallâ beomes âwellâ) falls foul of whatever our description of intentional information is: true information is lost, though the Shannon information is unchanged. It also, in this case, has the disadvantage of becoming misleading - the receiver goes in vain to the well, whereas had it said âwdllâ heâd have spotted the error.
Letâs propose (axiomatically) that in evolution God analogously âdesignsâ the changes that will occur to produce, say, a new form. Or, to use the slightly confused EC phrase, âevolution is the means by which God createsâŚâ. What then do we say about fortuitous changes causing disease - or even the impression that useful function has arisen by such randomerror?
Well, it seems to me that in the presence of omniscience and omnipotence the distinction between âmessageâ and ânoiseâ is less clear than in human communication. Thomas Aquinas had the useful concept that in a material world, âchanceâ errors will often occur - but he insisted that chance was nevertheless subsumed in Godâs providence. We may not know how an arrow fired âat a ventureâ hits King Ahab (or more often, why it hits an innocent bystander!), but these events work towards Godâs final ends, because that is what âprovidenceâ entails.
Such final causation is, of course, properly speaking outside the purview of science on methodolical naturalism (though an exception is made for clear function, which strictly speaking is teleological) - but weâre discussing âinformation from God hereâ so (whatever ID does or doesnât say) itâs beyond science as she is spoke.
Nevertheless, the point is that one can no longer say that the âwall/wellâ error, in a providential theistic system, is mere ânoiseâ as it is in a human message. That would be to place part of Godâs world beyond hi providence. Whatever scientifically stochastic processes give rise to the copying error, it is as much subject to providential governance as the original message was.
That is admittedly not helpful in demonstrating design from efficient causation - scientifically one can only say there was a random change. Itâs pretty hard to find a formal distinction between loss or damage to function, change of function, or near-neutral change. If design is demonstrated, it is by the global end result - that âall or most of the timeâ (to quote Aquinas) well-adapted organisms exist - and on the grand scale, an ordered cosmos.
The design inference is then the old argument that, as Asa Gray said, was settled long ago - itâs more rational to conclude that the order we see around us came from purposeful direction than that it came from undirected chaos. Just as that conclusion is not altered by the order being sometimes deformed, neither is it altered by the findings of modern cell biology or genetics.
What it does achieve, though, is to draw attention to the fact that âchanceâ is not an ultimate cause: it is the abstraction science has to use since its methodology excludes final and formal causation. But theologically (that is, embracing theistic evolution or Evolutionary Creation) âchanceâ is the signature of providentially controlled contingency, in copying errors as much as in the cast of the lot into the lap.
I am happy to clarify for you Christy. In advance, allow me to broaden your definition of ad-hominem to include any attack against the person rather than the point the person is making. Now letâs move forward with a few examples:
- Chris was kind enough to share his response to me when I originally brought up Spetner and his work, but he did not share the context. Here is the complete exchange:
Citing the work of Spetner, I was making the point that there is evidence that some mutations are non-random. I expected Chris to contend against this claim. Instead he opted to try to discredit both Spetner and me. This is textbook ad-hominem.
- Moving forward to the post in question, here is Chrisâs opening volley: [quote=âChris_Falter, post:1048, topic:4944â]
Spetner claimed that Archaeopteryx is a forgery.
[/quote]
I cannot possibly know everything Dr. Spetner has said, so I thought I should research this. Here is what I learned: A few decades ago, Dr. Spetner had reason to believe that a specific archaeopteryx fossil - the London fossil - was a fraud. He was not alone. Sir Fred Hoyle (and others) shared his doubts. Accordingly, the two of them cooperated on an investigation of the London fossil. Their findings were published. Of course, the London museum disputed the findings and a controversy ensued. The point is that here, as in the first example, Chris wants us to see a man so blindly driven by his ideological agenda that he is willing to sacrifice scientific integrity in the cause. Yet when we have a fuller understanding of what happened, we see that the truth points us in the exact opposite direction. Chrisâs context free claim is clearly calculated to attack the credibility of Dr. Spetner. Hence, another textbook example of ad-hominem.
Dr. Spetnerâs recent book, âThe Evolution Revolution,â presents the case for his Non Random Evolutionary hypothesis (NREH), offering many empirical examples of mutations that give evidence of occurring in non-random fashion. It is this work, this hypothesis, and this book I have referred to in my exchange with Chris, and nothing else (from Spetner). Spetner has also authored an earlier book on a different subject, âNot By Chance.â Of all the charges Chris brings against Dr. Spetner, there is only one incidental reference to the NREH. Indeed, Chris gives us a copy and paste of a review of âNot By Chance.â This is a curious way to address my point on non random mutations and the source I cite - Spetnerâs other book!
It is clear to me that Chris is primarily interested in discrediting Dr. Spetner and not at all concerned with my point that there is evidence that some mutations may not be random, or my larger point that there is good evidence that life requires a Creator. You and Chris may not see this as ad-hominem, but as for me, I donât know what else to call it.
Hi ChrisâŚ
I hope that my reply to Christie above satisfies both of you. In the meantime, I think I spy the possibility for a substantive conversation here:[quote=âChris_Falter, post:1029, topic:4944â]
Hi Joe,
I agree that fine tuning constitutes evidence(1) for a Creator. However, the fine turning argument is an exercise in philosophy, not science.
[/quote]
At its most fundamental level, science is a way of knowing.
Evidence points us in the direction of knowledge.
God tells us in His word that the natural world provides us with evidence of His handiwork.
Whether you insist on saying that the evidence can properly be called science is beside the point. That you agree that fine tuning constitutes evidence for a Creator is the point. So please suffer me a little longer here: why do you see fine tuning as evidence for a Creator?
The two things to remember about Ad Hominem:
1] âAd hominem . . . is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.â
BUT âŚ
[2] âAd hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.â
I think the thing to pay attention to is the differences between [A] and [B]. I think there is evidence for the existence of God ⌠but I donât believe that evidence can be categorized as Scientific evidence. So, [A] is awfully important⌠touching on what can be properly called science or not.
While in [B] I can say that in my opinion, the existence of consciousness is a crucial evidence for a cosmic mind!
âFine Tuningâ, on the other hand ⌠is simply acknowledging the circular nature of knowledge! If you had a recipe for humans that required at least 10.5% iron ⌠and all of humanity had 10âŚ6% iron⌠is that proof of anything? No.
It is simply proof that the threshold for iron in making humans really is about 10.5%!
No. Ad hominem is an attack on the individualâs character in order to discredit their argument. That is not what happened here. This is what happened. Chris said this.
Spetner is a Jewish physicist who believes that all of life stems from 365 different species that God created during the literal 6 days of Genesis 1.
That is a fact. That is not an attack on his character. Why is this fact relevant? Chris explained.
You expect me to take a citation to Spetner as evidence of your recent reading outside of YEC/ID authorship?
This is the point. He wanted you to show you had read outside of YEC/ID authorship, and you cited a YEC author. He then pointed out you had cited a YEC author in response to the request that you show recent reading outside YEC/ID authorship. There is nothing here which is ad hominem, he just caught you out citing a YEC when you were supposed to be showing evidence of recent reading outside YEC/ID.
Then you complain that Chris pointed out Spetner claimed that Archaeopteryx is a forgery.
No, itâs intended to reinforce his point that you cited someone who doesnât even accept evolution, when you were asked to show evidence of recent reading outside YEC/ID.
What nonsense. When we have a fuller understanding of what happened, we see Chris was absolutely right; Spetner claimed that Archaeopteryx is a forgery. Simple. There is no ad hominem in this. There is no attack on Spetnerâs character, and there is no attempt to claim that flaws in Spetnerâs character invalidate his arguments.
Itâs not curious given that Chris wanted you to demonstrate evidence of recent reading outside YEC/ID.
2 Likes