Why the opposition to ID theory?

And yet we again waste ink and time we could spend buying presents, to discuss that very thing - go figure!

Yes, that is correct. I am bemused by the ferocity and longevity of the arguments between ID and EC proponents. Even the argument termed IC seems to miss the central point, in that they both start from some type of ToE notion, and each than goes of on different tangents.

Why is there deep opposition to ID theory?

I would say that there is deep opposition to ID theory from neoDarwinians, because by their understanding it is not scientific. While ID can be justified on the basis of its philosophy of science. However it cannot be justified by the currect materialistic philosophy of science . .

Another basic problem with ID, the fact that life is intelligently designed, is that it is true, but cannot be proven or disproven by the science of Variation. It is much better demonstrated by the science of Natural Selection, which is the key to the meaning and purpose of evolution.

The issue here is that people do not understand the science of Natural Selection, so the debate reveals the weak side of evolution.

@Argon

Yes, some ID folks have reservations about Denton. But it is interesting that his two latest books have been published by Discovery, and they put big-time advertising in place to promote them. If ID were an intrinsically antievolutionary position, this simply could not and would not have happened. Thus, even though Denton’s position is not the most popular position within ID ranks, its publication certainly legitimizes that position within ID ranks.

There is still the mystery about why Darrel Falk put up a very positive review of Denton’s bigger book on Amazon, and then withdrew the review, with apparently no public announcement on BioLogos or anywhere else why he withdrew it. One would think that Darrel would give a reason. If he has changed his mind about the value of the book, it seems to me he needs to produce a new statement. Even if still holds the same high opinion of the book, but withdrew the review for some other reason (e.g., maybe he was ticked off at the scores of comments under his review that had nothing to do with his review and came from people who had not read Denton’s book), it would clear the air if he said so. The withdrawal of the review, followed by a Sphinx-like silence, is peculiar, to say the least. Has anyone here heard anything from Darrel about this? Are they sworn to secrecy about what he said? If not, it would be helpful to have a report!

(And anticipating what two or three people here might say, i.e., that I should write to Darrel and ask him myself: (a) I feel quite certain that if I wrote to Darrel myself and asked him, I would get either no reply at all, or a very guarded and ambiguous one, whereas he would likely be more forthcoming to BioLogos folks; and (b) the subject is important enough – his review held out the prospect of serious rapprochement between the ID and EC camps – that everyone should hear about it, not just stray people who happen to write to Dennis privately.)

Who are those “others” you are talking about? Last time I checked, these people (whom you are basically calling lousy scientists) are all publishing their research in peer-reviewed academic journals of fundamental biochemical research… I think you are very much at odds here with “mainstream” science.

It’s good that you asked because that was not at all my claim. My claim was that evolutionary theorizing led to the RNA world hypothesis as an explanation for the origin of the current complexes associated with DNA. This turned out to be a very fruitful research direction:

There was a time when the origin of DNA and associated mechanisms were completely mysterious. Thanks to the RNA world hypothesis, that boundary has shifted to self-replicating RNA, which is a much simpler molecule in structure and function. Now, such progress implies that we’re dealing with the right theory here. There has been much progress in the past years in this field and it would certainly not be a stretch to predict that we are going to disentangle the origin of RNA too, in the future.

Again, studying the origins of life is a difficult task with many uncertainties. But that does not give you a basis to dismiss the commonly used theoretical framework (i.e., evolutionary theory in the broadest sense) as “failing”.

2 Likes

If you forgive my candour, and in keeping with many comments made on this site, show me your work so that I can review it.

The endless appeal to peer review becomes tedious. I review many papers in my field, and there are times when my review differs from another made by an equally qualified scientist. These are the others I refer to. Often the basis for accepting papers for publication is set by the policy of the journal editorial board, and if they decide that work on origins, no matter how speculative, will be published, than short of blatant errors, it will be published.

And yet the references I provided, which you enthusiastically approve, all deal with simple organic molecules that will magically lead to the large bio-molecules such as RNA and enzymes etc. The only theorizing that is present in these many papers amounts to “evolution is true” (or my favourite, the flying spaghetti monster selects the right stuff :astonished:) , so our results confirm or show how it is true - shoddy thinking by any stretch. The ifs and buts seem ubiquitous when accepting anything that seems to be evolution. On this criteria, ToE cannot possibly fail, and if it appears to, well it shows how scientific it is - my word, safe from all criticism!

I think we have said all that we should say on this topic.

This places Denton pretty much within contemporary thought with regard to adaptionist focus. What I really think sets Denton most apart are his claims that there is a propensity for certain protein folds and even protein or DNA sequences to arise, driven by inherent constants set in the universe. Thus E. coli might be thought to have the particular genetic and protein sequences it does because there is a natural inclination of basic physics to converge on them for an organism that fills the niches E. coli occupies. Recall his early criticism of molecular clock explanations for diversity that seems correlated with time since divergence. Denton promotes a much less contingent view to the patterns of life than most biologists would think there is data to conclude. While there are indeed some common, convergent physical traits that arise because of physical constraints like hydrodynamics (i.e. tending to streamlined shapes) or heat loss, most don’t think something like the proteins we see in organisms are necessary the best for their particular tasks. Instead, many are probably simply “sufficient” enough and that the possibility exists that other structures could substitute. Denton has a more sympathies for “typological drivers” somehow explaining the pattern of life. And that’s were he tends to run dry, explanation-wise.

But to be assured, he probably gets more acclaim from the ID community for his arguments against Neo-Darwinism than his clear support for common descent and a hands-off designer. As noted earlier, he represents about the most close-to-the-edge of ID thought. Meanwhile DI supports in-house researchers like Axe and Gauger writing papers disputing or questioning common descent (even among the great apes).

Let me add one question to the discussion: What impact have Denton’s proposals about the drivers of evolutionary change had on research in Intelligent Design theory? Is anyone following up on his proposals for biochemical typology?

Hi George,

Again, please tell me who exactly those “others” are. Just the names of people would be fine. If you know of any academic reviews that claim that chemical evolution of RNA from simpler organic molecules is a completely failed scenario, I’d be happy to read it.

That’s not fair George… And it seems to show that you missed my earlier point. The fact that they are now theorizing about the origin of RNA is actually huge progress compared to the times when they were at a loss for the origin of DNA complexes. It’s about progress, because there will always be questions left in a scientific framework. But just pointing at those open ends and calling it “shoddy thinking”… That’s not how things work.

You’re applying the same rhetoric as endlessly expounded here by @Cornelius_Hunter. With references like the flying spaghetti monster you’re even attributing some sort of religious motivation to these scientists. So I think you may actually find yourself better aligned with the ID movement than you think.

Again, I think you’re thinking in the wrong direction here. (Chemical) evolution is not safe from criticism, but there are no reasonable contenders to compete with it as explanations for the origin of life. That makes it logical that people are exploring hypotheses regarding the origin of RNA based on chemical evolution. You and those “others” are welcome to present a more viable alternative.

Since I am an astronomer, I tend to think about the origin of life as I think about the beginning of the universe. Our cosmological framework encapsulates the largest part of cosmic history exceedingly well. The closer you get to the starting point of the Big Bang, the more unanswered questions arise. That does not indicate that this cosmological framework is failing, but that the early universe is a difficult topic to study because it lies largely beyond our reach. I think the same reasoning applies to the evolutionary paradigm and the chemical origin of life. Evolutionary theory already integrates findings from diverse fields of research for the largest part of the history of life on earth. Just the chemical origin of life is a difficult one because it lies largely beyond our reach. Does that make sense for you?

Blessings,
Casper

4 Likes

Hi Casper,

I think you have misunderstood some of my comment. I am speaking of those of us who review papers on chemistry and the general way we would regard any research on chemistry. I am not active in origins of life (nor my colleagues), but I think I (and others in my field) can readily asses the chemistry in such work. The notion of chemical evolution as expounded in the examples I gave is wildly speculative and not grounded in any direct way with how RNA or DNA may be synthesised. If you have examples where a reaction scheme has been published beginning with small organic molecules and ending with the relevant molecule than you should point that out.

To try and be clear, any chemical synthesis that claims to know how any molecule can be produced MUST be demonstrated through a chemical route and substantiated by experimental results. This has been my point all along - that is the chemistry all chemists follow. If we fall short of this criteria, we would be surprised if we would be published.

Saying the chemistry related to origins of life is difficult does not change anything - the subject matter deals with synthesis of a large molecule from precursors. So you should understand my comment related to evolution, since the criteria synthetic chemists use to show success or failure has not been employed for work related to evolution. This is wrong. I cannot make this any more clear.

Cheers
George

I get the impression that your opinion is that it’s OK to teach the atheistic evolution because it is what you believe to be right and that no other point of view on origins should be entertained.

Strangely one can say precisely the same about the Darwinian/humanistic/Materialistic worldview.

I still have to come across a definition of “evolution” that actually allows one to follow the scientific process to conclusion.
Please present to me the scientific hypothesis for evolution and show how it makes empirical predictions and how they have been fulfilled by actual observations [which is why one would presume it is said to be “fact”].
Please start with the definition of evolution to make it clear as to what exactly is being discussed or included and what is not.Show how one progresses from there to making predictions. Demonstrate some real life and practical predictions made by evolutionary theory and how it relates to the original idea of Darwinian evolution, namely descend from a single ancestor.

The main reason that there are no reasonable contenders to compete with chemical evolution is quite simple:
The opponents of God have rigged the definition of science and what it encompasses to exclude supernatural origins of life.
They are therefore handcuffed to the idea that life must have somehow arisen from the ground / pond scum all by itself via some kind of random chemical/physical process.

Here they find themselves in the land of fools since having discovered the impossible hills to climb with DNA they have turned to what seems like something simpler, namely RNA.
However, simple biochemical knowledge indicates that the volatility of RNA itself will outfox them even more.

So what you are saying is that the idea that God, a supernaturally intelligent genius who actually invented the very components of matter itself, is not capable of conceiving the very notion of biological life, planning its creation and then actually executing on that plan is not a viable alternative to the fool’s path being pursued by atheistic scientists?

It is becoming quite clear from recent research, e.g. the ENCODE project to name one, that what one really has to look for in the origin of life is not so much a “chemical” origin but that one should rather begin to shift one’s paradigm and start looking for the origin of the information that is present in the biological assemblies.

It should be clear that there cannot be any materialistic explanation for the origin of something abstract. That would be patently absurd. If one looked at the DNA molecule it should be clear that it is not the actual chemical composition that is the predominant importance, but rather the arrangement which carries the knowledge bound up in that chemical makeup. To be clear one can have exactly the same information presented via pen and paper as on a floppy disc or hard drive or Morse code or stored in a holocube.

This is the main obstacle faced by those looking of the origin of life from a purely chemical/physical origin. They cannot account for the vast and incredibly ingeniously employed information in biological systems.

Therefore, I would guess that this is perhaps the main reason for an opposition to ID. Some want to say it’s a sly disguise fo bringing in a watered down creation story but the real issue is that acknowledging that life must have been intelligently designed is akin to admitting that purely materialistic i.e. chemical origin of life is a dead cert failure. And to acknowledge that is to acknowledge that there must be a god of whatever kind. And this cannot be tolerated. Hence - ID must per force be opposed at ANY cost. Which is kind of ironic for Christians professing to believe in a one true God who is responsible for everything in the universe.

@Prode …is that all you need? How about the answer to World Peace too.

If you look at the case for Whales species that have lost their teeth … evolutionary theory predicted finding two different genes that controlled the production of teeth.

Eventual genome analysis proved this prediction to be correct!

1 Like

Hey @eddie, this is a bit revisionist about Denton…

First off, ID didn’t exist in 1985, and that certainly was not the “reason” Denton was reviled. Frankly, in the 1980s I was a YEC and was reading Hugh Ross and Walter Bradley. I probably would have been liked his work at the time, but I had never heard of him.

The problem I have with Denton is not so much is critique of neo-Darwinism, but the conflation this critique with critiques modern evolutionary theory; as if this anything more than just restating modern evolutionary theory (e.g. the extended synthesis). And the conflation of statements of problems with neo-Darwinism with a scientific case for design. That is really where the problem lies. I’m not sure how much he himself makes this conflation, but that is exactly how is work is used by the ID movement, and he seems to have no problem with this.

Such a stance is profoundly misleading. It would be about as helpful and logical as arguing that the modern theory of Relativity is wrong because of the failings of Newtonian physics. Such an argument fails basic logic, but also serves to totally confused the public, so that they think that somehow that Relativity depends on Newtonian physics.

This also is revisionist.

First off, I am glad you are remembering my correct claim that “Neo-Darwinism was falsified by discoveries back in the 1960s and 1970s”. I would emphasize that I mean “natural selection and random mutation” by “darwinism” in this claim. Not the “modern theory of evolution” as is sometimes (incorrectly) meant by this.

Second, many of these people were making that point. Quoting from wikipedia (because it gets this right). Remember the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism?

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

This is specifically the language chosen by the discovery institute. It equates Darwinian theory with “random mutation and natural selection” (RMNS) and suggests that scientists (1) are not examining this theory (they did and found it lacking 20 years prior) and (2) that somehow RMNS is enough to account for the complexity of life. Well, as was noted at the time, this is totally misleading and anachornistic.

Charles Darwin himself described natural selection as being “the main but not exclusive means of modification” of species.[20] The modern theory of evolution includes natural selection and genetic drift as mechanisms, and does not conclude that “the ability of random mutation and natural selection” accounts “for the complexity of life.” Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest and deputy director of the National Center for Science Education Glenn Branch comment on the ambiguity of the statement and its use in the original advertisement:

Such a statement could easily be agreed to by scientists who have no doubts about evolution itself, but dispute the exclusiveness of “Darwinism,” that is, natural selection, when other mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow are being actively debated. To the layman, however, the ad gives the distinct impression that the 100 scientists question evolution itself.[3]

Skip Evans, also of the National Center for Science Education, noted that when interviewed, several of the scientists who had signed the statement said they accepted common descent. He thus suggests that this confusion has in fact been carefully engineered.

To be clear, the dates on these quotes are the mid 2000’s, right after the DIssent became public. How could they possibly respond to something before it took place?

Now remember, I was a science student at the time. In the 1990’s I was very skeptical (if not downright opposed) to evolution. I learned about these distinctions then from my science advisor. He was very clear that drift is more dominant (and pointed me to neutral theory) than RMNS.

I would assert that scientists before, during and after the Dover Trial understood this and were stating this. However it is a technical point that was quickly forgotten by most. Instead, they focused on (1) methodological naturalism and (2) irreducible complexity. Was that an error? I do not know. But I do know that mainstream science has been wildly misrepresented by the ID movement.

It seems that either this because they do not understand the theory they are attacking, Or because they are intentionally clouding the issue. I’m not sure which it is, but prefer to take the interpretation that imputes the least negative things on them. So I would say it seems like they do not understand the science to which they are so opposed.

As for you @Eddie, I can imagine my claims about neo-Darwinism might seem surprising. But I’m not saying anything new. Everything I am saying has been said the leading evolutionists too. When I came to realize this, I quickly understood the sources of knowledge I trusted about science were not as trustworthy as I hoped. Maybe the same is true for you.

2 Likes

Strangely, I think that science classes should teach science, not points of view on origins. I also think that religious (or irreligious) interpretations of the science should be taught in church, at home, or in private religious schools, not public schools. I realize it is unfashionable, but I also believe in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

In any case, aren’t you the same guy who had this to say:

I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to accomplish, but you probably would do just as well preaching on a street corner to the random passersby. I could even make you a sandwich board saying “The End Is Near,” if you want.

1 Like

No, it’s because ID merely pretends to be science, as beautifully demonstrated by your attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

There’s no ID hypothesis, much less theory.

2 Likes

As expected, there is no hypothesis for evolutionary theory then…
Nothing that will ever be able to relate back to the darwinian dogma.
That can make any predictions regarding descent from one organism or further descent from where we find ourselves today.
Hence, the curtain comes down with a totally black-out statement.

NO I’m not shifting anything here. I’m pointing out why there’s opposition to ID at all - it comes from the atheistic camp and anyone adhering to the darwinian evolutionary theory has to abide by it. Take for instance the sacking of one David Coppedge and one realizes that the atheist camp is absolutely ruthless about protecting their religion.

The real sadness is that people who profess to be Christians but adhere to the darwinian evolutionary religion find themselves in the unenviable position of having to side with the enemies of Jesus against those who are committed Christians. [The Atheistic] Fighting against ID basically boils down to railing against the idea that life has an intelligent origin.

So where does that leave anyone who is a supporter of Biologos? Fighting against the God who gave them life? Denouncing anyone who dares to raise even a hint that there is an intelligent designer for life.

By the way, if ID pretends to be science, what on earth do you make of abiogenesis which is in any even worse state of credibility? That is pure religion if ever there was any. So why are you not railing against IT? Why is abiogenesis acceptable and ID not?