|
Author
|
Topic: A Gödelian Argument Against Darwinism
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 07. April 2003 00:27
My previous post pointed out in what way the analogy between the two is poor at best.
Additionally, most of us are probably more familiar with the Explanitory Filter than with the Incompleteness Theorem. I've had the opportunity to run through the proof of the latter about half a dozen different ways (more as a running joke during a set theory class than anything else), but in general, it is unhelpful to understand a modestly-understood thing with an analogy to a poorly-understood thing.
I suspect that this is the case here.
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 07. April 2003 00:38
Alonso,
Dembski said
quote:
Gödel's demonstration of the failure of Hilbert's program was strictly deductive. Intelligent design's demonstration of the failure of Darwin's program is a combination of empirical and theoretical arguments.
So we are not dealing in the same sort of issue of recursive nature, as was the case in Gödel's demonstration. And as stated by Dembski, we are not dealing in a deductive only demonstration -- Dembski said this himself and you left it out of the fragment you posted.
Also Dembksi refers to “Logical Underpinnings…” in the opening post. Is the entirety of “Logical Underpinnings …” open for discussion? (Virtually all of “Logical Underpinnings…” is devoted to aspects found in one or another paragraph in Dembski’s opening post in attempting the analogy.)
Dembski said quote:
Likewise Darwin's program for mechanizing biological evolution fails because it can be demonstrated that the Darwinian mechanism lacks the capacity to connect biological organisms exhibiting certain types of complex biological structures (for example, irreducibly complex or complex specified structures) to evolutionary precursors lacking those structures.
Is all of irreducible complexity now open for discussion, as long as it can be related to whether it shows that “the Darwinian mechanism lacks” capacity? (Thus all of IC and everything said in “Logical Underpinnings…” relating to IC.)
If the focus is to be the analogy itself, then one has invented a very effective debating structure for ID. One can’t argue the other side except by getting off topic of the analogy into the facts of the issues being considered as analogs -- therefore one can’t argue an other side! Besides I think that others have already demolished that analogy before the thread even got kicked off. If that narrow focus is the topic, I’d be happy to simply refer to posts above and quit now.
[ 07. April 2003, 00:43: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 07. April 2003 02:35
Nelson: As with Godel's theorem, Dembski's work shows that with complex systems, slight modifications halt function, and therefore are a problem for Darwinian evolution.
But it doesn't show this. Even the reference to the work by Douglas Axe does not show what Dembski claims it does. Furthermore unlike Godel's argument there is no mathematically sound equivalent for intelligent design/Darwinism. While IC claims that Darwinian pathways have been ruled out reality shows that IC fails to live up to its claims.
I have shown how Dembski's claims about what the work of Axe shows seems to be at odds with what Axe actually does show.
Your attempt to claim equivalence between Hilbert's program and Darwinian evolution seems to be fallacious. While Dembski may claim that the logic underlying his claims is 'sound' it seems that reality shows that the claims of ID are far from solid.
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 07. April 2003 18:23
Rex wrote:
quote:
My previous post pointed out in what way the analogy between the two is poor at best.
Your previous post pointed out nothing of the sort. In fact, your previous post simply agreed with mine. For example you write:
quote:
Also, Hilbert's goal was, in essence, to create the Ultimate Mathematica, where you would plug in any question, apply rules, and get an answer (at least in theory). His goal was provably false. However, Mathematica, mechanically applying logical rules of inference to manageable sets of axioms, is amazingly good at large branches of mathematics (including proving theorems in first-order logic).
In my post I showed that with simple systems, Hilbert was correct, you can reduce mathematics to simple rules. But with complex systems you cannot, Godel's theorem kicks in, it says "no you can't". Notice the striking similarity. Darwin said he can reduce all of biology to simple rules, selection and variation. But when it comes to complex systems, ID says "no you can't", which is why with IC systems you get unselectable steps.
Note, poorly-understood things are in the eye of the beholder. What you poorly understand or understand well is irrelevant.
[ 07. April 2003, 18:32: Message edited by: Nelson_Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 07. April 2003 18:31
Ged,
I was not pointing to the deductive argument by Godel, or whether the ID argument is empirical in nature. I quite clearly compared Hilbert's realism VS Godel's idealism with respect to mathematics with IC and Darwinian evolution, which is why I didn't think it was relevant.
As for Dembski's Logical Underpinnings, yes I think it's open for discussion. By the way, when Francis brought up the Axe situation, you didn't say a word of complaint. When I come along, writing a very relevant post with respect to the OP, you start complaining about focus. Whats the deal? From now on, if you have a problem with the logistics of my post, e-mail me privately, I find dealing with your quasi-moderator complaints boring and will ignore them in the future. If you e-mail me your complaints I'll consider it if I have the time.
If the true moderator has a problem with one of my posts, then I will comply. But your double standards will be ignored in the future.
[ 07. April 2003, 19:02: Message edited by: Nelson_Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 07. April 2003 21:03
Almost everything implies simple arithmetic, so I'm not sure what Nelson's previous post was supposed to indicate.
In any case, my primary point is that Hilbert's program involved abstract mathematical theorems, whereas evolutionary theory deals with evidence and reality. The former makes single, undisputably true counterexamples much easier. This difference has such profound implications for the nature of the discussion that the analogy is poor at best. (One could make similarly poor analogies with Lamarck and Aristotle and Newton and so on.)
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 07. April 2003 21:47
Alonso said:
quote:
I was not pointing to the deductive argument by Godel, or whether the ID argument is empirical in nature. I quite clearly compared Hilbert's realism VS Godel's idealism with respect to mathematics with IC and Darwinian evolution, which is why I didn't think it was relevant.
As for Dembski's Logical Underpinnings, yes I think it's open for discussion. By the way, when Francis brought up the Axe situation, you didn't say a word of complaint. When I come along, writing a very relevant post with respect to the OP, you start complaining about focus. Whats the deal? From now on, if you have a problem with the logistics of my post, e-mail me privately, I find dealing with your quasi-moderator complaints boring and will ignore them in the future. If you e-mail me your complaints I'll consider it if I have the time.
Actually my original questions were of Dr. Dembski (who never seems to respond to anyone’s questions). Also my comments were intended for page 1. I was trying to stay within ISCID rules for posting -- but took certain liberties since Dr. Dembski’s post itself was negative in content for the most part. But my main intent was always to back up my point that there was such a wide range of possible subjects covered, as part of asking for the sub-parts that were the intended focus. (I felt that supporting arguments were needed to back up my point, and as such bent the rules a little in a negative comment on a tangential issue so as to demonstrate the correctness of my point about how the focus could be interpreted widely. I don’t feel I was arguing with Dembski’s opening paragraph per se.)
Then Alonso you seemed to be offering to give a “focus”, and that is why my issues were asking questions and making points relating to your own version. I didn’t see any limiting of focus, just a repeat of the wider coverage for the most part, and that was my point.
As to Frances bringing up “Axe”, I don’t see that being any more off-topic than any other post. In fact I think every post on every subject has been “on-topic”. That’s precisely my point. I’m not trying to limit subject matter myself, I’m trying to find out what limitations Dr. Dembski had intended.
But if everyone is happy with an almost open forum, we can turn this thread into yet another debate on the issues of Behe’s IC. That’s fine with me -- it’s just like advertising in the 3rd or 4th copy of the yellow pages that everybody gets now. I can live with that.
[ 07. April 2003, 21:57: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 09. April 2003 00:58
Now that we are on page two, and I understand that “Logical Underpinnings document is fair territory, I have an observation about Gödelian arguments against ID:
The concepts of IC (and related concept of “explanatory filter”) require “sweeping the field clean” all alternate explanations of the supposedly “IC” structure.
What Gödelian arguments show is precisely how difficult that is. You can’t easily produce a simple logical argument that all alternative examples of complexity that might generate the supposedly “IC” structure have been eliminated. (By that I mean all alternative examples that have reasonable expectation of having happened, for example by proceeding with “selected” steps or other physically realizable mechanisms that are or will be observed as regularly occurring in nature.)
This argument is actually truer to the Gödelian concept -- precisely because it is an argument of the logic of “sweeping the field clean”. Gödel’s argument was about the incompleteness of such logical arguments in a certain situation. The argument against “Darwinism” was simply an analogy. But this argument is actually applicable to the logical argument presented by ID promoters about the field having been swept clean. How can they guarantee that they have accounted for all types of complexity that could generate the supposedly “IC” structure? I would think there would be a Gödelian argument that no such demonstration can be constructed. Remember that to obey the precepts of Dembski’s “explanatory filter” one has to demonstrate that the argument has not left out an alternate explanation at a degree of certainty of one part in 10^150.
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 09. April 2003 18:41
Rex writes:
quote:
Almost everything implies simple arithmetic, so I'm not sure what Nelson's previous post was supposed to indicate.
Here is what my post was supposed to indicate.
Godel VS Hilbert ==> Complexity is the issue. Godel won.
ID VS neo-Darwinism ==> Complexity is the issue, ID will win.
The systems I am referring to, of course, are axiomatic systems (or formal systems) which are made up of symbols like + and -, and no not all of them are simple. Which is why Godel's theorem kicks in. An axiomatic systsem like 0 + 1 = 1 is a very simple system, this can be formalized. There will always be mathematical statements that cannot be reduced to simple axioms.
Godel's theorems prove that within a certain mathematical system one could not construct a formal proof of certain facts about that mathematical system. Hilbert wanted to reduce all of mathematics into to simple rules, and Godel showed that this was impossible, since no matter what calculus we develop, if it is sufficiently complex ,
we won't be able to reduce all the complexity to simple rules.
ID is doing the same thing to Darwinian evolution. Note the exactness of this analogy: Darwin was correct when it came to simple things, like changing finch beak dimensions and bacterial antibiotics. He can reduce this phenomenon to the smiple rule of variation and selection. IC and specified complexity are showing that it doesn't work with when the system is sufficienty complex.
Distinguishing mathematics from the empirical nature of biological theories, is irrelevant. Which is why it is an analogy. Of course with mathematics you get to say that something is "impossible" because in mathematics certainty is easier. However, in the empirical world of Biology where there are a lot of unknowns, we cannot rule out the possibility of baby steps connecting one biological entity to another with certainty, however, we can show that it is unlikely. And that is why Dembski mentions specified complexity and irreducible complexity.
[ 09. April 2003, 19:25: Message edited by: Nelson_Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 09. April 2003 19:05
Ged,
I don't know what your first paragraph was responding to. It had nothing to do with my post, whether Dr. Dembski answers your questions or not. Also, I don't really see Dr. Dembksi's OP as negative. He made a very positive statement about what IC is doing to Darwinian evolution, when he compared it to Godel VS Hilbert.
As far as my post, it was very narrowly focused, in that I followed suit with Dembski, and was able to knock out various assertions made in the thread to boot about IC. I would understand your point if in the cytosine deamination thread, I started talking about the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum and how it is such a problem with the Darwinian mechanism. That is very unfocused. However, here, Dembski made very specific statements concerning Hilbert and Godel and it's relation to irreducible complexity and specified complexity, two very big notions in current ID theory, don't be surprised if it comes up often.
You seem to suggest that all of the posts in this thread suffer the same problem of an "un-focused" topic as mine did, but for some odd reason, you only replied to mine, I find that extremely odd. Frances's post had nothing to do with Godel or Hilbert, but was an erroneous assertion about a complex biochemical system not being susceptible to slight modification.
Here is how he would have made it relevant to the OP:
"Dembski, your use of the Axe example is erroneous when it comes to Godel VS. Hilbert, because a slight modification does not destroy function, therefore, when it comes to the Axe example, Hilbert's 'reduction to baby steps' succeeds"
You could have replied telling Frances to focus in this way. But you didn't.
Unfortunately, although this would have made it relevant, it would have been false, the Axe example illustrates nicely how complex systems cannot be slightly modified and still retain function, and Frances's own quote demonstrated that.
This is my final comments on this issue.
With respect to your post on "Logical Underpinnings" you make this fatal error:
quote:
require “sweeping the field clean” all alternate explanations of the supposedly “IC” structure.
and
quote:
By that I mean all alternative examples that have reasonable expectation of having happened, for example by proceeding with “selected” steps or other physically realizable mechanisms that are or will be observed as regularly occurring in nature.
Notice that the bolded section is the ultimate in argument from ignorance. As it has been shown in this thread and many others, it is quite easy, with complex systems, to show unselectable steps in a Darwinian pathway. For example, from the C ring to the rod there are many unselectable steps that have no selectable function for natural selection to work with. The analogy with Godel is consistent with this conclusion. Although some of Biological systems can be explained by simple logic, as the complexity of the system rises, it becomes less a likely that Darwinian evolution can explain it.
As for the point about having to sweep the field clean of all alternatives, first of all, theories are not about certainty. They are about research and finding data consistent with the working hypothesis. Thus, this is not a show-stopper even if someday new data will turn up that will suggest a pathway which ID biologists will have to consider and see if it is a likely pathway.
Secondly, the mere possibility of imaginary future pathways is irrelevant. You keep taking Dembski's "sweep the field clean" comment out of context. Here is Dembski's discussion on that:
quote:
Science must form its conclusions on the basis of available evidence, not on the possibility or promise of future evidence. This means that eliminative inductions need to be local inductions, based on detailed testable models and hypotheses that are currently available.
Invisible, untestable, imaginary models are garbage in science.
[ 09. April 2003, 19:23: Message edited by: Nelson_Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 09. April 2003 20:56
Francis,
You wrote:
quote:
But it doesn't show this. Even the reference to the work by Douglas Axe does not show what Dembski claims it does. Furthermore unlike Godel's argument there is no mathematically sound equivalent for intelligent design/Darwinism. While IC claims that Darwinian pathways have been ruled out reality shows that IC fails to live up to its claims.
Francis, here is what the paper states:
quote:
First, highly conservative replacements of exterior residues, none of which would cause significant functional disruption alone, are combined until roughly one in five have been changed. This is found to cause complete loss of function in vivo for two unrelated monomeric enzymes: barnase (a bacterial RNase) and TEM-1 b-lactamase.
and
quote:
The more complex function of enzymatic
catalysis is shown here to entail severe
sequence constraints, even apart from consideration of the active site. Because fewer amino acid residues means fewer possibilities for satisfying these constraints, it may prove very difficult to build native-like enzymes
This supports Dembski's claim. Secondly, Dembski's mathematical treatise is for some odd reason ignored in your post.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 10. April 2003 01:40
Nelson
Once again I witness you misrepresenting my claims:
quote:
Unfortunately, although this would have made it relevant, it would have been false, the Axe example illustrates nicely how complex systems cannot be slightly modified and still retain function, and Frances's own quote demonstrated that.
My quote shows nothing of the kind, in fact it shows that it requires large (20% of the residues) changes. If Nelson would have familiarized himself with the actual work he would have realized this.
Then Nelson observes
quote:
Secondly, Dembski's mathematical treatise is for some odd reason ignored in your post.
What would Nelson believe this 'odd reason' to be? And what mathematical treatise is Nelson refering to?
I find it thorougly frustrating to have to correct Nelson's 'arguments'.
But I find one remark of Nelson's quite interesting
quote:
Invisible, untestable, imaginary models are garbage in science.
I guess this would eliminate ID from science but what Nelson forgets in his 'claims' is that ID does not make claims of scientific pathways but rather it is an eliminative argument. Thus ID has to deal with the argument from ignorance.
In fact, I would argue that in its most basic form, ID IS an argument from ignorance.
It might be helpful for Nelson to appreciate the differences between science and eliminative arguments.
As I showed Dembski made two claims based on the Axe paper, neither one seems to be supported
Namely
quote:
But there is now mounting evidence of biological systems for which any slight modification does not merely destroy the existing function but also destroys the possibility of any function of the system whatsoever (see Axe 2000).
Slight modifications involved 20% of the residues, hardly slight. Additionally the paper does not even address the possibility of any function of the system.
It's that simple and I hope that Dembski can benefit from our discussion to correct these obvious mistakes before they get published. In the mean time I will be more than happy to discuss the Axe paper in more detail with Nelson to see if Nelson can support his claims in their correct context. In the mean time I would like to ask Nelson to refrain from misrepresenting my position.
Finally Nelson claims
quote:
As it has been shown in this thread and many others, it is quite easy, with complex systems, to show unselectable steps in a Darwinian pathway
Which seems to be the ultimate argument from ignorance. Nelson's arguments are once again 'begging the question'. And when talking about ID inference he confuses it with 'theories', ID is not a theory but an eliminative approach, it does not propose anything positive. In fact Dembski even seems to reject that ID is mechanistic.
If ID could at least provide a scientific theory. But so far their approach of arguments from ignorance (eliminative filters) do not help in any form or manner to advance ID's 'progress' into becoming scientifically interesting.
Only through switching between ID as an eliminative filter and claims of scientific theory can Nelson reject the inevitable reality that unless elimination can be shown to be total, ID has no clothes.
At most ID should be able to claim 'we don't know' but instead they seem to have make claims that logic and reality cannot support.
[ 10. April 2003, 01:49: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 10. April 2003 09:10
Frances,
The next time I see you write the following or something like it you will be banned for a week. This is not because you are wrong, but because you repeat it over, and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and it gets quite tedious to read. Either think of something novel to say, engaging the thread at hand rather than finding a soapbox for your pre-canned statements, or just let your other ten thousand assertions stand. But please don't make another.
quote:
ID does not make claims of scientific pathways but rather it is an eliminative argument.
[ 10. April 2003, 09:12: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 10. April 2003 14:23
Francis,
I am very familiar with the paper. I regard one in five as very slight modification. Heck, if you are not the technical type, the words at the title of the paper should have tipped you off Extreme Functional Sensitivity. Secondly the paper does point to the possibility of further function when it states:
quote:
The more complex function of enzymatic
catalysis is shown here to entail severe
sequence constraints, even apart from consideration of the active site. Because fewer amino acid residues means fewer possibilities for satisfying these constraints, it may prove very difficult to build native-like enzymes
Just one example.
Yes, ID does makes statements about pathways because it is an eliminative argument. For example, showing the amount of unselectable steps from the Type III secretion system to to the bacterial flagellum (and noting of course that the former system post-dates the latter). We can thus eliminate that pathway.
You try to make the claim that there is a difference between science and eliminative arguments, but that is false. In fact, the paper you site shows an eliminative argument when it states:
quote:
Homologues sharing less than about two-thirds sequence identity should probably be viewed as distinct designs with their own sets of optimising features.
The only way to justify that ID is an argument from ignorance is if you a priori believe that Darwinism is true and that everything evolved, we just don't have the evidence yet.
Note I'm perfectly ok with discussing the Axe paper with in detail as I have just finished reading it's references and have them stored on my computer disk.
[ 10. April 2003, 14:34: Message edited by: Nelson_Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 10. April 2003 17:35
Alonso said:
quote:
The only way to justify that ID is an argument from ignorance is if you a priori believe that Darwinism is true and that everything evolved, we just don't have the evidence yet.
Let’s start with an assumption that there are designed organisms that were implemented in some manner by an unembodied designer. Thus “Darwinism” is not true for the entirety of biological diversity. Thus in the case we will explore, it is false that “everything evolved, we just don't have the evidence yet.”
Now please show how the ID argument is not an “argument from ignorance,” given that assumption.
Very specifically I have not made a statement that there are a large number of cases in which the “unembodied designer” designed organisms. I have not specified the frequency of such non-natural events in the physical universe. I have not, for example, specified that any prior probability of “unembodied design” is a high value. In fact that would be a complete unknown in my proposed assumption -- it could be high frequency, it could be very low. If that frequency is very low, then discovering that one does not understand how something occurred naturally (without interference from the “unembodied designer”) is not in itself a Bayesean argument for design, for example, because the prior probability is still very low. Yet the statement conditions are met -- in my proposed assumptions we can’t assume that “Darwinism” is true always, or that “everything evolved”.
So now with those assumptions, how there is an ID argument that is not “an argument from ignorance”?
I also note that no one has commented on my post above wherein I suggest:
quote:
The concepts of IC (and related concept of “explanatory filter”) require “sweeping the field clean” all alternate explanations of the supposedly “IC” structure.
What Gödelian arguments show is precisely how difficult that is. You can’t easily produce a simple logical argument that all alternative examples of complexity that might generate the supposedly “IC” structure have been eliminated. (By that I mean all alternative examples that have reasonable expectation of having happened, for example by proceeding with “selected” steps or other physically realizable mechanisms that are or will be observed as regularly occurring in nature.)
This is highly related to this problem.
[ 10. April 2003, 17:36: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic