|
Author
|
Topic: Jonathan Wells: Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 27. May 2004 03:55
I don't see how you can have an absence of friction when you are pumping water through an extremely tiny channel down the center of the centriole. I also don't see how you can have an absence of friction when "wobble" is pulling on everything in the cell with microtubules. This is why I am interested in a detailed diagram of the relevant motions and forces.
[ 27. May 2004, 03:56: Message edited by: Rex Kerr ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 27. May 2004 12:30
Jonathan Wells said<< On another level, ID could function as a "metatheory," providing a conceptual framework for scientific research. By suggesting testable hypotheses about features of the world that have been systematically neglected by older metatheories {such as Darwin's}, and by leading to the discovery of new features, ID could indirectly demonstrate its scientific fruitfulness.>>
Sounds good but how does this apply to the hypothesis presented here? I agree with Evan that Wells has not shown that his hypothesis is in fact an ID hypothesis. Just because a hypothesis is generated by an ID proponent doesn't automatically make the hypothesis an ID hypothesis. More information is needed such as what exactly is the ID logic/reasoning that inspired the hypothesis? Explain why a scientist working within a non-ID paradigm would not be likely to propose the same hypothesis? In my opinion, answering questions like these are more important than defending the hypothesis itself. Why? Because even if the hypothesis turns out to be valid if it can't be shown to be an ID hypothesis then the point Wells is trying to make that ID can guide scientific research has not been established. More attention to demonstrating that his hypothesis is in fact an ID hypothesis should have been given in the paper Wells presented to Brainstorms.
[ 27. May 2004, 12:51: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 29. May 2004 06:21
I wanted to comment on this earlier but I was afraid that I might sidetrack the thread. But with three posts on this subject maybe I’m safe to point out a couple of things.
I wonder if Dr Wells may be gun-shy along with the rest of us who have debated ID in the face of stiff resistance?
We get this from every angle. If we use a biology paper that supports ID with biology, then this is not ID, its biology.
If Dembski writes a paper on probability, then this is not ID, just probability math.
I often discuss thermodynamics and one might be surprised how often it is thrown in my face that this is not ID, but thermodynamics.
It would seem that main-stream science (for lack of a better term) thinks that if the abstract of a paper doesn’t start out with, “OK, I’m an Idist and this is ID,” then nothing in the paper is ID, it’s whatever science we happen to be discussing.
I’ll bet you a dollar to a donut that Dr. Wells has been through this same thing and thus worded this paper a bit differently.
I would point out that its high time that Idists abandon the tendency to define ID outside of mainstream science and to fully recognize that ID is just another specialized field of study that, just like other fields of science, incorporates many tenets of other scientific disciplines within it.
With this said, Dr. Wells has written an excellent paper, which he clearly states is little more than hypothesis that needs to be researched. And doesn't this thread feel that this is fairly novel and an innovative line of reasoning with fresh ideas? I certainly do.
But the subject of the paper seems to be biophysics and we need not shy from this.
It would behoove us all to just leave the term ID out of our papers and concentrate on whatever science we are musing on. ID is well past the stage of fragility that would necessitate we word our papers any differently than others of related disciplines.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 29. May 2004 10:18
It is true that ID, in whatever form it may take, does not exclude mainstream science which looks to explain things in terms of at natural processes and entities. However, as this discussion has brought out, it is not clear what has to be present in a paper for it to be considered more than mainstream science.
I think that Jack said this well:
quote:
Just because a hypothesis is generated by an ID proponent doesn't automatically make the hypothesis an ID hypothesis. More information is needed such as what exactly is the ID logic/reasoning that inspired the hypothesis? Explain why a scientist working within a non-ID paradigm would not be likely to propose the same hypothesis?
I have already stated my opinion that being inspired by ID as a metatheory does not qualify something as being about ID. The larger question is, I think, that if something is to be taken as genuinely supporting ID as science, then some particular and explicit aspect of ID must be involved.
Jerry, for instance, writes,
quote:
If we use a biology paper that supports ID with biology, then this is not ID, its biology.
If Dembski writes a paper on probability, then this is not ID, just probability math.
I often discuss thermodynamics and one might be surprised how often it is thrown in my face that this is not ID, but thermodynamics.
It would seem that mainstream science (for lack of a better term) thinks that if the abstract of a paper doesn’t start out with, “OK, I’m an Idist and this is ID,” then nothing in the paper is ID, it’s whatever science we happen to be discussing.
The question I would ask (and perhaps Jerry can give an example) is in these situations (a biology paper, a Dembski article, etc.), what is the specific ID hypothesis that is being investigated (even if the paper itself was not written from and ID perspective.)
The other point that has come up here is this: it is not enough, I think, to say that ID is supported merely because some aspect of mainstream science has been challenged. For instance, in Wells’ paper, he implied that research that shows that development might be more complicated than straightforward genetic determinism might propose would be an argument for ID. But this was based on what I claimed were mischaracterizations of science. Unless an ID hypothesis clearly states where ID is involved, merely pointing to growth in scientific theories can’t be claimed as evidence for ID.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 29. May 2004 16:52
Jerry Bauer said<< It would behoove us all to just leave the term ID out of our papers and concentrate on whatever science we are musing on.>>
This is of course necessary if one expects to get published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, therefore, I don't fault Jonathan Wells for not discussing ID in his paper. But he should be willing to share with us here on Brainstorms the teleological reasoning he used to form his hypothesis. Otherwise, there is no reason to give ID any credit for the hypothesis.
Nobel laureate William Lawrence Bragg remarked, “The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.” ID proponents claim that the ID approach gives one an additional perspective, an ability to think/see differently, such that this added element allows one to accurately infer things about the living world in a manner that is likely to be unanticipated from a non-teleological perspective.
My question to Jonathan Wells is this:
What insight did the teleological perspective provided you in generating your hypothesis?
[ 29. May 2004, 22:31: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 29. May 2004 21:18
Hmmm…my first post wasn’t worded very well, unfortunately. This assertion is what I was attempting to address: “there is no reason to give ID any credit for the hypothesis”
I don’t think I understand what this means. To me this implies that ID is a “stand alone” body of science maybe similar to anatomy.
Unless a given study is directly related to design mechanism I would be surprised to see ID even mentioned. ID draws from biology, physics, statistics, chemistry and maybe a couple more I’ve left out. Why would ID need, or want to take credit for it?
There are a ton of papers out there that support ID, but can ID take credit for them? I see that latter question as largely irrelevant.
Let science take credit for them. This is what seems relevant.
Medicine draws from several sciences as well and when an MD writes a paper on biology, is it relevant to debate whether biology or medicine gets the credit.
But in defense of Dr. Wells, this paper is a bit different as it was soley inspired by ID. He tells us in the abstract how it was the fruition of certain ID discussions and then states: “I was inspired by this to sketch out something I called a Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving (TOPS).”
***********what is the specific ID hypothesis that is being investigated (even if the paper itself was not written from and ID perspective.)**********
What are these specific ID hypotheses? I would have to know what you are referring to before I could address your question intelligently.
I do agree that the ID approach gives a researcher another and quite unique paradigm from which to work.
[ 29. May 2004, 21:20: Message edited by: Jerry D. Bauer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 29. May 2004 22:56
Jerry Bauer<< Hmmm…my first post wasn’t worded very well, unfortunately. This assertion is what I was attempting to address: “there is no reason to give ID any credit for the hypothesis.”
There are a ton of papers out there that support ID, but can ID take credit for them? I see that latter question as largely irrelevant. >>
By giving ID credit I merely meant to make explicit the teleological reasoning that played a role in generating the hypothesis. The title of the Jonathan Wells paper is:
"Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research."
I'm just trying find out how Wells used ID to help him generate his hypothesis. He made a reference to it in his paper when he said something about TOPS but it's still not clear to me.
[ 29. May 2004, 23:35: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 30. May 2004 02:08
OK, I’m with you now.
You are under the impression that tenets, hypothesis and experimentation in ID is based on teleology rather than the methodological naturalism of the scientific method.
I see your point. It’s true that ID is based on teleology as this is its roots and we tend to study biology as ’goal-driven’ in design and origin. But we do so strictly under the scientific method.
Design theory is not meant to replace biology, chemistry, physics or even evolution. It is a supplementary consideration to be used as a tool along side of biology by basically incorporating little more than self- organizational complexity theory into the field. And we only do this when considering origins.
The rest of the field we embrace and study the same as anyone else: Under the governance of methodological naturalism.
So Dr. Wells is going to surprise me if he answers your question from a teleological perspective rather than an MN one.
Bruce Gordon, Interim director of The Baylor Science and Religion Project, Baylor University, puts it well in Research News & Opportunities in Science and Theology. January 2001, p. 9
“…..if it is granted that teleology might be an objective part of nature, then it also has to be acknowledged that design research can be carried out in a manner that does not violate methodological naturalism as a philosophical constraint on science. I have no attachment one way or the other to methodological naturalism as a metascientific principle, but honesty demands the recognition that design-theoretic research does not logically entail its denial. Thirdly, design research is compatible with a realistic teleology like that of the vitalism espoused by thinkers such as Henri Bergson and Hans Driesch. It is compatible with the suggestion that life on earth was purposely seeded from elsewhere in the cosmos (though this leaves another rather pressing question unanswered). It is compatible with a theistic- evolutionary perspective of continuous development in which the unfolding of the universe and of life was implicit in finely-tuned. initial conditions. On a less sanguine note, it is logically compatible with "creationism' in, a variety of forms, though many of these can readily be dismissed on well-established scientific grounds.”
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 30. May 2004 11:21
This is an interesting quote you provide, Jerry.
Wells introduces his paper with the following statement:
quote:
TOPS begins with the observation that the evidence is sufficient to warrant at least provisional acceptance of two propositions:
(1) Darwinian evolution (the theory that new features of living things originate through natural selection acting on random variations) is false, and
(2) ID (the theory that many features of living things could only have originated through intelligent agency) is true
However, you, Jack, and Bruce Gordon are in different ways supporting the idea that perhaps ID does not contradict any aspect of mainstream evolutionary theory other than adding the metatheoretic belief that some intelligent teleological principle is at work as natural processes unfold.
This observation makes me want to ask Wells some question (although it appears that this aspect of his paper is not what he wants to discuss:
1) Exactly what aspect of the theory of evolution is false? Common descent? The ultimate (as opposed to proximate) causes of random genetic change?
2) Exactly what (or even generally what) aspects of living things could have only originated through intelligent agency? and perhaps more importantly, how can we tell?
3) On the other hand, if a general teleological principle is at work in the world, is there any reason why that principle would only be limited to having influenced some aspects of living things? Or, putting this in a positive rather than a negative light, is it not possible that this teleological principle is involved in every moment of the world, in both inorganic and organic reality?
I know Wells wanted to discuss a very specific hypothesis in his paper (and I think we all support him in that,) but his preliminary remarks about ID have raised some very large questions about what exactly ID can add to science. To state the question dichotomously, is ID only a metatheory that can add a perspective to scientific questions that are then investigated through what is now accepted mainstream science (as Wells discuss as aspect 2 of his introductory remarks,) or can ID add specific testable hypotheses that can establish that some specific things “could only have originated through intelligent agency” in ways that all the other things in the world did not require?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 30. May 2004 20:02
Well ID doesn’t contradict much of anything in science as it stands, does it? ID: a science based on probability employed to detect design in artifacts and systems.
Of course, people are very diverse in the ID movement just as they are in virtually any other organization.
I don’t accept common descent at all and believe that man was designed pretty much as we see him today (less a little micro-evolutionary devolution). And this belief doesn’t have anything to do with ID, it’s a result of how I view the evidence relating to the subject of origins.
Behe is an Idist that, if I understand him correctly, fully accepts common descent and Dembski states he hasn’t really made up his mind on the matter, last I heard.
*******Or, putting this in a positive rather than a negative light, is it not possible that this teleological principle is involved in every moment of the world, in both inorganic and organic reality?*******
Doesn’t this also boil down to personal beliefs? I certainly wouldn’t have any idea how this would have much to do with ID. ID would simply say, ’I don’t know.’
Of course, it doesn’t take much common sense to deduce where there is design there is/was a designer. But that’s about as far as ID can take the matter.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 30. May 2004 20:54
Jerry Bauer<< You are under the impression that tenets, hypothesis and experimentation in ID is based on teleology rather than the methodological naturalism of the scientific method.>>
I don't see any incompatibility between teleology, methodological naturalism and the scientific method. ID does not posit miraculous, empirically undetectable processes. The ID perspective looks for traces of bioengineering and nanotechnology in nature. This approach is naturalistic intelligent design, much like we see intelligent agency today building synthetic molecular motors, bioengineered proteins, etc. In my opinion, it is wrong to think that only a non-teleological approach can run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. The non-teleologists do not have exclusive rights to this type of thinking.
[ 30. May 2004, 20:56: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 30. May 2004 23:36
Jerry writes,
quote:
I don’t accept common descent at all and believe that man was designed pretty much as we see him today (less a little micro-evolutionary devolution). And this belief doesn’t have anything to do with ID, it’s a result of how I view the evidence relating to the subject of origins.
Jerry, this seems inconsistent. First you say that you “believe that man was designed pretty much as we see him today,” and then you say “this belief doesn’t have anything to do with ID.” It would seem that a belief that man was designed would certainly be in agreement with Wells’ statement that ID is “the theory that many features of living things could only have originated through intelligent agency.”
This would also be in agreement with the belief that common descent is one of those things about “Darwinian evolution” that is false.
Therefore I don’t see how a belief that common descent is false (and, as a special case, that mankind was designed “pretty much as we see him today) can be said to have nothing to do with ID. If common descent is one of those things that evolutionary theory cannot complete explain, then it must be something for which ID can provide the remainder of the explanation.
I know this topic (common descent) is not directly involved in Wells’ paper, but it certainly is a topic to use to explore these broader issues about ID that have arisen: does ID make positive, testable contributions that can actually show that certain aspects of evolutionary theory are wrong and that specific things are designed, or is it rather that ID provides an alternative metatheoretic perspective on the phenomena described by mainstream science?
Common descent is an ideal topic to make this distinction clear. If common descent is not true and human beings were designed and created in their current form without biological continuity with pre-human ancestors, then ID leads to a potential theory (in the accepted scientific sense of the word) through testable hypotheses.
On the other hand, if ID accepts common descent and the role of genetic change passed on from parent to child (irrespective of further knowledge we might get about the rle of DNA in that process) but believes that some aspects of this my be intelligently or teleologically guided, than ID might function as a metatheory only, adding a different perspective for someone to take about life but not adding any specific knowledge that is different than that held by people with significantly different metetheoretical views.
That is, in this case one may believe that intelligence has guided the development of life up to his point, with humankind as an intended result, without being able to show any specific piece of empirical evidence that establishes that belief as true.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 01. June 2004 00:29
Well, I can’t see much to disagree with in Jack’s post and I think I just misunderstood where he was coming from.
EVAN,
My belief that man appeared pretty much as we see him today, is just my opinion. Admittedly, I do tend to argue this point in the same threads I do ID, but I’m working on this.
So the above is really not ID. The only tenet that is universal in this body of thought is that, at some point, cells were designed.
Behe is fully within the realm of ID to espouse that only the first cell was designed and the laws of nature took it from there. So am I in my opposition to this and we are not arguing design, we are now arguing evolution from that point forth concerning the mechanisms therein.
It is only from my perspective that the common descent in neodarwinism is falsified. It certainly is not false from Behe’s perspective nor from the perspective of some theistic evolutionists I’ve come to know.
*****If common descent is one of those things that evolutionary theory cannot complete explain, then it must be something for which ID can provide the remainder of the explanation.******
This is perhaps the biggest misunderstanding of ID running around out here. Some people want to stick all the sciences in one category, ID in another and then propose scenarios of them conflicting with, or supporting one another.
ID will never try to explain common descent because common descent is not a tenet of ID. This is biology and only biology will ever explain or falsify it. Of course, since there is no way this can be falsified, according to the Popperian thought of falsification inherent in the scientific method, I don’t consider common descent as science, but metaphysics--and that‘s for another thread.
But if I ever debate this with you, I’ll use biology to do so. Not ID.
ID does not offer testable contributions that can show certain aspects of evolutionarily theory wrong, or right. Now it is true that many Idists, including myself, often use biology to show certain aspects of the theory wrong, but how is this ID? We just view origins a little differently in that we see life as ‘goal driven’ by intelligence.
******If common descent is not true and human beings were designed and created in their current form without biological continuity with pre-human ancestors, then ID leads to a potential theory (in the accepted scientific sense of the word) through testable hypotheses.******
How so? Please expand.
EDITED TO ADD: Hmmmm....But I would be intellectually dishonest not to openly admit that I'm still working all of this out myself. We are doing very well as a science and we have come light years further than Darwinism was 10 short years after Origins was released.
And LOL...I may just be bouncing ideas off myself because after I think about this for awhile I can see Evan's point. We do seem to want to incorporate with evolution. Not replace it, just incoporate with it.
[ 01. June 2004, 00:41: Message edited by: Jerry D. Bauer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 01. June 2004 11:39
This thread is dangerously close to moving off-topic. The responses by Rex Kerr, Charlie D. and Jonathan Wells were the sort of responses that we are looking for at Brainstorms.
Emphasis on particular details within the initial post. Calls for clarification on scientific details.
[ 01. June 2004, 16:30: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 01. June 2004 14:16
Moderator<< This message is dangerously close to moving off-topic. The responses by Rex Kerr, Charlie D. and Jonathan Wells were the sort of responses that we are looking for at Brainstorms. >>
The topic is: "Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research". The responses by Rex Kerr, Charlie D. and Jonathan Wells haven't even touched this topic as far as I can tell. Evan and I are focusing directly on the topic, namely, what role did the ID perspective play in the generation of this hypothesis. Debating whether the hypothesis actually helps us discover something important about biotic reality while important is actually off-topic. If this hypothesis by Jonathan Wells can't be shown to be an ID hypothesis then what's it doing on Brainstorms? I think Wells can make the case that his hypothesis is an ID hypothesis but he's not going to bother if no one here challenges him to do so.
[ 01. June 2004, 14:39: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic