Daniel Dennett: Intelligent design? Show me the science

Dennett: "...contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt ... that natural selection - the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge - has the power to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs."

What breathtaking idiocy! Natural selection doesn't "generate" anything; it is a negative process which edits that which has been generated in connection with another process, e.g. mutation.

Prof. Dennett obviously needs a proofreader.

Perhaps Dennett's comments may appear to subtle for the ID creationists. If mutation does not generate anything and natural selection does not generate anything then what does?
In information theory, it is the mutual information between environment and the genome which 'generates' and it is natural selection which increases this mutual information.

Let me know if you have anymore questions.

So how much does the proof-reader of natural selection supply to the sense of the final article compared with the mutations and variations in the use of the basic word kit that was acquired and deployed by the writer? ;-)

I'm wondering how Dennet knows Evolution is blind, or that Natural selection is even random?

And has "Dennett" actually shown that RM & NS was the driving force behind the evolution of the eye? My understanding is that those skeptical of darwinian forces request a step by step account? Is that asking too much and what should we do if we don't have it? Even if intelligent design isn't science it still raises questions about the "epistemic status" of historical, biological conclusions like the one Dennet is making.

I suppose it's possible it evovled by this process "in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge". Of course that must mean it either did evovle that way *or* that this is the most likely way things occured.. so shut up and go back into your cave. :-)

Neurode is clearly a fool -- pompous, but a fool.
The claim was that the filtration of natural selection can (and does) generate breathtakingly ingenious designs.
Filtering often generates something new, albeit not new with respect to that which is filtered. (I assume Neurode is aware that filters are subtractive processes). Yet the resultant may accurately be described as breathtakingly ingenious even though what is in the filtrate was in the material filtered.
This is as true in chemistry as it is in electronic music -- filtration generates even though it is subtractive.
Pfeh.
The man is hardly worth bothering with. His knee-jerk repetitive outbursts aren't even amusing, let alone thought-provoking.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Oh man, I just had a burst of insight reading that article! When is someone going to point out to the "folks" that think everything needs a designer, that all their examples of cars and buildings and paintings have ALL BEEN MADE POSSIBLE BY TRIAL AND ERROR over centuries of work! Argh, it's so simple, it galls me. A structural engineer can't just design a skyscraper out of the blue, he depends on the experience and learning from all the FAILURES (and subsequent successes) of all the builders before him.

Shirley Knott: "The claim was that the filtration of natural selection can (and does) generate breathtakingly ingenious designs."

Yes...that's the claim that was idiotic on Dennett's part (and now on yours as well). A filtrative or subtractive process is not the same as a generative process. To generate something is to give rise to it, whereas filtration merely acts on something to which another process has previously given rise. This is a crucial distinction, and to deny it would result in all kinds of conceptual problems in various branches of empirical and mathematical science.

My understanding is that those skeptical of darwinian forces request a step by step account?

— Plump-DJ

The eye starts as a light-sensitive cell, which turns into a group of cells, which eventually forms a concave indentation in the surface of the organism. This concave indentation becomes more and more pronounced over time, until it becomes quite deep and various fluids tend to build up inside. Eventually, a protective/focusing cover develops. Voila! Eyeball. At every stage in this process, the agglomeration of cells is light sensitive and therefore useful. Each stage has superior visual acuity to the previous stage. Get it yet?

— creationtheory.org

The Paley argument that draws an analogy between artefacts and living things comes from a time when technologies were simpler than they are at present. It was far more plausible to understand design as the application of an individual's idea to raw materials when the resulting gizmos were relatively simple. Contemporary technological objects obviously don't come into being in this fashion, not only because a long process or trial and error is involved but because very little of much consequence can reasonably be called the brainchild of one person--nobody's thought balloon is big enough to contain the blue print of a computer. Even in the industrial revolution, the great innovators earned their reputations largely because of their entrepreneurial skills at acquiring the necessary capital to implement some scheme or other or because they had a better lawyer than the folks who actually invented the thing or because, like most of our famous scientists, they were gifted with a superior ability to garner the credit. The ancient schema of the craftsman and his plan doesn't explain technologies any better than it explains the evolution of living things.

I'm wondering how Dennet knows Evolution is blind, or that Natural selection is even random?

And has "Dennett" actually shown that RM & NS was the driving force behind the evolution of the eye? My understanding is that those skeptical of darwinian forces request a step by step account? Is that asking too much and what should we do if we don't have it?

Even if intelligent design isn't science it still raises questions about the "epistemic status" of historical, biological conclusions like the one Dennet[sic] is making.

...so shut up and go back into your cave.

Neurode dearie, I doubt you would recognize a 'conceptual problem' if one bit you on your remaining neuron.
You are looking intensely at the surface, ignoring context and nuance, in your desparate attempt to hold to your claims that only what you pronounce to be meaningful can possibly be meaningful.
Consider a filtration of a body of text which has been claimed to contain codes -- are the artifacts found generated in any useful sense of the term? Of course.
Consider the filtration of white noise -- are the resultant tones generated by the process in any useful sense of the term?
Clearly yes.
Equally clearly there is potential for confusion in that the result was generated by the filtration, even though the content of the result was 'always present'.
Failure to appreciate such distinctions would lead to a breakdown in ability to draw distinctions between the material and the formal, which would be the death of conceptual thought.
Of course, since the death of conceptual thought seems to be the ID goal, as well as one of your tawdry little goals, you may not see this as a criticism. (Assuming you are capable of determining which word spelled "may" is intended in the preceeding, which we may doubt.)

hugs,
Shirley Knott

This is a crucial distinction, and to deny it would result in all kinds of conceptual problems in various branches of empirical and mathematical science.

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. [5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. [6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. [9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. [10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

[10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. [11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. [12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [13] And the evening and the morning were the third day. [14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. [17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, [18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. [19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. [20] And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [22] And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. [23] And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.

theory a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation. hypothesis A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. conceptual Relating to concepts or the the formation of concepts. concept An explanatory principle in a scientific system. analysis The separation of an intellectual or material whole into its constituent parts for individual study.

Shirley: "You are looking intensely at the surface, ignoring context and nuance..."

Unfortunately, this is not merely a matter of "context and nuance"; this is a very important distinction at the root of the ID-neoDarwinism controversy.

NeoDarwinists like to believe that natural selection (NS) determines evolution by eliminating forms already generated in association with mutation. NS supposedly accomplishes this gradually, a little bit at a time. However, NS is only the mill and not the grist; it is not responsible for producing the evolutionary information implicit in any given mutation of any size, but merely for making mutations stack up in a particular way.

You, like Dennett, call this process "generative", but it isn't. The generative stage is the one which produces the individual mutations, not the one which merely stacks them up; obviously, the mutations must already be present in order to get stacked.

Neo-Darwinism essentially says that the generative stage of evolution can be effectively "random", meaning that all possible genetic mutations are produced in measure proportional to their individual probabilities without respect to phenotype, provided only that NS properly decimates the resulting forms; IDT, as properly formulated, says that the generative stage is also important, since without the phenotypic information implicit in mutation, NS has no raw material to sculpt over the long term.

Each theory is correct within its range and complementary to the other. Neo-Darwinism accentuates natural selection and is thus useful with respect to statistically-determined population effects; ID accentuates the generative aspect of mutation and, while temporarily of limited explanatory and predictive power (as Lenny here has made a minor career out of observing), nevertheless attempts a broad characterization in terms of "design", a kind of process already observed in nature, which would in turn imply a generic analogue of intelligence. While this characterization is obviously rudimentary and (thus far) unpredictive, neither can it be definitively described as "unscientific".

This is very basic stuff, Shirley and Lenny. I suggest that you and your pal Dennett try to get your minds around it before bloviating any further on this topic.

Miah, here is sarcasm. Sarcasm, here is Miah. Now I'll let you to know each other better.

AKA: I think steve was being tongue in cheek.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Neurode, unless you produce, as Lenny has asked you again and again, an ID theory, all your comments here are useless. You cannot compare Evolution theory to ID theory because the second doesn't exist. So produce it or stop flogging the cardboard horse.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Thanks Grey Wolfe:

I was thinking sarcasm at first, but by his last post where steve quoted Dembeski...it then threw me off.

Albeit, I think my post should function for anyone providing the "theory of Intelligent Design".

Would you agree?

Course now somebody is going to blast steve for associating Dembeski as a creationist, or at least aluding to the idea that the "Genesis account" is the same as Itelligent Design Theory in which Dembeski is not a YEC wherein the Genesis Account is YEC handbook material.

I apologize, steve, for not catching that sarcasm earlier, or the "tongue in cheek".

Neurode -

Here is a question I asked on another thread. Perhaps you didn't see it...

It was in regards to your statement that ID predicts "order". Please describe what features of observed order are better explained by ID than by evolution, or where ID can provide an explanation of "order" where evolution cannot.

I'd like to backtrack a little and ask why ID predicts order at all?

Neo-Darwinism essentially says that the generative stage of evolution can be effectively "random", meaning that all possible genetic mutations are produced in measure proportional to their individual probabilities without respect to phenotype, provided only that NS properly decimates the resulting forms;...

— neurode

...IDT, as properly formulated, says that the generative stage is also important, since without the phenotypic information implicit in mutation, NS has no raw material to sculpt over the long term.

Grey Wolf: "Neurode, unless you produce, as Lenny has asked you again and again, an ID theory, all your comments here are useless. You cannot compare Evolution theory to ID theory because the second doesn't exist. So produce it or stop flogging the cardboard horse."

Perhaps we have a bit of confusion here. Specifically, Grey Wolf seems to have me confused with someone who believes that evolution does not occur, and who says that ID proponents already have a predictive theory. But I don't believe or say that.

However, I will throw GW and Lenny a small bone to worry: science cannot be limited to prediction alone. In order to have any scientific value whatsoever, predictions must be based on explanations. Thus, in science, explanation comes first and prediction second.

Now, if one chooses a particular degree of generality or specificity distinguishing "scientific" from "unscientific" explanations, one runs into a problem, because we require that scientific hypotheses be fully generalizable. So there's really no such thing in science as being "too general" or "insufficiently specific"; technically, science accommodates all levels of explanation.

Lenny might not like this, since it doesn't mesh well with his cookie-cutter analysis of scientific methodology. But that's too bad, because when it comes right down to it, Lenny's opinion plus a dollar will no longer buy you a cup of joe.

rdog29 wants to know how ID "predicts order". It's really quite obvious, rdog. Intelligence is a real phenomenon, and it is known to generate order in great abundance. Thus, any hypothesis implicating intelligence in the causation of a class of natural phenomena implicitly predicts some amount of order therein (unless the intelligence in question is somehow bent on disorder, which would, however, still be the output of intelligent, and therefore orderly, processing).

How would an intelligent design advocate go about detecting disorder that had been created by orderly processing?

Perhaps we have a bit of confusion here. Specifically, Grey Wolf seems to have me confused with someone who believes that evolution does not occur, and who says that ID proponents already have a predictive theory. But I don't believe or say that.

However, I will throw GW and Lenny a small bone to worry: science cannot be limited to prediction alone. In order to have any scientific value whatsoever, predictions must be based on explanations. Thus, in science, explanation comes first and prediction second.

Now, if one chooses a particular degree of generality or specificity distinguishing "scientific" from "unscientific" explanations, one runs into a problem, because we require that scientific hypotheses be fully generalizable.

So there's really no such thing in science as being "too general" or "insufficiently specific"; technically, science accommodates all levels of explanation.

Lenny might not like this, since it doesn't mesh well with his cookie-cutter analysis of scientific methodology. But that's too bad, because when it comes right down to it, Lenny's opinion plus a dollar will no longer buy you a cup of joe.

rdog29 wants to know how ID "predicts order". It's really quite obvious, rdog. Intelligence is a real phenomenon, and it is known to generate order in great abundance. Thus, any hypothesis implicating intelligence in the causation of a class of natural phenomena implicitly predicts some amount of order therein (unless the intelligence in question is somehow bent on disorder, which would, however, still be the output of intelligent, and therefore orderly, processing).

Intelligence is a real phenomenon, and it is known to generate order in great abundance. Thus, any hypothesis implicating intelligence in the causation of a class of natural phenomena implicitly predicts some amount of order therein (unless the intelligence in question is somehow bent on disorder, which would, however, still be the output of intelligent, and therefore orderly, processing).

Ah, but can we tell how much of the observed order is due to intelligent input, and how much is due to evolution? At what point do we draw the line, or at least a fuzzy boundry? ID will have to address this question, and come up with some metric for determining this.

ID will also have to explain why (non-human) order is necessarily the result of intelligent input. Analogies won't cut it, and thus far Dembski's theories have failed.

And if the intelligent agent is equally adept at creating disorder as well as order, well now we're really in a pickle. How would you distinguish "designed" disorder from "natural" disorder?

I realize this is an evolution vs creationism debate, but a word that appeared above in one of the comments has always given me pause: "improvement." Now, I'm on the evolution side of things, but this word is a head-scratcher for me -- I'd appreciate any clarification.

My problem might simply be a case of ancient hangover from having read Pirsig's bike book. But I don't understand how natural selection improves anything. Doesn't it just allow that which is fit for present circumstances to persist? Wouldn't the notion of improvement be bringing the "quality" ghost into the machine? Granted, time and environment press certain biological substances into more and more complexity, but can said complexity really be improvement? Seems to be a fallacy of valuation in using that word.

Rilke's GD: "neurode, much of your most recent post seems to be bafflegab. Perhaps you could explain?"

That shouldn't be necessary, at least for those who don't go out of their ways to misunderstand, misconstrue or just plain tune out what I say. As far as those people are concerned, I simply don't care what they think. Since, unfortunately, this seems to include Rilke's Granddaughter, I feel comfortable terminating my response right ... here.

Or in other words, the Designer(s) is(are) incapable of producing a perfect RNG.

"I know people that talk alot and never say anything." "I see your mouth flappin, but I don't hear anything you say." "Your head bobs up and down, but nothing fruitful comes out."

Neurode:

Just in case you don't know what a theory is, please referr to my earlier post:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/daniel_dennett.html#c45448

From you recent babblings there is a strong indication that you haven't the foggiest idea of what constitues a theory.

Neither does Dembski for that matter.

But I don't understand how natural selection improves anything. Doesn't it just allow that which is fit for present circumstances to persist?

— Tim B.

Intelligence is a real phenomenon, and it is known to generate order in great abundance. Thus, any hypothesis implicating intelligence in the causation of a class of natural phenomena implicitly predicts some amount of order therein (unless the intelligence in question is somehow bent on disorder, which would, however, still be the output of intelligent, and therefore orderly, processing).

I realize this is an evolution vs creationism debate, but a word that appeared above in one of the comments has always given me pause: "improvement." Now, I'm on the evolution side of things, but this word is a head-scratcher for me --- I'd appreciate any clarification. My problem might simply be a case of ancient hangover from having read Pirsig's bike book. But I don't understand how natural selection improves anything. Doesn't it just allow that which is fit for present circumstances to persist? Wouldn't the notion of improvement be bringing the "quality" ghost into the machine? Granted, time and environment press certain biological substances into more and more complexity, but can said complexity really be improvement? Seems to be a fallacy of valuation in using that word.

ID the Future has a blog post up and right off the bat start out with that wonderful old creationist chestnut: Microevolution, sure, but macroevolution has not one bit of evidence supporting it.

Grey Wolf & Rilke's Granddaughter,

Thanks to you both for the explanations. As I read them, my head was nodding in agreement, just as it does when I spend time with my Mayr and Dennett books.

But in both cases -- after assenting to your comments and after appreciating Dennett's logical flow -- I go away with a subtle sense of something not-quite-right hanging in the air.

I'll just write it off to approaching dementia.

Just some random musings on "random." For numerous folk, they hear random as unguided -> unGod-ed. In reality, of course, it's more complex. I wonder if some of the emphasis on "random" is a ghost of evolution, so to speak - a reaction to rival early 20thC theories of orthogenesis (some life force forever pushing organisms onwards and upwards). Does anybody know if that's the case? It would also seem that we can only say "random as far as science can tell" (which is way good enough for me, of course . . .) And of course, natural selection is anything but random.

neurode - what would this ID of which you speak look like in terms of real-world examples? I'm not asking for a full-fledged scientific-y thingy - just spin a just-so story using lots of simple concrete anglo-saxon-rooted words, in reference to some specific structure or organism.

Not here, but in general I've heard lots of "you only believe in evolution because it means you don't have to be moral and have God put a crimp in all your irresponsible partying"-style comments. That just makes me sad. I mean, conceivably this is true for somebody, somewhere, but geez - what a . . . well, I can't really say 'little world people saying this live in,' because it isn't little exactly, it's a grand if perhaps slightly garish panaroma, but it's like refusing to look at the stars because the idea that there actually are hunters and animals and suchlike in the heavens, with all the dots connected and all, is so much more comforting . . .

No, better, not looking at the stars through a telescope because you just know there's big poofy clouds and pearly gates and all your loved ones (except for Uncle Will, we think he's probably in the Other Place possibly including pets, and a great Throne with a big old Guy with a white beard, and all this talk about astronomy is just about denying God. . .

Dennett's piece was fairly nifty. I think someone should edit that NY Times #2 article around - just move the real science up to the top, and once it sets out what scientists actually think, some ID silliness, and then close with some more real science . . .

I've seen 'eyeball' so often that it's lost all semantic content for me and just looks creepy, like ew, an eye-ball. Like a sport or something . .

GW: "O...k... So if we find order, it's a point for intelligence. but if we find disorder, it is also a point for the designer because she might have wanted disorder. So what evidence, exactly, would we need to find to show the non existance of a designer, neurode?"

The ID hypothesis says that the designer is responsible for the order manifest in major adaptive mutations. Therefore, total disorder in these mutations would not be "a point for" the ID hypothesis.

In case you didn't realize it, GW, I've got better things to do than correct the elementary mistakes of people whose primary purpose in addressing me is merely to muddy the waters while appearing to score debating points, particularly when their attempts display all the brilliance of Wiley Coyote in pursuit of his dinner.

Thanks for understanding.

The Paley argument that draws an analogy between artefacts and living things comes from a time when technologies were simpler than they are at present. It was far more plausible to understand design as the application of an individual's idea to raw materials when the resulting gizmos were relatively simple. Contemporary technological objects obviously don't come into being in this fashion, not only because a long process or trial and error is involved but because very little of much consequence can reasonably be called the brainchild of one person---nobody's thought balloon is big enough to contain the blue print of a computer. Even in the industrial revolution, the great innovators earned their reputations largely because of their entrepreneurial skills at acquiring the necessary capital to implement some scheme or other or because they had a better lawyer than the folks who actually invented the thing or because, like most of our famous scientists, they were gifted with a superior ability to garner the credit. The ancient schema of the craftsman and his plan doesn't explain technologies any better than it explains the evolution of living things.

— Jim Harrison

However, I will throw GW and Lenny a small bone to worry: science cannot be limited to prediction alone.

Ta-da!

I'd like to backtrack a little and ask why ID predicts order at all?

ID accentuates the generative aspect of mutation and, while temporarily of limited explanatory and predictive power

It all basically boils down to the Golden Rule, which is simple and seems right.

— Rocke

The ID hypothesis says that the designer is responsible for the order manifest in major adaptive mutations. Therefore, total disorder in these mutations would not be "a point for" the ID hypothesis. In case you didn't realize it, GW, I've got better things to do than correct the elementary mistakes of people whose primary purpose in addressing me is merely to muddy the waters while appearing to score debating points, particularly when their attempts display all the brilliance of Wiley Coyote in pursuit of his dinner.

— neurode

The ID hypothesis says that the designer is responsible for the order manifest in major adaptive mutations. Therefore, total disorder in these mutations would not be "a point for" the ID hypothesis.

The ID hypothesis says that the designer is responsible for the order manifest in major adaptive mutations. Therefore, total disorder in these mutations would not be "a point for" the ID hypothesis.

...I've got better things to do than correct the elementary mistakes of people whose primary purpose in addressing me is merely to muddy the waters ...

I realize this is an evolution vs creationism debate, but a word that appeared above in one of the comments has always given me pause: "improvement." Now, I'm on the evolution side of things, but this word is a head-scratcher for me --- I'd appreciate any clarification. My problem might simply be a case of ancient hangover from having read Pirsig's bike book. But I don't understand how natural selection improves anything. Doesn't it just allow that which is fit for present circumstances to persist?

— Tim B.

Wouldn't the notion of improvement be bringing the "quality" ghost into the machine?

Granted, time and environment press certain biological substances into more and more complexity, but can said complexity really be improvement? Seems to be a fallacy of valuation in using that word.

Over the generations, natural selection "improves" the races to be better adapted to the environment. (Natural Selection doesn't actually do anything, because it is not an Intelligent Designer - it "improves" in the same sense that gravity "pulls" things towards the ground).

— Grey Wolf

I think I found another possible falsification proof for evolution (you know, beyond the "bunny in precambrian"). You just need to find a transitional fossil that completes a circle, for example: we have transitionals for dinosaur-bird, and lizard-dinosaur and lizard-mammal (say). If someone found a mammal-bird, that would seriously bring down evolution to its knees, I think, since evolution predicts branching, not circles. Ummmm... hopefully I've explained this properly...

theory a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.

— Miah

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

It would also seem that we can only say "random as far as science can tell"

Neurode writes: "What breathtaking idiocy! Natural selection doesn't "generate" anything; it is a negative process which edits that which has been generated in connection with another process, e.g. mutation"

Mutation generates variation. Natural selection acts on variation to generate new phenotypoes.

Hmmm..

I've written brief bits about this subject before. The use of stochastic hill climbing problems in solving systems of equations in a more efficeint manner than traditional methods is fast becomming commonplace in the sciences and engineering.

Stochastic hill climbing methods are a class of mathematical methods which harness randomness to find solutions to equations. It's called hill climbing in an analogy with Sewall Wrights concept of fitness landscapes. Such landscapes have peaks, where organisms have much greater fitness than organisms in the plains and valleys below. The trick is getting up the peak. Darwin discovered the first such algorithm. Its called Natural Selection or descent via modification. As Dan Dennett distilled it, its quite simple, move up the hill when you can, don't move back down it. THe simplest method is the Monte Carlo method. In the monte carlo method (5pts for anyone who can figure out why its called that, -25 pts for anyone who can't) solutions are chosen at random, inserted into the equations and we compute a "cost"; a measure of how well it satisfies the equations. You keep trying randomly derived solutions (guesses) until you have a population of solutions that satisfies your criteria for goodness of fit. Usually this is a value of the cost which is chosen as a threshold. Below such a value you keep the solutions, above you reject. Once you have a population of *good* solutions you can then perform other sorts of statistical analyses to learn more about the properties that the hypothetical *ideal* solution has.

Genetic algorithms are more complex than the Monte-Carlo method. Indeed, they are quite analogous to NS. You have a population of solutions (sans organisms), you breed a new generation via x-fertilization and then see how well these new solutions actually satisy the equations. THose solutions which exceed your cost criteria are *killed* off. With each generation you can lower your cost threshold. This is quite like *selection*. Indeed these terms, pepper the stochastic hill climbing method literature.

In February's Scientific American (2003), there is an article written by engineers and computer scientists who used GA's to create novel electronic circuit deisgns. They were able to duplicate or better 15 previously patented designs using GA's.

In the case of the most complicated task, designing a "cubic signal generator", the GA evolved a design which out perfoms a recently patented design that performs the same task. GA's don't think. They have no cognitive ability. Yet this GA *designed* such a good circuit. Its even more interesting than that. TO quote the authors, "The evolved circuit performs with better accuracy than the designed one, but how it functions is not understood. The evolved circuit is clearly more complicated, but also contains redundant parts, such as the purple transistor that contrbutes nothing to the functioning." (You'll have to see the article). (Page 58, Feb 2003 issue of Sci-Am)

So here is a mindless computer algorithm besting intelligent designers with designs that contain sub-optimal or unneeded parts. How scary is that?

How will the creationists and ID *theorists* respond?

1. Well the algorithm was designed by humans, therefore by the transitive property of whatever, anything resulting from a GA is also designed by humans.

Of course the fact that the authors still have no idea how the circuit works will not deter creationists from using the above. How one designs something while not knowing how it works, even after it is *designed* is a contradiction that will not bother creationists or ID theorists.

2. Well so what if the circuit has an unneeded part. Perhaps in the future they will find it does have a function.

While not stated in the article, it would be a simple matter for them to remove that transistor and verify that the cost value and the performance of the circuit remains unchanged.

3. Perhaps the SOL or some dieletric constants will change in the future, at which point, unneeded parts will have a function.

LOL. But no doubt Bill Dembski and others will take that route.

4. Well its not irreducibly complex.

Sorry, Dr. Behe, you remove something besides the unneeded transistor, and you no longer have a cubic signal generator. Of course, it is likely that transitor was used in a past generation, and is fixed in the *design* as a result of an historical contingency (RIP, SJG).

5. The circuit was originally perfect, but it was ruined after the Fall.

Umm.. not unless the fall occurred a few months ago.

6. This project was rooted in naturalist assumptions. Therefore its not valid. Neener-Neener

No Comment.

7. All of the above.

Plump-DJ writes: And has "Dennett" actually shown that RM & NS was the driving force behind the evolution of the eye? My understanding is that those skeptical of darwinian forces request a step by step account? Is that asking too much and what should we do if we don't have it?"

Well I don't have a grain by grain understanding of the Earth's formation. Should I entertain the idea then, that it was intelligently designed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) :-) or any other metaphysical being?

On the other hand, as a professional Geophysicist, what I do have, is rock record of Earth history (incomplete as it is), stretching back 4.4 billion years, asteroids, cratering records of the inner planets and moon, meteorites, KBO's and now a sampling of cometary materials with which I can test existing theories of planetary formation and evolution, as well as formulate new ones.

Likewise, with respect to the "eye", nature is replete with differeing types of eyes. From the simple light sensitve ganglia of a Planarian to the pinhole camera eye of a Nautilus, to the very complex vertebrate eye. Given the range of extant eye types its hardly a stretch to suggest evolutionary pathways.

Is a step by step description needed? DO forensic specialists need to retrace how a criminal spent every second of every day? No.

How much or how many? As many as it takes to test the proposition given. Creationists lie when they tell you there are no transitional forms. THen when you point them out, they tell you its not enough. Course you can always say it isn't enough. But they never tell you what will satisfy them and by what logic they arrived at that quantity.

"Even if intelligent design isn't science it still raises questions about the "epistemic status" of historical, biological conclusions like the one Dennet is making."

You don't need intelligent design to do that. Scientists do that all the time. If intelligent design doesn't have anything to offer science; it suggests no testable hypothesis, has no evidence, no research program, than there is no point in teaching it in science class and has nothing to offer in the way of adding to humanity's databanks.

One characteristic that distinguishes circuits created by the genetic algorithm from rationally designed circuits is the greater resiliency of the former. The genetic algorithm not only selects for circuits that work. It also selects for circuits that still work even if mutated in future iterations. Which is the same reason that species evolving under natural selection don't typically land on isolated adaptive peaks surrounded by areas of low adaptiveness--the fidelity of the genetic copying system is unable to stay on such perilous heights. Natural selection doesn't just select for particular mechanisms and attributes. It selects for traits that can keep on trucking despite the noise of the genetic, developmental, and metabolic environments in which they have to operate. NS heads for the hills, not the volcanoes.

Rationally designed circuits tend to be brittle because their designers focus how to make them work, not how to make them robust in the face of thermal noise and manufacturing errors. Living things are clearly not very much like rationally designed circuits in these regards. Organisms are highly robust, which shows they weren't designed. (details in Andreas Wagner's new book Robustness and Evolvability in Natural Systems, which I'm going to keep plugging until somebody else notices the book or explains to me why it isn't rather significant.)

Good post, Stuart. That reminds me, IIRC, Danny Hillis evolved some algorithm which performs nearer the theoretical limit than any designed algorithm, it's only about 100 lines long, and Hillis says he cannot figure out how it works.

Stuart Wienstien said: How will the creationists and ID *theorists* respond? 1.... 7

NeoDarwinists like to believe that natural selection (NS) determines evolution by eliminating forms already generated in association with mutation. NS supposedly accomplishes this gradually, a little bit at a time. However, NS is only the mill and not the grist; it is not responsible for producing the evolutionary information implicit in any given mutation of any size, but merely for making mutations stack up in a particular way.

Ved Rocke wrote:

"Maybe if you actually did your homework instead of blindly repeating the same crap that every other IDist or creationist keep spiting out over the years, you'd see that Darwin (over 100 years ago) refuted the "eye" controversy himself and plainly gave a "step by step" account."

No i mean a step by step account shown to correspond to reality -- not some Darwinian philosophy that was pulled from his arse. Otherwise they're called "just so stories" and that's not science, it's just a story cloaked in 'sciencey' language.

I'm not saying it didn't evolve that way BTW, merely that there are others who have voiced skepticsm regarding the sufficency of "neo-darwinian" methods and some of them aren't even ID-ists. Therefore saying Darwinism is not the full picture does not mean "now let's insert a designer and be done with it".

Russell politely commented...

I'm wondering how Dennet knows Evolution is blind, or that Natural selection is even random?

I'm wondering about your competence to understand the discussion. Is there a claim on the table that "natural selection is random"?

As Dennett's number one pal has already written a book calling the process "The Blind Watchmaker" the question remains, how does he know that Evolution is blind? Perhaps you can answer for him?

BTW I love the way in which people asking questions are treated in this forum. It's lovely. -- "Quick everyone, to the walls, we're under attack!! We must hold this theory at all costs!!"

We should acknowledge that we are never going to have the complete mutation-by-mutation account of the evolution of any structure, and admit that, therefore, every alternative is equiprobable.

Really?

Even if intelligent design isn't science it still raises questions about the "epistemic status" of historical, biological conclusions like the one Dennet[sic] is making.

See, it's all about an honest intellectual inquiry into epistemic robustness...

...so shut up and go back into your cave.

...or, not.

I thought everyone in this dicussion was all about honest intellectual inquiry, aren't they?

how does he know that Evolution is blind? Perhaps you can answer for him?

BTW I love the way in which people asking questions are treated in this forum. It's lovely. --- "Quick everyone, to the walls, we're under attack!! We must hold this theory at all costs!!"

ist there a claim on the table that "natural selection is random"?

We should acknowledge that we are never going to have the complete mutation-by-mutation account of the evolution of any structure, and admit that, therefore, every alternative is equiprobable.

I thought everyone in this dicussion was all about honest intellectual inquiry, aren't they?

Anyone claiming to be honestly inquiring into the epistemic status of historical conclusions should feel free to take stroll across a busy highway, or drink drano. Even if we had a molecule-by-molecule account of what happens in such circumstances, there are no grounds for epistemic certainty that future occurrences will match past occurrences.

The same way he knows Evolution is deaf and dumb, and : there's no evidence that it's not. Does he claim to know it in any stronger way than that?

That's called philosophy -- he's sneaking in that atheism where he can isn't he? Firstly, if you have no idea about wether or not evolution is directed or not, one should not simply assume because you are now making "philosphical claims". If you do, you are merely imposing your own prior metaphysical viewpoints -- unless you have evidence to the contrary which compels one to believe one position is true and the other is not. Now If 'God' exists, then Evolution would probably not be "blind" at all would it? So back to our original question -- how does Dennett know about the "Teleolgical content of evolution" and wether it's driven by blind forces or not? Where's the science?

Secondly, there are reasons to think Evolution is not "blind" and many have made the point before, not just "red neck IDers". As Simon Conway Morris concluded in his "recent" book...

"For some it will remain as the pointless activity of the blind watchmaker but other's may prefer to remove their dark glasses. The choice of course, is yours!"

Are you planning to address that, or whine about being under attack?

No i'm going to whine. I shouldn't have said NS is random. I was speaking about Evolution in general being blind, without teleology or direction -- the blind watchmaker That was my point. So I can retract my point about NS, but you or Dennett still need to answer the question above, if you agree with Dennett? Where's the science behind his claim that Evolution is without direction or purpose? Let's lay it on the table.

I'll credit an "intelligent design theory" advocate with honest inquiry when s/he can tell me what the theory of intelligent design is.

So let me see if I've got this straight, all people on the "Darwinian side" are honest seekers of truth, driven soley by an honest desire to understand reality and follow the arguments, the data, the evidence where it may, free from subjective (a)theological or philosophical desires -- and the other side is not?

Where i'm from that's called "Bollocks!"

Where i'm from that's called "Bollocks!"

Are you planning to address that, or whine about being under attack?

No i'm going to whine.

Well the algorithm was designed by humans, therefore by the transitive property of whatever, anything resulting from a GA is also designed by humans.

Anyone claiming to be honestly inquiring into the epistemic status of historical conclusions should feel free to take stroll across a busy highway, or drink drano. Even if we had a molecule-by-molecule account of what happens in such circumstances, there are no grounds for epistemic certainty that future occurrences will match past occurrences.

Hi there not-Tim,

My name is not-Plump-DJ. I'm quite upset by your request above. You see I'm actually quite unsure about what happened back in the good ol' days of Earth and whether or not darwinian processes alone are really sufficent to do the job. Now i'm sure you understand that this does not constitute a denial of the notion that biological system evolved with respect to time, or that the environment does affect or drive changes in these biolgocical entities. It merely suggests that the picture of realiy is perhaps darwinism + the laws of physics + maybe something else. It suggets that realiy isn't as simple and straight forward as Dennett would like it be.

You see from my ignorant point of view (and Dennett has mentioned that people like me are inexcusably ignroant so my bad) there are some smart people who say that darwinian methods and Darwin's "version" of evolution aren't all they're cracked up to be especially in the light of modern data -- and then there are some smart people like Dennett who say it is not only "all it's cracked up to be" it's proven true such that no rational man can deny it. (at least that's the impression I get)

Now point in question -- Dennett, in his article above claimed Darwin's process can create all sorts of wonderful, ingenious designs. But over on the "ID The Future" blog in response to Dennett's article the author notes..

"Yet natural selection has never been demonstrated to produce even one new species, much less new organs and body plans--the "ingenious designs" to which Dennett refers. Natural selection, like artificial selection, produces only minor changes in existing species."

Now this is something i've seen written before and not just over at "Answers In Genesis"! So what should I do not-Tim? Since i'm not sufficently knowledgable to address that question just yet, perhaps in my honest ignorance I can throw myself in front of a car? Or perhaps I should just assume that it really is all it's cracked up to be?

Hi Reverand,

m, IDers claim to have an "alternative scientific theory".

They don't.

Where I come from, that's called "lying".

What happens to "Christians" who lie, DJ? Do you think it's OK to lie for the Lord?

Christians, and people, who Lie... Burn in hell!!

If you are suggesting there is no theory to ID, then I believe you are completely mistaken.

The theory as I understand it basically says that the biotic reality as a whole should be viewed through the prism of *both* teleology and non-teleolgy, that biology is best understould with elements from both points of view. It also states that in some cases the teleologial viewpoint is more illuminating and makes more sense of the data then the non-teleological viewpoint, specificaly Darwin's mechanism. Whether this is "scientific" i have no idea --please consult your resident philosopher of science-- but it's a far sight more then saying "Ooo this is so complex therefore God did it"!

If you suggest that viewing elements of biology through the prism of teleology is *not* more illuminating then the non-teleological alternatives (specificaly Darwin's mechanism) then you really need to vist the webiste of "Mike Gene"! This guy rocks the ID planet in my view. Very insightful.

www.idthink.net

Yours in Plumpyness
P-DJ

The theory as I understand it ...

but it's a far sight more then saying "Ooo this is so complex therefore God did it"!

If you are suggesting there is no theory to ID, then I believe you are completely mistaken.

Whether this is "scientific" i have no idea

The theory as I understand it basically says that the biotic reality as a whole should be viewed through the prism of *both* teleology and non-teleolgy, that biology is best understould with elements from both points of view. It also states that in some cases the teleologial viewpoint is more illuminating and makes more sense of the data then the non-teleological viewpoint, specificaly Darwin's mechanism.

Now this is something i've seen written before and not just over at "Answers In Genesis"! So what should I do not-Tim?

Hi not-Tim,

OK i've just got an education. What should I do now? I'm still stuck in the same spot.

Feelin' The Love
Plump DJ

Hi Rev,

Says who?

Thank you for sharing your religious opinions with me (and please understand that everything you've written so far has been nothing but your religious opinions).

What do you mean says who? You were the one who asked me what the theory of ID was all about. I gave you one example of what those words mean and even provided a link to the website (Teleologic) of a very insightful fellow by the name of 'Mike Gene'. Now, since he suggests that Teleological viewpoints can help us better understand aspects of the biotic reality and make predictions contra the non-teleolgoical alternatives this would seem to constitute a "theory of ID".

So unless you can show me why I should disregard my view that this constitutes a 'theory of ID' or prove that
'ID cannot be used to look at biology and provide insights', you may want to "shut up"!

Secondly, please tell me where anything i've said or asked for was based on any religious source, such as the bible, or "feelings from Above". Questions found in reason or even philosohpy do not constitute "religous".

I'll leave it at that

Hi Rev,

Says who?

Thank you for sharing your religious opinions with me (and please understand that everything you've written so far has been nothing but your religious opinions).

What do you mean says who? You were the one who asked me what the theory of ID was all about. I gave you one example of what those words mean and even provided a link to the website (Teleologic) of a very insightful fellow by the name of 'Mike Gene'. Now, since he suggests that Teleological viewpoints can help us better understand aspects of the biotic reality and make predictions contra the non-teleolgoical alternatives this would seem to constitute a "theory of ID".

So unless you can show me why I should disregard my view that this constitutes a 'theory of ID' or evidence that 'ID cannot be used to look at biology and provide insights' (to do this you would need to actually read some of his material) you may want to, in the words of your esteemed colleague, not-Tim, "Get an Education"!

Second of all, please tell me where anything i've said or asked for was based on any religious source, such as the bible, or "feelings from Above". Questions found in reason or even philosohpy do not constitute "religous".

I'll leave it at that

Yet natural selection has never been demonstrated to produce even one new species, much less new organs and body plans---the "ingenious designs" to which Dennett refers. Natural selection, like artificial selection, produces only minor changes in existing species.

Senior Fellow Jonathan Witt [of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture] holds a Ph.D. in English from the University of Kansas. After years of studying and teaching students about logical fallacies and the structure of sound arguments, Witt began to notice just how fallacious and unsound the arguments of the leading Darwinists were. ... Witt's dissertation on critical theory and aesthetics received highest academic honors and has led to articles in such journals as Literature and Theology and The Princeton Theological Review.

OK i've just got an education.

The theory as I understand it basically says that the biotic reality as a whole should be viewed through the prism of *both* teleology and non-teleolgy, that biology is best understould with elements from both points of view. It also states that in some cases the teleologial viewpoint is more illuminating and makes more sense of the data then the non-teleological viewpoint, specificaly Darwin's mechanism. Whether this is "scientific" i have no idea ---please consult your resident philosopher of science--- but it's a far sight more then saying "Ooo this is so complex therefore God did it"!

"[Structure, gene] X appears to have been conserved across N species over Y millions of years. What function might it serve that might explain that apparent preservation?"

Another simple question for you Neurode --
Is sculpture a generative process?
How can that be, given that it is entirely subtractive?
How can that not be, given that we recognize the results of sculpture as new creations?
The bloviating is all yours, driven by your prejudicial need to take any evolutionary, or even any scientific, statement in the worst possible light, twisting it however necessary, so as to fit your warped and invalid ontology, metaphysics, and epistemology. Your presuppostions precede you, and derail you from the start.
No one's impressed, no one believes you, and you've made no valid points.
Done a half-decent job of embarassing yourself, though.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

ID accentuates the generative aspect of mutation and, while temporarily of limited explanatory and predictive power (as Lenny here has made a minor career out of observing), nevertheless attempts a broad characterization in terms of "design", a kind of process already observed in nature

— neurode

It also states that in some cases the teleologial viewpoint is more illuminating and makes more sense of the data then the non-teleological viewpoint, specificaly Darwin's mechanism.

— Plump-DJ

"Yet natural selection has never been demonstrated to produce even one new species, much less new organs and body plans---the "ingenious designs" to which Dennett refers. Natural selection, like artificial selection, produces only minor changes in existing species." Now this is something i've seen written before and not just over at "Answers In Genesis"! So what should I do not-Tim?

— Plump-DJ

I just thought of something. And I want some serious scrutiny of it.

You know how the creationist and ID'er and anyone who doesn't quite "get" evolution ask about trasitionals today. Generally the remark is that evolution is happening too slowly for anyone to see it.

I started thinking about the frog. I know it is classified as an amphibian, but think about this. It resembles a reptile, fish, and mammal.

Some species have soft smooth skin like a mammal, & some species have more rough skin more like a reptile. If I remember my biology correctly frogs are cold-blooded like reptiles. But yet they still lay eggs like fish. Could this animal that has many same characteristics of different "kinds" (pardon the lack of a better word) be considered a transition from its fish state to a more mammilian or reptilian state?

Could it be supposed within 10,000 to 100,000 more years (if they escape extinction) that they could be land dwellers, or eventually go back to the water and stay there?

To me it would be like the whale that came onto land, and then went back into the ocean.

I was also thinking about the plant-animals as well. We have many species that share the characteristics of both, so a lot of biologist have difficulty distinguishing between the two. Could this possibly be another transitional that we are seeing today? And within 10,000 to 100,000 years they will evolve into say a full blown animal?

I apologize for not doing a lot of independent research before I posted my ideas here, but I would enjoy some feedback as to why or why not this may be possible?

Plump DJ:

As I asked Neurode this, and did not get a direct amswer, perhaps you can shed some light here.

Please give an example of an instance where an observed structure or function is better explained by ID than by evolution, or where ID provides an explanation where evolution cannot.

Plump-DJ,

I have now read a lot of Mike Gene's writings on his website that you cited. I see a lot of sociopolitcal whining, more evolutionary criticisms, and one failed teleological hypothesis that he tried to spin. I don't see any specific reference to the ID theory that Rev is looking for. Do you?

Add to that, Mike Gene has declared that ID is not science. How insightful did you say Mike Gene was?

For the hecklers, I thought you guys might let up on DJ and neurode a bit, and pick on IDTF's entry about this article instead: http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?title=daniel_dennett_s_sham_science

PvM: "Mutations do not generate information. Natural selection does."

That's incorrect, PvM. Natural selection restricts the space of possible evolutionary worldlines for a given species to just one worldline (or several closely related ones, one for each variant), and is thus informational. However, this information is not "generated"; it is merely transferred from the natural environment to phenotypes via selection pressure, and then to mutation sequences via the resultant pruning of lineages.

Similarly, mutation, as characterized by neoDarwinism, merely actualizes a distribution of possible genetic changes, and thus contains only the information implicit in that distribution. However, this information is (again) ultimately a function of natural law, and is therefore causal rather than generative in origin. (That is, it was generated along with the laws of physics and statistics in the sense that nothing but a set of initial conditions need be added to them in order to explain it.) IDT, on the other hand, says that the information generated in association with mutation is primarily phenotypic in character, "specified", and generated de novo.

PvM: "Without natural selection, mutations would be random and thus contain little information. It's the selection process which generates the information by correlating the genetic representation with the environment."

You're merely spouting the neoDarwinian party line while saying nothing that would serve to justify it. Again, you're talking about information already implicit in nature, not information "generated" by NS.

PvM: "Second of all, contrary to what one may expect, natural selection can influence how and which mutations arise. In other words, natural selection can bias the mutations. The technical term is evolvability."

Evolvability is nothing new. The standard notion is that somehow, evolvability evolves. But in fact, evolvability, like any biological property, must somehow have been generated prior to natural selection. So it really tells us nothing about the supposed ability of natural selection to generate information.

Shirley Knott: Is sculpture a generative process?

Yes, at least where artistic creativity is involved (as opposed to some programmatic form of sculpture). On the other hand, natural selection involves no creativity; it is determined by the (already-existing) natural environment. While one might also say that it is actually a function of interaction between environment and phenotype, this does nothing to explain how phenotypic/environmental information is converted to information about individual genetic mutations; hence, it cannot be treated as a source of information with respect thereto. (Next time, Shirley, you might try thinking a little.)

GCT: "Name one instance of design in nature as IDists understand the term 'design.'"

Far be it from me to speak for the entire ID community. But if I were compelled to do so, I'd give this example: "Nature". This example has an advantage over the flagellum: one can't simply write it off to a naturalistic form of evolutionary programming.

By the way, have I ever complemented you people on your stellar talent for warping and garbling even the very theory you're trying to defend? If not, you probably shouldn't hold your breath. If Charles Darwin were still with us today, he'd no doubt be cowering in the shadows with a gunnysack over his head just to avoid being fingered as the one who inspired all of your disjointed nonsense, which, let's face it, bears precious little resemblance to his actual ideas.

What do you mean says who?

You were the one who asked me what the theory of ID was all about.

Second of all, please tell me where anything i've said or asked for was based on any religious source, such as the bible, or "feelings from Above". Questions found in reason or even philosohpy do not constitute "religous". I'll leave it at that

Far be it from me to speak for the entire ID community.

By the way, have I ever complemented you people on your stellar talent for warping and garbling even the very theory you're trying to defend?

Lenny: "Don't flatter yourself, junior."

OK, geezer. But we've already been through your comical oversimplification of the definition and methodology of science, and I've already explained why you can't reject the ID hypothesis as "unscientific" out of hand. You didn't respond, thereby showing everybody that when it comes to debating evolution, you're in "spew" mode.

Please, a little more thought next time.

For the hecklers, I thought you guys might let up on DJ and neurode a bit, and pick on IDTF's entry about this article instead: http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?title=danie...

Sunday's New York Times carries an op-ed by philosopher Daniel C. Dennett implying that intelligent design theory (ID) is a hoax because it lacks scientific content.

"Intelligent design itself does not have any content" -- George Gilder

OK, geezer. But we've already been through your comical oversimplification of the definition and methodology of science, and I've already explained why you can't reject the ID hypothesis as "unscientific" out of hand. You didn't respond, thereby showing everybody that when it comes to debating evolution, you're in "spew" mode.

I notice you didn't give me any scientific theory of ID. Is that because (1) there isn't any, (2) there is one, but you're too fumb to know what it is, or (3) there is one and you DO know what it is, but for some unknown reason you don't want to tell anyone.

As for the "methodology of science", I once again offer the following:

The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe

2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed

3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis

4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions

5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions

NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". So ID's claim that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong.

However, what science DOES require is that any supernatural or non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to steps 3, 4 and 5. And HERE is where ID fails miserably.

To demonstate this, let's pick a particular example of an ID hypothesis and see how the scientific method can be applied to it: One claim made by many ID creationists explains the genetic similarity between humans and chimps by asserting that God --- uh, I mean, An Unknown Intelligent Designer --- created both but used common features in a common design.

Let's take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is "an intelligent designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C gene in both products."

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

Well, here is ID supernaturalistic methodology's chance to shine. What predictions can we make from ID's hypothesis? If an Intelligent Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then we would also expect to see ... ?

IDers, please fill in the blank.

And, to better help us test ID's hypothesis, it is most useful to point out some negative predictions --- things which, if found, would FALSIFY the hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that the hypothesis is wrong. So, then --- if we find (fill in the blank here), then the "common design" hypothesis would have to be rejected.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Well, the IDers seem to be sort of stuck on step 3. Despite all their voluminous writings and arguments, IDers have never yet given ANY testible predictions from their ID hypothesis that can be verified through experiment.

Take note here --- contrary to the IDers whining about the "unfair exclusion of supernatural causes", there are in fact NO limits imposed by the scientific method on the nature of their predictions, other than the simple ones indicated by steps 3, 4 and 5 (whatever predictions they make must be testible by experiments or further observations.) They are entirely free to invoke whatever supernatural causes they like, in whatever number they like, so long as they follow along to steps 3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities or causes using experiment or further observation. Want to tell us that the Good Witch Glenda used her magic non-naturalistic staff to POP these genetic sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine â€"- just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test that. Want to tell us that God --- er, I mean The Unknown Intelligent Designer --- didn’t like humans very much and therefore decided to design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works for me â€" just as soon as you tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test it. Feel entirely and totally free to use all the supernaturalistic causes that you like. Just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test your predictions.

Let's assume for a moment that the IDers are right and that science is unfairly biased against supernaturalist explanations. Let's therefore hypothetically throw methodological materialism right out the window. Gone. Bye-bye. Everything's fair game now. Ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies, magic star goats, whatever god-thing you like. Feel free to include and invoke ALL of them. As many as you need. All the IDers have to do now is simply show us all how to apply the scientific method to whatever non-naturalistic science they choose to invoke in order to subject the hypothesis "genetic similarities between chimps and humans are the product of a common design", or indeed ANY other non-material or super-natural ID hypothesis, to the scientific method.

And that is where ID "theory" falls flat on its face. It is NOT any presupposition of "philosophical naturalism" on the part of science that stops ID dead in its tracks ---- it is the simple inability of ID "theory" to make any testible predictions. Even if we let them invoke all the non-naturalistic designers they want, intelligent design "theory" STILL can't follow the scientific method.

Deep down inside, what the IDers are really moaning and complaining about is NOT that science unfairly rejects their supernaturalistic explanations, but that science demands ID's proposed "supernaturalistic explanations" be tested according to the scientific method, just like every OTHER hypothesis has to be. Not only can ID not test any of its "explanations", but it wants to modify science so it doesn't HAVE to. In effect, the IDers want their supernaturalistic "hypothesis" to have a privileged position â€"- they want their hypothesis to be accepted by science WITHOUT being tested; they want to follow steps one and two of the scientific method, but prefer that we just skip steps 3,4 and 5, and just simply take their religious word for it, on the authority of their own say-so, that their "science" is correct. And that is what their entire argument over "materialism" (or "naturalism" or "atheism" or "sciencism" or "darwinism" or whatever the heck else they want to call it) boils down to.

There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses, whatever they are, should not be subjected to the very same testing process that everyone ELSE's hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go through. If they cannot put their "hypothesis" through the same scientific method that everyone ELSE has to, then they have no claim to be "science". Period.

Feel free to explain to everyone how to test any of your, uh, "theory" using the scientific method, junior.

OK, geezer. But we've already been through your comical oversimplification of the definition and methodology of science, and I've already explained why you can't reject the ID hypothesis as "unscientific" out of hand. You didn't respond, thereby showing everybody that when it comes to debating evolution, you're in "spew" mode.

But we've already been through your comical oversimplification of the definition and methodology of science

I've already explained why you can't reject the ID hypothesis as "unscientific" out of hand.

— Neurode

That's incorrect, PvM. Natural selection restricts the space of possible evolutionary worldlines for a given species to just one worldline (or several closely related ones, one for each variant), and is thus informational. However, this information is not "generated"; it is merely transferred from the natural environment to phenotypes via selection pressure, and then to mutation sequences via the resultant pruning of lineages.

— Neurode

Similarly, mutation, as characterized by neoDarwinism, merely actualizes a distribution of possible genetic changes, and thus contains only the information implicit in that distribution. However, this information is (again) ultimately a function of natural law, and is therefore causal rather than generative in origin. (That is, it was generated along with the laws of physics and statistics in the sense that nothing but a set of initial conditions need be added to them in order to explain it.) IDT, on the other hand, says that the information generated in association with mutation is primarily phenotypic in character, "specified", and generated de novo.

— Neurode

You're merely spouting the neoDarwinian party line while saying nothing that would serve to justify it. Again, you're talking about information already implicit in nature, not information "generated" by NS.

— Neurode

Evolvability is nothing new. The standard notion is that somehow, evolvability evolves. But in fact, evolvability, like any biological property, must somehow have been generated prior to natural selection. So it really tells us nothing about the supposed ability of natural selection to generate information

— Neurode

Lenny: "You seem to have sort of gripe with the scientific method, so I will ask yet another question (which of course you won't answer): What is the specific complaint you have about the scientific method, and how would you propose altering the scientific method in order to accomodate your complaint (whatever it is)?"

The weakest part of the scientific method is the lack of structure underlying the "phenomenological" stage, wherein abstract entities and relationships are interpretatively attached to raw data (often with no more justification than momentary convenience or desperation). In light of the "meta-structurelessness" of this interpretative gap separating theory from observation, one could almost call the scientific method a "methodology of the gap". Accordingly, I'd alter the scientific method by formalizing that stage.

Of course, I won't bother to speculate on how I might do that. To a near certainty, you and others here don't have the required background in mathematical logic to make such a discussion worthwhile, and even when the logic is clear, you seldom argue rationally. However, I will observe that we're talking about the strange obedience of nature to the laws of abstraction collectively called "mathematics", and thus about elucidating and strengthening the connection between the empirical and mathematical sciences ... a connection on which the scientific method implicitly relies, and over which your analyses tend to skip without a care.

From reading your posts, I'd have to guess that anything more involved than this would be well over your head.

From reading your posts, I'd have to guess that anything more involved than this would be well over your head.

Of course, I won't bother to speculate on how I might do that.

To a near certainty, you and others here don't have the required background in mathematical logic to make such a discussion worthwhile

Neurode -

If I understand your comment regarding the connection between theory and empirical results correctly, hasn't Dembski been trying to do just that - and failed miserably?

Again, what observed structures or functions can be explained better by ID than by evolution, or what has ID explained successfully where evolution has failed?

This is like the 3rd time I've asked this and still have yet to get a reply. Now I know how Lenny feels.

Maybe I can deal with one post at a time before I get destroyed under a wall of opposition. So i'll start with my original request to Russell which is where this all started and then I got side tracked by all of this stuff I wasn't really interested in getting into. (or familiar with).

So..

A far sight more secular-sounding but, alas, no closer to a "theory".

So what if it sounds more secular, if you did accept it for sheer argument sake you're now accepting that teleological viewpoints can help us understand elements of reality better then a non-teleolgoical alternative. There are obvious philosophical implications invovled in accepting this which are contra to your's and Dennett's point of view.

"[Structure, gene] X appears to have been conserved across N species over Y millions of years. What function might it serve that might explain that apparent preservation?"

What extra insight comes from the unnecessary postulation that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has a hidden plan?

Who said anything about a flying spaghetti monster? I like how you "poo poo" the notion of teleology as if somehow reudcing the basic notion and then ignoring the "prima facie" evidence under pinning that suspicion, is actually fooling anyone.

As James Shapiro (apparently a respected geneticist noted)..

"the result of molecular studies of heredity, cell biology and multicellular development has been to reveal a realm of sensitivity, communication, computation and indescribable complexity."

And Paul Davies another non-ID chap hinting at teleology in nature..

"Concepts like information and software do not come from the natural sciences at all, but from communication theory, and involve qualities like context and mode of description - notions that are quite alien to the physicist's description of the world. Yet most scientists accept that informational concepts do legitimately apply to biological systems, and they cheerfully treat semantic information as if it were a natural quantity like energy. Unfortunately, "meaning" sounds perilously close to purpose, an utterly taboo subject in biology. So we are left with the contradiction that we need to apply concepts derived from purposeful human activities (communication, meaning, context, semantics) to biological processes that certainly appear purposeful, but are in fact not (or are not supposed to be)."

So we're seemingly introducing more and more teleological concepts (signal transduction networks, coding information, 'software', genome formatting, error correction) and yet somehow it is what? Obvious that these things were built by purposeless, blind processes all the way, from the ground up? If you're not saying that then all you could be saying is that either "Darwinism is still more enlightening when used to understand how these systems came to be" (As one example i've read - Shapiro doesn't agree) *or* that you can still understand these systems without needing to add teleology into the picture.

Well that's all well and good, but you havne't quite filled in the epistemic gaps telling us that this is actually how reality is have you Or even that this is the best way to understand these systems? So without that, you and Dennett are just imposing a philosophical and metaphysical viewpoint on the data and then (at least in the case of Dennett) forgetting to tell everyone you did that. Whoops!

Secondly, look at the forces actually pushing the ID agenda. Do you honestly think that their thinking is closer to Simon Conway Morris or to Pat Robertson? "Fallacy!" I hear you say. "It doesn't matter who's doing the endorsing or why! It's the content of the idea that matters!"

Which would be true... only, as we just demonstrated, there is no content.

I'm not interested in politics or "movements", merely questions about reality and wether or not teleology has a place. So please tell me how you have demonstrated or know that there is no purpose behind evolution if that is what you are suggesting as my quote from Conway Morris was in response to this?

I understand that Conway Morris is no Michael Behe or William Dembski, but it still argues against Dennett's claim, (and your's since you seem to be agreeing with him) that Evolution is without purpose or direction *or* that there is no reason to think it has any.

Russell: "Hey Neurode, did you go to the same arrogance school as Dembski? I don't know why you bother coming around here to tell us swine you're not going to be dropping your precious pearls here."

Then you apparently haven't noticed the incomprehension of your compatriots here at PT regarding issues on which they claim to be experts, let alone regarding matters on which they are evidently completely uninformed.

rdog: "Again, what observed structures or functions can be explained better by ID than by evolution, or what has ID explained successfully where evolution has failed?"

Arguably, all evolutionary information beyond that implicit in mere population effects. (You should already have understood this.)

Lenny, you're obviously a very confused person. Being compassionate by nature, I'm going to do you the infinite favor of telling you what your problem is.

Your problem is that somewhere along the line, you somehow decided that your particular brand of ID criticism was the last word on the subject, and thereafter devoted all of your energy to getting cute. Unfortunately, when we peel away the layer of cute little witticisms regarding the intellectual failures of "the IDiots", we discover a total absence of the sort of ironclad argumentation that their sheer density implies.

My advice: Get back to basics. Read a few books. Open your mind. Return to first principles. Go to your inner mirror, see yourself for who you really are, strip away your damnable hubris, and reduce yourself to a proper state of abject penitence. Then fall to your knees, and kneeling all the while, embark on a humble quest for true insight.

I hope this helps.

Lenny, you're obviously a very confused person. Being compassionate by nature, I'm going to do you the infinite favor of telling you what your problem is.

teleological viewpoints can help us understand elements of reality better then a non-teleolgoical alternative.

This is like the 3rd time I've asked this and still have yet to get a reply. Now I know how Lenny feels.

RBH,

Aren't you from the ARN boards. I remember reading some of your posts. (it's been a while..)

First, you might consider the qualifications of the guy who wrote that. According to his DI bio, the author is..

Firstly, i mentioned in my response that I have pointed out other's who have 'seemingly' discented from darwin's grand idea in it's capacity to explain all and before you. I'm not really appealing to Witt as some sort of guru, which is why I included the point about "other then Answer's in Genesis"!

Secondly, the author of the original paper Dennett, suggested the Darwinian proccess could explain and do all sorts of wonderful ingenious designing and thereby explain all of nature. I'm sure the word everything (not just nature) could be placed in there if I'm correctly familar with Dennett's writings. The problem is Dennett is a philosopher so the same question can be asked of Dennett -- what's he doing stickin' his nose in, he's only a philosopher?

Just for kicks, PlumpDJ, take a look at Some Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events. Then, for an instance of speciation in progress right now, take a look at Rhagoletis pomonella. (See also here and here.)

Much better than depending on an English major for your biology, wouldn't you say? (No offense to English majors: I married one.)

Yes, my bad! I should be relying on atheistic philosophers instead. :-) I shall read the items on those links.

So we're seemingly introducing more and more teleological concepts (signal transduction networks, coding information, 'software', genome formatting, error correction) and yet somehow it is what? Obvious that these things were built by purposeless, blind processes all the way, from the ground up? If you're not saying that then all you could be saying is that either "Darwinism is still more enlightening when used to understand how these systems came to be" (As one example i've read - Shapiro doesn't agree) *or* that you can still understand these systems without needing to add teleology into the picture.

I'm not interested in politics or "movements",

merely questions about reality and wether or not teleology has a place.

So please tell me how you have demonstrated or know that there is no purpose behind evolution

Neurode -

OK, you've stated your claim.

Please explain: What is your metric for determining where the boundry between "population effects" and "ID effects" lies.

(Sorry. that last was directed to Plump DJ)

Plump-DJ: Unless you show up with some evidence and some details that would lend some solidity to your vapors and speculations about teleology, we don't really care about the rest of your crap.

But, if you're going to keep coming around, could you please do me the favor of inserting an "h" after the initial "w" in the word whether, that you keep misspelling as wether?

This consistent misspelling on your part doesn't affect my opinion of your intelligence or the lack of it. It doesn't affect the strength of your arguments or their weakness.

It just bugs the &*%$# out of me. And, more importantly from your point of view, learning to spell or type this word correctly will prevent me from reaching through my screen and popping your pimples.

Thanks ever so much.

GCT: "Name one instance of design in nature as IDists understand the term 'design.'" Far be it from me to speak for the entire ID community. But if I were compelled to do so, I'd give this example: "Nature".

— Neurode

And all I ever get are variations of just two answers: either (1) "Jesus saves!!!!" or (2) "I don't have to tell you".

— Lenny Flank

Then fall to your knees, and kneeling all the while, embark on a humble quest for true insight.

— Neurode

Russell: I don't know why you bother coming around here to tell us swine you're not going to be dropping your precious pearls here."

Neurode: Then you apparently haven't noticed the incomprehension of your compatriots here at PT regarding issues on which they claim to be experts, let alone regarding matters on which they are evidently completely uninformed.

I should be relying on atheistic philosophers instead. :-)

GCT: "You must have missed the part where I asked for evidence. Any evidence to back that up?"

Why, yes. That would be nature itself. You see, it's ordered and not random - despite the ridiculous notion that order can arise randomly, order and randomness are ultimately opposed - and there is a sense in which this order must have a "source" (i.e., a point of divergence from its logical complement). ID proponents, arbitrarily enough, call this source "the designer".

You, on the other hand, seem to be saying "What source? Don't you get it? Nature just is, man!" However, if you were to try seriously to argue for this position, you would eventually, perhaps sooner rather than later, find yourself in trouble, particularly with regard to your definitions of nature and causality (such as they may be). Hence, your hypothesis, if we may call it that, can be discarded on a combination of logical and empirical, that is to say scientific, grounds. Accordingly, that's just what I'll go ahead and do.

Of course, if you want to argue, you can begin by explaining how high levels of order, e.g. the high levels of order apparent in nature, can be generated by any random process, given that a "random process" itself conforms to an orderly and rather involved procedural syntax and thus itself requires a source of order. If you try, you will be able to sustain your "explanation" only by involving yourself in an infinite regress. Since few of us have that much time on our hands, why not spare yourself the trouble?

Incidentally, lest this all seem like a sneaky philosophical trick, it's why I chose "nature" as an example of something that must have been designed. PT-style "reasoning", if we may use the term loosely, simply evaporates on the cosmological level of discourse. (If you don't believe me, ask any theistic evolutionist whose head isn't cross-threaded onto his neck.)

At this point, you probably want to jump up and shout "But that's not science!" However, forgive me if I doubt that you, and your fellow critics here at PT, are in any position to define "science" on this rather elevated level of analysis.

Then you apparently haven't noticed the incomprehension of your compatriots here at PT regarding issues on which they claim to be experts, let alone regarding matters on which they are evidently completely uninformed.

— nuerode

...order and randomness are ultimately opposed...

— nuerode

Oh, Neurode, by the way. One more thing.

Please give a specific example of something that "population effects" cannot explain.

What creature, or what structure, or what function, or whatever, would be a compelling poster child for something that possesses "evolutionary information beyond that implicit in mere population effects."

At this point, you probably want to jump up and shout "But that's not science!"

Why, yes. That would be nature itself. You see, it's ordered and not random - despite the ridiculous notion that order can arise randomly, order and randomness are ultimately opposed - and there is a sense in which this order must have a "source" (i.e., a point of divergence from its logical complement). ID proponents, arbitrarily enough, call this source "the designer".

"Elevated level of analysis". Hmmm.... how about enlightening us? Let's start with:

"Order and randomness are ultimately opposed".

Care to put that into an equation, or provide a link to where such an equation has been published?

Or did that come from an episode of "Kung Fu"?

rather elevated level of analysis.

Hey Neurode, is the Designer itself random, or ordered?

If it's random, and randomness can't produce order, then how did the random designer produce order -- something you've already declared to be impossible?

If it's ordered, and order can only come from design -- as you've already declared -- then what was it that designed the ordered designer? *Another* designer? Was *that* designer ordered or random, Neurode?

I do understand that you won't answer, Neurode. That's OK. My questions make their point all by themselves.

"Elevated level of analysis". Hmmm.... how about enlightening us?

forgive me if I doubt that you, and your fellow critics here at PT, are in any position to define "science" on this rather elevated level of analysis.

order and randomness are ultimately opposed

— neurode

Perception of order out of randomness (aka pattern recognition) is a hallmark for the indication of human-like intelligence.

To argue or state that "order and randomness are ultimatly opposed" would deny any form of measurable intelligence at all.

Seeing the face of Bill Cosby in a soup stain on a t-shirt is the perception of order out of randomness. This does not indicate order in and of itself. It is our ability to make sense out of what we see that attributes order, not defines it.

Order is an apparent attribute of the human thought process. Just because things appear to have order, doesn't mean that actually do.

A good example is a 5yo child seeing a teddy bear in a cloud formation. Then the adult seeing a dinasour. It is only the perception of order in that random cloud formation, not the evidence of order itself.

Of course, if you want to argue, you can begin by explaining how high levels of order, e.g. the high levels of order apparent in nature, can be generated by any random process, given that a "random process" itself conforms to an orderly and rather involved procedural syntax and thus itself requires a source of order. If you try, you will be able to sustain your "explanation" only by involving yourself in an infinite regress. Since few of us have that much time on our hands, why not spare yourself the trouble?

— neurode

And, of course, that is an "infinite regress".

The vacant, and mostly creepy, Creationists on this thread have finally reached their ultimate line of reasoning, which could best be represented from the response of a famous fictional guitarist:

"But this is eleven!"

As Darwin understood very well, natural selection is extraordinarily wasteful. It isn't like one of the processes devised by chemical engineers to synthesize a good yield of the desired product. Indeed, the yield is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction to the nth. An unspeakably vast sacrifice of life and order over a period of some 4.5 billion years were required to produce one Neurode. This is not exactly efficient engineering.

What lots of folks don't realize is that it is quite possible to accumlate millions by turning in enough pop bottles for the deposit. Order doesn't have to come from order anymore than riches have to come from riches.

As it so often does, it comes down to one very confident "iconoclast" claiming to see clearly, with his towering intellect, over the clouds of confusion and groupthink that befog us mere drones. And - who knows? - perhaps we are missing something. You could tell me practically anything you want about, say, quantum chromodynamics, and the most I could do would be to ask for references with which to attempt to check whether what you say has anything to do with a reality recognized by acknowledged experts in the field.

That's what I attempted with Neurode. You can see what came of it, and draw your own conclusions.

I put the same question to Dembski and all the other IDers: what body of scholarship, what professional organization, journal, conference... of mathematicians, information theorists, biologists - any relevant body of expertise at all - has anything positive, or even not negative, to say about ID?

Why should anyone take it seriously, except as a political movement?

Why, yes. That would be nature itself.

— Neurode

Incidentally, lest this all seem like a sneaky philosophical trick, it's why I chose "nature" as an example of something that must have been designed. PT-style "reasoning", if we may use the term loosely, simply evaporates on the cosmological level of discourse.

/hands neurode Occam's razor.

You see, it's ordered and not random - despite the ridiculous notion that order can arise randomly, order and randomness are ultimately opposed - and there is a sense in which this order must have a "source" (i.e., a point of divergence from its logical complement). ID proponents, arbitrarily enough, call this source "the designer"."

— Neurode

Order can arise from natural laws. Dembski, who is much smarter than Neurode, hung his claims on 'complexity', not mere order, for this reason.

I put the same question to Dembski and all the other IDers: what body of scholarship, what professional organization, journal, conference... of mathematicians, information theorists, biologists - any relevant body of expertise at all - has anything positive, or even not negative, to say about ID?

Truly, Panda's Thumb never ceases to amaze.

In this very thread, PT regulars have at last revealed to the world, or at least seem to have revealed, that the antithetical predicates order and randomness are indistinguishable (to them), and thus can share the same argument to full specificity (or so it seems). That is, order and randomness can logically coincide (in their version of "logic"), describing exactly the same entity in exactly the same respect at one and the same time (as near as they can tell). Thus, an ordered distribution can be random and vice versa...and not merely with respect to different features, but with respect to exactly the same ones (at least, to their way of looking at things). Yes, it's the closest thing to a pure contradiction since "1=0" (except that 1=0 has a concise formulation, as opposed to being all over the map).

On the same note, we learn that "order is a subset of randomness. Beethoven's 5th symphony is a subset of white noise. That's what information theory says, anyway." A true gem, insofar as the vast majority of information theorists actually labor under the delusion that Beethoven's 5th symphony contains information, this being precisely what distinguishes it from noise. A pity that PT didn't go online in time to inform Beethoven that all of his orderly musical notation was for naught, destined for total submersion in white noise as soon as it left his quill.

But musicians need not despair, for the de facto PT consensus regarding order, randomness and information can be viewed as a realization of the foremost prophecy of rock icon Jimi Hendrix: at long last, as memories of Woodstock fade into senile dementia, 6 has turned out to be 9. Little wonder, then, that we again find the usual PT suspects engaged in their favorite group activity: furiously waving their arms, dancing a frenzied victory dance with the intoxicated abandon of Voodooists raising a zombie from the grave, and cackling like excited geese in celebration of what they seem to regard, incredibly enough, as their superior scientific and mathematical insight.

As usual, it's been quite a spectacle. But at the end of the day, despite the very best efforts of the discombobulated PT Brain Trust, one sad fact remains written in stone: poor Dan Dennett and his obsequious fans here at the Panda's Thumb couldn't tell a generative process from a nongenerative one if it popped out of a wedding cake in a string bikini and blew the Star Spangled Banner on a diamond-studded kazoo.

Needless to say, that could turn out to be quite embarrassing for somebody who's been carrying Uncle Charlie's torch as long and as high as Dennett has, even if he does have the right facial foliage.

Neurode.

Your sh*t-levels are a bit high, sorry, revise and resubmit.

Hope that helps!

Russell said..

Wow. That sure was a lot of words. But even after all that, I still don't see how Dennett's plea, "show me the science", has been answered or shown to be out of place.

I tried to point out to you that "evolutionists" use what amounts to teleological thinking all the time. It amounts to "(1)Is there evidence that this [gene, structure, behavior] is evolutionarily conserved? (2)If so, how does this [gene, structure, behavior...] contribute to the reproductive success of the organisms bearing it?" It's a kind of "endogenous teleology", explained in terms of processes we know something about, rather than postulating unknown forces of which we know nothing. (Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to name just one).

Firstly, I don't care about "Show me the science"! I'm addressing a specific claim from Dennett, made in his article and which you have been defending. This idea is the notion that the "process of evolution is blind or without teleogoical content"!

Once again, you are trying to reduce and simplify while failing to address the point I raised to you earlier. Let's try it in a more simpler form.

Dennet says : "Evolution is blind!"
Plump says : "How do you know?"
Russell says : "Hey there's no reason to think so"
Plunp says : "Yes there is a primie facie case to consider this"

So what do you say now? Above you suggest "Evolutionists use teleological concepts but we don't need teleology"! I already addressed this point. You may not need it and you can come up with all sorts of wonderful "Darwinian" or "non-teleological alternatives you like" but that's beside the point because :

(1) The overwhelming impression of design (see Shapiro) gathered from modern biological data, along with the increased need to introduce more teleological concepts to understand biological systems (see Davies) *directly* argues against the notion that evolution is without teleological content in and of itself. This is such a straight forward argument i'm finding it hard to understand your rejection. Maybe if i say it slowly perhaps?

*and*

(2) You have not demonstrated that the appearance of design is just an illusion. So if we look at specific examples of 'biological design' (such as 'DNA error checking and correction') you have not shown they are the result of a purely blind process, built from the ground up. You see, you've just got prior philosophical commitments and what's ironic to me is you don't even think you do.

And with these two points you and Dennett both don't have a leg to stand in so far as your original claim goes.

I'm not interested in politics or "movements",

Then, quite frankly, you're not interested in the phenomenon we're all discussing here, and now in the mainstream press, under the rubric "intelligent design".

I took issue with a claim that Dennett made in his article. You were more then happy to respond to it. If you were only intereseted in discussing "this phenomenon as a political movement" specificaly why did you respond to my question?

It sounds like you're interested in some philosophical/theological questions. We're talking here about science.

Dennett made a *philosophical* claim about the teleological content of evolution and you agreed with him -- hence my response. Unless you think it's a scientific claim? If so, show me the science?

see Davies

You have not demonstrated that the appearance of design is just an illusion.

But at the end of the day... one sad fact remains written in stone: poor Neurode can't cite a single source outside his own fantasy world that would indicate that he's engaged in a dialog with anyone but himself.

So, Neurode, your answer to all the questions that we have for you is derision? You come here claiming that we are all intellectually inferior to you. We ask you questions, so we can learn from you, and you refuse to answer those questions and instead go on a rant? You say you want to change the scientific method, but are utterly unable to tell us what you would change about it, beyond general statements of what current part you think needs changing? We ask where we can find your arguments and you utterly ignore that? This is simply too much. You claim that nature is it's own evidence of design, while simultaneously introducing this concept of "order" which you can't define or quantify, so you are forced into nebulous pronouncements about what has order and what doesn't. You claim that we can't tell the difference between generative and non-generative processes, even when it's explained to you how NS is generative and real-world examples are used. I would say, Neurode, that you should be embarrassed.

So, how again would you change the scientific method? Oh yeah, that's right, you couldn't tell us. Let me indulge in some conjecture as to why that is. You KNOW there's a god. You also know that science is very successful and you want a piece of that. But, you (erroneously) KNOW that science is atheistic because it doesn't automatically glorify your concept of god or even acknowledge your god, so therefore science must be wrong. So, science must bend and submit to your will and incorporate your god. So, therefore the scientific method is outdated and needs to change, and you know exactly where it needs to change. Ah, but here's the rub, you don't know what to change it to, because you are incapable (as is everyone else) of figuring out a way to test for god. So, all you can do is whine that science is unfair because no one can figure out a way to test for the supernatural. Am I close?

Truly, Panda's Thumb never ceases to amaze.

Unless you think it's a scientific claim? If so, show me the science?

Neurode -

You do a lot of complaining, but not much answering.

You still have yet to answer my question. This is your opportunity to shine - dazzle us with your brilliance.

Now again I will ask:

You claim: "Order and randomness are ultimately opposed".

Care to put that into an equation, or provide a link to where such an equation has been published?

Please give a specific example of something that "population effects" cannot explain.

What creature, or what structure, or what function, or whatever, would be a compelling poster child for something that possesses "evolutionary information beyond that implicit in mere population effects."

This is an appeal to authority; Davies is a physicist, not a biologist, and he has a theological axe to grind.

(1) Dennett is a philosopher, not a biologist, with an atheological axe to grind. Does that make it one all given he's making authoritive statements about biology and Evolution -- or is that OK becuase you agree with Dennett's point of view?

(2) Davies wrote a "seemingly" well researched book on the origin of life and is a well regarded physicist. His point is actually *philosophical* and relates to the 'philosophical nature' of 'man made' or teleological idea's being applied to biology. So who says biologists working day in and day out are going to be authorities on the philosophical nature of what they do? How many biolgoists truly understand or are experts in the philosophy of science? -- Yet they use it everyday. Even if he was a biologist you could still argue he wasn't neccesarily an authority on this issue.

But really, this is all just a red herring anyway. I don't dismiss Dennett's claims about Evolution or his claims about the power of natural selection because he's a philosopher. I suspect he has a firm grasp of the various literature and has read something about it. I view him as an authority on Darwinian evolution, despite the fact he's a 'philosopher'.

But it's not a contradiction and he offers no grounds for thinking it is. And to say they appear purposeful is to beg the question --- evolutionary thinking provides a way to look at biological processes as not being purposeful, and thereby wields Occam's Razor to slice away an agent whose purposes, motivations, mechanisms, and so on would require explanation.

(1) It flatly contradicts the point of view which says biological sytstems are the work of completely blind, purposeless forces built from the ground up. If our knowledge of biology increases the impression of design, (as Shapiro a *real* authority suggests) if the direct analogies to human engineering strengthen, if the need for greater amounts of intelligent concepts are required to understand these systems (Biolgoists working with engineers for example?) then this flaty argues against the point of view which says biology is without teleological content.

(2) How does it beg the question? If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then maybe just maybe it's a duck. If i conclude it's a duck, I have not begged any question, merely followed the obvious empirical data where it went. This is called induction.

(3) You say your theory is more simple and you can understand things without the notion of 'real intelligence' being needed at any stage or in any form? I say 'understanding' is a subjective word. People can 'understand' all sorts of things in all sorts of ways. You can understand the human mind and even reality itself in pure 'darwinian' terms if you like -- just ask Dennett? But does that make it so? I'm afraid not. So keep trying.

In science, Occam's Razor shifts the burden. We have an evolutionary model that explains the evidence without recourse to a designer, and no model of a designer that explains any evidence not explained by the evolutionary model.

Trying to shift the burden are we.

Occam's Razor says all things being equal i'll take the simpler explanation. Of course I question your point that all things are equal. As i said above, you can understand the mind in pure darwinian (and materialistic) terms if you like -- however that doesn't make it so, nor does it make "all things equal". You could do away with free will if you like and isn't that far simpler then having to explain that horrible thing? Think of how messy and complicated it is in comparision to that alternative view that it's just an illusion.

Using your simplistic application of Occam's Razor we should all just adopt the view that free will is just an illusion and get over it. Or maybe it's not that simple?

as Dawkins says, "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

Hang on! You're not appealing to Dawkins as an authority are you? A biologist, making comments about philosophy and *metaphysics*. My Gawd, I'm afraid i protest. Of course I completeyy disagree with you and Dawkins for the reasons specified above. The empirical data flaty contraicts the notion that we have *no good reason* (this is important) to think reality has any teleological content. Why do you think Anthony Flew gave up his athiesm? He obviously didn't agree with Dawkins or yourself and he's even a 'qualified philosopher'.

If Dennett has no leg to stand on, then neither do you when you claim that Davies wrote this or Shapiro wrote that or Dennett made this or that claim; these are all inferences that you make from available evidence.

I sure do have a leg to stand on. I've offered evidence that flaty contradicts his metaphysical claim about the nature of reality and evolution being wthiout teleological content! If you are suggesting that neither one of us can claim victory then you should also suggest that he retract his claim. He's made a direct statement about the nature of reality, not a vague "maybe" or "there's reason to suggest" -- but a direct metaphysical claim.

The empirical data flaty contraicts the notion that we have *no good reason* (this is important) to think reality has any teleological content.

— Plump-DJ

I've offered evidence that flaty contradicts his metaphysical claim about the nature of reality and evolution being wthiout teleological content!

Why, yes. That would be nature itself. You see, it's ordered and not random - despite the ridiculous notion that order can arise randomly, order and randomness are ultimately opposed - and there is a sense in which this order must have a "source" (i.e., a point of divergence from its logical complement). ID proponents, arbitrarily enough, call this source "the designer".

Why do you think Anthony Flew gave up his athiesm?

Dennett is a philosopher, not a biologist, with an atheological axe to grind. Does that make it one all given he's making authoritive statements about biology and Evolution --- or is that OK becuase you agree with Dennett's point of view?

It flatly contradicts the point of view which says biological sytstems are the work of completely blind, purposeless forces built from the ground up.

If our knowledge of biology increases the impression of design, (as Shapiro a *real* authority suggests) if the direct analogies to human engineering strengthen, if the need for greater amounts of intelligent concepts are required to understand these systems (Biolgoists working with engineers for example?) then this flaty argues against the point of view which says biology is without teleological content.

How does it beg the question? If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then maybe just maybe it's a duck. If i conclude it's a duck, I have not begged any question, merely followed the obvious empirical data where it went.

Occam's Razor says all things being equal i'll take the simpler explanation.

You're not appealing to Dawkins as an authority are you?

The empirical data flaty contraicts the notion that we have *no good reason* (this is important) to think reality has any teleological content.

Why do you think Anthony Flew gave up his athiesm?

I sure do have a leg to stand on.

I've offered evidence that flaty contradicts his metaphysical claim about the nature of reality and evolution being wthiout teleological content!

He's made a direct statement about the nature of reality, not a vague "maybe" or "there's reason to suggest" --- but a direct metaphysical claim.

neurode

You have demonstrated that:

1) You are fairly intelligent, well spoken, and well versed in philosophical thought.
2) You haven't the slightest ability to recognize your own embarassingly illogical trains of thought and argument.

It is like you are so mesmerized by the height of your own intelligence that you don't realize your shoes are untied and your zipper is down. So while you are dexterously weaving what you perceive to be solid and damning arguments against the vacuity of modern science, the rest of us here are pointing and snickering at your red-and-white polka dot boxers.

The best thing you can do for yourself is get some self awareness. If you do that I guarantee you'll be able to put together much better arguments than the utter bull you're spouting here in this thread.

Cheers!

Ock·ham's razor also Oc·cam's razor n. A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

No one has asserted that Davies is wrong on Dennett's say so.

You questionined his authority to speak of the matter and said "well he's not a biologst!" I knew Davies was not a biologist, i also pointed out the fact his point was philosophical in nature so even as a biologist he would not have been an "authority". That makes your point somewhat meaningless in the end.

If our knowledge of biology increases the impression of design, (as Shapiro a *real* authority suggests) if the direct analogies to human engineering strengthen, if the need for greater amounts of intelligent concepts are required to understand these systems (Biolgoists working with engineers for example?) then this flaty argues against the point of view which says biology is without teleological content.

No, it doesn't, and I've already explained why --- we have a non-teleological predictive model that explains the evidence, including the appearance of design.

It predicts and explains everything and nothing. This is my problem with 'your' theory. Once again, i am not denying that biology has evolved or been shaped by the environment with respect to time or that there are lots of data items which make sense when looked at through the prism of "evolutionary theory", I merely think your claims about it "explaining" *all* the data is overzealous and even false. And the notion that "evolution makes predictions" -- What if it 'predicts' things which turn out to be false or incorrect? No problem -- we can still account for "x" and "not X".

It also explains the many ways in which biology differs from human engineering.

And the many ways it's similar too. You cannot ignore specific examples of biological systems directly relating to human systems while only talking about the ones that differ, *especially* if you are speaking about wether or not reality has real design or not.

If the dispute is "Is this a real duck or a clever duck simulacrum?" then saying "Because it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck if must be a duck" begs the question. And it's plain dishonest when careful examination reveals whirring sounds and plastic "feathers".

I have responded to this. As an analogy to real biology, the more we study these so called ducks the more they look like ducks and not ducks with plastic feathers. This only supports the conclusion that they're actually ducks! You're trying to sneak in a premise which I do not accept. *If* the more we studied these ducks, the more they actually looked fake then you might have a point, but so far as your point relates to many biolgocial systems I don't think you do.

And If the feathers have the continued appearence of being real fethers, when can we conclude they're actually real feathers?

Ockham said "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily", which is the point I made, and your avoidance of it is dishonest.

It would've been had I not offered an example, which you have ignored. I responded with an example of how positing free will (a horribly messy entity) is far more complicated then a theory which does not have it and can account for things without it. Now as I said you can account for things like free will in purely materialistic terms if you like without any need to figure out how this free will thing works. Much like teleology, why not just get rid of it since it's so much 'simpler'? Or maybe, it's not that simple afterall?

You're not appealing to Dawkins as an authority are you?

No, I'm pointing out something he said that is strongly supported by the evidence, evidence you would be familiar with if you had gotten that education. But you already noted that you're "not sufficently knowledgable to address that question just yet".

And which evidence is that then? Hopefully none of the stuff you've offered today.

I've offered evidence that flaty contradicts his metaphysical claim about the nature of reality and evolution being wthiout teleological content!

No, you haven't.

Sure have - you just don't like them. That doesn't however remove them from the table.

He's made a direct statement about the nature of reality, not a vague "maybe" or "there's reason to suggest" --- but a direct metaphysical claim.

I have already addressed this. You are acting in bad faith.

And Dennett & Dawkins are following the data where it leads when they make their philosophical proclimations aren't they? Round and round and round she goes --- where she stops, nobody knows!

This is my problem with 'your' theory.

It also explains the many ways in which biology differs from human engineering. And the many ways it's similar too.

As an analogy to real biology, the more we study these so called ducks the more they look like ducks and not ducks with plastic feathers.

Ockham said "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily", which is the point I made, and your avoidance of it is dishonest. It would've been had I not offered an example, which you have ignored.

And which evidence is that then? Hopefully none of the stuff you've offered today.

I've offered evidence that flaty contradicts his metaphysical claim about the nature of reality and evolution being wthiout teleological content! No, you haven't. Sure have - you just don't like them. That doesn't however remove them from the table.

And Dennett & Dawkins are following the data where it leads when they make their philosophical proclimations aren't they? Round and round and round she goes ---- where she stops, nobody knows!

You cannot ignore specific examples of biological systems directly relating to human systems while only talking about the ones that differ, *especially* if you are speaking about wether or not reality has real design or not.

— Plump-DJ

I would agree with you if there were specific examples that resemble human systems of design.

To repeat a crucial point: it isn't just that living things do not show any evidence of intelligent design, but that there is lots of positive evidence that they came to be without design. For example, the technological objects that most resemble living things are precisely those that were developed using methods analogous to or formally identical with natural selection.

Wouldn't asserting a contradiction without demonstration also be considered begging the question?

No I would think that's simply called "not supporting your argument!" The conclusion was not assumed by any means.

As for your main point, I was only arguing in generalities as my quotes from James Shapiro and Paul Davies indicated. These were added to support the view that there is an increased usage of teleological language and ideas needed to understand biological systems along with an increased impression of "design" found in modern biological systems the more we understand how they work.

And from the abstract of Shaprio's Paper "A 21st Century View of Evolution". Check out his use ot teleological language

"Complexity permits sophisticated information processing. Cells have to deal with literally millions of biochemical reactions during each cell cycle and also with innumerable unpredictable contingencies. They are constantly evaluating multiple internal and external signals and adjusting their activities to continue the basic processes of survival and reproduction. Cells carry out their computations by a process of molecular interactions. More molecules means more powerful computational capacity ."

"Genomes integrate into cellular information processing because they are organized as computational storage organelles. That is, DNA serves as a data storage medium. To participate in cellular activities, genomes interact computationally with dynamic cellular complexes composed largely (but not exclusively) of proteins. As we shall see, genomes are built (Lego-like) of hierarchically organized modular systems. Much like the programs stored on a computer drive, genomic systems and subsystems are formatted by generic (i.e. repetitive) signals that provide functional addresses for the data in each module. The formatting is as important as the data (i.e. protein coding sequences) in providing a Genome System Architecture for each organism or species."

I'm not sure we're even talking about biology any more? This sort of "technology" that Shapiro is speaking of seems to have very direct relationships to human systems and the concepts that we use in building
our own technologies.

Let's take one specific example from above.

Much like the programs stored on a computer drive, genomic systems and subsystems are formatted by generic (i.e. repetitive) signals that provide functional addresses for the data in each module.

Have you ever sutided how a computer works? Programs stored on a drive? A storage space (memory) for the "data in each module"!

Now tell me how you *don't* think this has a strong one to one relationship with our own technology?

Wouldn't reasoning that echolocation as used by bats (and dolphins) and that it mimics human-design SONAR or that the human eye resembles a human-designed camera or that the shape of a bird's wing closely resembles the shape of a wing on an airplane; then be a reverse concept and misleading? IOW Nature mimics/resembles human-design?

I mean it certainly seems that way, but doesn't that twist the concept to prove a point?

I don't think that is a very good argument. The correct concept (IMO) would be that SONAR mimics ecolocation, and etc. IOW human-design mimics/resembles nature?

Or is that just a concept of semantics?

DJ - so you claim that analogies imply identification?

Unutterably hilarious. Sites like this do get a little dour now and then. It's good of you and neurode to provide a little levity. Thanks.

No I would think that's simply called "not supporting your argument!"

Now tell me how you *don't* think this has a strong one to one relationship with our own technology?

— Plump-DJ

Have you ever sutided how a computer works? Programs stored on a drive? A storage space (memory) for the "data in each module"!

— Plump-DJ

Have you ever sutided how a computer works? Programs stored on a drive? A storage space (memory) for the "data in each module"!

— Plump-DJ

The formatting is as important as the data (i.e. protein coding sequences) in providing a Genome System Architecture for each organism or species."

Darwin (and Dawkins) showed how evolution explains apparent teleology without a designer. Our plump friend here seems to agree that that made sense - until "recently" when, it seems, the IDers have discovered a whole new, hitherto unsuspected degree of apparent teleology. Somehow this (perceived) matter of degree requires a qualitatively different explanation?

My search engine crashed when I tried to figure out who it was, so apologies for not remembering who it was that put it best when he or she paraphrased it thus:

"but this is eleven!"

Plump doesn't seem to understand that nature performs computational processes as a matter of course.

From Wolfram:

"Many systems in nature are capable of universal computation

If universal computation required having a system as elaborate as a present-day computer, it would be inconceivable that typical systems in nature would show it. But the surprising discovery that even systems with very simple rules can exhibit universality implies that it should be common among systems in nature---leading to many important conclusions about a host of fundamental issues in science, mathematics and technology."

...it seems, the IDers have discovered a whole new, hitherto unsuspected degree of apparent teleology.

— Russell

I think, therfore I am. - Decartes

but this is eleven!

Wouldn't reasoning that echolocation as used by bats (and dolphins) and that it mimics human-design SONAR or that the human eye resembles a human-designed camera or that the shape of a bird's wing closely resembles the shape of a wing on an airplane; then be a reverse concept and misleading? IOW Nature mimics/resembles human-design?

Have you ever sutided how a computer works? Programs stored on a drive? A storage space (memory) for the "data in each module"! Now tell me how you *don't* think this has a strong one to one relationship with our own technology?

This thread keeps crashing my computer (or at least the Internet Explorer bit of it). So far it does seem to be specifically this thread rather than all of PT. Though it then takes down all related windows. For this test post I've quarantined it in its own window, 2 windows distant from the last one I'm actually using for other things. I'm getting a bit fed up of having to log in to everything else all over again just because I dared even look at PT.

Try http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

It's all affirmation of the consequent:

— ts

I mean it certainly seems that way, but doesn't that twist the concept to prove a point?

But don't mistake descriptive language for the phenomena themselves.

— RBH