|
Author
|
Topic: William A. Dembski: Becoming a Disciplined Science: Prospects, Pitfalls, and ...
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 28. October 2002 12:05
Becoming a Disciplined Science: Prospects, Pitfalls, and Reality Check for ID
by William A. Dembski
William_Dembski@baylor.edu
ABSTRACT—Keynote address delivered at RAPID Conference (Research and Progress in Intelligent Design), Biola University, La Mirada, California, 25 October 2002. The aim of this conference was to examine the current state of intelligent design research.
To read the entire paper, please click here
[ 28. October 2002, 12:09: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 28. October 2002 12:59
Frances, it is becoming increasingly apparent that while you are not breaking any specific rule, you are in effect, hampering productive discussion at Brainstorms. Why do I say this? There are several patterns that I have noticed over the past several months:
1. You repeat the same criticisms over and over: worn out arguments in a polite tone.
2. Your criticisms tend to not be insightful: rather, they are blanket assertions with very little content
3. You tend to be the first person to post after a topic is started, thus determining the direction that the post takes. Often times, this results in a topic dying a quicker death than it otherwise would have.
Because of the above stated patterns, I am going to be enforcing the following rules in regard to your posting:
1. You cannot be the first person to respond to a thread.
2. I will delete any of your responses which tangential to the initial thread. Either engage the ideas or find a new home.
3. You can only make one post per day.
4. If it appears that these patterns persist, or you do not follow these requests, I will ban you from our discussion board.
It has become apparent to me that I have made a mistake in taking a moderator's shortcut: I've focused on professional courtesy (motive attacks being the red flag). Ultimately, I am concerned with the quality of discussion that is going on, and if it seems that a poster is detracting from that quality, then I am going to start stepping in.
[ 28. October 2002, 23:06: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 29. October 2002 11:59
People,
::Dan climbs up on his soapbox::
I was of the opinion that Bruce Gordon's comments quoted by Dembski hit the nail squarely on the head, despite the fact that Dembski felt there was only a grain of truth there. Intelligent Design proponents may not like it, but it is a fact that it is a requirement that intelligent design (through much difficulty and effort) reach this "certain level of maturity and acceptance in the scientific world" before the scientific community as a whole should be expected to regard it as an intellectual project worth their time and effort. It is also most certainly a requirement before the subject is taught in public schools and entire academic departments at universities are dedicated to it. In what way are the issues of “freedom and equity” at stake here? While announcing that IDists are fighting for “freedom and equity” is a great way to capture public support it does not answer the important question: Can Intelligent Design can produce results or not? The scientific community is under no obligation to cave into the demands of ID proponents because ID proponent don’t think the rules are fair?
::Dan climbs down off his soapbox::
Now that my opinions are out of the way, here are some interesting question (sorry that opinion just sort of slipped out) that I would like to see discussed.
Are ID proponents ascribing more value to ID than has been proven that it possesses?
Does evolution enjoy a monopoly based on the fact that alternative (i.e. equally valid) ideas are barred from consideration by the scientific community or are there simply speaking no other viable theories on the table?
Dembski claims to have demonstrated that natural causation is unable to generate the “specified complexity” found in biological systems and that the assembling of these systems required the aid of some “intelligent designer.” My question is: In what way does Intelligent Design offer any mechanisms to explain anything in biology that is “logically speaking” an alternative to the theory of evolution?
Another question I have is about this Polanyi Center. Exactly what sort of “design-theoretic research” was being conducted there (what specifically and by whom?)
What exactly is “design-theoretic research” and how is it done?
Dan
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 29. October 2002 13:44
Dan-
Some comments (attempting to practice my recently acquired html message board code skills):
quote:
t; Intelligent Design proponents may not like it, but it is a fact that it is a requirement that intelligent design (through much difficulty and effort) reach this "certain level of maturity and acceptance in the scientific world" before the scientific community as a whole should be expected to regard it as an intellectual project worth their time and effort.
I do not agree with your statement. I have recently been reviewing Wells' book Icons of Evolution. In the chapter regarding Miller's origin of life experiments, Wells presents the history of theories of abiogenesis that came after Darwins proposal that all life was derived from an original cell/organism. Basically, in the 1920's some folks (don't recall the names off the top of my head) theorized that cells could be generated from non-living chemicals through some chemical reactions favored on the early earth. This proposal was accepted as a reasonable hypothesis until its "verification" in the 50's from Miller's experiments. Main point: scientists can easily accept theories long before they reach any level of maturity... please refer also to "The Blind Watchmaker" I think chapter 6 where it speaks of origin of life science fiction. These theories are much more acceptable to scientists if they support maximal naturalism.
quote:
Are ID proponents ascribing more value to ID than has been proven that it possesses?
I think so, much in the same way that abiogenesis is accepted without much proven value.
quote:
Does evolution enjoy a monopoly based on the fact that alternative (i.e. equally valid) ideas are barred from consideration by the scientific community or are there simply speaking no other viable theories on the table?
Surely, because the viable other theories first must comply with the "rules" of being completely natural causes/explanations. Anything which invokes anything outside the sphere of natural causes is immediately ruled out as an explanation or viable alternative. Many arguments are made based upon this fact alone, should science remain open to non-natural causes? Most scientists don't believe in the *possibility* of non-natural causes, much less the need to invoke them for explanations (see also Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World.) As science is an open ended search for truth, and we should follow the data wherever the data leads us, we have no real scientific reason a priori to rule out ANY explanation. Philosophically, however, we may find many reasons to narrow the options of explanation open to us.
quote:
Dembski claims to have demonstrated that natural causation is unable to generate the "specified complexity" found in biological systems and that the assembling of these systems required the aid of some "intelligent designer." My question is: In what way does Intelligent Design offer any mechanisms to explain anything in biology that is "logically speaking" an alternative to the theory of evolution?
I think this is an example of the "moving the goal posts" phenomena that critics of ID commonly invoke. If we positively identify design as a requisite in the formation of biological structures, this is a huge accomplishment. Discovery of the mechanism of design implementation is quite downstream of the establishment of that fact.
quote:
What exactly is "design-theoretic research" and how is it done?
I attended the ID conference in Kansas City this summer, where Scott Minnich, Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry led a concurrent session concerning his work on the bacterial flagellum and the type III secretory system. Basically the framework of design implementation into biological systems led him to propose that the flagellum could be used as a secretory device. He even showed us a reviewer's comments of his original grant applying for funds to do the research into this hypothesis, where the reveiwer basically called him crazy. Well, turns out he was right and that his working model developed as a product of his conceptual framework of design helped point him in the right direction. (I'm not sure if this is exactly what is meant by design-theoretic research, but this is along the lines of what I understand.) Now, can research be done assuming that evolution would adapt the flagellum secretory system in a general way to meet selective pressures? Of course, both conceptual frameworks can lead to the same working model. The question ultimately is which conceptual framework carries the explanation with the best inference considering all the data?
A quick summary of some elements of Minich's talk:
http://www.idurc.org/yale-minnich.html
Josh
edited to refine my message board skills!
[ 29. October 2002, 15:37: Message edited by: Josh ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 29. October 2002 19:40
Josh,
You seem to take this this html message coding thing like a fish take to water.
The following are a few things that I thought I would comment on:
“Main point: scientists can easily accept theories long before they reach any level of maturity.”
Of course, but should they if said theory demonstrates no hope of leading to any sort of active research program?
“…much in the same way that abiogenesis is accepted without much proven value.”
Abiogenesis did in fact quickly result in an active research program (which is what I meant by value) as Stanley Miller’s experiments, as well as the extensive amount of published work by many other researchers plainly demonstrates.
“Anything which invokes anything outside the sphere of natural causes is immediately ruled out as an explanation or viable alternative.”
Of course it is, because there is no positive evidence that there is anything outside the sphere of natural causes.
“Discovery of the mechanism of design implementation is quite downstream of the establishment of that fact.”
You don’t agree that establishing a mechanism for design implementation would go a long way toward establishing the possibility of design?
“He even showed us a reviewer's comments of his original grant applying for funds to do the research into this hypothesis, where the reviewer basically called him crazy.”
Yes, but did he show you the original grant proposal? Perhaps it was ‘crazy’. I can't say much being as I never read the grant proposal. However, I can say that I am unclear as to how the stated research is relavant to design (other than the obvious claim that the flaggelum was designed)?
Was this research that was done (or in the progress of being done), or are we claiming here that the research was not done because funding was denied?
Dan
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 30. October 2002 11:47
Josh,
quote:
You seem to take this html message coding thing like a fish take to water.
Sure, I know how to "quote." Stunning.
quote:
Of course, but should they if said theory demonstrates no hope of leading to any sort of active research program?
Well, the idea of abiogenesis, if we give it to Darwin, took nearly a century to produce. Should people in the 10's reject it because there was no hope? ID is pretty new, and my feeling is that there has been no demonstration at all to indicate the utility of ID, worthwhile or not. What kind of demonstration do you want? Theoretically it maintains a sound basis for inquiry.
quote:
Abiogenesis did in fact quickly result in an active research program (which is what I meant by value) as Stanley Miller’s experiments, as well as the extensive amount of published work by many other researchers plainly demonstrates.
I don't personally see the concept of abiogenesis producing any results, no life has been formed or anything resembling it due to the field of abiogenesis. Rather the fields of physical, organic and biochemistry have advanced very rapidly during the past century and since Darwin, therefore scientists committed to the concept of evolution and abiogenesis have used gains in those fields to attempt to recreate biomolecules from what they consider original conditions. Abiogenesis as an idea is only fertile in spurring investigators from other disciplines to apply themselves and expertise from those other fields to an empty theory (empty esp. if the idea is completely wrong.)
quote:
Of course it is, because there is no positive evidence that there is anything outside the sphere of natural causes.
What kind of evidence do you want? Is specified complexity enough, or IC? And is the only evidence sufficient for anyone to make any truth claim rely solely upon empirical evidence? Please refer to "The Case For Christ" to see more about this claim that "there is no positive evidence..." The question isn't the existence of evidence, but what evidence you and science are willing to consider. If everything other than empirical evidence is ruled out, then whatever truths other types of evidence declare will remain strictly hidden from those who ignore it.
quote:
You don’t agree that establishing a mechanism for design implementation would go a long way toward establishing the possibility of design?
I don't agree with this because establishing such a thing would consist of two goals. First, establishing that a feature was designed, then two determining how it was designed. I consider it highly likely that humans can determine the first without ever describing the second in any meaningful way. How does an intelligent mind actualize his conception of kinases, phosphatases, transcription factors, etc. and then orchestrate their function together in whole organisms? I think even in the smallest examples such as flagellum, there's no utility in saying "God synthesized the DNA into the bacterial genome with the appropriate promoters, and at the same time synthesized transcription factor genes into the DNA (simply by causing the DNA polymerase that copies the genome to synthesize new stretches of the genome without any template in a few places) and also all the transport and processing machinery required for the flagellum, and wham- flagella arrived. What have we gained from such speculation, even if it were true in light of design? I think the best thing for us to understand is function and how to manipulate it, exact process of origin may be forever out of reach (even if we found a way to recreate a process that derived flagellum, does this mean it happened the same way? NO.)
quote:
However, I can say that I am unclear as to how the stated research is relevant to design (other than the obvious claim that the flagellum was designed)?
Consider my previous statements about abiogenesis. In that case I argued that the theory of abiogenesis drove investigators from other disciplines to invest themselves in the problem. Here is a similar situation. The concept of design in biological systems drove the investigator to hypothesize that since the flagellum did such a great job at secreting proteins (in order to assemble itself) then why not use the same components that are good at secreting flagellar proteins for secreting different proteins under different conditions. That's what was found.
quote:
Was this research that was done (or in the progress of being done), or are we claiming here that the research was not done because funding was denied?
This research was done and is in the progress of being further elucidated. The funding thing is not at all particular to this guys' ideas, my own boss has had reviewers deny his grant saying that it is impossible or can't be done, all the while we are almost close to finishing several of the initial stages that the reviewer says can't be done!! Science is funny like that.
Josh
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 31. October 2002 20:55
"What kind of evidence do you want? Is specified complexity enough, or IC? And is the only evidence sufficient for anyone to make any truth claim rely solely upon empirical evidence?"
Some really good questions. Is specified complexity enough? Probably not. Is the bacterial flagellum really an example of specified complexity? Well I think we can all agree it is complex, so no problems there. The proplem is the if it is specified or not. I say it sort of depends on how you define specified. To use Dembski's arrow analogy, Suppose you are walking down the street and as you pass a wall you see a target painted on the wall. Additionally there is an arrow stuck smack dab in the middle of the bull's eye. Now the archer responsible is no longer around and there are no witnesses. The question is: Was the target there before the arrow was fired or was the arrow stuck in the wall and the target painted around it. Is there really anyway to tell? no not really.
Now we have a similar situation with biology. Did some unembodied designer draft the plans for a bacterial flagellum and then set about to make one? This is the equivalent of the first case where the target was ther before the arrow. Or did the structure evolve through an evolutionary process (that is to say, that the structure developed and it because it had function natural selection kept it around.) This is the biological equivalent of the second case, where the arrow was there first and the target drawn around it. ID proponant have never provided any evidence that such systems as the bacterial flagellum are in fact specified in this sense.
As for IC, the story is similar. The idea of irreducible complexity has been demonstrated for any biological system. I have seen the IC arguement refuted in so many ways and so many times I consider it a dead issue.
So you will have to excuse me if I choose not to hop on the ID bandwagon.
What evidence would I accept? That is a tough one, I don't know really. ID appears to call for the existance of an unembodied designer. My problem is I have never encountered an unembodied entity of any sort. Evidence that unembodied entities can and do exist would be a start. Evidence that an unembodied entity with the capacity to create what we see around us today would be even better.
Dan
IP: Logged
|
|
Genie
Member
Member # 266
|
posted 31. October 2002 22:46
quote:
"What kind of evidence do you want? Is specified complexity enough, or IC? And is the only evidence sufficient for anyone to make any truth claim rely solely upon empirical evidence?"
Some really good questions. Is specified complexity enough? Probably not.
Hi Dan. I agree that these are interesting and important questions. Let me ask you this...what if you had total faith in the method and were in complete agreement with the finding that a certain organic structure was an example of specified complexity? Would it be enough evidence then? If not, why not? And what would you infer from its existence?
quote:
Is the bacterial flagellum really an example of specified complexity? Well I think we can all agree it is complex, so no problems there. The proplem is the if it is specified or not. I say it sort of depends on how you define specified. To use Dembski's arrow analogy, Suppose you are walking down the street and as you pass a wall you see a target painted on the wall. Additionally there is an arrow stuck smack dab in the middle of the bull's eye. Now the archer responsible is no longer around and there are no witnesses. The question is: Was the target there before the arrow was fired or was the arrow stuck in the wall and the target painted around it. Is there really anyway to tell? no not really.
I'm not sure that I understand this analogy. It should actually be very easy to tell. You can remove the arrow and examine the tip, and under the tip, for paint traces (for starters).
quote:
What evidence would I accept? That is a tough one, I don't know really. ID appears to call for the existance of an unembodied designer. My problem is I have never encountered an unembodied entity of any sort.
I'm sure that you'll agree that being encountered by you is not a prerequisite for existence, but kidding aside, what about unembodied forces? A lot of IDists, including myself, consider teleology to be the volitional force behind design and they also consider it to be a natural force. Btw, that was emphasized in another talk at RAPID (that design is natural). There is no reason why a design force can't be explored and eventually understood like other natural forces (at least in the limited way we humans are able to understand things). The trick is figuring out how to do that. They've been flailing around with gravity for quite a while...
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 01. November 2002 11:08
Dan-
I don't have anything significant to add/respond to the most of your comments (Gina's points are very insightful). Although I would also add that the verdict is still out about IC, what you find are debates where lines of reasoning are presented that claim one thing or another. The issue is surely not resolved, certainly there has been no formal proof whatsoever in either direction (whatever that will ultimately look like.)
quote:
What evidence would I accept? That is a tough one, I don't know really. ID appears to call for the existence of an unembodied designer. My problem is I have never encountered an unembodied entity of any sort. Evidence that unembodied entities can and do exist would be a start. Evidence that an unembodied entity with the capacity to create what we see around us today would be even better.
This particular line of discussion provokes some thoughts. First, I find one considerable utility of ID to be the capacity to open such lines of thinking up to those exposed. Consider the following situation: God exists, created everything, and yet the process of evolution (or something like it) was implemented to bring about his creation (no, I'm not offering this as a general solution to the controversy). In this scenario, all of sciences' descriptions of biology are completely adequate and correct, however their refusal to consider a designer God is quite unwarranted. Only by asking the questions you are asking will they ever consider/ reveal the truth about it, because the natural limits of scientific inquiry, it can only describe the process/timeline of creation, not its purpose or ultimate origin (unless you consider the purpose of the existence is to exist). The current philosophical atmosphere of science precludes your questions from even being intellectual. With the -possibility- of IC or specified complexity on the table, these questions become of value. If we answer your questions and determine that there can be no embodied designer for other reasons, then we can forget about ID, for all its appeal, it would simply be misguided and time will show us why. If the converse is true, we should follow up on investigating the first claim about embodied designers, many atheists/agnostics aren't really up for that. Theoretically, what kind of evidence is possible for humans to perceive regarding an unembodied agent? Would this unembodied agent have to interact directly with the time space continuum you are a part of? Would he have to suspend natural laws? Would a purely mental experience suffice? I think articulating what evidence is acceptable/convincing is just as important as analyzing evidence that people claim displays the truth about unembodied agents capable of creating the world. Clearly in our intellectual climate, empirical arguments are given the most weight. Perhaps this is legitimate, but if the truth out there IS that an unembodied agent exists, and if this truth is important to us or the embodied agent in any way, other forms of argumentation/ evidence must be given better stature for us to discern this fact. I think it best to find some balance between the weights we give various types of evidence available to us, evaluate the contents of these evidences and weights, and then come up with a worldview. I think it too common amongst scientists and in our academic climate to find empirical evidence as solely truth telling, and in my view giving an imbalanced view of reality/ worldview.
Josh
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 01. November 2002 11:50
Dan>>Evidence that unembodied entities can and do exist would be a start. Evidence that an unembodied entity with the capacity to create what we see around us today would be even better.<<
Hi Dan,
If we could interview the designers or see them making complex biological things, we would effectively have proof of ID. If we had proof of ID we wouldn't need to infer ID. So my question to you is: what evidence would cause you to merely suspect that some aspect of biotic reality involved ID? Since ID is an inference, an ID investigation revolves around finding evidence that will either strengthen or weakenen the ID inference. All investigations start out with suspicions or hunches that are followed up with a quest to find evidence {often in the form of subtle clues} that will either either strengthen or weakenen the initial suspicions, hunches, inferences etc.
The "show me the designer" demand requires a level of certainty that would short-circuit any investigative approach that must begin with a suspicion based upon subtle evidence. The ID critic reminds me of a prosecutor that's incapable of suspecting anyone of a crime until there is enough evidence against them to convict them in court. A prosecutor like that wouldn't keep their job very long.
[ 01. November 2002, 11:59: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Grape Ape
Member
Member # 399
|
posted 01. November 2002 18:04
Ignoring the conversation that's been struck up, I thought I'd try to give some useful criticisms of Dr. Dembski's talk.
The title of Dembski's talk is, "Becoming a Disciplined Science: Prospects, Pitfalls, and Reality Check for ID." I was very optimistic when I read the title, as it seemed to me that some of the problems that ID has had in regards to its overemphasis on political campaigning would be put to rest. The opening paragraphs held out promise too, especially the anonymous quote provided and Dembksi's concern that IDists are "thinking that we have accomplished more than we actually have". Unfortunately, that's where the optimism ends.
Very quickly rather than trying to draw the scientific arm of ID away from the political arm, Dembski provides an apology for the political arm and suggests that they should proceed as normal. Where then is the reality check? What we have is simply a rehashing of the very behavior that makes critics doubt the efficacy and objectivity of any supposed ID research. To wit, Dembski states:
quote:
Two animating principles drive intelligent design. The more popular by far takes intelligent design as a tool for liberation from ideologies that suffocate the human spirit, such as reductionism and materialism.
...
Then, because it is true and known to be true, it can become an instrument for liberation from suffocating ideologies -- ideologies that suffocate not because they tell us the grim truth about ourselves but because they are at once grim and false.
Dembski offers his subjective opinion here (and supposedly the opinion of much of his audience) as if it were objective fact, and then proceeds simply to weave it into his thoughts about the scientific prospects of ID. In all likelihood Dembski does think it's objective fact, but most scientists would be shocked -- and indeed, insulted -- to be told that they were responsible for "suffocating the human spirit" simply because they think one theory is more consistent with the available evidence than another.
Dr. Dembski goes on to explain that the infusion of ID science with its political movement, rather than its separation, is the proper course of action. Here he states:
quote:
Any rule-setting about what intelligent design must accomplish in the scientific sphere before it may legitimately influence the political sphere is arbitrary and betrays a naiveté about the actual workings of science. In fact, any such rule-setting is sure to undermine intelligent design's progress as a scientific and intellectual movement. For a scientific research program to prosper, it must employ talented workers and ensure that their efforts to further the program get rewarded. This requires societal and political structures to be in place that can attract talented workers and offer them incentives for a fruitful career.
But if Dembksi really wishes to give sound advice on how to turn ID into a disciplined science, he should be giving the exact opposite advice. Becoming too emotionally involved in the outcome of one's work is, for the scientist, a recipe for disaster. Deciding ahead of time that the cultural and political (i.e., "liberating" ideological) aspects of the movement should succeed is placing a pressure on ID science than goes far beyond trying to obtain useful facts and explanations about the natural world. Few things are more likely to lead a scientist to falsify data, ignore contrary results, make inappropriate interpretations, or stubbornly refuse to accept the most likely explanations, than becoming too emotionally involved in one's work. That's not to say that such things are inevitable if ID's scientific arm does not disassociate itself from the ideological arm. But for a disciplined science, such an association is something to be avoided.
Scientists are only human of course. But there should always be a concerted effort to remove any potential bias by trying to make sure that one is comfortable regardless of the outcome. Thus the scientist should be dispassionate about the outcome of her work. A passionate defense of such work is of course warranted after one has been convinced that the evidence does indeed support one's conclusions.
But being very uncomfortable with any particular result ahead of time is far more likely to make one skew one's results -- consciously or unconsciously -- towards the preferred outcome. This becomes all the more problematic when one outcome has been pegged as "suffocating the human spirit", "grim", the cause of "suffocating ideologies", or has been given other such highly charged emotional scorn. Thus, if one wishes to practice disciplined science, taking the political passions out of one's work is primary. If for no other reason, it's unlikely that anyone will take ID science seriously unless its practitioners can demonstrate that they are at least trying to be being truly objective (keeping in mind of course that true objectivity is probably unattainable) rather than simply being advocates for a prefabricated outcome. And if ID science cannot move away from its ideological imperatives, trying to label critics as narrow-minded -- a dubious rejoinder to begin with -- will be rightly perceived as hypocritical.
Dembski’s chief line of reasoning for keeping the cultural movement nearby goes as follows: "In fact, any such rule-setting is sure to undermine intelligent design's progress as a scientific and intellectual movement." I disagree. If anything’s going to undermine ID’s scientific progress, it will be because it’s wrong. Telling the cultural IDists to give it a rest does not have the potential to undermine ID intellectually – at worst, it could simply slow it down. But at best, it could keep ID on a true academic track rather than a mere exercise in ideological polemics. To assume otherwise is to assume that ID must be true without doing the leg-work to establish its scientific validity, which is the next issue that I will address.
(And one quick aside: Given that Dembksi and other IDists have consistently stated that ID’s job is simply to "detect design", without any reference to the designer, its goals, or its methods, etc., it’s impossible to see how it could be used to support any ideology, liberating or otherwise. If life on Earth were the result of a prank by mischievous space gremlins, would this really liberate the human spirit?)
Moving right along, Dr. Dembksi’s attitude towards the ID cultural movement betrays an unfortunate assumption that ID is scientifically correct, and that the results of future research, if and when undertaken, will automatically support ID. If this is really the case, there’s no need to do any research at all. And if one does embark on such research, it’s not at all clear that this research can be conducted in an objective fashion. Consider these words:
quote:
. Unless intelligent design is an intrinsic good -- unless it can be developed as a scientific research program and provide sound insights into the natural world -- then its use as an instrumental good for defeating ideologies that suffocate the human spirit becomes insupportable. Intelligent design must not become a "noble lie" for vanquishing views we find unacceptable (history is full of noble lies that ended in disgrace). Rather, intelligent design needs to convince us of its truth on its scientific merits.
So far so good. I agree completely with what Dembski has written above, except the bit about ID’s utility for defeating horrible ideologies. (IMO, no scientific theory can do that, much less one that intentionally avoids any relevant issues.) But now having been given a good caveat about a potential "pitfall" for scientific ID, to borrow a word from Dembski’s title, we see the complete disregard for this caveat with the following statement:
quote:
Although ID as a scientific program stands logically prior to ID as cultural movement, this logical priority does not imply temporal priority. To think that the scientific program must first succeed (and according to whose criteria of success?) before the cultural movement can legitimately be undertaken is not only naive but to give up on both.
Huh? The scientific program does not need to temporally precede the cultural movement? What if it turns out that the scientific program comes up empty? If that ends up being the case, which surely an open-minded person will have to admit is a possibility, then the cultural movement really is nothing more than a "noble lie" as Dembksi warned us about earlier. Only by establishing the "truth" (for lack of a better word) of ID via scientific study can we have any idea if the cultural movement is espousing anything other than wishful thinking. By allowing the cultural movement to temporally precede the scientific program, Dembski is effectively saying that ID does not so much as even have the prospect of being false, or untestable, or superfluous. This is hardly sound advice for how to create a scientific program, much less a disciplined scientific program.
As for the goings on at the Polanyi center at Baylor, which is Dembksi’s supporting argument for his above conclusion, I’m not going to try to tell anyone what went on, or who was right or wrong. Dembski was there and I wasn’t. I’ve heard varying accounts from all sides, each side giving its own spin to the facts to make it look like it was they who were in the right. For the sake of discussion, I’ll proceed with the premise that the center’s closing was unfair. But even this being the case, I think Dembski demonstrates some naivetè of his own by thinking that cultural ID, being more successful in its mission, would have prevented the center’s shut-down. Quite the contrary, what I don’t think he’s realizing is that the political campaigning of the cultural ID movement is precisely what got the center into hot water in the first place. It's quite understandable that scientists at Baylor whould be worried about their reputations if the school faces the prospect of being a focal point for ideological advocacy. (Subsequent activity at the Discovery Institute has shown that their worry was not misplaced.) Bruce Gorden makes this point perfectly, but unfortunately it’s dismissed without good cause. Had there been no such cultural movement – or at least had it been more muted – it’s unlikely that the center would have met with such stiff opposition. Had the cultural movement simply been louder and more involved, as Dembski seems to suggest is the solution, the prospects for the center would have (rightly, in my opinion) been far worse.
Perhaps later I will give my thoughts about the rest of the article, which I think suffers from starting with these early trends. But I’ll leave it at this for now. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Argon
Member
Member # 276
|
posted 01. November 2002 18:54
I am not sure I really understand the problem with "materialism" and "reductionism" nor do I see how ID could be a counter.
Science is materialism and reductionism. That is how it works. There is certainly metaphysical/spiritual baggage attached to these terms, but stripped of those extra burdens, that is really how science operates. "Intelligence" or "organizational ability" are not exempted from scientific study or from materialistic or reductionistic approaches. If "unembodied", "extra-physical" entities can be demonstrated to affect physical systems then I'm pretty sure that scientists will work fairly hard to understand the mechanisms and patterns of such interactions. Similarly, if designers turn out to have a more conventional physical embodiment, then scientists will also pursue the same questions of "how", "what", "where" and "when" using exactly the same tools they currently employ.
Behe writes that living cells are governed by biochemical mechanisms (in DBB). What could be more reductionistic and materialistic than that [from a scientific perspective]? Denton too is materialistic in his views that life arose via a preset, prebiased arrangement of physical constants and that life is a physico-chemical process. Neither of these biochemists have demonstrated any intention to abandon reductionistic approaches in their scientific research.
From my perspective, only by mixing ID, a scientific pursuit, with religious preconceptions (e.g. "Is the designer 'good'?" "How does the designer want us to live with our in-laws?" "Is the designer just fattening us up for dinner?" "Was the designer with Moses or Buddha?"), does one generate any conflict with the reductionism or materialism. Even then, the conflict is not with scientific methodology per se, but with orthagonal, metaphysical issues like "the purpose of life" and ethics.
Religion & ID: It is probably best to keep those separate. Mixed, they can only cloud the issue for now.
[ 01. November 2002, 18:55: Message edited by: Argon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 01. November 2002 20:53
Hello, new to the forum and was wondering if this is the appropriate place for this question.
I just finished reading Dembski's article on Becoming a Disciplined Science which got me to wondering:
Is anyone aware of any research using Intelligent Design for Artificial Intelligence?
Human intelligence detects design intuitively. How can that be encoded into a computer? Would such a computer program on Viking have determined if the "Face on Mars" was a natural formation, or intelligently designed without the expensive cost of a follow-up mission? Would NASA be interested in funding Intelligent Design Detection research for inclusion in its automated exploration program?
For cyber-security it is difficult for intrusion detection systems to differentiate from random (or naturally occuring), data errors & drops from a sophisticated "designed" attack against a computer network. Today, scarce resources are spent chasing "red flags" caused by routine data errors. The ability to detect an intelligently designed attack that is being disguised in the background noise would be worth a lot in the cyber-security world. Is this area being researched?
Thanks,
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 02. November 2002 22:00
Gina
I think the answer to your first question would be yes, provided I understand you correctly. If one could establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that the concept of a design predated the actualization of the design that would be a sufficient level of proof to suspect design, quite possibly even enough to prove it. An example of this would be an automobile. We can produce blueprints, computer simulations, scaled models, etc. that show that some designer had an idea for the design that existed for some time before the car was ever constructed. I would conclude from seeing the blueprints and other material that the car was designed even in the event that no designer was found.
As far as the arrow analogy goes, what you said should be true. We would expect that there would be physical evidence available to indicate the truth of the matter, sometimes this evidence is not readily available. The situation I biology is like this, we have an arrow in the bull’s eye and as far as we can tell there is no paint under the tip.
quote:
I'm sure that you'll agree that being encountered by you is not a prerequisite for existence, but kidding aside, what about unembodied forces? A lot of IDists, including myself, consider teleology to be the volitional force behind design and they also consider it to be a natural force. Btw, that was emphasized in another talk at RAPID (that design is natural). There is no reason why a design force can't be explored and eventually understood like other natural forces (at least in the limited way we humans are able to understand things). The trick is figuring out how to do that. They've been flailing around with gravity for quite a while...
I could argue that being encountered by me is the ultimate prerequisite for existence with respect to my own reality, However, I won’t. I think it is safe to assume that If some phenomenon is real, then it exists whether or not I witness it.
There is of course on important reason why a design force can’t be explored by scientific means. That reason is that there is no empirical evidence that such a design force exists. From a metaphysical standpoint one can explore teleology all one wants.
As sort of an aside, an additional problem with ID is the fact that this design force is assumed to be intelligent and thus highly complex in its own right. Does ID not stipulate that complexity of that sort implies a designer? So really complexity isn’t explained it is merely assumed to have always existed.
Has anyone ever considered the possibility of a non-intelligent design force? The fact that life exists today essentially forms the driving force for life to have formed in the past. While it seems bizarre I think if you examine current physics theories you will find that reality may in fact be that weird.
Jack
quote:
So my question to you is: what evidence would cause you to merely suspect that some aspect of biotic reality involved ID?
If I wanted to have evidence that an object, such as a car, may have been designed, I would need to know something about how one would go about making such an object. For the car example, I would have to hypothesize about how one might produce a car and ultimately I would have to go into the lab and see if I could produce a car (or parts of a car at least) in order to demonstrate what features were clearly left over from the design process. Then this data would be compared to the original car, if the vehicle in question had these same features (such as weld marks and other marks that builders leave behind.) Then I could reasonably suspect the car was designed. Not being a biologist, I can’t say how (or even if) this sort of experimental process would translate to a biological system.
[ 02. November 2002, 22:05: Message edited by: Daniel Edington ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 02. November 2002 22:53
Dan,
As opposed to a set of blueprints sitting on some designer's table, would you accept allocated requirements? In essence that's what blueprints, computer simulations, scaled models, etc. are.
As a process, design follows requirements definition. Simulations and models (prototypes)are produced to further refine requirements. As requirements are further specified, prototypes are further refined. How does one differentiate a series of prototypes from evolutionary transitions? Is it that prototypes are non-functional?
Design by evolution is not based upon pre-defined requirements. Should we assume that Intelligent Design is?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic