Intelligent Design - theory, examples, implications

[Biochemist]

...The ID position is more than one step weaker. It makes strong assumptions about the origin of order, that while based upon simular evidence we who hold to evolution use, is simply at heart an assumption.

I did not mean to short-change the rigor that is central to String theory. I merely wanted to show that even well circumscribed models are often held in low regard until experimental evidence surfaces in support.

 

I do think that the ID framework is a valid set of suppositions on which to build an experimental model. I don't mind anyone describing the set of suppositions as ID, even before the expermentaiton arrives. However, I think it is fair to expect that some proponent build an experimental framework that can be peer reviewed. There are a number of possibiltiies.

[Lolic]

Hi Bio,

ID is one step weaker, in that it does not predict anything (yet). I think that is what the folks on this site suggest when they say "this is not science". I think that is an inappropriate view, but it is true that ID is not corroborable by the scientific method. Yet. Not until someone proposes an experiment that is falsifiable.

 

Archeology infers design vs. natural material. SETI does it, why is this not good enough in the ID vs. Evol debate?

 

Yes, these are inferences. Now you have to use the inferences to predict something.

 

SM = observation – hypothesis – experiment – theory

 

You want the experiment to be falsifiable, correct?

 

Is ID not falsifiable in that it predicts CSI will be found in life? i.e. If CSI were not found ID would be falsified.

 

However, CSI is found. It’s found in the base component necessary to allow life to be reproducible – DNA. DNA couldn’t have evolved because you don’t get to round two of life without having DNA to allow for replication. I’m unaware of any merit to the RNA hypothesis that was mentioned by someone else, as I don’t believe there is any biochemical known method of going from RNA to DNA, if I’m incorrect, please post a link or source.

 

Furthermore, a specific design inference can be falsified simply by showing a lack of any apparent design or meaning in the pattern, or it can be falsified by demonstrating (but not merely imagining) that unguided natural processes can produce the pattern or object in question.

 

I enjoy your posts, sorry it takes me so long to respond sometimes.

[Biochemist]

Is ID not falsifiable in that it predicts CSI will be found in life? i.e. If CSI were not found ID would be falsified.

This would be falsifiable, if the ID camp would explicitly define CSI. That way the opposing camp(s) could either attack the definition or set about to refute it. Right now, describing CSI is like describing beauty. THe IDers suggest itis self-evident. It might be, but self-evidence is not a falsifiable framework.

 

I still contend that CSI could be defined, and it could be framed as a falsifgiable argument. To my knowledge, no one has done it yet.

[Buffy]

Not only would it have to be defined numerically, but there would have to be testable arguments for the dividing lines on the CSI scale differentiating "natural" from "designed", and that's actually where the real trouble comes in this line of reasoning. A few hundred years ago, flight was "angels holding up the wings of birds" and clearly in the "designed" range, but now that we understand the mechanisms, it no longer is. Until ID also describes how these lines can move so much over time and still provide some sort of proof that something is designed, it will remain in the realm of "describing beauty."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[gubba]

G'day Tormod,

 

What about that religious forum? If you do decide to go ahead with it may I suggest that IDers' objections to evolution be treated as a theological issue? I'm getting heartily sick of seeing the issues arising from our biology being routinely hijacked by these followers of ID. If I want to show off and argue with people I know refuse to accept any validity for my sincerely held views I could then toodle off to the religious arena and vent my spleen, meanwhile I'd like to be able to explore the many issues raised by evolution as widely as possible from a loosely scientific framework if at all possible! Afterall this is a site for those interested in the scientific approach.

 

LOLIC!!! if you're at all interested in dialogue and examining our understandings would you be prepared to discuss the common ground you hold with those who simply can't accept ID? Would you be prepared to be questioned on your understanding of the issues you purport to raise, or do you just want a fight? So far, on the evidence I've seen, I'd have to question your motives for posting to this site, yours regretfully gub.

[Queso]

ID is definitely going to go into the religion forum...at least i hope...

[gubba]

OOPS!!

 

Sorry TORMOD, forgot to stress just how much I admire your tolerance, suppose I wish I had more. Keep up the wonderful work, cheers gubba.

[Buffy]

What about that religious forum? If you do decide to go ahead with it may I suggest that IDers' objections to evolution be treated as a theological issue? I'm getting heartily sick of seeing the issues arising from our biology being routinely hijacked by these followers of ID...

Actually, given that so many ID'ers go out of their way to say that its not a religious belief, it would have to stay over here, but perpetually pounded by definition of science. You'll note that Bio--who's a very reasonable fellow and an Evolutionist to boot--is not convinced that its not a science though some of the rest of us are. I actually like tripping 'em up with getting them to exose the fact that their theories do tie back to faith rather than science. Where they're smarter than that, its good to go head-to-head on requirements of science because I believe that its the *best* way to help all the viewers here see what the differences are. To dismiss this all as religion is dangerous and self-delusionary...

So far, on the evidence I've seen, I'd have to question your motives for posting to this site.

I've gotten under Lolic's skin myself, but s/he has learned to be civil here and I support her/his postings. The only thing I keep asking for is some responses to the key issues, like recently in this thread, what *is* CSI? Why is it supportable? etc.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

...so many ID'ers go out of their way to say that its not a religious belief, it would have to stay over here, but perpetually pounded by definition of science. You'll note that Bio--who's a very reasonable fellow and an Evolutionist to boot--is not convinced that its not a science though some of the rest of us are.

Interesting take. I have mentioned before that most theists that care about this issues do not really care much about evolution per se. It is the tendency for folks in the evolution camp to preach Naturalism as part-and-parcel with evolution that raises folks dander. We see it on this site frequently.

 

Personally, I think the evidence for gradualism is extorordinarily weak. I have described some of my misgivings elsewhere. There are a lot of folks on this site that are smart, well informed and reasonable (ceratinly Buff and Fish come to mind). These folks are pretty much agnostic (with respect to the import of God on the study of science), but strongly supportive of all evolution elements including gradualism. I am surprised how often these folks accept lightly intuitive arguments as support of gradualism, when I think they imply nothing (sorry Fish, I don't think that snakes' pelvises imply ANYTHING unless we can demonstrate a transition). But these folks have credible opinions, and discuss issues on their merits.

 

I do think ID is science in its formative stages. It is true that the proponents are theists, but that does not bother me. ID will need to add rigor to its methods, or it will die an ignominius death over the next decade.

...what *is* CSI?

Buff- I took this to mean that we need a quantitative and/or probabilistic definition, and I agree. But the reason I think ID is science is that I think it can be done. But it would certainly be "yoogley, velly velly yoogley" to interpret. If I were going to do it, I would focus on abiogenesis, since the starting assumptions are so much simpler. But it would still be a pretty ugly exercise in probability and complexity theory.

[gubba]

G'day Buffy,

 

If I understand you right you're arguing that you are trying to reach the observers of your tussles with, say , Lolic? That's more than valid, but I hope you can see rather frustrating for someone who is genuinely interested in the discrepancies in the science of many of the contentious issues and is being hindered from examining the issues in good faith.

 

I don't want censorship but somehow, someway I think I'd like to see a more open acknowledgement by contributors of what they fundamentally want to say, so I thought I might openly challenge what's going on to see what people think and make my misgivings clear. I love intellectual inquiry, it excites me. I deplore continuous quarrelling, it can be so corrosive to the exchange of ideas. cheers gub.

[Lolic]

Right now, describing CSI is like describing beauty. THe IDers suggest itis self-evident. It might be, but self-evidence is not a falsifiable framework.

Hi Bio,

I’m curious what you feel is lacking in the definitions or examples that have been given in the literature?

 

For example:

“ To illustrate the distinction between order and information compare the sequence "ABABABABABABAB" to the sequence "Help! Our neighbor's house is on fire!" The first sequence is repetitive and ordered, but not complex or informative. The second sequence is not ordered, in the sense of being repetitious, but it is complex and also informative. The second sequence is complex because its characters do not follow a rigidly repeating or predictable pattern--i.e, it is aperiodic and improbable. It is also informative because, unlike a merely complex sequence such as "rfsxdcnct<e%dwqj", the particular arrangement of characters is highly exact or "specified" so as to perform a (communication) function. Systems that are characterized by both specificity and complexity (what Bill Dembski calls "complex specified information") have "information content." Since such systems have the qualitative feature of complexity (aperiodicity), they are qualitatively distinguishable from systems characterized by simple periodic order. Thus, attempts to explain the origin of order have no relevance to discussions of the origin of information content. Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content--that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences.77”

Stephen C. Meyer, “DNA BY Design: An Inference To the Best Explanation for the Origin of Biological Information”

 

The numerical values have been given in previous posts for the differentiation between chance and design….along with the explanation for those values.

So we have an explanatory filter utilizing natural law, chance, and design; a very conservative value for determining CSI and design. Literature has shown how the information content of the hypothesized first cell exceeds this limit, indicating design.

Why do we not have a workable theory here?

 

Our generalization about the cause of information has, ironically, received confirmation from origin-of-life research itself. During the last forty years, every naturalistic model proposed has failed to explain the origin of information. Thus, mind or intelligence or what philosophers call "agent causation," now stands as the only known cause known to be capable of creating high information content (or what Dembski calls complex specified information).

Stephen C. Meyer

 

Now of course we could say, “that doesn’t mean we won’t find natural causes that can produce CSI in 100 or 1,000 years”

1) ok, but that doesn’t stop it from being a valid theory now, in a sense it just shows that it is indeed falsifiable.

2) Science operates under the law of uniformity…that causes and effects are the same yesterday and today. Otherwise we couldn’t have any confidence that gravity would make the apple fall DOWN tomorrow as it does today.

3) In a like manner, the law of uniformity shows us that natural laws produce patterns such as crystals, trajectories, and the like, but they do not produce information and we don’t have any basis to expect it to in 100 or 1,000 years.

 

This is explained by astronomer Paul Davies: Snowflakes contain syntactic information in the specific arrangement of their hexagonal shapes, but these patterns have no semantic content, no meaning for anything beyond the structure itself. By contrast, the distinctive feature of biological information is that it is replete with meaning. DNA stores the instructions needed to build a functioning organism; it is a blueprint or an algorithm for a specified, predetermined product. Snowflakes don’t code for or symbolize anything, whereas genes most definitely do. To explain life fully, it is not enough simply to identify a source of free energy, or negative entropy, to provide biological information.

:hihi:

[Buffy]

Personally, I think the evidence for gradualism is extorordinarily weak. I have described some of my misgivings elsewhere. ... I am surprised how often these folks accept lightly intuitive arguments as support of gradualism, when I think they imply nothing (sorry Fish, I don't think that snakes' pelvises imply ANYTHING unless we can demonstrate a transition).

Oooofff! I'm in the punctuated equilibrium camp! (I posted elsewhere: there's a blurb in June SciAm noting how RNA can reverse mutations, and they don't say it but could explain PE effects...). Bug gee whiz Bio "lightly intuitive? Are you gonna start arguing that we need to see proof of every intermediate life form including those that pretty much can't fossilize? Whoo...

Buff- I took this to mean that we need a quantitative and/or probabilistic definition, and I agree. But the reason I think ID is science is that I think it can be done. But it would certainly be "yoogley, velly velly yoogley" to interpret. If I were going to do it, I would focus on abiogenesis, since the starting assumptions are so much simpler. But it would still be a pretty ugly exercise in probability and complexity theory.

Yoogley indeed Simon Bar Sinister! Get thee to a chaos/complexity theory book sir, as I perceive you mistranslating it occasionally here...I like James Gleick's "Chaos" Complexity is *very* easy to generate....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

“ To illustrate the distinction between order and information compare the sequence "ABABABABABABAB" to the sequence "Help! Our neighbor's house is on fire!" The first sequence is repetitive and ordered, but not complex or informative. The second sequence is not ordered, in the sense of being repetitious, but it is complex and also informative.... This is explained by astronomer Paul Davies: Snowflakes contain syntactic information in the specific arrangement of their hexagonal shapes, but these patterns have no semantic content, no meaning for anything beyond the structure itself.

These are interesting but highly misleading. In information theory, BOTH contain information (order). "Meaning" is imposed by outside interpretation! Some of the abiogenesis theories posit roles for crystal patterns in helping to form proteins, so its virtually impossible to say "snowflakes have no meaning," because indeed the could, but this meaning is dependent upon the external system! While "Help! Our neighbor's house is on fire!" may have meaning, "Elphay! Ourway eighbor'snay ousehay isway onway irefay!" may not, unless you know the code. The issue is interpretation, and information theory, upon which entropy is based, makes no distiction based on meaning it is all ordered or not ordered. Thus "CSI" extracted from this cannot be properly based on information theory principles and conclusions drawn to distinguish "having meaning" from "not having meaning" are arbitrary and interpretive.

Now of course we could say, “that doesn’t mean we won’t find natural causes that can produce CSI in 100 or 1,000 years”...ok, but that doesn’t stop it from being a valid theory now, in a sense it just shows that it is indeed falsifiable.

This is not what's meant by "falsifiable". What you're describing here is falsifiable *evidence* not a mechanism for falsifying the *theory*. That as I say is the main problem with ID: if one example of "proof" is falsified (like showing a mechanism other than invisible angels are the cause of flight), some other example of ID will be brought up. This is not scientific, sorry.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

Lolic- I do understand the qualitative description of CSI. The issue is that a qualitative argument cannot be falsified.

...For example:...“ compare the sequence "ABABABABABABAB" to the sequence "Help! Our neighbor's house is on fire!"

But is "th houza is hon elfira" CSI? When is it not?

Thus, attempts to explain the origin of order have no relevance to discussions of the origin of information content.

I generally agree.

The numerical values have been given in previous posts for the differentiation between chance and design

But they are not testable, and readily refutable. the 747 metaphor (I assume you were referring to examples like that) is too simplistic a model to use for informtion content. It is a good inference, but hardly a test.

...So we have an explanatory filter utilizing natural law, chance, and design;

But this filter cannot be used. There is no definitive boundary between chance, law and design. Design includes, law and law includes chance. Doesn't that make chance part of design?

...a very conservative value for determining CSI and design. Literature has shown how the information content of the hypothesized first cell exceeds this limit

I think this is worth pursuing, but nothing has been done (that I know of) that demonstrates the probabilistic hurdle of the first prokaryote. Once that cell is viable, everything else is explicable by the information content of the first prokaryote.

Why do we not have a workable theory here?

I think we have an hypothesis. We need one single well structured probabilistic analysis to suggest something like:

 

1) the window between adequate cooling of the earth and abiogenesis is xxxx years

2) the initial and interim environmental assumptions are as follows...

3) the intermediate organic constituents are likely as follows..

4) the odds of the various intermediate constituents maintaining adequate concentrations are as follows..

5) the odds of DNA strands of xx nucleotides ever being generated at all are 1 in 10^x

6) the odds of transition to "viability" are currently incalculable, but certainly no higher than 1 in 10^z

...every naturalistic model proposed has failed to explain the origin of information. Thus, mind or intelligence or what philosophers call "agent causation," now stands as the only known cause known to be capable of creating high information content

Actually, I think "unknown" would count as a valid argument unless you had an affirmative argument

... that doesn’t stop it from being a valid theory now, in a sense it just shows that it is indeed falsifiable.

I can't figure tou how it could be falsified. Suggestions?

[Biochemist]

...I'm in the punctuated equilibrium camp!

I hope you have a big tent

.... Bug gee whiz Bio "lightly intuitive? Are you gonna start arguing that we need to see proof of every intermediate life form including those that pretty much can't fossilize?

Heavens no. But we would certianly expect to see a lot more signs of gradualism in the fossil record than we do. And if they aren't there, we certainly should stop using the assumptive gradualism default (gee... this could have been selected because...) when it is poorly represented by empirical evidence. I really think this is a case of the emperor having no clothes.

Get thee to a chaos/complexity theory book sir, as I perceive you mistranslating it occasionally here...I like James Gleick's "Chaos" Complexity is *very* easy to generate....

I read Gleick's "Chaos". In fact I have my copy right here. He does not say much about complexity theory, since the weight of that discusison was after his book was published. I am not sure why you think my suggestions are at odds with chaos theory. My suggestion was not (in this thread) to use complexity theory either. Although I have suggested that in other threads for different purposes.

 

(Late edit- I had my threads mixed up. I did suggest complexity theory here. The complexity issues relate to comparing the complexity of early life forms to later ones. That would only be possible if early life forms had a valid complexity measure that could reliably be used as a basis for comparison. I don't see an applicaiton in the probabilisitic analysis of abiogenesis. Sorry. I am a twit to get my threads mixed up.)

[Buffy]

...I'm in the punctuated equilibrium camp!

I hope you have a big tent

Do! Right here! Its becoming dogma! Whata ya know! Dr Gould would be proud....

But we would certianly expect to see a lot more signs of gradualism in the fossil record than we do....

Quack! Canard at work... Like Bill Bryson said "Its incredibly difficult to become a fossil"...

[Gleick] does not say much about complexity theory, since the weight of that discusison was after his book was published. The complexity issues relate to comparing the complexity of early life forms to later ones. That would only be possible if early life forms had a valid complexity measure that could reliably be used as a basis for comparison. I don't see an applicaiton in the probabilisitic analysis of abiogenesis.

Chaos/complexity is actually all the same thing, its fashion and avoidance of the "chaos nuts" that drove the name change. You'll find experts that draw distinctions but its an image thing... Note that formal complexity theory is actually an area of computer science that has to do with classifying and solving complex algorithms, so be careful. The complexity theory we're talking about here is related to both "information theory" (which is horridly counter intuitive), and "self-organizing" "from chaos". Wikipedia doesn't even have a page for it under "complexity theory": it shoves you off to "chaos theory"... Don't underestimate what's in the Gleick book... Although I have not read much of it yet, Gould recommends Kaufmann's "At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity"....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

...Chaos/complexity is actually all the same thing, its fashion and avoidance of the "chaos nuts" that drove the name change. You'll find experts that draw distinctions but its an image thing... Note that formal complexity theory is actually an area of computer science that has to do with classifying and solving complex algorithms...

Buff- As I understand it, Complexity theory is a proposed mechanism to quantify the "degree" of chaos. The theorists measure the quantity of computative resource required for resolution of a chaotic system via numerical analysis. This is the sense in which I was using it earlier. Chaos theory is an idea. Complexity theory regresses the quantity of chaos into a scalar number. It would be really interesting to contrast the complexity of a prokaryote to the complexity of a mammal. I suspect we would find that the prokaryote and the mammal are actually much closer in complexity than the early primordium was to the prokaryote.

 

Just my guess.