No (means no) profanity! No personal insults or name calling!
Thanks for the fair look at ID.
I wanted to mention that there are two parts to the movement known as Intelligent Design. The first is a conclusion that "Therefore, the Universe must have an intelligent designer." This part seems to be provoking most of the ire and attacks, but if this were all there was to ID, it wouldn't be anything interesting at all.
The interesting part of ID to me is the attempt to mathematically describe what _the appearance of design_ means and implies, and to explore what parts of design can be achieved by processes other than intelligent design. Darwin's belief was that stochiastic processes could explain all of the appearance of design that we observe, and although his work was phenominally succesful, the total lack of definition to "the appearance of design" has left the field open to cranks on both sides.
I don't think that ID has justified its conclusion yet. Some of its attempts have entirely failed (irreducible complexity is NOT sufficie
[continued...]
I don't think that ID has justified its conclusion yet. Some of its attempts have entirely failed (irreducible complexity is NOT sufficient to show design, since irreducibility doesn't imply unconstructability). Others are in an infant state -- Dembski's design criterion needs a LOT more math to show how exactly you compute complexities and specifications, and why those computations hold true. But there's a lot of valid work that suggests that there's something possibly there: the no-free-lunch theorems may or may not apply, but are obviously closely related; the work on the maximum computational capacity of the universe provides an upper bound for reasonable stochaisticly computed complexity; and so on.
At the very least, an examination of ID could yield a definition of "appearance of design" that could strengthen our intuitive grasp of biology, and if all goes well, could actually help in unrelated fields that have to distinguish between coincidence and desi
[continued...]
actually help in unrelated fields that have to distinguish between coincidence and design.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It is definitely not worth the hate; nor is it worth the devotion and certainty.
-Billy
Intelligent Design sound much like the Diest view of religion that many of the founder fathers, i.e. Washington and Franklin, professed. Sort of the view that the universe was a work that was created but not signed.
I get into many arguments on the Evolution is just a theory argument. I sum up my viewpoint as the Bible is a book a faith not a book of science.
Thanks for a great site.
I have not studied theology nor have I followed the ID debate. Your posting is interesting but I think that there is one error. I don't think that it necessarily it nullifies your overall arguement, but...
You say "There cannot be a science of randomness, for science depends on repeatability. The conclusion that randomness explains the beginning and history of life is not really a scientific conclusion."
In modern physics pretty much everything is random, from the position of an electron on down to what's going on inside an atom. I took a couple courses in modern physics and although I did well (got good grades) I found the whole thing quite confusing and not intuitive at all. Still, this all has been verified by experiment (except string theory).
At the macro level, where we all live, there is also randomness everywhere. The laws of physics may say that the answer is X but multiple experiments will produce multiple answers which may cluster around X but never achieve it e
Our understanding of our universe is, of necessity, incomplete and imperfect. The best any theory can do is give an imperfect description of a facet of the universe. Any theory is subject to falsification as our knowledge and understanding grows. By what we know of an observable phenomenon the theory of evolution is the best description of that phenomenon we have.
Now consider how long 4 billion years is. How many generations have passed even among the longest lived animals. I submit, Donald that it is time enough.
Especially given the fact that it has never been entirely random. No, not in the sense a guiding intelligence has been supervising, but in that there are constraints on what is possible.
Given the limits placed upon chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and ecology the possible outcomes, while vast in number, are far short of infinite. In short, some possibilities are of necessity barred to any life form in this universe.
And, as one path opens others close. It would
(continued) It would take a drastic 'redesign' (if you'll excuse a bit of IDism 
) to produce insects the size of men. Their evolution took a path which limits them to physical insignificance, and there is naught to be done without a radical change.
No, it has never been completely random. It is a random procedure limited by what is possible in the universe we inhabit. Add the vast reaches of time that have passed, and the need for as active referee becomes much less.
Besides, I have faith in God.
Rev. Sensing,
Your last commenter is (partly) correct in regards to "a science of randomness." On the microlevel chance is ineliminable--that is, there are no "hidden variables" that might allow us to completely control (or even predict) outcomes of repeated trials, except statistically. The various No Hidden Variables theorems are not empirical, but are instead derived from the mathematical foundations of quantum theory itself.
On the macro level "randomness" means something else entirely. In systems involving a large number of particles (that is, anything in the visible world), an experimenter cannot control every degree of freedom within the system, and hence the initial conditions are never fixed precisely. Hence repeated runs of an experiment will give different results; if the system is well-behaved, those results will cluster about a central value (as Mr. Borgeson states).
The difference between these two cases is that randomness on the quantum level i
(con.)
The difference between the two cases is that randomness on the quantum level is ineliminable in principle. On the macro level, the limitation is instead a practical one. Consider a mechanical lottery machine (say of the Powerball painted ping-pong ball type). The output of such a device is not random in any fundamental sense--if the system could be sufficiently isolated, and the initial conditions precisely enough known, then the outcome could be predicted.
Of course, the micro/macro dichotomy I've portrayed is an oversimplification. Countless experiments, both thought and actual, to bring quantum effects to the macro level have been devised (most famously Schroedinger's Cat). And some theorists argue that the very notion of a precise initial state is ill-conceived.
At the risk of monopolizing your comment section, I'd like to add a note about your definition of Intelligent Design. In short, your description could as well apply to various forms of theistic evolution--but ID is not that (as its proponents are quick to point out).
What is missing from your summary is the added postulate that -explicit- divine action has been part of the history of life: natural law in itself is deemed insufficient to explain life's complexity, even if God is posited as the author of that law.
(last post)
If you are still looking for a non-polemical approach to ID, I humbly recommend (ahem) my own blog, as I am a PhD candidate in philosophy of science and am presently researching my dissertation on Intelligent Design.
I understand, and even sympathize with, the apologetic aims of the ID project. Nonetheless, my thesis will argue that the program is both a philosophical and scientific non-starter. Dembski's work, for instance, has the veneer of mathematical sophistication but is founded on extremely dubious postulates.
I've not yet posted a lot on my thesis research, but the intro to my proposal is here:
http://www.andunie.net/mt-archiv...ives/
000219.php
and additional posts may be found here:
http://www.andunie.net/mt-
archiv..._of_science.php
I can email a pdf version of the whole proposal on request.
Rev. Sensing,
Here is a working link to the NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/1...5070&
oref=login
Greetings.
Genetics is the key to evolution. There is no randomness and no chance possibilities. Darwin was a 19th century man writing in 18th century language and was ignorant of genetics DNA and most modern laws of casuse and effect. To use Darwin is to freeze knowledge in the 1850s.
Creationists and Intelligent Design folk are like all sophists they use text out of context and they read things that were never intended by the source.
Life changes every day and it often times changes forward and then backwards. Geologic time gives all opportunities a chance.
Human beings are hysterical creatures so frightened by sudden death and the cruelty of such death.
The recent tragedy in Asia is a wonderful example of the source material for religious myth.
If Jesus were here he would giggle at how silly we can be. God is the material Universe and Jesus is Logos, the Word. Why not just injoy the gift of faith and not get too litteral about it?
Remember! It's not what you believe but ho
The last line should read:
"It's not what you believe, but how you live your life!"
God and Jesus are not interested in what you think about, they are interested in your deeds.
"Do ont others... That is the key.
David
Dr. Mobley, who apparently is not an evolutionary biologist, wants to know how the theory of evolution could be falsified. He confuses the question when he speaks as if 'falsifiable' means the same thing as 'universally easily falsifiable.' Nobody ever thought all theories are universally easily falsifiable. And at times he seems to suggest that 'falsifiable' means 'capable of being repeated by lab experiment,' which it does not. Some theories are falsifiable even if they cannot be tested in a laboratory, and some are not. The theory of evolution is easily falsifiable. All you need is to find one fossil out of place in the record. The discovery of human footprints contemporary with dinosaur fossils would prove that the whole accepted picture of evolution is false. This is why creationists are so interested in all reports of that sort.
A few random thoughts...
Richard Dawkins' in-your-face atheism can be grating, but you must absolutely read the Blind Watchmaker, and perhaps his later Climbing Mount Improbable, in order to gain an appreciation of how the "random chance" aspect of evolution by natural selection has been distorted. The *small* bits of genetic variation which may arise in a generation IS random, but the "progress" (not the right word, strictly speaking) going into the future of a species is NOT -- those variations are tested against the environment for fitness -- a most decidedly NON-random factor for every successive small step.
Hoyle's tornado in a junk yard building a 747 criticism is utterly misplaced/misleading.
ID likes to talk about irreducable complexity a lot, and a mouse trap was one of the earlier examples given. However if you search the web, there is a site out there which somewhat plausibly suggests and illustrates a progression of mechanically simpler proto-mousetraps whi
ID likes to talk about irreducable complexity a lot, and a mouse trap was one of the earlier examples given. However if you search the web, there is a site out there which somewhat plausibly suggests and illustrates a progression of mechanically simpler proto-mousetraps which could work, albeit less well.
The old criticism of natural selection that mentions the relatve perfection of the camera eye fails similarly. Dawkins calls these complaints "argument from incredulity". In Climbing Mount Improbable he demonstrates a very plausible path for the gradual evolution of the camera eye, supported with examples from various creatures alive today at every step.
Here are two more fundamental difficuties with trying to push ID as a valid "scientific" counter to the modern synthesis:
1)If the proposed designer is "supernatural" then all scientific investigation stops in its tracks. (This is a big complaint about evolution, that scientists, as scientists, will leave no room in th
(This is a big complaint about evolution, that scientists, as scientists, will leave no room in their theories for the supernatural , i.e. the divine). Why is this a major problem? There is NO sound way to distinguish between that which is truly "supernatural", and natural phenomena which we simply do not understand *yet*. This relates to a broader issue in religion vs. science debates: the orthodox tend to seize on flaws and say AHA!, the whole edifice crumbles, which is wrong as science, done properly, is not a body of dogma, but a self-correcting process used to expand our knowledge as ever improving approximations to "the Truth". Natural things have only natural explanations has to of necesity, be the working assumption.
2)OTOH, if ID's designer is "natural" such as an alien elder race (in this or another universe) who meets Clarke's Law (any suficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic), they have only served to push back the origins question, bu
they have only served to push back the origins question, but in a way that makes one want to sharpen Occam's Razor.
IMO, when you start grasp how the whole universe seems to hang together, from cosmology, to biology, to our increasing scientific understanding of human nature (read Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley), the beauty and complexity most certainly DOES make one wonder about a Creator -- but that is beyond what science can tell us much about (uh, that's why it's called "faith", no?). The notion of God creating the universe with rules such that it would someday *evolve* into having creatures which could come to know him is pretty wondrous. And Dawkins can be snide, but there it is.
The problem for Christians is that this Creator whom the science would suggest stands pretty far back from day-to-day operation of his creation is hard to reconcile with the notion of a personal God & Savior.
But the problems of faith should not be mistakenly pushed into interfering with honest
scientific inquiry.
Sorry for running on, Rev.
"There cannot be a science of randomness, for science depends on repeatability."
Not true. Science is an attempt to explain what is the case. Repeatable experiment is part of science but not all of science. If randomness exists, then randomness,perforce must be part of how science explains our world.
"The exclusion of intentionality is not a scientific conclusion, but an ideological one."
Also not true. The logical principle involved is known as Occam's Razor. Intentionality (or any other explanitory concept) remains hypothetical until the evidence confirms it.
Science and the divine are mutually incompatible. Science is, by definition, the process of studying the natural world; widening it to include the supernatural entirely defeats the endeavor. God is, by definition, outside of nature. Those that conclude that there is no God because science hasn't shown it to be so make exactly the same mistake that the ID proponents do, in reverse.
Commenting by HaloScan
