Excellent Evolution vs. ID Video

[Kilarin]

Long again, sorry.

So show me how we test for Intelligent Design that is not man-made

ANY sort of intelligence that can predict and plan would fit into the criteria used by ID.

Scenario 1:
So, say you and I get sent together on a space ship to be the first people to walk on Mars. (we will certainly have interesting discussions on our way there!) We finally arrive and hop out of our little ship. A little exploring, and Lo and Behold!, we come upon a bizarre artifact. Well, *I* think it is an artifact, YOU say it was sculpted by natural geological forces. I'm not going to give any details, because that will just distract us from the question, is it a reasonable scientific question to ask whether the "object" we found was natural, or an artifact constructed by an intelligence completely alien from our own. I don't see how we can reasonably deny the scientific nature of the question. And how will we determine the answer? We will look for elements of the structure that could not reasonably have been shaped by natural forces, we will check for tool marks, we will analyze the structures possible function (if any). In short, we will look for evidence of Intelligent Design. And there will probably be LOTS of debate about who won the argument, but there shouldn't be any debate about whether the argument was a legitimate scientific question.

Scenario 2: SETI picks up a strange signal, they've picked up lots of signals before, but this one, this one certainly seems to be more than just static. But its not like any signal humanity has ever produced. Is there a message hidden in the structure? And can we determine that there *IS* a message even if we can't read it or recognize it's purpose? Cryptanalysis actually has techniques that might be able to do that, to prove that the structure contained information, even if they couldn't determine what the message was. And stellar physicist would certainly be trying to determine if any known phenomenon could possibly have produced the interesting burst. Again, the outcome of the study is uncertain, but the question was obviously worth asking.

Scenario 3: When studying the cosmic background radiation, scientists uncover a "signal". This wasn't being beamed to us, it had to be built into the way the universe expanded after the big bang. Scientist and Cryptographers world wide will spend lifetimes analyzing that signal. They will look, not for patterns, but for information. The cryptographers will help the scientist with this because cryptography is all about separating a SIGNAL with actual information out of noise, and very specifically about determining whether the signal really WAS a signal, or whether any message was put in there only by the reader.
This scenario comes from this article where scientist are, seriously, searching for this message in the cosmic background radiation. I don't think they will find anything, but I don't question that the search can be done in a legitimate and scientific way. Please note, however, the bizarre hypocrisy in the article: ID is science if WE do it, but not if YOU do it.

give me a scientifically testable statement that ID makes.

There is no naturalistic evolutionary path to the Flagellum.
It's obviously testable because the scientific community has been trying to test it. That's why we keep hearing about the secretory organ that contains 1/3 of the molecules that are in the flagellum.

The most fragile issue in ID right now (from my point of view) is probably the attempt to define IC rigidly. McDonalds reducibly complex mousetrap is one of the best attempts to falsify IC so far. His reducible mousetrap path has holes you could drive an 18 wheeler through, but it still does a lot better than I was expecting it to do and points out a weakness in the way ID defines IC. BOTH sides of this debate need to focus a lot of attention here. ID needs to come up with a really solid way to define IC, and the naturalists need to come up with a complete gradual path to a supposedly IC structure.

Your analogy works only because there is an established framwork for what constitutes a human design.

What's unreasonable about assuming that planning and predicting requires intelligence? any intelligence that couldn't plan and predict would be difficult for me to define as intelligent, and certainly wouldn't be detectable by ID methods.

you have to prove the existance of God for Intelligent Design to be proven.

I must be doing a really bad job of this. ID methods could be applied to a virus to determine if it were naturally evolved, or came out of a lab in Korea. ID could be used to determine if Aliens made a face on mars. And while most supporters of ID clearly think that the designer of life is God, that has nothing to do with the theory behind detecting design. IF you are convinced that the science is good and blood clotting or the flagellum or whatever structure could not have evolved, then you have to deal with the philosophical implications of that discovery. It doesn't WORK the other way around, you don't prove there is a Designer and then look for evidence of ID. You look for evidence of ID and, if you find it, then you have to decide who you think the designer is, and ID won't help you there.

Please note: if we convinced everyone tomorrow that the flagellum WAS designed, it wouldn't change most naturalists minds. They will come up with some other philisophical scenario to explain the design. ID does NOT equal creationism.

But what you seem to be doing is nit picking small parts that don't seem to work yet, and opting in favor of this "Magic Wand" as a better explanation.
...I think you'll need to explain why natural selection predicting the future is the ONLY way certain life forms could have evolved, which I think you won't be able to do.
...I have no idea what ID is even ABOUT after that statement.

I urge you to pick up Darwin's Black box by Behe and read his arguments. He isn't nit picking at small problems, he is a molecular biologist who is pointing out some major scientific issues that must be addressed. Behe is primarily addressing the issue of Irreducibly Complex structures. This means that the structure doesn't have any useful function unless all of it's parts are there and working. Natural Selection has to work in small steps, where each step has an advantage over the previous step. It can not help us evolve a structure unless you can find a gradual path to that structure. THAT is what ID is about. It's looking for evidence of design. Structures with incremental natures might have evolved, ID isn't interested in them. Not that the DID evolve (or not), they just don't fall under the research area that ID covers.

I reccomend "Schrodinger's Kittens" by John Gribbin of Cambridge University.

Own it. Good book. There are many strange and wonderful things in the universe, But how would you redefine Natural Selection to allow it to work in any other way than the current definition? We aren't talking about the behavior of light here, we are talking about a pretty well understood process.

Do you think that ID is but a *possibility* or do you believe it to be true?

Both, I believe that the science behind ID is sound, but the very nature of a Scientific Theory is that it is falsifiable. I'm not so stubborn as to say I wouldn't quit believing in ID if someone falsified it. I'm not expecting that outcome, but I remain open to it.
And let me clarify again, if I became convinced that ID was false, that wouldn't mean I quit believing the universe was designed, it would mean I quit believing that the methods of ID could DETECT that design. THAT'S what ID is, methods to detect design.

I'm just wondering why there is such resistance to the idea that science is simply describing God's method of creation

I don't resist that idea at all.

You sure seem to be

I believe that God created this entire universe and all of the laws it follows, so yes, I think studying Science is studying the mind of God. When we study pi, I think we are studying part of the way God built the universe. God designed space in such a way that the ratio of a circles diameter to it's circumfrance is just so. But in studying the universe this way we are studying the creators design, but we aren't finding EVIDENCE of that design. My statement was that ID doesn't cover structures that could have possibly evolved naturalistically, that just means exactly that, the methods don't apply, they don't DETECT design in those circumstances.

Sagan postulated finding a message in Pi. That would be something incredible to find, if it's there (and no, I don't think it is), of course we would want to find it, and study it, and prove whether or not it was actually proof that pi had been designed. And finding (or not finding) such a message would not, in any way, invalidate the previous point that God created the entire universe and all of the laws that govern it.

Kilarin

[Genghis]

Too...much...to respond to. I typed the following paragraph, then later read on only to find that Pally and Birds had pretty much said the same thing. But I'm posting it anyway:

We are able to detect design in radio signals and arrowheads and patterns of letters because we have a lot of experience with examples of each that we know for sure are natural and other examples that we know for sure are designed. We also are able to identify non-supernatural designers in each case, whether they are real or hypothesized. So it's not unreasonable to make a design inference in these cases. We don't have much or even any experience with biological systems that we know for sure are designed, and we have no credible non-supernatural designer in mind. Therefore any design inference for biological systems is subjective and unquantifiable, and therefore not scientific.

And here's something else I typed before I read Birds' last post:

Second, Kilarin you may want to stop quoting Darwin as the be-all, end-all of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory has made a lot of progress beyond Darwin in the past century and a half. And while a lot of Darwin's original ideas hold up, some have been modified or expanded. For example, evolution does NOT have to proceed in a stepwise fashion. The mechanism of cooption allows \"jumps\" to be made in which a feature or system that originally evolved for one purpose is adapted for a different purpose. In fact, cooption is a major thorn in the side of ID because it breaks a lot of IC arguments. ADDENDUM: reading on, I see that you acknowledge this later in your post. ADDENDUM2: reading further, you go back to insisting on Darwin's small steps. At this point I can't be sure of your level of understanding of evolution. Maybe you think of cooption as a small step?

Finally, I don't see why ID shouldn't be rigorized, perhaps even until it becomes proper science that can prove the existence of God. I do have a problem with the ID movement spending most of its time trying to popularize and politicize the issue instead of trying to develop ID into something that has a more solid foundation. As Dr. Miller says, the ID movement is trying to short-circuit the scientific process and go for a direct injection into the minds of our most impressionable citizens: our children.

Hos, another way you can tell Dr. Miller apart from me, aside from the age difference, is that never once do you see him grab his groin.

EDIT: Kilarin, you got your post in before me. I'm going to bed; I'll read yours later!

[Kilarin]

In fact, cooption is a major thorn in the side of ID because it breaks a lot of IC arguments. ADDENDUM: reading on, I see that you acknowledge this later in your post. ADDENDUM2: reading further, you go back to insisting on Darwin's small steps. At this point I can't be sure of your level of understanding of evolution. Maybe you think of cooption as a small step?

Yes, cooption is still a series of small steps, with each step having an advantage over the previous one. Otherwise, how could Natural Selection select for it?
And, like I said, this is one of the areas where I think BOTH sides need to do the most work.

Kilarin, you got your post in before me. I'm going to bed; I'll read yours later!

Tired. Much to much post today. need sleep. going night night now.

Kilarin

[Jeff250]

No, NOT God of the gaps, the opposite. We can only claim to detect design when we actually understand a structure to an enormous degree of detail.

According to Darwin's own definition of natural selection, it can only work in a stepwise fashion. ID says that some things can't evolve in a step wise fashion, they required planning and predicting to put together, and only intelligence can plan or predict.

Why must ID be exclusive of natural selection? Why couldn't something have originated naturally AND have been designed? (If so, shouldn't you reevaluate your test?) And how is this not God of the gaps when your litmus test is basically a test for something that could not have arrived naturally?

I'm not certain I understand your objection. ID is about detecting design. It doesn't require you to suspect it to be there before you could detect it. If you were walking on the surface of the moon and found stone chipped into an axe head shape, well, you certainly wouldn't have been EXPECTING to find design, but you would certainly start looking into what the odds were that such a thing could have happened by any means other than design. If a scientist was studying a new bird flu, he probably wouldn't be looking for design, but if he found something in the DNA that made him think it may have come out of a lab in Iran, you can bet he would get on the phone real quick.

You're talking about design as if there are these universal qualities of design that can always be detected. It's so easy to detect design in an axe because humans design axes. It's an observation that we've made for milennia.

Now give me some universal qualities (or super-univeral qualities rather) of design that are ALWAYS true and that would be true, no matter the designer.

As I mentioned before, Drakona (unless I misunderstood her) speculated that one such universal quality of design might be that when one part of a system is designed, then other parts would be too. Even if this wasn't what she was saying, let's take that as an example.

Is it testable? Sure. We can take something that we don't believe could have arrived naturally and see if there are other instances of this in the system. But is this really an adequate litmus test for design? No. Because who's to say that all creatures in all corners design like that. In reality, you might be testing someing gravely different from design, perhaps something that we can't even begin to realize.

I see the world like this:
Natural | Supernatural
and between them is a curtain of dire ignorance that is at least one-way. Even if we determined that something supernatural MUST have been the cause of something such as the flagellum, how dare we speculate that it is design? Or about how the supernatural designs?

What you are describing is "theistic evolution"...

Theistic evolution does not prompt any investigation for design. It suits a completely different purpose.

[Palzon]

Ok in response to Kilarin:

First, I'd like to point out that if evolution cannot account for bacterial flagellum, this would be a criticism of evolutionary theory, NOT a testable hypothesis of intelligent design, i.e. not part of testable systematic theory of intelligent design. in other words, ID must be something more than just a school of thought criticizing evolution from their own perspective. a scientific theory of intelligent design would have to hypothesize an intelligent design/designer, and it would have to be refutable.

This is why ID is not a system of scientific belief, hence not science, as is evolution. it makes no positive assertions which, if corroborated by experiment, would show there is a designer at all. It amounts to nothing more than a phisolophical framework (and a poor one) from which to criticize evolution. one last remark here: it doesn't matter to me if the framework is poor if it leads to greater knowledge by way of improvement to evolutionalry theory.

if someone were to make the claim that one can \"scientifically\" criticize evolution from a framework of ID, it would have little meaning. to make that claim would be to equivocate on the word \"scientific\", using it one sense (correctly) to pertain to evolution and in the other (incorrectly) pertaining to ID. but simply criticising evolution has ZERO bearing on whether or not anything is intelligently designed, or on whether or not there is a designer. Criticism of evolution can't make science out of ID beliefs.

second of all, it seems curious to me that all three of the scenarios you propose are referring to alien life as opposed to anything remotely supernatural. And the reason this is suspect to me is because you say that you acknowledge \"Wedge\". Now, if you truly acknowledge Wedge, how can you limit the scope of ID to only \"secular\" designers?? ID can hardly be separated from the discovery institute that is trying to foist this crap philosophy on us. i'm not saying you are not sincere. but i KNOW that they aren't.

at least the theists have a bible to self-referentially support their belief system - the aliens don't even have that! so how bout calling a spade a spade - where is the \"scientific\" prediction about the cosmos being designed by god? or, where is the supernatural designer whom ID folks disingenuosly refuse to name? Now that would be a relevant scenario.

No one would say that a question as to whether or not something is of extra-terrestrial (read natural) origin is not scientific as long as it is falsifiable. but is this what would have us battling in court over science textbooks? the possibility that ET made life instead of a natural process? surely you jest. the whole controversy here is that one camp believes in naturalism and the other believes in supernaturalism!

I'm being a little cheeky with you because I feel that people like Behe and Dembski are completely disingenuous. I understand that ID's supposed science pertains to specific organisms or processes. But it begs the question of these larger picture issues i have raised above.

This brings me back to the flagellum. Scientists have shown that the flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex. Behe and Dembski are hacks!

This is an excellent article which lays bare the errors made by Behe and Dembski. I urge everyone who is interested to read this important article in its entirety. Not only is the flagellum issue addressed in a most lucid manner, but others as well. The article includes important illustrations of ID's failings such as in the Krebs cycle and process of vertebrate blood clotting.

I again submit that ID is half-baked philosophy and in no way measures up to legitimate scientific standards.

[Hostile]

Hos, another way you can tell Dr. Miller apart from me, aside from the age difference, is that never once do you see him grab his groin.

Indeed my friend. Indeed

/me grabs groin....

[Kilarin]

Why couldn't something have originated naturally AND have been designed?

I'm not certain I understand your question. But in any case, it doesn't apply. ID only claims to be able to detect design in certain very limited circumstances. To DETECT design. It makes no statements about whether things were designed or not that do not fit within it's detection criteria.

Drakona (unless I misunderstood her) speculated that one such universal quality of design might be that when one part of a system is designed, then other parts would be too.

I don't remember Drakona saying that, but if she did, I would have to disagree since it is demonstrably untrue. If I carve my initials into a tree it doesn't make the entire tree designed.

Now give me some universal qualities (or super-univeral qualities rather) of design that are ALWAYS true and that would be true, no matter the designer.

ID does not claim that it can always detect design. ID claims that only intelligence can plan and predict. Natural causes do not. Dembski gets into much more complicated mathematical versions of this based on information theory, but on the biological level, what it boils down to is planning and predicting. Which is why we do not actually need to know ANYTHING about whatever intelligence designed something. If we detect planning and predicting in the structure, you have evidence of design. If you can't detect planning and predicting, if any other cause is sufficent to reasonable explain a structure, then ID has nothing to say about it.

it seems curious to me that all three of the scenarios you propose are referring to alien life as opposed to anything remotely supernatural.
...Now, if you truly acknowledge Wedge, how can you limit the scope of ID to only "secular" designers??

I didn't. Option 3 points very strongly at a supernatural source in my opinion. The fact that you saw it as pointing at a naturalistic source simply supports my assertion that ID is not necessarily tied to supernatural sources. If we discovered a message in the cosmic background radiation, I would say it had been put there by God, you would say it had been put there by someone from another universe who spawned our own. The philisophical implications of the theory have nothing to do with whether there actually is a message or not.

However, if the flagellum contains within it a smaller functional set of components like the TTSS, then the flagellum itself cannot be irreducibly complex – by definition. Since we now know that this is indeed the case, it is obviously true that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

I have to disagree with his analysis. To use the classic mousetrap example, because you can evolve a wooden base for some other purpose, does not change the difficulty of putting together all of the components of the mousetrap. It just means you can get the components.

BUT, as I have stated before, I agree that this is the weakest point of both theories. The Naturalists point at IC and wave the magic wand of cooption and degeneration and say the problem is gone. They really need better examples and a way to prove that cooption actually could result in possible paths to a structure like the Flagellum. The discovery of TTSS was certainly a step in that direction. And the ID side MUST work out a beter definition of IC that rigorously eliminates these "fantasy" paths to a structures completion. If they can't achieve that, they will have failed.

but is this what would have us battling in court over science textbooks? the possibility that ET made life instead of a natural process?

You will note that I haven't mentioned the school/court issue even once in this thread.

Kilarin

[Palzon]

but is this what would have us battling in court over science textbooks? the possibility that ET made life instead of a natural process?

You will note that I haven't mentioned the school/court issue even once in this thread.

Kilarin

...which is all the more curious since, so far, the ONLY controversy is the political/academic one. ID is not taken seriously enough in the scientific community to cause any controvery whatsoever. There is NO scientific controversy.

Option 3 points very strongly at a supernatural source in my opinion.

But this is a red herring anyway since we have no reason to suppose such a signal exists in the first place.

I have to disagree with [Miller's]analysis. To use the classic mousetrap example, because you can evolve a wooden base for some other purpose, does not change the difficulty of putting together all of the components of the mousetrap. It just means you can get the components.

I think you have misunderstood Behe's mousetrap argument. I'll quote Miller first then give you some of my own analysis, which I think takes it even further than Miller!

Ironically, Behe's own example, the mousetrap, shows what's wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different -- but still useful -- functions.

Evolution produces complex biochemical machines.
Behe's contention that each and every piece of a machine, mechanical or biochemical, must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is just plain wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions.

What I think you are failing to understand is that Behe is making the assumption that at every step along the way to its "final" function (to borrow an Aristotelean term), an organism is failing to demonstrate a response to selective pressures that would indicate evolution. However, this is clearly contradicted by his own example...

Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications -- I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.

I think that Miller's criticism does not go far enough. The point is that each component in the system has theoretical applications outside of a mousetrap. A theoretical application is akin to a biological function. Blocks of wood have many applications outside of the mousetrap. Metal bars have many applications outside of a mousetrap. Needless to say, the spring has a many applications outside of a mousetrap.

Just as the components of the mousetrap have applications outside the mousetrap, the predecessor to a biological organism has a meaningful purpose (or cause in any Aristotelean sense) outside of its latest evolutionary form. THAT is why ID's analysis of the flagellum is wrong. They assumed that it had no other function when REAL biologists have shown that it did.

Let's return to the mousetrap once more. The mousetrap was not some kind of spontaneous invention out of thin air. The inventor of the mousetrap did not invent the block of wood, nor the metal hammer, nor the spring.

Let me say this loud and clear:

The invention of the mousetrap is itself an example of evolution, not an argument against it.

Ideas are like organisms. The bad ones perish and the good ones survive. Woodworking gives us the woodblock because woodblocks are useful. Metalurgy gives us the spring and hammer because these things are useful. And in fact, our ability to craft these tools has evolved over time as well. Where we once created machines by hand, we now have machines to make other machines. We have machines to make the spring and hammer. This is not a minor point.

The saying, "build a better mousetrap", is itself, an indication that all mousetraps are not created equally. A good mousetrap will be proliferated while a less successful model may be phased out of production. The same is true of biological organisms.

So, the mousetrap IS reducible to component parts quite useful in other circumstances. But the reverse is true also!. That the parts can be brought together in the form of the mousetrap shows how the diversity of individually useful parts working together leads to a novel, emergent and successful application of the constituent parts!

The same could be said of any machine, and also of how life evolves.

I would quote Miller here again in a slightly longer passage, but it is worth the read. I do so because I think you are far too dismissive and far too eager to put ID and Biology on equal footing when that is so not the case, as Miller explains:

In assessing the design argument, therefore, it only seems as though two distinct arguments have been raised for the unevolvability of the flagellum. In reality, those two arguments, one invoking irreducible complexity and the other specified complex information, both depend upon a single scientifically insupportable position. Namely, that we can look at a complex biological object and determine with absolute certainty that none of its component parts could have been first selected to perform other functions. The discovery of extensive homologies between the Type III secretory system and the flagellum has now shown just how wrong that position was.

When anti-evolutionary arguments featuring the bacterial flagellum rose into prominence, beginning with the 1996 publication of Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996a), they were predicated upon the assertion that each of the protein components of the flagellum were crafted, in a single act of design, to fit the specific purpose of the flagellum. The flagellum was said to be unevolvable since the entire complex system had to be assembled first in order to produce any selectable biological function. This claim was broadened to include all complex biological systems, and asserted further that science would never find an evolutionary pathway to any of these systems. After all, it hadn't so far, at least according to one of "design's" principal advocates:

There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. (Behe 1996a, 185)

As many critics of intelligent design have pointed out, that statement is simply false. Consider, as just one example, the Krebs cycle, an intricate biochemical pathway consisting of nine enzymes and a number of cofactors that occupies center stage in the pathways of cellular metabolism. The Krebs cycle is "real," "complex," and "biochemical." Does it also present a problem for evolution? Apparently yes, according to the authors of a 1996 paper in the Journal of Molecular evolution, who wrote:

"The Krebs cycle has been frequently quoted as a key problem in the evolution of living cells, hard to explain by Darwin’s natural selection: How could natural selection explain the building of a complicated structure in toto, when the intermediate stages have no obvious fitness functionality? (Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)

Where intelligent design theorists throw up their hands and declare defeat for evolution, however, these researchers decided to do the hard scientific work of analyzing the components of the cycle, and seeing if any of them might have been selected for other biochemical tasks. What they found should be a lesson to anyone who asserts that evolution can only act by direct selection for a final function. In fact, nearly all of the proteins of the complex cycle can serve different biochemical purposes within the cell, making it possible to explain in detail how they evolved:

In the Krebs cycle problem the intermediary stages were also useful, but for different purposes, and, therefore, its complete design was a very clear case of opportunism. . . . the Krebs cycle was built through the process that Jacob (1977) called ‘‘evolution by molecular tinkering,’’ stating that evolution does not produce novelties from scratch: It works on what already exists. The most novel result of our analysis is seeing how, with minimal new material, evolution created the most important pathway of metabolism, achieving the best chemically possible design. In this case, a chemical engineer who was looking for the best design of the process could not have found a better design than the cycle which works in living cells." (Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)

Since this paper appeared, a study based on genomic DNA sequences has confirmed the validity of this approach (Huynen, Dandekar, and Bork 1999). By contrast, how would intelligent design have approached the Krebs Cycle? Using Dembski's calculations as our guide, we would first determine the amino acid sequences of each of the proteins of the cycle, and then calculate the probability of their spontaneous assembly. When this is done, an origination probability of less than 10 -400 is the result. Therefore, the result of applying "design" as a predictive science would have told both groups of researchers that their ultimately successful studies would have been fruitless, since the probability of spontaneous assembly falls below the "universal probability bound."

We already know, however, the reason that such calculations fail. They carry a built-in assumption that the component parts of a complex biochemical system have no possible functions beyond the completely assembled system itself. As we have seen, this assumption is false. The Krebs cycle researchers knew better, of course, and were able to produce two important studies describing how a real, complex, biochemical system might have evolved – the very thing that design theorists once claimed did not exist in the scientific literature.

[Kilarin]

There is NO scientific controversy.

Because you disagree with the minority doesn't mean they aren't scientist. Miller, Dawkins, Gould, and the rest are naturalists with an agenda, but I don't question that they are actually good scientist. And please don't try to tell me that their agenda is only scientific. Dawkins has said that teaching religion (Catholic style) to children is child abuse, that Conservative Christians are "The American Taliban". And, perhaps most famously, that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

I don't fault them for having an agenda, everyone has an agenda. And I'm not pointing this out to try and dis Dawkins and crowd. I'm just asking that we treat Behe and Dembski as legitimate scientist whether you agree with them or not. Scientists disagree, thats what science is about.

it seems curious to me that all three of the scenarios you propose are referring to alien life as opposed to anything remotely supernatural.
...Now, if you truly acknowledge Wedge, how can you limit the scope of ID to only "secular" designers??

Option 3 points very strongly at a supernatural source in my opinion.

But this is a red herring anyway since we have no reason to suppose such a signal exists in the first place

It's not a red herring. You thought I was limiting the scope to only secular designers, but I wasn't. It is legitimate (if a bit silly) science to look for the signal. But IF we found one, naturalists would assume a naturalistic source and theist would assume a theistic source. Your confusion over my intent simply proves the point. ID isn't about the designer, it's just about attempting to detect design. Attacking the methods is completely legitimate, attacking the attempt is just silly.

So, the mousetrap IS reducible to component parts quite useful in other circumstances.

Actually, as I stated before, the availability of the components does not answer the question of how natural selection can build an IC structure. Even if you have all of the components, they have to be assembled, and for the assembly process you only have natural selection and random chance (assuming naturalistic evolution). Random chance is not adequate to assemble them, and natural selection can only work when it has advantages to select for.

Cooption and degeneration are legitimate approaches to answering ID on this point. I don't think they have proven adequate to the task, but they are at least attempting to show how you can reach an IC structure in a step wise manner. But just claiming "We have the parts!" doesn't answer the question at all.

Kilarin

[Palzon]

Actually, as I stated before, the availability of the components does not answer the question of how natural selection can build an IC structure. Even if you have all of the components, they have to be assembled, and for the assembly process you only have natural selection and random chance (assuming naturalistic evolution). Random chance is not adequate to assemble them, and natural selection can only work when it has advantages to select for.

Cooption and degeneration are legitimate approaches to answering ID on this point. I don't think they have proven adequate to the task, but they are at least attempting to show how you can reach an IC structure in a step wise manner. But just claiming "We have the parts!" doesn't answer the question at all.

Kilarin

You are not addressing Miller's objection. Behe is saying the whole thing had to evolve at once from an intelligent designer. Miller is pointing to a study (that he did not conduct, mind you) which shows that a related organism to the flagellum incorporated aspects of the flagellum - which should be impossible according to Behe. It would be impossible to say that the flagellum is irreducibly complex if any of its constituents had an independent evolutionary track. And this is exactly what the study found.

I'm not speaking generally here. I'm making a specific case. The same one Miller is making. How do you address this point?

[Kilarin]

I'm not speaking generally here. I'm making a specific case. The same one Miller is making. How do you address this point?

The same way I did before.
There are two basic issues here:
1:Does finding the TTSS make a good start on a cooption/degeneration argument? My answer is yes. Quite frankly, it looks more like a degenrate flagellum to me, but unless someone can prove that (and I doubt they can) I'm willing to grant it's status as an independant, possibly earlier structure. This does not prove that cooption and degeneration are adequate to explain IC structures, but it is a begining which must be explored further.

2: Does finding subsets of an IC structure that have other functions prove that IC structure to be reducible. To which the answer is no. The fact that we have substructures with different functions does NOT addres Behe's point that natural selection must have something to work on to put those substructures together into a working whole. We can push your argument back to the amino acid level if you wish, all of the amino acid's required to create the flagellum are present in the cell. So? How did natural selection assemble them? By finding the secretory structure, we have certainly moved a bit closer to a flagellum, but not much. Parts is parts, what needs to be shown is how to assemble those parts into a flagellum. And this was fully acknowledged in Behe's mousetrap analogy. Even assuming you have all of the pieces, how do you put them together if there is no natural advantage to the combinations.

So, to sum up, I believe that naturalistic evolution should concentrate on showing there are ALTERNATE paths to structures like the flagellum, using cooption and degeneration. IF they can prove that this will work, and I mean prove it all the way by showing a COMPLETE path, they will have dealt ID a terrible blow. It won't be dead yet, there are still a few points that would need addressing, such as where the first molecule of AMP came from, but ID will be in serious trouble on scientific grounds.

And ID must concentrate on how to identify and define IC.

Kilarin

[Palzon]

thank you for your responses. i enjoy the discourse.

[Kilarin]

thank you for your responses. i enjoy the discourse.

As have I! Everyone has been very kind in trying to discuss the actual issues without just calling me a dunderhead. I appreciate it.

Kilarin

[Jeff250]

ID does not claim that it can always detect design. ID claims that only intelligence can plan and predict. Natural causes do not. Dembski gets into much more complicated mathematical versions of this based on information theory, but on the biological level, what it boils down to is planning and predicting. Which is why we do not actually need to know ANYTHING about whatever intelligence designed something. If we detect planning and predicting in the structure, you have evidence of design. If you can't detect planning and predicting, if any other cause is sufficent to reasonable explain a structure, then ID has nothing to say about it.

All you've done is replaced the term "design" with "planning and predicting." I asked you how you could know that what you're testing for is really design and not something else. Now I ask how can you know that what you're testing for is really "planning and predicting"? I have no doubt for the moment that you're testing for some sort of supernatural phenomenon. But it's paramount that you demonstrate that it's actually design that you're testing, not just some generic supernatural phenomenon! Wouldn't it be funny if the flagellum was really the result of a divine sneeze? They're both kinda slimey looking.

[Kilarin]

I asked you how you could know that what you're testing for is really design and not something else.
...Wouldn't it be funny if the flagellum was really the result of a divine sneeze? They're both kinda slimey looking.

I'm really not certain I understand what you are trying to explain to me. Sorry for being dense. Irreducible Complexity is the design test criteria we've been discussing:

"A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart subsystem (i.e., a set of two or more interrelated parts) that cannot be simplified without destroying the system’s basic function"

Dembski attempts to create a rigorous definition and to deal with the issue of cooption and degeneration HERE.
(Also available as a PDF but I couldn't get it to load)

As I have said, I think both sides still need to work on dealing with the issues of cooption and degeneration.

Kilarin

[Jeff250]

Suppose I grant you that the bacterium flagellum is irreducibly complex and incapable of being explained through naturalistic means. Now scientifically demonstrate that it was designed.

[Palzon]

Suppose I grant you that the bacterium flagellum is irreducibly complex and incapable of being explained through naturalistic means. Now scientifically demonstrate that it was designed.

...well, i think the two are mutally inclusive. i think the question that is begged is, "designed by whom?"

[Jeff250]

...well, i think the two are mutally inclusive.

Why? Out of all things in super-nature, why would you assume that only "design" would be capable of explaining the flagellum? Demonstrate how your explanation is scientifically testable and falsifiable.

[Kilarin]

Suppose I grant you that the bacterium flagellum is irreducibly complex and incapable of being explained through naturalistic means. Now Scientifically demonstrate that it was designed

I'm not TRYING to be obtuse or difficult. (Lord knows I don't have to try hard at those) But I'm really not certain what you are trying to get at. IF we grant that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, we are granting that it could not (reasonably) come about by chance, and can not be selected for in a step wise fashion. By definition, the parts can only be put together by something that planned and predicted. And ANYTHING that is capable of planning and predicting is defined as intelligent. That includes computers and many of the higher animals. If "God Sneezed" and the flagellum came into existance, then SOMETHING in that sneeze was capable of thinking ahead and planning the construction of a complicated device. I can't imagine what it would be, but whatever did it would be defined as intelligent.

Are you familiar with the Turing test? Consider this a mini version. What else would you call something that could plan and predict? Perhaps I'm missing your point entirely.

Kilarin

[Jeff250]

By definition, the parts can only be put together by something that planned and predicted.

This is the part that I disagree with. What if there was a supernatural universe where flagella always existed? What if there was a supernatural universe where flagella did evolve through a stepwise fashion? (By either a different environment, different evolutionary path, or different laws of nature?) In such universes, the bacterium flagellum would not have been designed. I think that intelligent design makes the mistake of trying to ascribe the things that we see on earth to the divine.

[Pandora]

First of all, I want to mention, that - after the discussions with Kilarin, Lothar and Drakona - I agree that ID in its most general form (\"how to detect design\") can be a science. However, I do not believe that it is there yet. Some thoughts:

Before ID can be accepted as a science, it should propose methodologies of detecting design and test them. For instance, if the methodologies work, they should differentiate between an artificicial radio signal and natural noise. The researchers would need to publish these experiments so that they can be replicated and scrutinized by others - hopefully in respected peer-reviewed(!!!) journals. After some time, researchers will know what the best tests for design are. Most importantly, there need to be statistics for each of these tests that describe how reliably they detect design in a certain field.

The absence of such tested methodologies completely precludes the (scientific) application of ID to the question of 'origins', let alone its teaching in the classroom as an alternative to evolution. There is simply no tested procedure that can show whether an organism is designed or not. I understand that Behe proposed such a methodology, but it has not run through an extensive testing phase (AFAIK), and if it has, these tests have not been published in peer-reviewed journals. This is the case even though there are clearly a lot of 'designed' biological orgnanisms that could serve as test objects and validate the methodologies. For instance, there are all these organisms that have been artificially bred to certain forms (dutch tomatoes, dogs, etc.). On the other hand, there are the newer genetically designed organisms (e.g. the japanesse fluorescent pigs). There might even be some experimental viral organisms that are more completely new. Before applying it to the question of 'origins', Behe's methodology needs to detect design in (at least some of) these organisms.

All this being said, I can understand why biologists are reluctant to accept ID as a science (yet). The reason is that most of the proponents of ID simply do not behave like scientists. On the contrary, they (at least) seem to try to circumvent the typical uphill struggle any new science faces and want to be taken seriously on the basis of publications for non-scientists and appeals to common sense alone. There are no publications in peer-reviewed journals about methodology, and yet they try to apply such methodologies to challenge evolution --- a theory(!!!) that is supported by a wealth of evidence. This is, of course, ridiculous for anything other than an intellectual exercise.

Due to these reasons, it also makes sense to suspect an 'agenda' behind ID and critizizing it on this basis. It has been pointed out that ID is solely interested in 'detecting design' wherever it occurs. However, the proponents of ID seem to be interested in detecting only one particular form of design --- namely the form that would produce irreducible complex organisms. This is particularly striking since objects that are IC would arguable only be produced by God --- even us humans do not create such objects. Behe's mousetrap, for instance, consist of elements with well known functions (piece of wood, wire, spring). Probably even before the first mousetrap was built, humans knew the properties of a string, and how to connect it to an object in a way that makes it accelerate when let loose...

So, in a nutshell, i find the questions asked by ID utterly fascinating and potentially scientific. However, the IDers should stop whining and start behaving like scientists if they want to be treated as such.

[Kilarin]

it should propose methodologies of detecting design and test them.
...it should propose methodologies of detecting design and test them. For instance, if the methodologies work, they should differentiate between an artificicial radio signal and natural noise.

EXCELLENT point, to which I conceed entirely. ID needs to get it's theories off of paper and into the lab if it wishes to become a serious science.

[dissent]

This is the part that I disagree with. What if there was a supernatural universe where flagella always existed? What if there was a supernatural universe where flagella did evolve through a stepwise fashion?

Ah, so the Flying Spaghetti Monster ... ; those are actually flagella !

[dissent]

Hey, that bit about the two chromosomes fused to make the #2 chromosome.
Now that was interesting!!

[Lothar]

I can understand why biologists are reluctant to accept ID as a science (yet). The reason is that most of the proponents of ID simply do not behave like scientists.

Man, I totally agree. (See also: the Wedge document, any posts I've made about Discovery Institute, etc.)

[Drakona]

First of all, I want to mention, that - after the discussions with Kilarin, Lothar and Drakona - I agree that ID in its most general form ("how to detect design") can be a science. However, I do not believe that it is there yet. . . . Before ID can be accepted as a science, it should propose methodologies of detecting design and test them.

I disagree with some of your subsequent points, but you have captured my position exactly in your thesis.

I do think ID in a general form can be a science, but I have read all of the technical literature they put out (or darn near most of it), and I am convinced that it is not one yet. Dembski has made a stab at producing a general method (in "The Design Inference"), but while he makes a lot of good observations, his method is ultimately flawed logically and--worse--completely inapplicable to the real world. No one, not even he, has ever successfully applied it. And I have applied it to several problems and think it unhelpful and unreliable. His work on complexity is good, but his work on specification is--while philosophically a good starting place--realistically useless. That needs work.

If ID is to succeed as an abstract discipline, it will need a testable, refinable, cross-disciplinary, philosophically justified method. It will need to be the sort of thing you don't need a Ph.D. in philosophy to apply, and it would have to yield useful results--say, progress in research spurred by the positive-ID conclusions the method yields. A vital scholastic community interested in the problem, not the results is what's needed, and--unfortunately--what's missing.

The application of the problem to origins is, I think, over-hasty, and cannot be principled at this point. Though I suppose I don't mind it totally--if it generates intuitive study that feeds into theory, I guess I'm okay with that. Applications do, paradoxically, tend to develop before theores. I'm still awfully suspicious of the effort, and don't trust the results at all... but I don't mind the attempts.

And the discussion of the problem in a political realm is way over-hasty. In fact, to be honest, this is what put me off from the Discovery Institute. When I finished up my Master's Degree, I thought about going to study & write with them for a while, but I have been very much put off by the high volume of politically-related stuff they put out, and the low volume of actual study. I don't mind following what they're doing, and the news the have, but I don't quite trust them yet. This is the sole reason I haven't really made contact, despite the fact that they're out here in Seattle, and it's a topic I want to work on, and I've been told to publish, and so forth. It's just... not quite right.

That said, I've always said ID has a powerful intuitive case to make, and I think it does. I am honestly convinced the scholars ID has to offer are pursuaded by that case and interested in pursuing it rigorously. I just am not sure they're doing the best job they could.

[Duper]

Peppered Moth example

I found this rather interesting.

[Genghis]

Well now we're veering off topic. That old Wells argument has nothing to do with ID. However, since you brought it up, here's a debunking of it that I always found adequate, although I won't hold it against you if you don't:

http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon6moths.html

I've been aware of the Wells anti-evolution arguments for a while, but it looks like maybe you just discovered them? If that's the only one you read, there's a lot more where that came from, just buy his book:

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/

[Duper]

I posted that linkonly to show that even scientific method can be influcenced by faith in both camps. One persons desire to validate evolution blinded him to evidence that had been offered previously that postulated a different cause; almost to a fanatic extent. Catching, tagging and releasing then recapturing over 1000 moths is a bit extreme. That and expecting to reap accurate results from recaptured moths seems to to me a bit of a stretch. You could not be certain to have recaptured 100% of the surviving sample; with out which only allows for more guess work. I'm sure they call it \"estimating\".

At any rate, Kettlewell's faith in evolution biased his preception of the facts. As I told a co-worker, this is something that every scientist faces, irreguardless of the situation.

As an additional thought, I think it would be a bit more conclusive to test the larve by separating both types in to different groups testing some with polluted food and non-polluted food. Granted, this would take some time and probably a good deal of money, but it would show the effects (if any) of trace metals with some reliable results.

[Kilarin]

Catching, tagging and releasing then recapturing over 1000 moths is a bit extreme.

No, not really. Scientist do things like that all the time.
I'm sympathetic to the ID movement, obviously, but the idea of tagging 1000 moths, releasing them, and determining what you can from what was recovered is nothing unusual. If Kettlewell made mistakes in his methods, that wasn't it.