|
Author
|
Topic: Criteria to compare ID vs Evolution
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 22. November 2005 16:56
Criteria to compare ID vs Evolution
Demarcation criteria such as testability or falsifiability are being thrown about to evaluate Intelligent Design vs Evolution.
However Stephen Meyer shows how all such demarcation criteria fail, especially when addressing origin theories.
See: Stephen Meyer, The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design
The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories
Instead of demarcation criteria, Meyer proposes:
"A rational historical biology must not only address the question
"Which materialistic or naturalistic evolutionary scenario provides the most adequate explanation of biological complexity?"
but also the question
"Does a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other theory best explain the origin of biological complexity, given all relevant evidence?"
Taking up Meyer’s proposals, what are the major issues that need to be explained and which can be used to direct the formation of a full theory of Intelligent Design? In particular:
1) In comparing Evolution and Intelligent Design, what criteria are most important in evaluating which origin theory best explains biological complexity?
2) What features of biological complexity are relevant to distinguish between a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other origin theory?
3) Which theory provides practical guidance in the day to day practice of biology, biochemistry, and bioinformatics etc?
E.g. Casey Luskin summarizes: The Positive Case for Design
Jonathan Wells asks: Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Evolution
William Dembski asks: Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about design and presents:
[UR=http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b079.htm]The Design Revolution[/URL] etc.
Howard Glicksman challenges us to: [URL= Exercise]http://arn.org/eyw.htm]Exercise your wonder[/URL]
Michael Behe uncovers details of: Darwin’s Black Box
C. B. Thaxton, W. L. Bradley, and R. L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. New York: Philosophical Library, 1984. etc.
Trying to assimilate these examples and major features and developments in biology, I see some major features that are major challenges that origin theories such as Evolution and Intelligent Design need to address. and which could form major criteria for comparing them. They provide potentially quantitative factors by which to compare them.
Factors by which to compare Evolution & Intelligent Design Theories
1) The origin of biochemical information, genetics, glycobiology
1.1) Origin of DNA and genomic biochemical information, and cytogenetics.
1.2) Origin of error correcting protein synthesis from essential amino acids.
1.3) The origin of selective protein folding. E.g. for chaperone molecules.
1.4) Origin of cell division, accurate replication and apoptosis.
1.5) Origin of the glycoprotein code using eight essential sugars.
2) Biochemical function, growth and change.
2.1) The origin of enzymatically directed biochemical pathways.
2.2) The origin of micro regulation in biochemical processes.
2.3) Selective (asymmetric) chirality in biochemical molecules, and biomacromolecules.
2.4) Formation of organelles within the cell.
2.5) The distribution of heritable diseases in migrating populations.
2.6) The distribution of haplotypes in present migrating populations.
2.7) The correlations of diseases and dysfunctions with mutations.
2.8) Scale independent properties, allometric scaling, & symmorphosis.
3) Growth and function of biological systems with complex body parts.
3.1) The origin of self reproducing cells.
3.2) Regulation of biochemical growth in macro complex body systems.
3.3) Autonomic regulation of essential oxygen, CO2, ionic & energy concentrations, water & food.
3.4) Formation of multiple discrete organs and lateral symmetry.
3.5) Formation and growth of “tree” structures in nervous, vascular and pneumatic systems.
3.6) Formation and function of the immune system.
3.7) The origin of symbiotic macro biological systems.
4) Energy flows in biochemical systems.
4.1) Conversion of physical to biochemical energy.
4.2) The necessity of biochemical energy conversion in biochemical processes.
4.3) The existence and function of biochemical motion systems.
4.4) Formation of biochemical complexity in light of the laws of thermodynamics.
5) Material flows in biochemical systems.
5.1) The formation of membranes.
5.2) The origin of material flows through membranes.
5.3) The origin of micro and macro biochemical transport
6) Appearance of design and systematics in biochemical systems
6.1) Origin and structure of senses of vision, hearing, touch, taste, smell and balance.
6.2) Origin of micro machines including the flagella.
6.3) Origin of similar features among different species.
6.4) Appearance of irreducibly complex systems.
7) Communication and Thought
7.1) Origin of the brain capable of storing, copying, comparing and processing information.
7.2) Origin of speech and language.
7.3) Origin of facial communication of emotion.
7.4) Origin of the nervous system capable of transmitting dynamic information.
8) Geology & Paleontology
8.1) Sudden appearance of biological information e.g., the Cambrian “explosion.”
8.2) Correlation of fossil features across geological strata.
To formulate a full fledged practical scientific theory of Intelligent Design we need to “reverse engineer the universe.” I propose these as major factors to address in doing so, and in comparing Intelligent Design with Micro vs Macro Evolution. The concepts of Irreducible Complexity and the Universal Complexity Bound are applicable to most of these areas. In the larger context, Intelligent Design may also address the Anthropic Principle with the apparent fine tuning of natural constants for biochemical and human life. ID will preferably be sufficiently general to apply to the wide range of scientific disciplines where intelligence is central. E.g., forensics, anthropology, software and mechanical design etc.
What other threads or documents address these issues?
What other major criteria should be included?
What other/better ways are there to categorize and organize these factors?
E.g., the origin of self replicating cells comprises many of the other criteria.
Change History - Last changed Jan 2, 2006:
Changed 1.1) per post below from:
"Origin of DNA and biochemical information in the Genome." to read:
"1.1) Origin of DNA and genomic biochemical information, and cytogenetics."
Changed 1.4) per post below from:
1.4) Origin of cell division, replication and apoptosis."
to read:
"1.4) Origin of cell division, accurate replication and apoptosis."
Added 2.7)per post below:
"2.7) The correlations of diseases and disfunctions with mutations."
Added 2.8) per post below:
"2.8) Scale independent properties, allometric scaling, & symmorphosis."
Updated 3.3) per post below from:
"Regulation of oxygen, water and food in macro biological systems."
to read
"3.3) Autonomic regulation of essential oxygen, CO2, ionic & energy concentrations, water & food."
Updated 7.1) per post below from:
"Origin of the brain" To:
"7.1) Origin of the brain capable of storing, copying, comparing and processing information."
Added 7.4) per post below:
"7.4) Origin of the nervous system capable of transmitting dynamic information."
[ 04. March 2006, 14:21: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
TheLeftReverend
Member
Member # 1835
|
posted 08. December 2005 18:08
I just found out about this web site and I am very glad to have a place to share my questions. The question I have about this string is:
Does ID by definition propose a "clock winder" universe which must necessarily run down? Or can ID speak about a "teleology", a force which systematically strives to decrease entropy and increase information within a (non-closed) specific time and space?
In my theological studies, "teleology" was a significant concept. I visualize life as an "information-tropic" system, following separate rules which give it a tendency to resist entropy, gain complexity, and create more and more useful information.
In other words, do all ID proponents see the "intelligence" as something extrinsic injected at some point in the past, or do some see it as a seed or virus slowly developing by a tropism toward a greater organization?
IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Mullett
Member
Member # 1810
|
posted 11. December 2005 02:30
Hi, TheLeftReverend,
quote:
Does ID by definition propose a "clock winder" universe which must necessarily run down? Or can ID speak about a "teleology", a force which systematically strives to decrease entropy and increase information within a (non-closed) specific time and space?
I've seen these and more. I can't claim to speak for ID, just to tell you what I've observed. ID is young, vigorous and bustling with ideas. I'm finding it hard to pick out a core belief set, other than that Darwinian evolution can't explain specific instances of certain kinds of complexity... and I could be overstating even that.
I am also of the opinion that life operates by a separate set of rules. Where I may differ from most of the folks around here is that I don't see those rules as being parallel to those operating on simpler systems, but rather at a different level of abstraction. I get that maybe from being in the software development profession for so long, where it is commonly the key to intelligently analyzing things. For instance, the electromagnetic descriptions that are suitable for what the electrons and holes are doing in the silicon and copper are unsuitable for reasoning about the efficiency of a search algorithm, and the architectural transparencies of a distributed business application require yet another form of explanation. All are happening in the same substrate, and one could say that they aren't even separate "happenings". Speaking in the strictest sense, it may be possible that the highest level description is reducible to the lowest level, but I've never seen it done, and I doubt it would be useful if it were possible. Neither level of description is more or less "true" than the others, just more or less a wise way to spend one's limited days. This is maybe an interpretation of truth that's philosophically unpalatable for some, but it's demonstrably effective.
I applaud what David is trying to do here, and I wish more people were trying to help him out. I have to disqualify myself for the most part on the grounds of being deeply skeptical about ID. On the other hand, I can't help but be inspired by the effort of some in the ID community, so if I can think of something helpful to say I will. Besides that I'm facinated to see what comes out of it all. I think there's a deep insight waiting to be born from the lines of thought we're seeing around here, but I'm afraid it's in danger of being drowned out by the rhetoric of culture war.
I'm especially interested in where ID can go with the stuff under 6.1 and 7.x in the outline from the original post, especially the latter (though I could argue that 6.1 actually belongs in the latter category). The main reason I'm skeptical about ID is that it relies on cognitive agency as it's ultimate explanatory principle, yet leaves that principle uncharacterized and treats it in a rather fast-and-loose way. That raises some big red flags for me. I've tried to stir the subject up around here, but have gotten little interest. Readings I've done on the matter from Behe and Dembski sidestep this issue either by claiming it is unimportant or trying to cloak cognition in inscrutability. I don't think that will do, especially while artificial intelligence, operating on a completely incompatible stance toward cognition, is creating real-world applications which demonstrate that stance to an increasing (and quite scrutable) degree. There is a huge difference here, between debating against AI and debating against evolution or big bang theory. With those others, the material facts are in the distant past, with no surviving witnesses, and so it is like shooting fish in a barrel to call those things into doubt, especially with an already unsympathetic public. What AI produces is here and now for all to see, so fine points about the meaning of Karl Popper or fanciful conclusions from quantum indeterminacy aren't going to help. Arguments on the basis that AI doesn't do this thing or that thing will only amount to positions to retreat from later. In fact, I'll predict that within 30 years, any default claim ID has now on cognitive agency, inherited from prescientific intuitions about cognition, will evaporate as AI becomes more mature and pervasive, and the theoretical disparity between the two becomes more apparent to folks in general. What I'm saying, then, is that ID would serve itself well by turning a critical and rigorous eye on the subject of intelligence. The goal should be coming up with something positive, specific and substantial to say about intelligence which supports what ID wants to ascribe to it, yet also has the potential to encompass what is demonstrated about intelligence from AI, psychology and ethology. In terms of getting some real science, there's a lot more mileage in that pursuit than there is in the tedious game of design theorists and evolution theorists caricaturing each other's positions.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 11. December 2005 07:50
Perhaps the more apt comparison is between ID and RM / NS rather than the elusively defined Evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 13. December 2005 17:31
Thanks TheLeftReverend (hereafter TLR) for your interest and queries.
I am working on the overall goal of:
“ID Theory - Methodology to Reverse Engineer the Universe”
Intelligent Design has the broad task of addressing how to identify design and design methodology. It has the particular task of developing an origin theory of intelligent design applicable to biological systems and useful as a current design theory for biochemical engineering.
In conventional design we start with the goal and collect known facts, laws and design principles.
In reverse engineering we start with the facts and must identify the goal, laws and design principles.
Thus, this brainstorm focuses on identifying the major classes of evidence, data, or information that origin theories must grapple with, and by which they are to be evaluated for explanatory power.
In this Brainstorm forum, I ask all participants to focus on identify major classes of observations that we would like to explain and preferably predict from a theory of Intelligent Design.
i.e. explicit major categories of evidence to be addressed by theories that would give major differences in "explanatory power" or predictability. In particular, are there better ways to categorize or reword this list.
This list is focused on the origin and operation of biochemical systems. (I am excluding the Anthropic principle and physical universe for another forum.)
TLR: From your comments "to resist entropy", there is the appearance of design in cells of highly accurate replication of the information. e.g., proofing and error correcting in DNA replication.
This suggests clarifying item 1.4 to include accuracy. I reformulate it as:
"1.4) Origin of cell division, accurate replication and apoptosis."
----------------------
Briefly regarding you other questions:
TLR: For introductory discussions and information on ID may I refer you to
http://www.ARN.org/
and to
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
For definitions, see the ISCID Encyclopedia of Science & Philosophy under "Research Tools":
"Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. It contends that the directed organization of living things cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation. Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design and optimal design. Apparent design looks designed but actually isn’t. Optimal design is perfect design. The adjective “intelligent” in front of “design” stresses that the design in question is actual, but makes no assumption about the optimality of design. . . . "
TLR: Re Teleology:
See the several definitions of Teleology in the ISCID Encyclopedia. Teleology is at the heart of the differences between ID and neo Darwinim (particularly macroevolution) or self organization. Namely macroevolution/neoDarwinism explicitly assumes change from random or stochastic mutations that are then subject to natural selection, and claims that this is the source for all biochemical complexity we see. ID states that the observed complexity appears to e far greater than the maximum possible permutations of all particles within the entire universe over all time at the maximum possible rate. i.e., that at least some of the observed complexity cannot be attributed to macroevolution. See Behe and irreducible complexity etc.
I would say that ID theory applied to biological origins holds that some Complex Specified Information or Intelligent Design was injected into biological systems at least at one point in time. Thus teleology is at the heart of the differences of ID vs macroEvolution vs self organization.
I would not speak for "All" involved, but would state that ID focuses on finding scientific evidence for Intelligent Design or teleology in biochemical systems.
The primary Goal of Intelligent Design will be addressed in another brainstorm forum.
Other Teleology discussions should be in another forum.
Your comment "following separate rules" could describe the parameters of an Intelligent Design theory, or the Principles or Rules which were used to direct the Intelligent Design. Design Principles and Rules will be the focus of another brainstorm forum, and should not be addressed here.
With your moniker and questions I am not sure if you are serious about focusing on the developing and exploring focus of “Brainstorms.” Please read the intro at: http://www.iscid.org/brainstorms.php.
If you are serious, may I propose that you focus your question regarding Teleology into a positive fruitful hypothesis and start another brainstorm for those discussions. e.g.,
Distinguishing Teleology in Science, Design and Religion
What are the distinctions between teleology or intent as used (or avoided) in Science vs Design Engineering, vs in Theology.
What distinguishes ID from Theology?
PS Your "clock winder" universe comments incorporate many issues that would be better addressed in another forum. e.g., there appears evidence of the universe running down. There also appears to be evidence of intelligent design. There may be evidence of design to preserve information, as distinct from increasing information.
Some claim there is scientific evidence of present intelligent intervention.
After reading previous brainstorms and archives, I propose that you think over how you would pose your hypotheses and what evidence might support one or distinguish between them and start another brainstorm for them. If you are not serious about such focused discussions, please ask your questions elsewhere.
To all participants, please focus on the brainstorm topic. Please avoid rabbit trails.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 13. December 2005 20:58
Terry
Thanks for your encouragement and interest. Re:
quote:
“I'm especially interested in where ID can go with the stuff under 6.1 and 7.x in the outline from the original post, especially the latter (though I could argue that 6.1 actually belongs in the latter category).”
These refer to:
quote:
6) Appearance of design and systematics in biochemical systems
6.1) Origin and structure of senses of vision, hearing, touch, taste, smell and balance. . .
7) Communication and Thought
7.1) Origin of the brain. . . .
I agree that 6.1 and 7.1 are closely connected and hard to distinguish.
By Sect. 6.1 I have tried to focus on the “transducer” side of biochemical systems. In Sect. 7.1 I have tried to focus on the “computer” side of biochemical systems. I nominally put the senses with systematics in 6) as the eye is one example that has been compared across difference biochemical systems or species. (Compare the formation of “tree structures” in nervous systems is grouped in 3.5 with the formation of other tree structure systems. As senses critically include a nervous system interface, I see how they could also go under 7).
To clarify, I propose to reword 7.1 as:
7.1) Origin of the brain capable of storing, copying, comparing and processing information.
I propose to add 7.4 to 7):
7.4 Origin of the nervous system capable of transmitting dynamic information.
(Neuromuscular interaction and muscular function would come under 4.3)
Software and mechanical engineering involve evaluating, analyzing, and designing. Are such functions sufficiently embodied in 7.1 for this stage, or do they need a further line?
quote:
I am also of the opinion that life operates by a separate set of rules.
Thanks for your affirmation. See the next brainstorm where I posit assumptions for ID which include the assumption that principles and rules exist.
How better would you characterize the capabilities underlying “life” such as software engineering etc. as distinct from the capabilities of cells on through chimpanzees?
Are such more complex capabilities of humans appropriate to include at this level?
quote:
The main reason I'm skeptical about ID is that it relies on cognitive agency as its ultimate explanatory principle, yet leaves that principle uncharacterized and treats it in a rather fast-and-loose way.
Regarding your concern, I will later start a forum on the overall design goals. Following that will be a forum where I will propose explicit design principles and rules.
Please distinguish between identifying the design principles and rules that can be inferred from objective evidence, versus the more difficult challenge of “identifying” how that interaction occurred, or of characterizing the Designer based on that evidence.
[quote] . . . it may be possible that the highest level description is reducible to the lowest level, but I've never seen it done, . . . [quote]
It is at least worth dreaming that it is possible. I hope to be able to give you some pleasant surprises after we have laid some solid groundwork.
PS Irving, please expand or define "RM / NS".
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 14. December 2005 09:17
The launch of "The Cancer Genome Atlas" project with $100 million budget is a reminder of the strong association of cancers and other diseases and disfunctions with mutations. This is implied in 2.5 with the emphasis on the limitations of mutations propogating across migrating populations. To highlight the major evidence on mutations, add:
2.7 The correlations of diseases and disfunctions with mutations.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 17. December 2005 14:32
"Criteria" and "Factors" are meant to focus on the evidence that must be explained by origin theories.
Revise 3.3) Regulation of oxygen, water and food in macro biological systems.
to read
3.3 Autonomic regulation of essential oxygen, CO2, ionic & energy concentrations, water & food.
See Dr. Glicksman "Exercise your Wonder" February 15, 2004
"Wouldn’t it be Great if we Never had to Experience Hunger or Thirst? (Be careful what you wish for!!)"
http://www.arn.org/docs/glicksman/eyw_040215.htmv
[ 17. December 2005, 14:33: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 02. January 2006 12:26
The issue of differences in chromosome number and related fertility was brought to my attention, so I have changed 1.1 to include cytogenetics. See:
1.1) Origin of DNA and genomic biochemical information, and cytogenetics.
Scaling issues ranging from intracellular components to whales are major issues to be explained in biology and origin theories. e.g., See reviews below by Kleiber, West, and Bejan. To address this, I add 2.7 as follows.
2.8) Scale independent properties, allometric scaling, & symmorphosis.
References:
Kleiber M. Physiological Reviews 1947 27 511-541.
P. W. Hochachka, The metabolic implications of intracellular circulation, PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 22, 12233-12239, October 26, 1999.
Geoffrey B. West, William H. Woodruff, & James H. Brown, Allometric scaling of metabolic rate from molecules and mitochondria to cells and mammals, PNAS Feb 19 2002 v 99 suppl 1 2473-2478.
Adrian Bejan, The Constructal Law of organization in nature: tree-shaped flows & body size
J. Expt Biology 208 1677-1686, 2005.
[ 02. January 2006, 14:04: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic