|
Author
|
Topic: ID Research program
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 06. October 2002 13:32
Evan>>Or by the “blind watch making” hypothesis do you mean the position that all change can be accounted for by natural processes?
If you mean the latter, then that is exactly the problem we are trying to address - where do natural processes become insufficient?<<
The blind watchmaking hypothesis refers to the position that everything in nature originated via non-intelligent processes. You are familiar with the Richard Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker are you not?
Evan>>Are you questioning whether microevolutionary changes can happen?<<
No.
Evan>>You wonder why the burden is on the ID research program. I think the reason is that the microevolutionary changes [at whatever level one accepts them] are well established and not in question. Dembski’s filter proposes that there is something beyond what natural processes can do. Since this is the ID hypothesis, it seems to me reasonable that the burden to create a research program is on the ID proponent.<<
Here are a couple of quotes that show that there is disagreement among biologists on the micro to macro extrapolation.
"The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin [1995] points out, 'the origin of species -- Darwin's problem -- remains unsolved.'"
Scott F. Gilbert, John M. Opitz, and Rudolf A. Raff, "Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology," Developmental Biology 173 [1996]:357-372; p. 361.
Or, more recently:
"Species diverge from common ancestors through changes in their DNA. One of the ultimate questions in biology, then, is which changes in DNA are responsible for the evolution of morphological diversity? The answers have eluded biologists for the half-century since the Modern Synthesis and the discovery of the structure of DNA....One of the longest running debates in evolutionary biology concerns the sufficiency of processes observed within populations and species for explaining macroevolution."
Sean Carroll, "Endless Forms: The Evolution of Gene Regulation and Morphological Diversity," Cell 101 [June 9, 2000]:577-580; p. 577; p. 579
There really is no evidence that macro is just micro extended over long time scales. Therefore, you have provided no basis for your assertion that the burden of proof is on the ID research program.
Evan>>You again quote Mike Gene, this time on the origin of the cell. The research program I am suggesting is really a very long ways from this issue. The origin of the cell is perhaps the most intractable problem, and is, in my opinion, a very difficult place to start.
That’s why I propose that we start closer to home - with the changes that could theoretically be observed in the laboratory or in the field in living populations. Let’s see if we can develop methods of calculating probabilities of observed changes - develop the tools to measure those quantities which will ultimately be necessary to distinguish non-design from design. Once the tools are developed, they can then possibly be applied to larger changes over longer periods of time.<<
My approach is different. Instead of starting in the here and now and working backwards, I prefer to start at the origin of life and work forward. I quote Mike Gene a lot because it's his version of ID I subscribe to.
Here another quote from Mike that will help to explain my ID views:
My position includes a tentative inference to ID behind the original cells that were deposited on this earth. I don't rule out further instances of intelligent intervention, but I have not really looked into things such as the origin of multicellularity, body plans, etc. My position, however, allows me to think about evolution in a different light. That is, if indeed life was designed, there is no a priori reason to exclude ID as a possible mechanism behind some later aspect of evolution. The genie of out of the bottle and thus the privileged status of the blind watchmaker in evolution no longer exists. The blind watchmaker explanation must now compete against intelligent watchmaker models - that is the significance of ID behind the origin of life....
My own personal view is that life itself was designed through intelligent intervention [although I hold this view provisionally]. The question, for me, is whether design extends beyond this and in what form did it express itself?
My teleological views allow me four possibilities when interpreting evolution:
1. Key events in natural history happened because of intelligent intervention.
2. Key events in evolution were the unfolding of front-loaded states.
3. Evolutionary mechanisms were designed to facilitate and exploit [1] and [2]
4. The standard non-teleological account of evolutionary mechanisms apply, but may be responsible mostly for minor change."
The bottom line? Many have adopted Gould's line of thinking, where replaying life's tape would not produce the same world, to mean that evolution is thoroughly non-teleological or unguided in any sense. But I think there is MUCH middle ground that has simply not been thought about or explored.
[ 06. October 2002, 13:37: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 06. October 2002 13:59
I'd just like to point out that Jack's quotes are just evo-devo quotes, and that when they mention the Modern Synthesis (of [population] genetics and evolution) they are just pointing out that developmental biology wasn't really part of that synthesis, because no one knew how you got from genetics to development. Evo-devo is now adding it. It's cool stuff but it is strengthening rather than weakening evolutionary biology.
yersinia
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 06. October 2002 14:03
Jack
quote:
Here are a couple of quotes that show that there is disagreement among biologists on the micro to macro extrapolation.
And many of them seem to propose alternatives but how is rejection of micro being sufficient going to give any credibility to ID? ID which relies heavily on elimination of alternatives should not find alternative hypotheses to be helpful unless they too can be eliminated. What would an ID research program contribute that regular science does not do already?
One tries to eliminate by proposing an alternative hypothesis or complementaty hypothesis, the other one has the unenviable task of eliminating all hypotheses. Will ID propose it's own hypothesis to run alongside natural hypotheses?
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 06. October 2002 14:19
Jack, I know where the phrase “blind watchmaking” comes from. I think it’s an overused metaphor and I choose not to use it.
However, I did accurately summarize it when I wrote that it means “the position that all change can be accounted for by natural processes.”
You changed my sentence slightly and wrote “The blind watchmaking hypothesis refers to the position that everything in nature originated via non-intelligent processes.” For what it’s worth, I like my version of the statement better, but I think we are talking about the same thing.
My point is, and I think you agree with this, is that there is agreement that some biological change can take place through natural processes - so-called “micro” evolution, and this can be clearly shown and quite a bit of what is involved is understood.
On the other hand, design is primarily a position that what we do know about natural processes is insufficient to account for all change, but it is not at all clear (there is little consensus in the theory and virtually no positive evidence) as to how far such “micro” evolutionary processes can go before design is necessary
Therefore, it seems to me that the known natural processes are the default position, and that it is the responsibility of ID scientists to lead the way in showing where the micro-macro dividing line might be, and why. The ID scientists have the new idea, so they have to do the work.
============
You summarize your provisional views well. However, the question I have addressed in making my research proposal is this: how can we empirically find out what the situation really is? Do you have any comments on whether the proposal I make for gathering some data is an appropriate next step for design science, or not; and if not, do you have any ideas about what an ID research program ought to look like?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 06. October 2002 14:29
Warren>>It is Dembski’s argument/interpretation of results that ‘suggests design’. IMO, if you don’t want to consider Dembski’s argument, then you should not suggest you are ‘testing for design’. <<
I don't think that probability arguments by themselves are going to convince ID critics that anything in nature is intelligently designed. They are simply going to assert that there is some yet to be discovered naturalistic law or mechanism that can account for the phenomenon in question. They will claim that any conclusion of ID is an argument from ignorance. From the ID critics I have debated with it is clear that the vast majority of them need to see the designer in action or need to exhaust all naturalistic possibilities before they will consider ID. That's why I like to ask them up front what evidence would cause them to merely suspect that ID was behind some aspect of biotic reality. They can't answer the question. I asked Evan this question and he couldn't answer it. Yes, there have been attempts to answer the question but they all amount to demanding proofs of ID rather than something that would cause a suspicion of ID. I submit that anyone that can't right now imagine some evidence that would cause them to suspect design isn't going to be impressed by anything discovered through an ID research program.
[ 06. October 2002, 14:40: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Art
Member
Member # 179
|
posted 06. October 2002 14:39
More from the Carroll paper:
quote:
"From the perspective of developmental genetics, the global micro/macro evolutionary debate can be reduced to the question of whether the same genetic mechanisms underlying intraspecific variation are sufficient to account for the large-scale changes in evolution. Several arguments can be made in support of the explanatory sufficiency of regulatory evolution and against the necessity of dramatic large-scale “macromutations” playing a significant role in morphological evolution."
I'd agree with yersinia that the quotes Jack gives us most emphatically do not argue against the "micro=macro" POV that he wishes to refute (indeed, Carroll says here explicitly and exactly the opposite that Jack implies is being claimed). More importantly (from my own particular perspective, at least), the work in the field, as related to us in the reviews Jack points us to, take us clearly in one direction - towards a low- or zero CSI model for life and life proceses. It melds nicely with other work that tells us that functional proteins are low CSI entities, and that life processes themselves require low or no CSI.
I find it interesting that so many different fields of research are converging on this same informational perspective.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 06. October 2002 15:22
Jack writes,
quote:
From the ID critics I have debated with it is clear that the vast majority of them need to see the designer in action or need to exhaust all naturalistic possibilities before they will consider ID. That's why I like to ask them up front what evidence would cause them to merely suspect that ID was behind some aspect of biotic reality. They can't answer the question. I asked Evan this question and he couldn't answer it. Yes, there have been attempts to answer the question but they all amount to demanding proofs of ID rather than something that would cause a suspicion of ID. I submit that anyone that can't right now imagine some evidence that would cause them to suspect design isn't going to be impressed by anything discovered through an ID research program.
Uh, excuse me, Jack, but I did give you an answer, and it didn’t involve seeing the designer or exhausting all naturalistic possibilities. Furthermore, my answer was based directly on Dembski’s ID theory and explanatory filter.
And, my answer didn’t involve “demanding proof of ID,” it just involved trying to find empirical, measurable evidence for ID.
When you asked me the question, “what evidence would cause [you] to merely suspect that ID was behind some aspect of biotic reality,” it is not that I couldn’t answer that. I said we needed to go beyond merely “suspecting ID’ (which is easy - it’s been going on for centuries) and move forward to finding empirical evidence for ID. Since ID theory is based on probabilities, such a program needs to focus on measuring those things needed to calculate probabilities.
So I don’t know why you are dismissing my attempt to discuss an ID research program by just lumping me with those whom you think dismiss ID out of hand.
IP: Logged
|
|
Xenon
Member
Member # 435
|
posted 06. October 2002 16:11
"I don't think that probability arguments by themselves are going to convince ID critics that anything in nature is intelligently designed. They are simply going to assert that there is some yet to be discover naturalistic law or mechanism that can account for the phenomenon in question."
I disagree. Statistical arguments can be powerful suggestive evidence in science. Empirical data and hypotheses testing are often qualified in such manners. The problem however is deriving a probability measure that is based on a realistic model. To date, the critics of ID appear justified in claiming that such models do not exist, and that the initially reported probability values are suspect. This failure, in my opinion, is a major obstacle in the current line of Dembskian-ID thinking, and despite all the posturing, I have yet to see any improvements. Mind you, however, science (of the methodological naturalistic sort) has no incentive yet to wait for such results. I am not hearing a consensus view that biological sciences are rapidly running out of research programs because of the lack of progress in ID. Of course there are several reasons, some of which, I believe, are philosophical. After all, absent independent evidence of a designer and absent a convincing argument of the utility of teleological thinking, why should any scientist hold his breath? Science will still progress at its slow and steady rate. So, the ID critics that the proponents seem so eager to please are in my opinion the least of the movement's concerns. To be sure, any new theory will have its critics, and the ID critics, though a rather knowledgeable and tenacious bunch, have been made the unofficial spokesmen of the scientific academy by the ID movement (with its advantages and disadvantages). But yet I still perceive the near irrelvance of the specific ID arguments in academia. If I were to choose between the critics and the lack of substantive research as the cause of this absence of recognition, I must side with the latter. (EDIT: as evidence, the ID movement per se does not appear to have problems reaching the public at large.) So, convincing ID critics is too nearsighted a goal, I believe. But I agree with the second part of what you said. History seems to favor successes with naturalistic discoveries over dependency on external agencies. Probability arguments for external designers will have to fight against that trend as well in addition to its seeming anonymity in scientific circles.
"They will claim that any conclusion of ID is an argument from ignorance. From the ID critics I have debated with it is clear that the vast majority of them need to see the designer in action or need to exhaust all naturalistic possibilities before they will consider ID."
Yes, and I suppose the reason is that ID postures itself as providing evidence of designers (here I defer on speculating about the evidence of ID socio-political activities). Logically, the notion of design is meaningless without at least one designer. And once a designer is invoked, then the current strategy of maintaining that the designer is beyond scientific testing and reasoning can only further the appearance that ID is an argument from ignorance. So, just how strong is the link between qualities of design (i.e. IC and SC) to the requirement of an external agency? Apparently not strong enough. I have read tenuous arguments based on analogical reasoning with human design. And analogical reasoning with a data set of one member simply appears weak to me. Further, the logical leap from design qualities to designers is for me filled with metaphysics. For instance, ID appeals to a source of creativity that is beyond natural phenomena to generate. Yet, how does it account for human creativity? Ignoring momentarily the issue of the origin of human creativity, does ID make a positive assertion about the 'naturalness' of each human creative act? How does it go about developing evidence that human creativity requires more than natural laws and stochastic elements? Or does one simply appeal to a metaphysical stance that the Mind is separate from the Matter? In other words, does one simply assume that human creativity is a manifestation of supernatural phenomena?
But, I sense you are a defeatist, Jack. Either you are arguing that ID critics can never be convinced of such a link, or you are not willing to work harder to convince the critics. I cannot tell which is the cause and effect. But, I think I have a better clue when I read:
"That's why I like to ask them up front what evidence would cause them to merely suspect that ID was behind some aspect of biotic reality. They can't answer the question. I asked Evan this question and he couldn't answer it. Yes, there have been attempts to answer the question but they all amount to proofs of ID rather than something that would cause a suspicion of ID. I submit that anyone that is incapable of suspecting design isn't going to be impressed by anything discovered by an ID research program."
Yet more defeatist attitudes. I have read this odd request on the part of ID critics several times now, both here and elsewhere. For me, it comes off as an attempt to shift the burden of proof -- in much the same way a trial lawyer might stand before the jury and ask, "So, today I really want to make a case for you, but first you must tell me what it is you'd like to hear." To be fair, though, I believe the burden of proof of naturalistic theories vs. ID is not equal. After all, the *suspicion* of ID that you are after does not demonstrate that the two theories are necessarily mutually exclusive. A successful naturalistic theory (i.e. what science claims to be after) trumps mere suspicion anyday. If, for example, abiogenesis can indeed be shown to be feasible (and here, I suppose the IDers can weigh in on whether it is true abiogenesis, without unintended introduction of information by experimentalists), then ID becomes irrelevant for me hands down. People can still argue whether the particular abiogenesis model is the true detailed account of biogenesis on this planet, but then they are merely quibbling over historical details that would be inaccessible to us (short of a time machine). Abiogenesis in whatever form (I'd even go so far as to say in ways that produce significantly different results from the cellular-life that we are familiar with), would represent sufficient, concrete, positive evidence. ID would become a less parsimonious theory, especially because it posits an unknown agent. But, I speak too prophetically. Abiogenesis research is itself not without its own set of critics and issues.
I close by repeating the words of another critic, offered to ID hopefuls: Go do the research!
[ 06. October 2002, 16:17: Message edited by: Xenon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 06. October 2002 17:28
Evan>>When you asked me the question, “what evidence would cause [you] to merely suspect that ID was behind some aspect of biotic reality,” it is not that I couldn’t answer that. I said we needed to go beyond merely “suspecting ID’ (which is easy - it’s been going on for centuries) and move forward to finding empirical evidence for ID. Since ID theory is based on probabilities, such a program needs to focus on measuring those things needed to calculate probabilities.<<
Well, it looks to me like you didn't answer the question. So in case I missed it, how about spelling it out for me. What evidence would cause you to merely suspect something in nature was intelligently designed? I agree we need to go beyond a suspicion but any investigation begins with a suspicion. If you aren't even the least bit suspicious that there might be something to ID then why are you even attempting to outline an ID research program? Or are you suggesting that you need to see something positive come out of an ID research program before you can suspect ID?
[ 06. October 2002, 17:34: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 06. October 2002 18:03
Xenon>>I close by repeating the words of another critic, offered to ID hopefuls: Go do the research!<<
I agree. But from reading your post I'm still in the dark as to what evidence an ID research program would have to discover in order to impress you. No ID research program is going to deliver the designer for an interview. No ID research program is going to prove blind watchmaking impossible. The most an ID research program will do is produce evidence that will strengthen the ID inference among teleologists. But the non-teleologists will simply take this evidence and interprete in in a non-teleological way. What we will end up with is a teleological and non-teleological interpretation of the data which is the same situation we face right now. I don't see anything coming from an ID research program that is going to have any impact on non-teleologists.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 06. October 2002 18:19
Jack complained quote:
That's why I like to ask them up front what evidence would cause them to merely suspect that ID was behind some aspect of biotic reality. They can't answer the question.
In response to Jack's question in another thread I outlined three lines of evidence that would cause me to suspect something 'non-natural' might be happening. Jack apparently missed it in the MDT thread.
Jack also wrote quote:
If you aren't even the least bit suspicious that there might be something to ID then why are you even attempting to outline an ID research program?
AS I've remarked elsewhere, it isn't necessary to be an adherent of a position to look at it, see some interesting questions that it implies, and suggest some lines of research that might be appropriate. That's what MDT is. This thread is specifically about methodological issues and baseline data collection questions that ID needs to address in order to make any progress at all. It is of no little interest that the ID adherents who have responded have mostly argued against it.
Jack wrote further quote:
Or are you suggesting that you need to see something positive come out of an ID research program before you can suspect ID?
Actually, as a beginning, one would like to at least see an ID research program of some sort. At this stage there appears to be none. There's a lot of philosophical rhetoric, a dab of probabilistic stuff (though mostly devoted to coins, letters of the alphabet, and voting irregularities), but no empirical research program on the phenomena of biology that IDists infer are designed.
So Evan, I, and a few others are suggesting some lines that ID might look at by way of actually doing some research on its hypothesis. Evan's proposal is very fundamental - it's the kind of thing ID is going to have to do in order to do any science at all. It outlines a systematic program to really attack the issue, as opposed to merely talk about it.
ID is being pushed politically as an "alternative" to evolutionary theory in high school science curricula, yet its adherents seem to actively resist actually doing science. So yes, it would be real nice "to see something positive come out of an ID research program." It would be nice to see an ID research program, period.
RBH
[ 06. October 2002, 18:22: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Xenon
Member
Member # 435
|
posted 06. October 2002 19:12
"I agree. But from reading your post I'm still in the dark as to what evidence an ID research program would have to discover in order to impress you. No ID research program is going to deliver the designer for an interview. No ID research program is going to prove blind watchmaking impossible. The most an ID research program will do is produce evidence that will strengthen the ID inference among teleologists. But the non-teleologists will simply take this evidence and interprete in in a non-teleological way. What we will end up with is a teleological and non-teleological interpretation of the data which is the same situation we face right now. I don't see anything coming from an ID research program that is going to have any impact on non-teleologists. "
[Moderator edit]
Why must we 'convert' people to a particular metaphysical position when reinterpretation of evidence accomplishes nothing to distinguish between two supposedly competing theories? If, as you are suggesting, both teleological and non-teleological system can explain some data equally well, then, as I have said before, equality is not achieved -- one is less parsimonious. I also said that I do not believe the burden of proof is equal. But, that is of course my opinion.
Xe
[ 06. October 2002, 21:49: Message edited by: Xenon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 06. October 2002 19:34
Jack:
I agree. But from reading your post I'm still in the dark as to what evidence an ID research program would have to discover in order to impress you. No ID research program is going to deliver the designer for an interview. No ID research program is going to prove blind watchmaking impossible. The most an ID research program will do is produce evidence that will strengthen the ID inference among teleologists.
Yet so far ID inference is proposed through elimination of blind watchmaking and other hypotheses. What positive evidence do you believe ID can contribute? Is ID not elimininative in nature? What would be a evidence that would strengthen the ID inference?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 06. October 2002 20:07
RBH>>Jack complained
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I like to ask them up front what evidence would cause them to merely suspect that ID was behind some aspect of biotic reality. They can't answer the question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Jack's question in another thread I outlined three lines of evidence that would cause me to suspect something 'non-natural' might be happening. Jack apparently missed it in the MDT thread.<<
What I want to know is what evidence would cause you to suspect that something in nature was intelligently designed. You gave some scenarios wherein you would question certain Darwinian hypotheses such as common ancestry but I didn't see any examples of things in nature you would suspect were intelligently designed.
[ 06. October 2002, 20:09: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 06. October 2002 20:26
Xenon>>In fact, now you seem to be adopting another position -- that somehow there is something fundamentally wrong with non-teleological explanations, that non-teleological explanations ought not to explain data as well as teleological explanations. Sorry, I don't understand this argument, and it seems extremist, and smacks of teleological evangelism. Why must we 'convert' people to a particular metaphysical position when reinterpretation of evidence accomplishes nothing to distinguish between two supposedly competing theories? If, as you are suggesting, both teleological and non-teleological system can explain some data equally well, then, as I have said before, equality is not achieved -- one is less parsimonious. I also said that I do not believe the burden of proof is equal. But, that is of course my opinion.<<
Where did I say something was fundamentally wrong with non-teleological explanations? My position is that some data is explained best by non-teleological explanations and some data is explained better by teleological explanations. I'm open-minded on these issues. It's the non-teleologists that are not open to anything in nature being intelligently designed.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic