Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Excellent post.

Posted by John Farrell at December 27, 2004 06:26 PM

I have a two kids in public school in Pennsylvania. One is in fifth grade, the other is in kindergarten, so this is no laughing matter to me.

Should my district offer ID as part of the science curriculum, I will have no choice but to send my kids to their science class dressed as Moses ... maybe Elijah.

Posted by Behe-heheh at December 27, 2004 06:30 PM

How science works is by putting forth theories that are disprovable, not ones that are provable. When all other theories have been disproven, those still standing are the ones adopted by most scientists.

Excellent point. Now how is Darwinian theories of evolution "disprovable?" I've been asking people all day how Darwinism is falsifiable and no one seems to have an answer.

Posted by Joe Carter at December 27, 2004 06:32 PM

Right. ID is a rediscovery of the silly attempts by past philosophers to prove the existence of God. Haven't we been through that?

Here's the ID syllogism:

1) Gee, this universe is amazing!
2) This can't be an accident!
3) Somebody must be behind this!

To which logicians reply:

1) Define "amazing".

Some (usually dim-witted) people seem honestly to believe in this ID crap, and that's why it isn't dismissed as crap as quickly as it should be.

Posted by Just Some Guy at December 27, 2004 06:37 PM

I second Joe Carter's question. Can you "postulate an experiment that one could perform, even in thought, that would show it[evolution] to be false"? If not, isn't the entire point of this post... well, pointless?

Posted by Matt Knowles at December 27, 2004 06:43 PM

I would certainly hope that students are being taught about the holes in Darwin's evolutionary theory (although it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they weren't). But that doesn't mean a religious postulation should be adopted in its place! I am not anti-religion but as you say, this is not a "scientific theory" and therefore has no place in a science class. I like the idea of teaching it in a comparative religions class. (If the concept of a "logic" class were available I could see it being taught there too - to show the difference between faith and logical deduction)

I think the real problem is the public schools trying to suppress the teaching of ID totally. That's just as bad as teaching it in the wrong place in the curriculum.

Posted by Teresa at December 27, 2004 06:46 PM

Yes, evolution is falsifiable. If there were no clear relationship between DNA of morphologically related species, that would be evidence against. If a mammal were found in a precambrian dig, that would be evidence against. Such evidence doesn't exist.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 27, 2004 06:47 PM

I second one of Just Some Guy's points as well, that attempts to prove the existence of God are silly. But, I wonder, has he ever thought to count the number of (usually dim-witted) people who seem to believe that the theory of evolution *disproves* the existence of God?

When people are attacked, they will eventually dig in and defend their position, often in places inexplicable to a casual observer. I am a firm believer in the separation of Church and State, but I can't help but feel at times as if there is a real force trying to make all statesmen actively deny God...

Posted by Matt Knowles at December 27, 2004 06:51 PM

Sorry, can't help throwing my 2 cents in again... Would Mr. Simberg care to stake his reputation on his statement that a mammal found in a precambrian dig would falsify evolutionary theory? Or does he agree that it is more likely that such information would be accepted as fact, and evolutionary theory kept largely intact would simply absorb this new data?

Posted by Matt Knowles at December 27, 2004 06:55 PM

I think the problem is that neither ID (which is not the same, strictly speaking, as creationism) nor neo-Darwinism (the kind believed in now) is falsifiable. Moreover, "evolution" itself seems often to take on the characteristics of a deus ex machina. Darwinian theory certaily seems as dependent on miracles as any religion. The theory postulates gradual change by accretion over long periods of time. The evidence suggests long periods of time with no change at all, punctuated -- to use Stephen Jay Gould's term -- by relatively short periods during which t many changes suddenly -- and quite aganst the odds -- take place. I do agree that ID doesn't belong in a science class -- it posits a metaphysical answer to a scientifc question, which of course is no answer at all. But I suspect Darwinism does the same.

Posted by Frank Wilson at December 27, 2004 06:55 PM

You can also potentially disprove evolution by examining the "source code" of life- DNA.

If evolution is true the modifications will be via random mutations- then you can detect that statistically.

Also if there is a parent creature 'A' that evolved into creatures 'B' and 'C'; and B and C share a complex gene that essentially could not have evolved by chance in both, and they have no later common ancestor than A then that would be pretty strong evidence for a creator, and not random mutations in each.

Posted by Ian Woollard at December 27, 2004 06:59 PM

ID posits a starting point from which evolutionary forces take over; evolution itself has trouble persuasively explaining life from non-life. I don't see how, if you're going to address the arc of the development of life, you don't establish the starting points: inorganic matter, vs. some intelligently-designed building block of life.

link

Posted by Spear Shaker at December 27, 2004 07:03 PM

In response to Joe & Matt's question:

Suppose someone finds a new animal & does DNA analysis. Evolution says comparison to known animals will show that the new animal shares a common ancestor with an existing animal. If DNA analysis shows otherwise, evolution is disproved.

Or, suppose the new animal appears to share recent common ancestors with two different known animals, even though the two known animals are only distantly related. (Think of a branching evolutionary tree, where two branches converge again.) Again, evolution would be disproved.

Or, if anyone ever demonstrated spontaneous generation (e.g. maggots arising de novo from rotten meat), evolution would be disproved.

Posted by qetzal at December 27, 2004 07:04 PM

We don't do Darwin. When Darwin came up with his idea of natural selection and speciation, he didn't have any idea how information was passed down from generation to generation. We now do. Looking at DAn, amino acid sequences, three dimentional crystal structures of proteins acroos different species (as I have been doing for the last few month on the cytochrome oxidase), shows quite clearly that we have evolved. If you look at the human (and other) genome you can see psudo-genes and ghost DNA sequences from our past. If you don't believe me, try this, look up the amino acid (or the mitochondrial DNA)sequence of subunit II of human cytochrome c oxidase. The put that sequence into a a search of the Human Genome. You find a degenerate subunit II sequence in Human nuclear DNA (the ORF is called OTTHUMP00000016748).

So, at some time in our past, mitochondrial DNA has transfered into to our nuclear DNA. This is not the work of an Intelligent designer. Finding errors demonstrates no design.

Posted by DocMartyn at December 27, 2004 07:14 PM

qetzal: Suppose someone finds a new animal & does DNA analysis. Evolution says comparison to known animals will show that the new animal shares a common ancestor with an existing animal. If DNA analysis shows otherwise, evolution is disproved.

While I don’t have a problem with evolution, the idea of a “common ancestor” seems rather hard to fit into the theory. Unless we know how life originated how do we know how many “common ancestors” there are? If DNA arose from inert matter then it is possible that the process could have occurred several (or a million) times in different locations.

Getting back to your example we couldn’t say that natural selection was “disproven” because we can’t know if this particular creature was a descent of some peculiar strand of DNA that was slightly different than the others.

But isn’t our genetic material similar to both chimps and cabbages? How do we know what is important and what is not in our genes?

Also, I think if such an example were found it would simply be shoehorned into the theory rather than used as a means of falsification.

Posted by Joe Carter at December 27, 2004 07:14 PM

In response to qetzal...

If someone found a new animal and DNA analysis failed to show that this new animal shares a common ancestor with a known existing animal, do you really believe evolution would be disproved? Or do you believe scientists would reasonably assume that either they didn't know all the possible animals it could be related to, or even that a minor assumption based on the theory of evolution was false even as they held on to the greater body of the theory?

Posted by Matt Knowles at December 27, 2004 07:17 PM

Another vote for Joe Carter's point. I'll put some more teeth in it.

Falsificationism as a so-called "criterion of demarcation" of science from non-science is no longer taken seriously by philosophers of science.

Most contemporary philosophers of science, following Popper's disciple Lakatos, admit that a certain "hard core" of a theory remains immune to evidential falsification.

Other more radical yet highly respectable philosophers of science such as Paul Feyerabend think the search for a criterion of demarcation is futile.

Freud's theory, long thought "non-falsifiable" by philosophers of science, was given a new and highly plausible reconstruction as perfectly scientific by cognitive scientist/philosopher of science Clark Glymour.

In short, the argument against ID based on falsificationism is horribly out of date.

Good job Joe Clark and Matt Knowles.

Posted by Anonymous Coward at December 27, 2004 07:18 PM

DocMartyn: Finding errors demonstrates no design.

So if we look at the code behind my buggy Windows XP and find errors are we to conclude that it wasn’t the product of a designer?

Posted by Joe Carter at December 27, 2004 07:21 PM

Rand,

How much molecular biology do you know? The "central dogma of molecular biology" is DNA to RNA to protein. Now, think about it for a second. How do you "evolve" such a system? To go from RNA to protein you need a ribosome (place where the "translation" takes place), and you need t-RNA (transfer RNA, which connect to a single type of amino acid at one "end", and provide a 3 codon code at the other "end"). The ribosome has to be able to dock t-RNA with RNA, so that the right amino acid is added at the right spot.

Oh, and you have to have RNA that "code" for a specific protein, using a code for which all the necessary t-RNA already exist. t-RNA are useless without the ribosome and RNA with that code, but the RNA is also useless without the ribosome and the t-RNA. (Yes, there are RNA that have protein-like activity. But I've never heard anyone claim that m-RNA (the kind that code for proteins) have any special enzymatic activity, let alone that they have the activity that they code for, or that the three letter codons match the function of their corresponding amino acids.)

The idea that all this just happened to come together by random chance, despite none (well, perhaps the ribosome had some other use) of it having any use until it was all in place, strikes me as a FAR more "magical" belief system than anything proposed by the ID people.

The problem that I have with evolution is that IT is based on faith, not science. What's worse, it's a faith that is anti-scientific. It's a faith that is hostile to facts, and reason.

When was the last time you heard scientists discussing the evolution of DNA to RNA to Protein, and how it could possibly have come about?

When was the last time you heard a scientist point out that the story of the moths that changed color was NOT an example of "evolution" (when the pollution went away, the moth population quickly reverted to being mainly lightly colored. So much for long term change).

The there is sequence alignment. DNA and protein sequences do not diverge across species in a tree pattern. The official explanation, developed by Linus Pauling, is the "molecular clock" hypothesis, which has at its basis the assumption that for any given protein / stretch of DNA, its mutation rate per unit time is the same for all species.

All species.

That includes humans, yeast, bacteria, and sharks. Yep, despite the fact that supposedly sharks haven't changed for 100 million years, their proteins and DNA have mutated as much as the line of beings that culminated in humans.

Yeast, with sexual reproduction and generation times of under a day, and humans, with generation times of 15 - 25 years, both see their genomes mutate the same amount (per thousand base pairs) every thousand years.

Why do they claim to believe such ludicrous ideas? Because to believe otherwise they would first have to admit that the data does not conform with their beliefs, and their beliefs are more important to them than reality.

The reality is we have no good scientific explanation for how we've come into existence. All current attempts to explain where we came from rely on faith. If "scientists" would admit that, I would regain the respect for them I had back when I was ignorant. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Posted by Greg D at December 27, 2004 07:23 PM

Joe, are you trying to suggest that the denizens of Redmond are omniscient, or that God makes as many mistakes as Microsoft? :)

Errors would seem to argue against all-knowing design, though.

Posted by Brett A. Thomas at December 27, 2004 07:34 PM

Brett Joe, are you trying to suggest that the denizens of Redmond are omniscient, …

Omniscent? No. Omnipotent? Well, they're close...

…or that God makes as many mistakes as Microsoft? :)

Errors would seem to argue against all-knowing design, though.

Perhaps it would. But characteristics of the designer are outside the realm of scientific inquiry. We can’t simply dismiss the possibility of a designer, though, simply because we don’t think a designer would work in a particular way.

Posted by at December 27, 2004 07:42 PM

We can’t simply dismiss the possibility of a designer, though, simply because we don’t think a designer would work in a particular way.

No, but from a scientific and logical standpoint, we can dismiss the possibility of a designer if we can't come up with any experiment that would rule him (or her, or it) out. And we can think a flawed designer, that would design flawed things, reason to think a designer more unlikely.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 27, 2004 07:49 PM

A designer who creates a system that eventually exhibits "flaws" is not necessarily a "flawed" designer.

Posted by Thought at December 27, 2004 07:57 PM

Falsificationism as a so-called "criterion of demarcation" of science from non-science is no longer taken seriously by philosophers of science.

Which is why it rarely pays to listen to philosophers. 99% of the time they're talking through their arses.

Would Mr. Simberg care to stake his reputation on his statement that a mammal found in a precambrian dig would falsify evolutionary theory? Or does he agree that it is more likely that such information would be accepted as fact, and evolutionary theory kept largely intact would simply absorb this new data?

The evidence for evolution as a fact, and the support for the Theory of Evolution, is overwhelming. Nonetheless, such a find would blow a hole in Evolutionary Theory big enough to drive a truck through. According to Evolutionary Theory, you absolutely cannot get mammals in pre-Cambrian strata. Can't happen.

Now, if we did find such a fossil, we'd know that the theory was seriously flawed. But it would still be out best explanation for 99.999999% of the data. With only one such fossil, we'd have no way of constructing a new theory, so we'd have to proceed with the existing one, all the while knowing it was wrong.

That's not uncommon. We know that neither Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics provides an accurate picture of the behaviour of the Universe at all scales. We're working on that. Both theories are wrong; we know that. But they remain immensely useful when applied appropriately.

The problem with ID is that it's not science. It has nothing whatsoever to do with science. It's a myth. It might even be correct, though that's extremely doubtful. But it is impossible to determine, because it doesn't actually tell us anything.

ID posits a starting point from which evolutionary forces take over; evolution itself has trouble persuasively explaining life from non-life.

Evolution doesn't cover the subject at all. Evolution is about how new species arise; it has nothing whatsoever to do with how life began in the first place. It doesn't have "trouble persuasively explaining life from non-life"; it doesn't discuss the matter at all.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 08:01 PM

A designer who creates a system that eventually exhibits "flaws" is not necessarily a "flawed" designer.

Well, it's certainly not an omniscient one, for whatever that's worth...

But once one has a designer who designs flawed things, then one starts to defy Occam's Razor. If one thinks that the principle of parsimony has no value, then once again, one is placing one's theories outside the realm of science as we understand it in the twenty-first century.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 27, 2004 08:03 PM

Science can only explain "how"...it cannot necessarily explain "why"...

Thus science can perhaps take us back all to the origin of the universe, but it cannot explain the ultimate root of our origin...

Posted by Thought at December 27, 2004 08:06 PM

Science can only explain "how"...it cannot necessarily explain "why"...

So?

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 08:09 PM

Or to expand on that: You're assumung there is a "why".

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 08:10 PM

A designer who designs a system that eventually exhibits flaws may still indeed be omniscient; you are making assumptions about the designer.

Posted by Another Thought at December 27, 2004 08:13 PM

_____Note to Rand:______

Occam used a Norelco.

________________________

Posted by Behe-heheh at December 27, 2004 08:14 PM

Or to expand on that: You're assumung there is a "why".

You are correct; however, it is also an assumption that there is no "why"...

In short, one can neither prove nor disprove either supposition...

Posted by Thought at December 27, 2004 08:15 PM

Anonymous Coward writes: "Falsificationism as a so-called "criterion of demarcation" of science from non-science is no longer taken seriously by philosophers of science".

By some philosophers of science. That is, those who take relativism to extremes, maintaining that since scientists are human and imperfect, science is no different from superstition/religion/prejudice, and that there is really no line dividing rational from irrational.

Which just goes to show that virtually every wacky idea conceivable has been propounded by one philosopher or another over the millennia.

Meanwhile, the scientific method marches on, proving itself time and again in unanswerable fashion by giving answers that work.

Posted by Empiricist at December 27, 2004 08:17 PM

You are correct; however, it is also an assumption that there is no "why"...

Sure, but science makes no such assumption.

There's no evidence that there is a "why". Science doesn't bother with things we have no evidence for.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 08:20 PM

Rand No, but from a scientific and logical standpoint, we can dismiss the possibility of a designer if we can't come up with any experiment that would rule him (or her, or it) out.

We could come up with an experiment to rule it out. All it would require is for us to check for evidence of design. If no design exists in nature then there is no need to invoke a designer. The problem comes with making an a priori assumption that nothing in universe (outside of human artifacts) is a product of design.

Posted by Joe Carter at December 27, 2004 08:20 PM

Empiricist -

Right. Now, if the philosphers were trying to say something about how scientists behave, individually, then they might have something. But that says nothing at all about the scientific method.

Which just goes to show that virtually every wacky idea conceivable has been propounded by one philosopher or another over the millennia.

Worse than that. Since philosophy is not falsifiable, those wacky ideas never go away! No matter how bizarre and nonsensical, you will still find someone propounding it today.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 08:24 PM

Greg D.

Excellent comment. You make some salient points.

Posted by Pajamahadin at December 27, 2004 08:26 PM

This has been covered in your comments but...

Darwin was a brilliant scientific mind, but his work is about The Origin of the Species, not the origin of life. Evolution through natural selection is an elegant theory that models the development of new species very well, however it is less than complete over longer time spans.

- It's easy to conceptualise small evolutionary adaptions (bigger beak, smaller wings - that sort of thing). But random mutation and natural selection are a less convincing model for major evolutionary leaps, for example the sudden appearance of a feature like wings, which offer no selective advantage until fully developed.

Of course, this doesn't prove ID, but Darwinists would be more honest to declare 'large grey area here'.

- And, as also stated above, the Theory of Evolution does nothing whatsoever to explain the origins of life itself, and in fact never even attempted to. There are some imaginative and appealing theories around, but little or no evidence to support or refute any of them.

It defies the law of entropy that such a sophisticated and complex system as DNA and cellular life could appear randomly, and there is little or no evidence for intermediate steps. Whatever forces are/were involved, the origin of life is a huge and wonderful mystery.

As an Australian I have no knowledge of the Theory of Intelligent Design, but high school students - religious and otherwise - would be well served if they were taught that there is a great deal of uncertainty in both these areas.

Posted by Kip Watson at December 27, 2004 08:27 PM

No, but from a scientific and logical standpoint, we can dismiss the possibility of a designer if we can't come up with any experiment that would rule him (or her, or it) out.

We could come up with an experiment to rule it out – we could actually check for design. If no design exists in nature then there is no need to invoke a designer. The problem comes with making an a priori assumption that nothing in universe (outside of human artifacts) is a product of design.

Posted by Joe Carter at December 27, 2004 08:32 PM

Thomas Kuhn’s influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argued that scientists work within a conceptual paradigm that determines the way in which they view the world. Scientists will go to great length to defend their paradigm against falsification, by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories. Changing one's 'paradigm' is not easy, and only through some pain and angst does science (at the level of the individual scientist) change paradigms.

Some falsificationists saw Kuhn’s work as a vindication, since it showed that science progressed by rejecting inadequate theories. More commonly, it has been seen as showing that sociological factors, rather than adherence to a strict, logically obligatory method, play the determining role in deciding which scientific theory is accepted. This was seen as a profound threat to those who seek to show that science has a special authority in virtue of the methods that it employs.

Posted by Thought at December 27, 2004 08:35 PM

Paul Feyerabend examined the history of science with a more critical eye, and ultimately rejected any prescriptive methodology at all. He went beyond Lakatos’ argument for ad hoc hypothesis, to say that science would not have progressed without making use of any and all available methods to support new theories. He rejected any reliance on a scientific method, along with any special authority for science that might derive from such a method. Rather, he claimed, ironically, that if one is keen to have a universally valid methodological rule, anything goes would be the only candidate. For Feyerabend, any special status that science might have derives from the social and physical value of the results of science rather than its method.

Although falsifiability does provide a way to replace invalid inductive thinking with deductive, falsifiable reasoning, it appeared to Feyerabend that doing so is neither necessary for, nor conducive to, scientific progress.

Posted by Thought at December 27, 2004 08:36 PM

Sorry, but that is complete and utter baloney.

The law of entropy (the second law of thermodynamics) has nothing at all to say on the subject. It is completely irrelevant. It's a physical law, that states that the level of entropy in a closed system always increases.

1. The Earth is not a closed system.
2. Even if it were, it wouldn't matter. There is absolutely no reason why ever more complex life cannot evolve while entropy increases. Entropy is a question of the distribution of heat, not some metaphor for a world sliding into chaos.
3. No-one ever suggested that cellular life appeared randomly, and there are plenty of intermediate steps we can see even today.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 08:39 PM

Mr. Carter,

Most people don't take their schooling seriously so they never get to the point where they would be able to both correct you and answer your question.

Evolution is a fact that has been established by geologists, palentologists, and the like.

The Theory of Natural Selection was at one time a hypothesis that was produced to explain how (the fact of) evolution occured. There are other hypotheses create to explain evolution such as lamarkianism, mutationism and saltationism that have been falsified.

In science a hypothesis is an educated guess at how something works that is falsifiable. Hypotheses that are mature in the sense that all attempts to falsify them have failed are called theories.

Darwin's theory of natural selection is falsifiable at many levels. It made predictions about the nature by which genetics should work in order for natural selection to operate. No one knew genetics at the time but Darwins theory required genetics to operate a certain way for natural selection to be the proper explanation of the fact of evolution.

As an example, natural selection requires that heritability not act like the mixing of paints, instead it requires particulate heritability. Further it requires some source of changes to the heritable material.

Darwin's theory would have been falsified for instance if it was found that Lamarcks theories were instead correct. If for instance we were able to stretch the necks of horses over a period of several generations and then the offspring were born naturally with longer necks then natural selection would not be able to explain that.

Deduction from Darwin's theories makes other predictions. For instance, since man is an animal like any other one would expect that he had evolved by natural selection also. So it would be expected that there should be intermediate forms between man and his ancestors in the fossil record. At the time of Darwin no such fossils had been found or were even thought to be looked for. Natural selection predicted that if we look for them we would probably find them. Well guess what, that prediction worked out on the side of natural selection.

Biologists also can make empircal predictions of what would be more advantagous characteristics under certain circumstances. They can then test populations under such circumstances to see if natural selection acts to change the frequency of genes in the predicted direction.

Natural selection deductively predicts that the evolution that is observed in the fossil record should have a certain structure. It should have a certain nesting characteristic that looks like a bush going back in time. This also has proven to be true. If you found a human fossil that was two billion years old that would pretty much put a nail in the coffin of the theory of natural selection.

One can deduce from natural selection that the current species on the planet should be able to also be organized into classifications that nest in a certain way, and their genetics must match. If we found that human DNA matched a fishes DNA more than a chimps then that would not be explanable under Darwin's theory.

There are many other areas in which Darwin's theory will deduce facts that can be tested to disprove the theory. The theory has passed all tests thrown at it so far. Not only is it falsifiable but it is as well tested as the best scientific theories of any discipline.

Posted by Brian Macker at December 27, 2004 08:45 PM

I tried to post a comment, but it failed due to some bug or the other in the MT system. I've blogged it over here, and I analogize DNA/Evolution to binary/Software Design.

In a nutshell, I think trying to analyse ourselves and our universe is made even more fascinating once one understands the parallels between DNA-based organisms and Binary Code-based computer programs.

Posted by Jonathan at December 27, 2004 08:58 PM

The ID/crationist problem with science is simple...
Genesis.
Arguments about process and reason are immaterial. The goal is to preserve Genesis, the basis of all Judeo-Christian doctrine, at any cost.

Posted by DougM at December 27, 2004 09:00 PM

We should all do well to not make science into a god.

Science has brought us some amazing discovering and technologies, but ultimately science is a flawed product of a flawed human race.

Scientists, no matter how they try to pretend to be like Mr. Spock, are ultimately human and prone to the same human fallibilities and influences as anyone else.

And for all that science has given us answers to, there are many areas of life where something other than science is called for.

Posted by Thought at December 27, 2004 09:08 PM

The reason ID is not disprovable is that that it is the premise on which the meta-structure of rationality (provability) is grounded.
To disprove the possibility of "provability" would be a self-contradiction (the very logic by which you would prove that there is no provability would prove that there IS provability--since otherwise you could prove nothing at all, not even that nothing is provable).

In a purely random universe, the concept of provability is meaningless.

How did Darwin arrive at the theory of natural selection? Because he argued that it is a more rational explanation of the evidence of many species, differing from closely related species, than the alternative explanation of "special creation" (the idea that God created every single species uniquely and specifically as we know it today). But this assumes that the universe is rational. And what is the source of this rationality?

There is an order which is ASSUMED, GIVEN in the very logic of our understanding the universe (including our understanding of the origin of life, of the physical universe itself).

We have known this since Aristotle; Aquinas argued it, Paley argued it. Popular philosophical mythology has it that Hume refuted Paley. The only problem with that is that Paley came after Hume, and specifically addressed Hume's arguments, and in my judgment, decisively refuted them. So quit blaming it on the fundamentalists.

Posted by David Layman at December 27, 2004 09:13 PM

I've already commented at some length on this topic in my own blog. In response to Joe Carter's challenge, I refer any interested parties to the file, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. This is a collection of some 2½ dozen observations that are completely consistent with the notion that all life on this planet is descended from one (or a very few) common ancestor.

Two points: Firstly, there are alternative explanations for each of these 2½ dozen observations, but darn few theories that are consistent with all of them.

Secondly, contrary observations (falsifications of the theory) can easily be imagined for every single one of thse observations. Any single one would cause serious problems for the notion of evolution.

Posted by Karl at December 27, 2004 09:16 PM

Teresa,

You state, "I would certainly hope that students are being taught about the holes in Darwin's evolutionary theory".

Science doesn't deal in "holes". Either you have evidence that disproves the theory of evolution or you don't.

I.D. isn't a proper scientific hypothesis as stated nicely in the origin post.

Posted by Brian Macker at December 27, 2004 09:18 PM

One final thought... Science is incapable of proving or disproving the existence of God. The point I'd like to leave everyone with, and one that is evident from the many attemps in these comments to find some way of disproving ID, is that religion is under attack by a segment of the scientific community, and the religious community is striking back.

Personally, I believe the truth is grander than any of us can possibly imagine, and that any "proofs" we offer with our remarkably infinitessimal knowledge pale in comparison to the theoretical Intelligence which *may* have designed life and the universe.

If you want people to quit pushing ID in public schools, quit pushing "science as refutation of religion."

Posted by Matt Knowles at December 27, 2004 09:20 PM

Actually, DougM, you are incorrect.

The goal, insofar as I see it, is to find some way of allowing a competing viewpoint to the teaching that if evolutionary theory is true then it must also follow that there is no God, or that Genesis is incorrect.

Those who do believe in God have gotten pretty darned tired of hearing how evolutionary theory deisproves the existence of God. It doesn't, in any way. That question is completely out of the purview of science and, to the very best of my knowledge, always will be.

But still today we have children being taught in science class that evolution occurred without any guiding hand whatsoever. Now that may or may not be true, but it's certainly not something that belongs in a science class.

Posted by Jimmie at December 27, 2004 09:20 PM

Thought:

From what you've said, Kuhn and Feyerabend were studying how scientists behave, and have nothing to say on the subject of the scientific method.

And we already know how scientists behave: They behave like people. So these philosophers of yours offer us no insight at all.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 09:23 PM

Science is incapable of proving or disproving the existence of God. The point I'd like to leave everyone with, and one that is evident from the many attemps in these comments to find some way of disproving ID, is that religion is under attack by a segment of the scientific community, and the religious community is striking back.

The whole problem with ID is that it's designed so as to be unfalsifiable. As I said earlier, it's a myth. It might even be true, but there is no way to find out.

It's not science, and it has no place in science education. Teach it from the pulpit if you like, but keep it out of the schools.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 09:28 PM

That is exactly what belongs in a science class. EXACTLY.

Now, stating that evolution "disproves God" is wrong. But presenting evolution without the mention of God is precisely correct.

That is science. And ID is not science, no matter how you dress it up.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 09:31 PM

The reason ID is not disprovable is that that it is the premise on which the meta-structure of rationality (provability) is grounded.

No. The reason ID is not disprovable is that it does not make a statement about our Universe. Since we can only observe our Universe, there is no way to assess the claims of ID at all.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 09:32 PM

Pixy Misa writes:

"The law of entropy (the second law of thermodynamics) has nothing at all to say on the subject. It is completely irrelevant. It's a physical law, that states that the level of entropy in a closed system always increases."

If I may pick a nit, entropy always increases in ISOLATED systems, that is, systems which can exchange neither energy or matter with their surroundings. Since no realizable boundary between a system and its surroundings can be made perfectly insulating and impermeable, the only truly isolated system we know of is the Universe itself, based on the reasonable assumption that there is nothing outside it (if "outside" has any meaning in that use) to serve as surroundings.

Up until 04 October 1957, Earth was a closed system, for all practical purposes, exchanging energy with its surroundings but not matter (neglecting the constant drizzle of micrometeors and the occasional big meteor). As the Earth is not an isolated system, it's not subject to the requirement that its entropy (a measure of randomness and disorder, very roughly speaking) increase. Its entropy could very well decrease, under the right conditions.

And as for open systems, ones that exchange both matter and energy with their surroundings, their entropy really isn't restricted at all, within practical limits. It can go up, or it can go down-- it all depends on how the system is operated.

And taking human well-being as a proxy for the Earth's entropy (prosperity being analogous to low entropy or less disorder, and poverty being analogous to high entropy or more disorder), well, since 1957, the sky's the limit. Open systems can grow arbitrarily, and the door to the Universe is wide open.

Sorry, Rand, I didn't mean this to become a plug for Jerry Pournelle's books..... ^_^;;

Posted by Hale Adams at December 27, 2004 09:34 PM

Hale -

I never heard that distinction in my physics classes. I don't think the distinction is really valid, given mass/energy equivalence.

It just bugs me when people bring up the 2nd law as an argument against evolution. There is an argument based on the energy requirements for abiogenesis, but it's a technical and numeric one and involves a detailed knowledge of chemical processes, and that's not what you get in this sort of debate, alas.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 09:45 PM

Kip,

Although I don't disagree with the possibility of ID (not that it should be taught as science) I would ask those who support this notion to please stop using "entropy" as an argument. The second law of thermodynamics states "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body". That's it. It doesn't mean that complex structures can't arise from a disordered state. If one doubts this, than look at a snowflake. It's a complex structure arising from a simple one without the need for ID or magic space unicorns.

This is why science and religion are two different beasts. In science, words have specific meanings. You can't shout "entropy" to make your point unless you know the exact definition of the word and why it doesn't apply to evolutionary biology. Not fully understanding the terminology should be reason enough not to try to use it as an argument. I don't mean this to be insulting, but it really does your cause no good even if it sounds "scientific" enough to impress the masses.

Posted by G. Bob at December 27, 2004 09:49 PM

No, but from a scientific and logical standpoint, we can dismiss the possibility of a designer if we can't come up with any experiment that would rule him (or her, or it) out.

This simply doesn't follow. You can demonstrate the untestability of the Designer hypothesis, perhaps. However, the lack of scientific testability does not demonstrate the absence of said Designer, only that such a Designer would have to exist outside the realm of physical reality defined by the collection of disprovable assertions. (Put another way, such a Designer would have to exist outside the realm of science itself.) Indeed, there are plenty of untestable assumptions even in science itself (we call them axioms), so the mere fact of untestability should not be considered derogatory in and of itself.

Don't expect science to ever be able to tackle ontological questions such as "why are we here?" or "where did we come from?" Since such questions necessarily fall outside the realm of the rationally explainable, so even arguing favorability on the basis of Occam's Razor is itself a logical fallacy: This is because you are assuming a rational explanation to something who'se explanation is inherently irrational from the scientific perspective.

Posted by Carrick Talmadge at December 27, 2004 09:54 PM

Carrick:

Rand was being very precise in his language. We can't disprove the existence of a Designer, but we can dismiss the question because it is untestable.

Science deals with what is testable, with the physical Universe. If the Designer is outside that, it is not a question for science.

This is because you are assuming a rational explanation to something who'se explanation is inherently irrational from the scientific perspective.

No. It's because we don't see a coherent question being asked.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 10:01 PM

Matt,

Religion is not "under attack" by science. Science is rather upfront in saying that there are no answers we can provide to prove or disprove God. Now, if your religion relys purely upon a set of facts that can be disproven, than I can see how you would perceive science as being an enemy. That still doesn't give a right to cause harm to the public education system just because your faith can't be reconciled with scientific inquiry.

It's not anti-religion. Those who are against the teaching of creation in school would be just as adamant against the teaching of holistic medicine, crystal readings or tarot cards. I have no problem with religion playing a role in public life, but I would caution against forcing science to fit your beliefs. It could just as easily be forced someday to fit another belief system different from yours.

Posted by G. Bob at December 27, 2004 10:04 PM

Much of what we believe comes down to whom we trust. Few of us have the education or expertise, for example, to investigate for ourselves the fundamental physical and mathematical basis of quantum theory. So, we have to “trust” those who tell us it is true.

Science has generally been trustworthy and the scientific method has proven to be one of the most beneficial forms of thought in the history of mankind. But though I trust science, I do not trust it blindly.

For science is practiced by humans and oftentimes humans have an agenda. So we end up with nonsense like catastrophic, human-induced Global Warming which wears all the trappings of science but betrays itself by the selective nature of its evidence and the ignoring of all else that does not fit it’s preconceived notions (such as the lack of lower-atmospheric warming, prior CO2 levels, or variations in solar output).

About the theory of evolution, I cannot resist paraphrasing Ronald Reagan. What is an evolutionist? Someone who has read The Origin of the Species. What is an anti-evolutionist? Someone who “understands” The Origin of the Species.

Like Marx’s theory of a scientific history marching toward a utopian, egalitarian future, Darwin’s theory gave the same 19th century mind a vision of biological history marching ever forward, ever more advanced. They are compelling notions. But are they true? Whom do you trust?

There is no time and space in a forum like this to settle a question the has haunted mankind for eons. Where did we come from? How did we get here? The questions are vast, as is the field of inquiry. No one man can encompass it all. Whether abiogenesis, molecular genetics, fossils and and geological column, or the mathematics of selection-cost in gene substitution within populations, the issues are complex to say the least.

But in spite of all this complexity, there are some issues that can help illustrate the problem more simply. Information theory, for example. The rise in the 20th century of telecommunications and computer technology showed us the nature of information, how to represent it, transmit it, receive it, and compress it.

The development of a biological organism requires a vast amount of information, as does the maintaining of its life. Where did that information come from? Computer science should have shown us that information does not arise spontaneously or randomly. Do not confuse this with the notion of order. Order can sometimes spontaneously arise out of disorder, such as the formation of a crystal from an amorphous physical state, but no information has been created. Order is not the same as complexity.

As a holder of science degrees, undergraduate and graduate (and not a bible-thumping fundamentalist) I have examined these issues (and more) to the best of my ability and come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is untenable on it’s scientific merits.

Disagree? Fine. But I encourage all to look at “all” the evidence. Still disagree? Still fine. If you don’t want to believe in creation, then don’t, but try to find a better and more scientific theory than a 19th century fantasy cloaked with the methods and instruments of science.

Posted by Danzer at December 27, 2004 10:10 PM

An interesting book that deals with the DNA/RNA problem and the inorganic/organic boundary is Vital Dust. The author is very careful not to make the "what it will be good for in the future" mistake and discusses the process from a "how it works now" perspective.

Posted by mrsizer at December 27, 2004 10:16 PM

For those interested, the comments by "Thought" about Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend are simply excerpts from the Wikipedia entry on falsifiability.

Posted by Tim at December 27, 2004 10:17 PM

As an account of the historical origin of the human race, or pretty much anything else, evolution is just as non-disprovable, non-scientific, as the most fundamentalist creationism. The past is gone, and non-testable. All that one can do (scientifically) is to observe (and test) the present, and then to use those observations in an attempt to explain evidence of the past. But that does not make anyones explanation of the past "scientific." This is the crux of the issue - the pretense that because evolution can be demonstrated in very limited ways in the present, that it is scientific to extrapolate it over unknown thousands or millions of years.

(For the record, I do not find the evidence for ID any more persuasive than that for evolution.)

Posted by Herb Sorensen at December 27, 2004 10:17 PM

All of this "philosophy of science" business is a red herring. Science is about asking questions. One of the questions that science asks is "How did this system that we're studying come to be?" When the system in question is all life on earth, or even the entire universe, why should we not consider all possible answers?

One wonders how opponents of intelligent design would treat the following situation. Suppose some biologists are investigating a forest and they notice what appears to be "Tom loves Sally" scratched into a tree. Not a single biologist who would think even for a second that the marking was a natural phenomena. They would instantly conclude that some human being carved these markings into a tree, even though it is quite possible that the markings "Tom loves Sally" did arise naturally; there is a nonzero probability that such a thing could occur without human interference (though the probability is extremely remote).

Proponents of the various forms of intelligent design essentially argue nothing other than that the universe or life is similar to the "Tom loves Sally" marking. No one would credibly argue that a "Tom loves Sally" marking came to be without an intelligent actor behind it, yet such an opinion is hardly "unscientific."

Posted by Todd at December 27, 2004 10:24 PM

Please visit this link for one take on the mathmetical probability of evolution occurring.

I wouldn't trust these odds but then again I don't belong to the Church of Evolution.

Posted by John at December 27, 2004 10:44 PM

Joe,

A good way to disprove evolution would be if DNA evidence did not correspond to the evolutionary model: accretion of complexity.

So far DNA supports evolution.

--==--

What one might look for directly are human remains (or others) from a time period in which evolution says they ought not exist.

Of course since the intelligent designer can do anything one might counter argue that the designer took his time. And did stuff sequentially. From the simplest to the most complicated. However, since evolution also is supposed to work that way you are left with a choice: a natural explanation (evolution) or a supernatural one (intelligent design).

Which one would science prefer?

Posted by M. Simon at December 27, 2004 10:51 PM

The idea that the past is not testable is non-sense.

Forensic science is exactly about testing the past by finding traces of the past and then trying to figure out how the traces might have gotten where they were found.

Evolution is tested in just that way.

Posted by M. Simon at December 27, 2004 11:01 PM

Danzer - Sorry, the information argument doesn't hold either. It comes from a deep misunderstanding of both information theory and evolution. It has no more relevance to the subject than the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is to say, none at all.

The Talk.Origins Archive has several articles on this subject. Just searching for "information" should find them.

Herb - Wrong, wrong, completely wrong. The Theory of Evolution makes very specific statements about what can happen in the evolutionary process and how. Although it is difficult to run experiments, it is indeed falsifiable through observation. You seem to be confusing the Theory of Evolution with the Fact of Evolution. The Theory is scientific and falsifiable. The Fact is just data.

Todd - Science is about asking questions. One of the questions that science asks is "How did this system that we're studying come to be?"

No it isn't. Science studies the Universe, right back to its beginning. How it came to be is not a question that can be asked of or answered by Science, because it is outside the Universe, and so outside of anything that can be studied or tested.

Yes, unscientific is exactly what it is.

Can we test it? No.

Does it make a statement about the Universe? No.

Therefore, not science.

John - That article on the Creation Science site (Dr Dino) is complete nonsense. It tries to argue against the possibility of a work cell self-organising by random chance - something no-one ever suggested had happened. The rest of the site is of similar quality.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 11:10 PM

(That should have read "working cell", but you get the idea.)

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 11:13 PM

Danzer,

If you were more familiar with Shannon you would know that information comes from the flow of energy. In fact Shannon showed that information is quantized. And that every bit had a minimum of energy associated with it.

Thus the Egyptians worship of the Sun as the source of all life was closer to the mark than they knew.

Ethically Christianity in its current form is probably better than the Divine Right of Kings devolving from the Sun God. As an explanation of man on earth I say: Ra Ra Ra.

Posted by M. Simon at December 27, 2004 11:13 PM

A few points:

1) On a personal level as a Christian; the wonder and complexity of the Universe, derived as it is from such simple building blocks, always leaves me with a deep spiritual feeling. And I can't help but think that those who look at the Universe and see only godless materialism are closed minded fools. Which I believe (in response to the other comment) can be summed up as 'I know you are but what am I?' :-)

2) Snowflakes - that's really clutching at straws. Sure, a snowflake is a beautiful structure, but as snowflakes fall they don't assemble to form huge and complex self replicating snow machines. They form a featureless mass of snow then melt. I've seen a lot of scientists point to proteins and suchlike and say 'behold the origin of life', when really life is a vast gulf beyond a few proteins, interstellar dust crystals or whatever.

3) Snowflakes, Galaxies and all complex and beautiful structures that we understand form according to various interesting and often wonderful processes. Falling back on 'randomness' just sounds to me like 'we don't know'.

There's a huge amount that's not understood about life and evolution, I wish you'd admit it, and not feel threatened because others use their religious beliefs to fill in the gaps. Just admit what you don't know and keep working to make those gaps smaller.

4) Most importantly - although science has never been free from politics - science and science teaching these days seem to come with ever-increasing amounts of obnoxious political baggage.

The wonders of science can be as meaningful to Christian as to an atheist (see point 1). Galileo died a long time ago, and this current backlash has mainly been caused by politics masquerading as science, so instead of wasting time criticising Christians for intruding into their arena, scientists could solve this problem by returning to the principles of honesty and objectivity, and leave politics for when they are wearing their 'other hat'.

Posted by kipwatson at December 27, 2004 11:28 PM

kipwatson,

You like Einstein don't like the fact that randomness may be an inherent building block of the universe.

That does not mean it isn't.

In fact quantum theory which we find quite sound to any level of accuracy we have been able to test it at so far has at its core "uncertainty" or randomness.

We have been unable to break this randomness. It is at the core of the quantum computers (still a dream) and quantum cryptography (currently a fact).

I do not see why an ethical system needs to be dependent on the nature of the universe.

Or to put it in a possibly clearer form: my God is more powerful than your puny god. My God designed a universe in which life was inherent in the mechanism. Your god is still fooling around trying to get it right.

My God designed a universe in which the natural flows of energy creates life.

Your guy had to work on the project to make things go hisway. And yet he still has to tinker to get stuff right.

Why you have such a stupid and low power god. Mine anticipated everything. Yours still has to produce special miracles to get stuff right. All the time he has to make adjustments. What's a matter? He can't get it right the first time? That don't sound so omnipotent or all knowing to me.

Posted by M. Simon at December 27, 2004 11:43 PM

M. Simon,

On the one hand your reply was just silly, seeing as it bore no relation to anything that I had written, other than the use of the word 'random' (although in a completely different context).

On the other hand, though, it was quite illustrative, seeing as how it was nothing but a string of anti-Christian remarks stitched together with a bare minimum of rudimentary and unconnected scientific 'extracts'.

You're not a science teacher by any chance are you?

Posted by kipwatson at December 27, 2004 11:54 PM

There's a huge amount that's not understood about life and evolution

Agreed.

I wish you'd admit it

We do admit it, freely and openly.

and not feel threatened because others use their religious beliefs to fill in the gaps.

You are welcome to personally use your religious beliefs to fill the gaps. But that doesn't change the fact that they are religious beliefs.

What we object to is people claiming these beliefs are science and trying to have them taught as such.

Just admit what you don't know and keep working to make those gaps smaller.

That is exactly what Science does and what it has always done.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 27, 2004 11:59 PM

My personal belief is that the main flaw in the ID folk's way of thinking is that they assume that things as they are "Just Had To Be and Therefore Proves God Exists".

That fact that we are here and now and things are as they are proves nothing. And that is the part that I believe they cannot deal with. I find it ironic that they have to put limitiations on God to justify their own beliefs.

I suspect that if the comet did not hit and the Velicaraptors had made it, they would be having the same argument.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Posted by Michael at December 28, 2004 04:50 AM

I too think that ID would be a subject best kept to philosophy. A number of basic tenants of science are off shoots of religious doctrines in the past. There are parts of the bible that tell people it is there duty to understand God. If God is the Universe then the bible is instructing us to understand him, to learn about him, to put him in a context that we can assimilate. Its these ideas that have persuaded a number of very intelligent people in the past to formulate and mature what eventually become the modern scientific method. It is really only a very recent 'evolution' of the scientific methodology that has allowed it to shift over and begin to supersede religion. But without religion there would not have been any science as we know it.

Posted by Josh "Hefty" Reiter at December 28, 2004 05:38 AM

I was wondering when the first Hovind link would show up. Well done John! You win the anti-prize.

Posted by asg at December 28, 2004 06:40 AM

Michael,
ID folks don't assume that things had to be the way they are. They could have been very different, but then we wouldn't be here to discuss it. The fact that we are continginent beings (we didn't have to exist) and also that we are curious beings, it causes us to ask "why are we here?" Given that the universe had a being, and that it is fine-tuned to be able to support life, it is not a hugh inference that Someone was behind the whole thing. It's not a proof, it's an inference.

Posted by J. Lorenz at December 28, 2004 06:40 AM

Here's the ID syllogism:

1) Gee, this universe is amazing!
2) This can't be an accident!
3) Somebody must be behind this!

To which logicians reply:

1) Define "amazing".

Some (usually dim-witted) people seem honestly to believe in this ID crap, and that's why it isn't dismissed as crap as quickly as it should be.

--------------
Okay, try this syllogism.

1) I flipped a coin 100 times, and it came up heads 100 times.
2) This can't be an accident.
3) The coin must be two-headed.

Statisticians use a "t-test" to test hypotheses. In the case of the coin, it works like this. One can easily compute the probability that 100 flips of a fair coin would yield 100 heads. This probability is about 10^-30. So one would probably conclude that the coin is not fair.

Back to the origin of species: if one knew how frequently mutations happened in the past and what the likely effects of these mutations were, one could (theoretically) compute the likelihood that random mutations would lead to the development of humans. However, the frequency of significant mutations is so small, the development of new species so complex, and the time scale so vast to make such a calculation highly suspect. So for all practical purposes, both macroevolution (the truth of the hypothesis) and ID (the denial of the hypothesis) are both "untestable".

Posted by Edward Lee at December 28, 2004 06:47 AM

Edward -

Statistical methods aren't the only test for evolutionary theory. But there is no test for ID, not even in principle.

That's why evolution is science and ID isn't.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 28, 2004 07:07 AM

Matt Knowles, of course you're right that evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God. I haven't encountered anyone who says otherwise, but that's just my experience.

I think faith means believing in something despite sufficient evidence.

Edward Lee, how does the Kool-Aid taste?

Posted by Just Some Guy at December 28, 2004 07:10 AM

Uh, I meant to say "I think faith means believing in something despite insufficient evidence."

Posted by Just Some Guy at December 28, 2004 07:11 AM

Pretty poor definition of faith.
Faith is believing in things that we have sufficient reason to believe, but can't prove absolutely. I have faith that the chair I'm sitting in will support me. I can't metaphysically prove it. I put my faith in it that it will because I have sufficient reason to beleive that it will. I can't prove absolutely that O.J. killed Nicole, but I have sufficient reasons to beleive that he did. We all beleive things, somethings more than others, that cannot be proven. We all have faith.

Posted by J. Lorenz at December 28, 2004 07:20 AM

G. Bob, I am completely comfortable with science. I have no desire to see ID taught in science classes. I am adamantly opposed to prayer in school. My religious beliefs are beyond any science to prove or disprove, and that leads to the main point I've been trying to make.

It is the attacks, yes attacks, by those who try to use science to disprove the existence of God that has caused many people to behave irrationally. Before you begin to sputter, I am not one of those people. I hear someone make a scientific observation and conclude "ergo, no designer" and I simply shrug off their naivete.

I am in no way making an argument to include ID in science classes when I attempt to offer insight into the thinking of those who do.

>>>

So, at some time in our past, mitochondrial DNA has transfered into to our nuclear DNA. This is not the work of an Intelligent designer. Finding errors demonstrates no design. - DocMartyn

from a scientific and logical standpoint, we can dismiss the possibility of a designer if we can't come up with any experiment that would rule him (or her, or it) out. And we can think a flawed designer, that would design flawed things, reason to think a designer more unlikely. - Rand Simberg

Posted by at December 28, 2004 07:25 AM

The major western religions and the scientific community are hardly at loggerheads over evolution, or any other scientific theory. The Roman Catholic Church endorsed evolutionary theory decades ago. All the mainline Protestant churches, to my knowledge, endorse evolutionary theory. I'm not aware of any Jewish organizations that oppose evolutionary theory. To create a binary choice between Christian faith and evolutionary theory is a false dilemma.

The ID theorists -- Demski, Behe, etc. -- are doing two things. First, they are attempting to falsify evolutionary theory (or at least parts of it -- I know Behe accepts evolutionary theory in large part) as it is presently prsesented, a perfectly legitimate scientific enterprise. As a scientific theory -- actually, just the inference to the best explanation -- evolutionary theory is subject to the rigors of falsification. The ID theorists have raised challenges to the theory in efforts to falsify it: They claim that some biological structures (such as the bacterial flagellum) cannot be explained by the incrementalism of Darwinian evolutionary theory (that's their claim). That's a purely scientific question, and the scientists can argue about it.

Demski goes further and applies information theory to argue that natural selection could not create the amount of complex information stored and transmitted by various genomes. This too is a scientific question, and the theorists can argue about it.

The second thing they do (ID theorist, that is) is claim, that, if there falsification is successful, the nature of the falsification suggests "intelligent design." They don't identify a "designer," or a mechanism of design.

However, even if their claims are correct, I wonder if there are other explanations other than Intelligent Design for the phenomena we observe. I suspect there are, and other more creative explanations will emerge over the coming decades.

Just an aside: Christianity and western science share a common understanding of all fundamental questions about the world; that is, they have a shared ontology (with the possible exception of origins, either of the universe or of life). Otherwise, they are in perfect harmony.

However, another part of our intellectual community doesn't share this ontology -- the postmodernists (or whatever you wish to call them). Postmodernists are of course inspired by Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feyerbrand, but they go much further, claiming the scientific method itself is a sham (e.g., Sandra Harding or Donna Harraway or Bloor), a patriarchal, logocentric construction of western rationalism, without ontological foundation.

If there is a fundamental divide in fundamentals, it isn't between Christians and scientists, it's between "postmodernists" and western science.

Posted by MD at December 28, 2004 07:29 AM

Thanks, Rand, for posting this, though it dismays me to see how poorly the purpose and methodology of scientific research are being conveyed to society. (It also amused me to hear that falsifibility has been rejected as a valid principle by "philosophers of science". Why didn't these guys come around our office and let us know?)

Scientists are human, but it is not our human prejudices that cause us to hold onto evolutionary theory, it is the fact that it is the best theory out there to explain the observations. (I am also amused by the idea that evolution is not a scientific theory because it can't be tested as all the subjects are long dead. I'm an astronomer, and while it's true that we can't set up our own experiments, we receive a wealth of data nonetheless. Guess it's not worth looking at, as we're looking at light emitted from their sources up to 15 billion years ago!)

I would love for students to be better taught how science works and how theories themselves evolve or are rejected, but ID is a poor teacher in this respect. ID advocates cherry-pick open questions in the field of evolutionary biology and uses these as evidence that evolution is fatally flawed and only maintained for religious reasons, as it were. Poppycock! ID does not offer an alternative theory that can be tested. No ID advocate has published an experimental paper comparing a hypothesis with observations. Is it any surprise that scientists do not take ID seriously as science, but take it very seriously as a worrisome cultural phenomenon?

Let me give you an example from my field, an example that is less charged with religious fervor. Observations of very distant supernovae (exploding stars) recently demonstrated that the universe is not only expanding, it's accelerating. The observations were, because they challenged current cosmological theories, scrutinized heavily and sceptically. So far, the result has stood up and accordingly, we have had to revise our theory of cosmology to the point of introducing a fudge factor to the models which we call dark energy. We don't know what dark energy is. For that matter, we still don't know what dark matter is, though we've seen evidence of its presence for decades. So why don't we throw the Big Bang and expanding universe theories out the door? The reason is that there are scores of observations out there that demonstrate that the universe is expanding and cooling, that it has evolved from a fairly homogeneous structure to the stars, galaxies, and clusters we see today, and that it began in a single event. Scientists will all admit that our understanding of cosmology remains incomplete, but no scientist would subsequently argue that this implies that we should teach young students that a static universe is a valid alternative to the preferred model of scientists.

Posted by C.S. Froning at December 28, 2004 07:40 AM

Just to clarify,

I do not believe that ID should be used to counter evolutionary theory, nor do I believe that either theory is capable of answering the question of whether or not God exists.

I do believe that it is naive to expect that a group of people will quietly sit back and listen to respected scientists and thinkers, like our honored host, use scientific observations as evidence that God does not exist, without posing their own pseudo-scientific theories to explain how He could exist.

Posted by Matt Knowles at December 28, 2004 07:53 AM

C.S. Froning
There is a difference between evolution and astronomy. In astronomy you are watching the events as they unfold. Because of the limitation on the speed of light, astronomy is like watching events on tape delay. That is not the case with evolution.

Posted by J. Lorenz at December 28, 2004 07:57 AM

If by "honored host" you refer to me, I have never expressed an opinion on the existence or non-existence of God, because I have none. Neither have I attempted to prove same using evolutionary (or any other scientific) theory, so take your strawmen elsewhere.

My point is that we should keep the religion of science pure, and not confuse or sully it with other belief systems. This has nothing to do with truth--just categories.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 28, 2004 08:21 AM

People are entitled to believe whatever they want, but there are objective criteria for what belongs in a public school science curriculum. To begin with, school science texts should reflect the current consensus of scientific thought. As a practical matter, this is often done at the state level, where an advisory board made up of qualified scientists will review, weigh in on, and approve the curricula for each grade or age group. These qualified scientists rely on their own expertise, and also on their understanding of current scientific thinking as reflected in the scientific journals and current research. If such a process is applied, evolution makes it through the door and creationism, aka, intelligent design, does not.

The people trying to introduce intelligent design into the public school classroom are trying to do this through various end runs that try to avoid the normal scientific vetting process of research done through refereed journals and other means where other scientists can try to replicate results.

Hugh Hewitt’s slip of the pen, “I do believe in Intelligent Design --in Christianity, actually—“ tells me everything I need to know about the proponents of intelligent design. Their real agenda is not science education, but religious indoctrination. They are welcome to do that in their own churches, of course, but not in the public schools that I help fund.

Have Hewitt and the others never absorbed what Thomas Aquinas concluded almost 800 years ago—that science and faith are two separate spheres? And that scientific findings should in no way shake my faith? Or, are they more cynical than this? Are they using the complexities and ambiguities of science to incite fear and anger?

Posted by Bill Trippe at December 28, 2004 08:42 AM

Incorrect, J. Lorenz, we have biochemical, geological, paleotonlogical and genetic evidence. Vast swathes of it.

And not a single drop of anything that supports creationist ideas.

Posted by Morgoth at December 28, 2004 08:48 AM

Wonderful post. But are we really surprised that they want Intelligent Design taught in the science classroom? Let's face it - these people don't like science.

The same people who want Inteligent Design taught are the same people who are afraid to teach about birth control, believe that the Virgin Mary can be seen in a grilled cheese sandwich, and want to make it illegal to buy contraception from your local pharmacy.

Isn't there another word for these people?

Luddites.

Posted by Downtown Lad at December 28, 2004 08:50 AM

Statistical methods aren't the only test for evolutionary theory.

If the claim to be tested is that humans evolved through a long series of *random* mutations, then a statistical test is absolutely necessary.

Posted by Edward Lee at December 28, 2004 09:00 AM

A note from another philosopher:
It seems to me that the idea of evolution as used in this discussion is an equivocation. The idea of evolution as scientific theory and as evolution as a metaphysic are being confused.

ID is a metaphysic, and as such is not falsifiable in the scientific sense. Religion is a metaphysic and not a science, so there are those who confuse ID and religion because they both speak to the "larger issues." Religious persons are just as guilty of this confusion as non-religious persons.

But what many defenders of the science of evolution ignore, (and what grates on so many of the religionists) is that evolution can be a materialist metaphysic. As Sagan once noted, "The universe is all there is, all there ever was, and all there will ever be." Sing it and put an "AMEN" on the end and you will see that it is not science anymore, it is a belief. As a metaphysic, it is not observable, falsifiable, or testable. How could one test “all there could ever be?”

You want to defend evolution as a scientific methodology to describe our understanding of living things? Ok. You want it to be the only explanation for things, things it cannot know or scientifically test? Then you are as guilty as the most rabid fundamental creationist for forcing your worldview on others in the guise of science.

P.S. How many irrational events create a rational one? To assume that a materialist evolution is rational, one must assume that rationality must arise from the non-rational. This is not about apparent order; it is about making judgments about rationality based on what is admittedly a non-rational foundation and then haughtily (hypocritically?) dismissing others for being irrational for accepting religious (non-rational) precepts.

Posted by Bill from Louisville at December 28, 2004 09:01 AM

Downtown,

If you want to see people who don't like science, read Andrew Robbins or Sandra Harding.

The people you criticize love science; that's why they want inclusion in the science curriculum. To them, Science carries moral and epistemological weight. This isn't the case with everyone, like hundreds of humanities professors in our universities (and who teach tens of thousands of our young people every year about the "fictions" and "oppressions" of western science).

Posted by MD at December 28, 2004 09:06 AM

> And we can think a flawed designer, that would design flawed things, reason to think a designer more unlikely. - Rand Simberg

It's the whole "reason to think a designer more unlikely" that led me to believe that you think the scientific observation, that things are designed flawed, is *evidence* that a designer is unlikely.

Where's my strawman?

I do NOT want ID taught in public schools. I just don't want it taken for granted that relgious belief is "foolish" in the face of science.

Posted by at December 28, 2004 09:06 AM

It's the whole "reason to think a designer more unlikely" that led me to believe that you think the scientific observation, that things are designed flawed, is *evidence* that a designer is unlikely.

It is.

Where's my strawman?

In misinterpreting my comment to imply that I said that this is proof that there is no God. When I say "no designer," I mean that life was created based on natural laws, and that if there is a God, He did so by setting the process in motion with the creation of those natural laws, not that He supervised the actual design of each creature.

While some, such as Dawkins, are almost militantly atheistic and attempt to use science as a bludgeon against their theist foes, I do not. I make no claims about the truth, or whether there is or is not a God. I only claim that invoking Him to explain the tree of life isn't science.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 28, 2004 09:15 AM

I respect your distinction, but I beg to differ.

As you and I and others have stated here repeatedly, ID is not a scientific theory. When you use scientific observations to try to disprove (or provide evidence against) ID, your efforts can only be construed as an attempt to invalidate a faith, not critique a scientific theory.

It is attempts like this to use scientific method to invalidate articles of faith that is causing more obtuse Christians than myself to dig in their heels and try to force things like ID into the classroom.

If you and others would accept that ID, like religion, is a matter of faith, and would refrain from trying to "disprove" it, you would find less resistance from reasonable people when you say that it is not a valid scientific theory.

My resistance is based solely on the perception that you and others *do* use scientific observations to try to paint matters of faith as foolishness. The observation that things are designed with flaws only proves there is not a designer who is omnipotent and intended to make flawless creations. It in no way supports the contention that there is "no designer" unless you go on to put that designer in a box. Of course, the designer could have intended his creation to be flawed, etc.

All of that is *not* scientific discussion.

It shouldn't be in a science classroom.

But when respected thinkers (and I mean that sincerely) insist on trying to provide scientific evidence to refute articles of faith, one must expect people of faith to attempt to interject articles of faith into the scientific discussion.

Posted by Matt Knowles at December 28, 2004 09:38 AM

Joe Carter,

"DocMartyn: Finding errors demonstrates no design."

"So if we look at the code behind my buggy Windows XP and find errors are we to conclude that it wasn’t the product of a designer?"

That's a great point. In fact, many of the original "scientists" investigated creation because they wanted to find out more about the Creator. Reading the "book of life" was a way of reading the mind of it's Author.

Everyone's DNA code is indeed very buggy, full of unused "junk DNA." And with lots of "defects" that cause horrible things like cystic fibrosis.

If such code were indeed created specifically by a designer, it suggests that the designer was cruel or incompetent or both (no reflection, of course, on our friends in Redmond, who are necessarily ignorant of many of the million squared things that can happen with millions of lines of code).

Posted by Roger Sweeny at December 28, 2004 09:46 AM

Greg D.

You are absolutely correct that scientists don't have a good explanation how life began, or how many of the complex cellular procedures came to be.

However, in regards to the moths, you have been fooled by the technical meaning that population geneticists ascribe to the word evolution. It simply means "change in gene frequency." It does not mean what most people mean by evolution: a qualitative change that creates something new and is irreversible.

To a population geneticist, the increased frequency of dark colored moths when pollution increased was evolution, as was the decrease in frequency when pollution decreased. The peppered moth may well be an example of natural selection changing the frequencies of varieties within a species (micro-micro-evolution?). It is, of course, not an example of a new species.

Posted by Roger Sweeny at December 28, 2004 09:47 AM

If you and others would accept that ID, like religion, is a matter of faith,

Of course I accept that. It's entirely my point.

>and would refrain from trying to "disprove" it,

I am only attempting to "disprove it" within the realm of science, not the broader truth.

>you would find less resistance from reasonable people when you say that it is not a valid scientific theory.

Somehow, I doubt that, based on the fact that my comments have already been misinterpreted numerous times in this very thread, because so many people of faith seem to have a chip on their shoulder.

My resistance is based solely on the perception that you and others *do* use scientific observations to try to paint matters of faith as foolishness.

I have never said, or even implied that matters of faith are foolish, or the holders of them fools. If you believe that I have, please provide a quote. I have great respect for people of faith, and I wouldn't even deign to say that their beliefs aren't true, because I have no idea whether they are or not, and won't before die (though I suspect that I won't find out even then). My point is that their beliefs are not science, and shouldn't be promulgated in science classes, not that they're not valid.

As I hinted in my post, most of these problems would go away if we didn't have a publicly-funded school system, and parents had more choice as to how to educate their children.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 28, 2004 09:48 AM

Herb Sorenson,

We cannot perform experiments in the past and we cannot make observations in the past. But we can gather evidence left by the past. And we can make predictions about what new evidence will tell us. If the predictions come true, we are more likely to believe the theory they came from.

So someone who believes in evolution might predict that rocks further down will be older and that they will show certain isotope frequencies indicative of old age. She might also predict that rocks aged 65 - 225 million years ago will show remains of dinosaurs, and that they would never never never never show remains of humans or "modern mammals." All these predictions are testable. And so far at least they have worked out.

Posted by Roger Sweeny at December 28, 2004 09:48 AM

And if the sudden (geologically speaking) appearance of life is not what we expect from the theory or the sudden appearance of most of the major phyla in the Cambrian is not what we expect of the theory, do we throw the theory out? Not entirely, but why can’t I infer intelligent causation for these events? Why should intelligent causation be excluded from science? How is an inference to intelligence an invalid category?

Posted by J. Lorenz at December 28, 2004 10:05 AM

The idea that complexity equals conscious design can be shown false just when applied to completely human-made items.

Consider that the famous observation from economics that no single human being processes all the information needed to manufacture a Number 2 pencil from scratch. The industrial engineer who creates the pencil assembling machine knows nothing about about forestry and milling or the mining or creating or graphite. In fact, there is a near infinite regress of detail for every stage or component that goes into the production of the pencil. At each stage of the process each special-ist just blindly accepts the end results of another special-ist work.

Moreover, each real world technological item has a history that stretching over many generations and linked to all the the other technological items in existence. At no time did one human mind comprehend the totality of the pencil and plan it's future. The real world pencil you hold in your hand is the result of myriad unconscious interactions of many conscience minds.

Advocates of ID have the presumption exactly backwards. They assume that complexity is ipso facto evidence of conscience action whereas in the real, observable world, complexity is ipso facto evidence of unconscious action. Conscious design represents the most simplistic elements the observable world not the most complex.

Posted by Shannon Love at December 28, 2004 10:15 AM

Greg D:

I do not think that the evolution of the DNA -> RNA -> Protein system is any more (or less) farfetched than the evolution of any coherent system. Evolution attempts to provide an 'invisible hand' explanation as to how these systems came about: as such, people tend to find it a much more satisfying explanation than merely saying, Well, God had this whole coherent system in his mind, then he created it. Explanations that do not assume prior knowledge of the system in question have a great deal more explanatory power -- which is why evolutionary theory has proven much more useful, both scientifically and medically, than has religious belief.

So, your question is, specifically, how did the cell's transcription and translation machinery come to exist in its current form. One thing which should give you pause in asserting that this system could not have evolved on its own is that the system is not the same from organism to organism. Look up the differences between transcription initiation in eukaryotes versus prokaryotes, for a simple example: the system is, not surprisingly, considerably more complex in eukaryotes. So if the system can evolve in that sense -- it can become more complicated -- is it really that infeasible that the system itself could have come into being from something previously _less_ complicated? I would tend to think no.

This is, of course, not evidence, just a thought. But here's a suggestion: I believe that current thought is that RNA actually preceded DNA (in the evolutionary sense) -- so it's possible (and this is, I emphasize, just speculation) that the first link in this 'central dogma' was actually between an RNA strand and an amino acid. Like tRNA, but without most of the structure -- just an anticodon and an acceptor stem, basically. Not too farfetched, given that RNA-protein interactions are relatively common. Now let's also postulate that, if you assemble 4 amino acids in a particular way, they can very crudely help the RNA molecule replicate itself -- i.e. a shitty precursor to DNA polymerase. So you have a bunch of these pre-tRNA-amino acid structures, say in a tide pool or something with a flux of different amino acids coming in from time to time. Now one time one of the RNA molecules in the pool sustains a mutation that it can bind both to the anticodon and to another amino acid circulating in the pool, and the resulting structure kind of presses the amino acids together (and I recall reading an interesting article postulating how peptide bond formation could occur in the absence of peptidyl transferase). This happens three times, and you form a polypeptide that can help the RNA molecules involved replicate themselves -- and this confers a selective advantage on them.

So, that's just speculation, like I said -- but it's pretty easy to imagine how a system like this could slowly evolve, without needing a prior knowledge of the system (as ID postulates).

Posted by George at December 28, 2004 10:22 AM

Well this is all very interesting. Has anyone here read anything by Daniel Berlinski?

The position of anti-ID people strikes me as uncomfortably close to being a denial that there can be a God. I'm a geologist by training and profession, not a biologist, although I do know a bit about biology. I'm also a Christian, but am definitely NOT a proponent of what is called Creationism. My reading of "both books," so to speak, leads me to state that science cannot tell us anything about the existence of God, and I don't find that at all problematical. However, an honest reading of the scientific literature (that I am aware of) should lead one to acknowledge that Darwinism has its problems, too. A forthright acknowledgement of that fact shouldn't threaten anyone any more than acknowledgement that the quanta has problems explaining all observed phenomena threatens Planck's constant. I've never found Darwinian evolution persuasive, but I don't think that means I'm a lunatic, knuckle-dragging, intolerant troglodyte. It just means Darwinian evolution isn't persuasive, and is probably at least incomplete, and may be plain wrong. It frankly fails to account for origins, and anyone who insists that it does is insisting on evidence that doesn't exist. A statement of what might have happened, based on unproven assumptions about initial conditions (such as for example the Stanley Miller primordial soup-amino acid experiments), isn't evidence about the origins of life. And science isn't uniquely about asking questions--religion is about asking questions too. Science is about ruling possibilities out, based on the results of carefully constructed, tightly focused experiments.

We should consider, and keep in mind, that the lack of perfection in biological systems is not evidence against a designer. Would we say that about faulty technology? Who would claim that flaws in artificial intelligence systems, for example, that lead to improvements in subsequent generations of computers, could possibly be evidence that the things were not designed? That is, I think, a poor and unpersuasive way to rule out a creator of life.

And no one should be afraid to have his children taught that Darwinian evolution fails to answer all the questions--not even in a science class.

Posted by Betsy Gorisch at December 28, 2004 10:27 AM

Wow, Hume's shipbuilder argument recast to explain the manufacturing of number 2 pencils. I don't see why complete knowledge of a subject is needed for something to be designed. I design electronic circuit within chips without knowing all of the underlying physics. I still think the circuits are designed. Number 2 pencils are still consciously made from an intelligent source, even if all those involved in the process do not understand the intricacies of everything that goes into it.

Posted by J. Lorenz at December 28, 2004 10:30 AM

Roger Sweeney:

"So someone who believes in evolution might predict that rocks further down will be older and that they will show certain isotope frequencies indicative of old age." But this is not what evolution predicts. Evolution says nothing about the Principle of Superposition. That's geology you're talking about, isotope ratios and all. Recognition of Superposition and disbelief in Darwinian evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Posted by Betsy Gorisch at December 28, 2004 10:32 AM

Incidentally, the dark moth experiments have been pretty much debunked recently on methodological grounds. The flaws have been written up in various places--the experiments didn't after all prove what they were believed for many years to have proven.

Posted by Betsy Gorisch at December 28, 2004 10:37 AM

Mr. Simberg, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "I am only attempting to 'disprove it' within the realm of science, not the broader truth."

Are you accepting my assertion that you are trying to use scientific method to disprove something that can not be proven or disproven by science?

Are you simply trying to prove that it is not a valid *scientific* theory? In which case, your conclusion "no designer" seems strange.

It seems inescapable to me that you are trying to say that it is unreasonable to believe in ID. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are simply trying to prove that it is unreasonable to use ID as proof of God until I hear from you again...

Posted by Matt Knowles at December 28, 2004 10:41 AM

MD: "The people you criticize love science; that's why they want inclusion in the science curriculum."

I raise the BS flag on this. Call me ignorant or intolerant or whatever, but ID and "Creation Science" are just smoke screens to get religious (specifically Christian) ideas taught in the schools. Of course the supporters of these will deny this, but quite frankly I would say that they are either lying or naive.

kipwatson: "There's a huge amount that's not understood about life and evolution, I wish you'd admit it, and not feel threatened because others use their religious beliefs to fill in the gaps." OK, I admit it. That is why scientific investigation continues. And I'm not threatened that others use their religious beliefs to fill in the gaps. I do feel threatened when they attempt to put their particular gap-filling religious belief into the public schools, because now we have to ask whose beliefs we are going to use to fill the gap. The beliefs of Christian's? Hindu's? The followers of Alvis? Soon we are dancing on the edge of religious wars.

Posted by ray_g at December 28, 2004 10:46 AM

(1) Evolution itself has not occurred randomly. The development of the physiosphere and the biosphere have occurred according to a pattern of greater complexity, greater differentiation and greater integration, over time. Dolphins have not evolved into paramecia. Rather, the other way round. Evolution has had a direction, and that direction has not been random. That doesn't prove anyone's particular God myths, but it tends to indicate against simple randomness.

(2) Scientists have now done the math on the random mutation theory, and it doesn't work out. It has been calculated that, according to the laws of probability, it would take longer than the currently accepted 12-billion-year age of the universe to evolve a single enzyme by random mutation. That doesn't leave a lot of extra time for the random mutation of dolphins and Richard Dawkins.

(3) Random mutation and natural selection seem like plausible theories to explain refinements in evolution, but not quantum leaps. For example, if evolution from legs to wings takes, say, a hundred mutations, all have to occur simultaneously in order to create an adaptable change. Half a wing would get naturally selected out. So all hundred mutations, not just one or a few, have to occur simulataneously in a male and female, who meet, mate and successfully raise young. As a matter of scientific probablity, what are the odds of that happening in the millions of species on Earth, current and extinct? Since the math doesn't work out, isn't the random mutation theory simply a matter of assertion and blind faith? It doesn't even pass the laugh test, much less the test of scientific proof.

(4) And then there is the fossil record. Where are all the random mutations that didn't make it? Where are all those in-between stages random mutation would have to have produced? Shouldn't we have found a record, or maybe even a few extant examples, of even a single one by now? I mean, you know, for all you rationalists devoted to empirical proof? This small matter occurred to Darwin himself later in his life, when he himself renounced the extreme version of random mutation and natural selection as untenable. And it explains the late-19th-Century mad search for "missing links." They, uh, still haven't found any. But that hasn't stopped the legions of "rationalist" fundamentalists from still adamantly insisting that their theory, which has no empirical evidence in the fossil record, doesn't work out mathematically on paper and is intuitively preposterous once you think about it even a little. They have become the new reactionaries standing in the schoolhouse door.

(5) Sorry, all you Christian fundamentalists. This all doesn't prove your Bible stories, either. There clearly HAS been some evolution, and species have come and gone. They weren't all created 4,000 years ago. And it doesn't prove anyone's particular strory about God and Creation. It means we all have to be a little less smug and certain about our creation myths, religious or rationalist.

Posted by freetotem at December 28, 2004 11:03 AM

J.Lorenz,

I think it is perfectly legitimate to say, "Science doesn't have a good theory about how life began. Therefore, my tentative hypothesis is that an intelligent designer created it."

I would even go so far as to call it scientific, as long as you keep an open mind about it, and honestly consider any contrary theories that are developed or evidence that goes against the hypothesis. Of course, scientists should do the same thing with their theories.

Posted by Roger Sweeny at December 28, 2004 12:03 PM

Betsy Gorisch,

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. The main biological point there was, "She might also predict that rocks aged 65 - 225 million years ago will show remains of dinosaurs, and that they would never never never never show remains of humans or "modern mammals."

Evolutionary theory would also predict that you can construct plausible stories about how things existing in one level change into things in a higher (i.e. more recent) layer.

Of course, an "all change is gradual" model fails to predict all the mass extinctions in the fossil record. But so do most intelligent design theories--unless they posit that the designer periodically throws out large proportions of his designs.

Posted by at December 28, 2004 12:10 PM

Um, Brian, Darwin's theory of natural selection HAS been found incorrect.

Just to give one example: Darwin believed in slow but steady change. No one believes that any more, because the fossil record doesn't support it.

And no, Darwinian evolution does not require Mendelian genetics. Mendelian genetics makes Darwinian evolution more believable, but that's just a nice benefit.

If you would care to point to where Darwin described "Mendelian genetics" before Mendel did, and said that his hypothesis required that to be the case, you would make your point.

Otherwise you're just showing the ignorance and / or dishonesty that is often displayed by "Darwinians" as they try to defend the indefensible.

Posted by Greg D at December 28, 2004 12:17 PM

Roger,

When I was taught about the moths in school, they were presented as an example of "evolution" in the latter sense. So far as I know, they are still today taught that way, i.e. as an example of Darwinian "evolution of species". One would expect that, if any valid examples of such existed, educators would use those valid examples, rather than clearly invalid ones. One thus draws conclusions from this fraudulent behavior.

Posted by Greg D at December 28, 2004 12:23 PM

I just re-read the original post to make sure I'm on-topic here, and I believe I am.

Mr. Simberg says of creationists/IDers, "They seem to think that if science doesn't validate their faith, then their faith is somehow thereby weakened, and that they must fight for its acceptance in that realm."

I would argue that they're not trying to get science to validate their position so much as they are trying to get science to stop trying to invalidate it.

Despite your protests to the contrary, it is clear that you find ID scientifically unsound, and whether you realize it or not, your conclusion "no designer" fits squarely in the camp of trying to use scientific observation to disprove God (the "designer").

If you can't see how concluding there is "no designer" based on scientific observation is construed as an attack on relegion, then you're not looking.

Posted by Matt Knowles at December 28, 2004 12:29 PM

freetotem:
Re: Point (4): What the heck are you talking about? Modern paleontology is based on cladistics, a form of trait analysis in which specimens are placed in a continuum of morphological change. It is quite successful in producing repeatably patterns of change. The term 'missing link' is pointless in such a paradigm - every species is linked to another. (It also appears you have missed the news of all the very bird-like dinosaurs emerging from Chinese quarries, or even the 130-year ago Archaeopteryx discovery. You might check your point (3), so-called 'transitional' forms will likely not be supersuccessful, and escape the very incomplete fossil record.
And points (1) and (2), nobody has claimed ever claimed evolution is fundamentaly random, except creationists (or the creationists in drag who promote I D). The whole point of natural selection is that it represents a response to environmental conditions. It may have a root in mutation (which depending on the level and style of internal DNA repair, may not be that random either), but it is a deterministic, self-organizing, processes. Environmental forcing (from humans) has produced the chihuahua and the St. Bernard from wolves in a few thousand years and can produce antibiotic resistant forms of E. coli in the course a few days; in a million years a lot can happen, depending on conditions.

Schools shouldn't be in the job of addressing parents religious insecurities by distorting the limited but useful tool of science- end of story.

Posted by Duncan Young at December 28, 2004 12:35 PM

Greg D,

If peppered moths are taught as anything but "a change in gene frequency" possibly caused by natural selection, that is wrong and should be stopped.

Posted by Roger Sweeny at December 28, 2004 12:43 PM

There is a wonderful book from James Gardner called Biocosm. It discusses how intelligent design and evolution are not contradictory theories.

The concept can be summed up in one sentence from the editorial review: Did our universe create intelligent life in order to ensure its own reproduction?

The problem is that this concept of evolution vs. ID is so polarized (what isn't these days) that there are very few people who are willing to seriously consider a merging of the two theories.

Posted by Leen at December 28, 2004 12:49 PM

There's not a whole lot of point in arguing about the inadequacies of ID as a scientific theory because it isn't one. It explains nothing, it predicts nothing, it sheds no light on anything, and in its essence is nothing more than a poor example of theology masquerading as science.

It's a sad commentary on the state of fundamentalist religion in America today that its proponents are so threatened by biological theory that they feel the need to erect a counter-theory and evidently feel they've succeeded.

ID is nothing more than hand-waving, depending entirely on undefined terms such as "design" and "irreducible complexity" and on false assertions about biology to make its case.

There is no coherent definition of "design" that would distinguish a "designed creation" from a "selected" one. There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity" in the human or natural world. There is no evidence of "intelligence" in biology, in fact there's quite the opposite.

An honest reading of the fossil record leads one to the inescapable conclusion that any designer involved in the development of species was pretty deficient, and the theory of an "un-intelligent designer" explains nothing that selection doesn't explain.

So keep ID in your churches, mosques, and comparative mythology classes and out of our biology classes, thank you very much.

Posted by Richard Bennett at December 28, 2004 12:53 PM

George,

You might want to go re-read what I wrote. I didn't complain about the DNA -> RNA part, and I didn't include any of the complexities of eucaryotic translation. I addressed the basic minimum starting system. Which is you have to have some sort of Ribosome (place where things are assembled), you have to have RNA that "codes" for something (m-RNA), and you have to have something that translates that code from RNA to protein (t-RNA, or something else).

Now, you might want to argue that you don't need a Ribosome. However, without something to keep everything within the "reading frame", you are unlikely to ever get a usable protein (even if you only have 1 letter codes, you only have 4 possible amino acids, and you'll often get one or more of those aa's dropped from the protein getting built. Further, if you don't have something "protecting" the end of the growing protein, aa's can come from anywhere to attach to it, making it virtually certain that aa's will be added randomly).

Now let's look at that proto t-RNA. It has to have an anti-codon and an "acceptor stem". The stem needs to bind to one, and only one, amino acid (or, hey, let's be generous, it can bind to one type of aa). The anti-codon, however, must be different from all other anti-codons (outside its "group", since we're being generous).

Oh, and you need 20 of them. As a minimum, you need 4+, all of them with radically different "acceptor stems" (one for each type of amino acid).

Oh, and what is it that these things do before translation started happening? What was their "purpose", that led to enough of them existing inside a single "cell" so that they could be there for translation to happen?

Then there's the m-RNA. What is the purpose of m-RNA before translation occurs? Remember, it is not sufficient to have a cell that just happens to have a bunch of t-RNA, and a Ribosome on which they can become assembled. You also need an m-RNA, that uses whatever code the t-RNA represent, to code for a useful protein. One that justifies all the energy spent building t-RNA and Ribosome (otherwise Darwinian evolution says the other life forms will out-compete it). Where does this m-RAN come from?

In short, what you have so far is fantasy, and hand-waving. It's like that Far Side where step three of the proof was "And then a Miracle occurs", except that you require about 10 of them.

Until those miracles get replaced with actual science, what you're proposing is religious belief, not science. If I want religion, I'll get a real one, not one that lies to itself about what it is.

Posted by Greg D at December 28, 2004 12:55 PM

Richard:

If there's no coherent definition of design that would distinguish a designed creation from a selected one, why not just call advanced computers a product of coincidence between human activity and the discreet self-organization of silicon and certain metals? No one could prove you wrong, after all.

There is plenty of irreducible complexity. Your body is full of systems that illustrate it (just for starters).

Somehow it strikes me that you aren't at all saddened by what you see as the state of fundamentalist religion in America today.

As for "your" biology classes, (to paraphrase a famous Indian), "What you mean 'our,' White Man?"

Posted by Betsy Gorisch at December 28, 2004 01:06 PM

Arguing in favor of ID or creationism on scientific grounds is ridiculous. The only thing more ridiculous is arguing against it on scientific grounds.

Until you realize that by saying "There is no evidence of "intelligence" in biology, in fact there's quite the opposite," you are engaging in the self-same behavior you deride in "fundamentalists" this discussion will go nowhere.

I make the case that it is the unabashed hostility to religious viewpoints in a scientific forum that drives some to entrench themselves in untenable positions, and the only response I get is more hostility to religious viewpoints in a scientific forum.

I don't want to see children indoctrinated by the state into a belief in ID or creationism. At the same time, I don't want to see people ridiculed for believing in ID or creationism "despite all the evidence to the contrary."

The moment you come up with a thought-experiment to test the existence of an omnipotent being who is hiding from you is the moment I'll believe that anything in the natural universe can even lend credence in support of or against the existence of God.

It's no sadder to see one person trying to prove the existence of God with pseudo-science than it is to see another trying to deny it.

Posted by Matt Knowles at December 28, 2004 01:23 PM

There is Intelligent Design and then there is Super Intelligent Design.

The Intellegent Designer needed to first make the universe. Then he made some kinds of life. Then he made others . Finally he made man. This is the view of some Christians.

Then there is the Super Intelligent Designer. He makes universes so good that all he needs to do is wind them up and all the stuff comes out naturally. No further effort required.

So which do you go with? The relatively dumb but busy Intelligent Designer or the (probably Jewish) superintellegent designer? The Pope likes the super intellegent designer. Me too. But you know the Pope - he is a follower of some crazy Jewish guy. He could do worse.

Darwin only contradicts religions with relatively dumb gods. The really smart religions have really smart gods.

Why any one would choose a religion with a dumb god is beyond me. Both claim man is made in god's image. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I'm going with the smart god.

But you know - to each his own.

Posted by M. Simon at December 28, 2004 01:47 PM

In the belief that the right people should get credit ...

The famous cartoon that Greg D refers to is not by Gary Larson of The Far Side but by S. Harris. You can see it at
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery.htm

And the line that Betsy Gorisch paraphrases is from a comedy routine of Bill Cosby's. Tonto and the Lone Ranger are surrounded by hostile Indians who seem about to kill them. The Lone Ranger observes that "we" are doomed. Tonto replies, "What you mean "we," Kemosabe?"

Posted by Roger Sweeny at December 28, 2004 02:46 PM

Can anyone tell me how the eye evolved? How many steps must have taken place between some plain cell and the eye? What mechanism caused this progression? If mutations, then how many? Have any of these steps been found in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be examples of primitive forms of the eye evolving in species around the world today and not just the finished products? After all mutations should have been occuring every day for the last several million years and still be occuring today. Shouldn't we see several steps in these progressions in the world around us?

Posted by Jerry at December 28, 2004 03:44 PM

This is a really good discussion and I don't have much to add, but I would like to just repeat one point, perhaps more clearly.

Much of what is taught as known science in schools is pure speculation. Perhaps within the professional scientific community, areas of zero or inadequate evidence are understood and acknowledged (to a degree), but in the schools a lot of this is taught as dogma.

As far as I can tell, all the ID-adherents are doing is saying 'if your speculation can be taught to our kids, why can't ours?'.

The answer to this is to remove all the dogma and (especially) the politics that gets passed of as science in schools and the media, not just to work yourselves into a fury over people about whom you hold wild, irrational fears.

More generally, professional scientists need to look at their ethical standards, which (unfortunately like so many professional groups), have been somewhat wanting, particularly with regard to what is and isn't 'proven science', and not just within Biology and Evolutionary Theory.

I'm not personally an ID-adherent, but I'm sympathetic to how they feel, because I'm sure as heck sick of politics being passed off as science.

Posted by kipwatson at December 28, 2004 04:16 PM

Greg,

I can't seem to post my response to your post (I'm getting a 'your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content - replica' error from the comments system -- Rand?), so I'm putting it up on my own blog at http://slagheap.blogspot.com:

http://slagheap.blogspot.com/2004/12/more-lameness-in-same-vein.html

Feel free to respond to it either there or here!

Posted by George at December 28, 2004 04:59 PM

For those looking for more on Philosophy of Science and the work of Karl Popper may I suggest reading Popper's work, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" and / or joining one of these two yahoogroups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Critical_Cafe/

http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/

Posted by Steve Frank aka Unclemeat at December 28, 2004 05:34 PM

just to make a point. When asked the question as to how something like macro evolution would occur, the answer is ... given enough time it would happen you just have to have faith. ... hmmm faith. sounds like darwinism is a religion unto itself. another point. bacteria have been experimented for decades. i haven't heard of bacteria evolving into a mouse or some other life form other than another strain of bacteria. given that info, it seems that darwinism has been disproved

Posted by moses at December 28, 2004 07:03 PM

Matt Knowles -

You're wrong. You couldn't be more wrong if you sat down with the Big Book of Blunders and copied and pasted the first seventeen chapters into these comments.

Science has nothing to say about the existence of God. Scientists, of course, are free to hold whatever opinions they wish, and as it happens those opinions cover the entire range of religious belief.

The problem, the whole problem, and the only problem, is a deliberate and sustained attack by religion on science.

Intelligent Design and Creation Science are put forth as scientific theories, with their religious backers clamouring for them to be included in science education.

They are nothing of the sort.

They are not science, and have nothing to do with science.

The backers of these "theories" present stories they claim disprove evolution, based on distortion and mis-statement of scientific fact. These claims are frequently and thoroughly rebutted. If you want to claim that this process is an attack on religion, then you have proved my point, and showed that the IDers and Creationists are acting in bad faith.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 28, 2004 07:08 PM

kipwatson -

Much of what is taught as known science in schools is pure speculation.

Give me one example. Okay, one example other than global warming.

As far as I can tell, all the ID-adherents are doing is saying 'if your speculation can be taught to our kids, why can't ours?'.

Because it's religion, not science. Because it is inherently - and by deliberate design - unfalsifiable, untestable and makes no statement about the nature of the physical Universe.

Global warming may be bad science, may be speculative, but it can be distilled to a cohesive theory and confirmed or denied. Intelligent Design cannot, ever.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 28, 2004 07:12 PM

Jerry -

Can anyone tell me how the eye evolved?

Yes.

Go to the Talk.Origins archive, search for "eye", and start reading.

Shouldn't we see several steps in these progressions in the world around us?

Yes. And indeed we do. We see everything from the most basic light-sensitive spots to the beauty of the vertebrate eye - and the octopoid eye, seperately evolved but strikingly similar.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 28, 2004 07:19 PM

MD -

If there is a fundamental divide in fundamentals, it isn't between Christians and scientists, it's between "postmodernists" and western science.

Yes indeed.

Creationists, IDers and such annoy me, but I truly loathe the post-modernists. Post-modernism is 100% pure bafflegab. They have to claim that the scientific method is a sham, for its very existence (not to mention its continuing success) exposes them as frauds. And they publish and preach their endless indecipherable verbiage to protest this fact, ruining countless potentially worthwhile students in the process.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 28, 2004 07:25 PM

Look, people: If you want to claim that Evolution is wrong, please learn something about it first!

Every point raised in this thread purporting to show some flaw in evolutionary theory has already been answered, and most of them show a basic lack of knowledge of evolution, biology, the nature of science, or a combination of the three.

On the other hand, if you want to learn, and to ask questions to that end, the newsgroup talk.origins (available through Google Groups if you don't have access to a news server) is a great place to go. There are real working paleontologists, biologists, geologists and other scientists there every single day ready to discuss all matters relating to evolution.

A couple of times I've mentioned the Talk.Origins Archive, which is a collection of information posted to the talk.origins newsgroup over the years. It's a great place to start picking up the basics.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 28, 2004 07:36 PM

Pixy Misa,

OK. I checked out Talk.Origins Archive and did a search on "eye":

found this:

"Charles Darwin wrote,
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. [Darwin 1872]
Source:
Huse, Scott, 1996. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, p. 73.
Response:
The paragraph continues,
. . . . Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. [Darwin 1872]
Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable."

That's a lot of "if's" that can't be substantiated. Different types of eyes are still eyes. And doesn't it stand to reason that a creature that was in the process of one of the early "if's" of eye evolution would be devoured by a creature that already had an evolved set of eyes. "Millions of years" would be a long time for some blind creature to avoid the path of some hungry carnivore....all that survival of the fittest stuff.
Show me ONE instance of NEW genetic information arising in any living creature. And please don't give me any of the tired "mutation" examples. Mutations are always a loss of genetic information.

Posted by jimmyp at December 28, 2004 08:42 PM

This needs to be said once and for all: ID is not the same as creationism. Creationism says that all species were uniquely and specifically created by a supreme being. ID says that in the process of the emergence of the universe and of life (HOWEVER it emerged), there is evidence for a non-random process, a process that points to design, which points to SOME SORT OF transcendent intelligence.

To repeat my post of 9:13 pm of Dec. 27, the argument from design is not religion, it is a publicly accessible argument that goes all the way back (in rudimentary form) to the pagan Greek philosopher Aristotle. The only reason WE don't call it science is because we have separated empirical science from philosophy.

You CAN teach ID in a science class, since the arguments made of its defenders are inductive arguments: arguments from data to conclusions that are broader than the data.

Posted by David Layman at December 28, 2004 09:05 PM

jimmyp -

Read some of the other articles too. We've learned a couple of things since 1872, you know.

David Layman -

It doesn't matter what colour hat you put on it, ID is still not a scientific theory. And it's religion, not just philosophy. ID is always tied to religion, though certain proponents try to hide this.

Just starting from observations of the physical world is not enough; you have to then draw conclusions about the physical world, and you have to do this with sufficient clarity that further observations can decide whether or not you were correct.

ID does not do this.

And claims of "evidence for a non-random process" are pathetic. The whole POINT of the Theory of Evolution is that IT ISN'T RANDOM! How many times do we have to say this? EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM! NO-ONE EVER SAID IT WAS! Evidence for a non-random process is precisely what we'd expect.

Evolutionary Theory takes the data available and makes statements about what happened and how, and what else we can expect to find. That's science.

ID takes the data available - albeit very selectively - and wanders off into metaphysics. That's not science.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 28, 2004 09:54 PM

I was delighted to see that Pixy Misa decided that elements of my earlier post had nothing to do with science. I just wonder, and not to play the ad hominem card here, but who in this debate actually is a scientist or has done scientific research?

In an earlier career, I did nanotechnology research at a university, so I'm rather certain I know what science is. Saying "how did X come to be" is a perfectly acceptable scientific question; ID and evolution are simply two competeing answers to the question when X is "life" or "the universe" (depending on who you ask).

I also utterly fail to see how ID is any more or less "untestable" than evolution. A previous responder mentioned flipping a coin 100 times and getting heads all 100 times, and drawing a conclusion about the coin. I think the same can be said about ID and evolution; if evolution of life on Earth appears to be probabalistically unlikely, then we're forced to search for alternate explanations.

Posted by Todd at December 28, 2004 11:20 PM

No one here has even addressed Super Intelligent Design.

Not one single refutation. There for it must be true.

I got an even better theory: Super Duper Intelligent Design.

This universe is just the leftovers from when the super duper intelligent designer was taking out the trash. Everything that has happened was a mistake or just a side effect of the trash compaction.

The Super Duper Intelligent Designer doesn't even care about us. To him we are just waste product to be disposed of.

I dare any of you to prove me wrong. You can't do it.

What is called evolution is just running the movie backwards. Only because we are garbage in the Universal Trash Compactor we experience it as going forward. The Designer is just fookin with our minds.

And forget about strings and super strings. In reality there are just super golf balls and super gopher hairs. Which hold the golf balls together by exchanging smells.

I got proof. Some where.

There is no way to prove I'm wrong because the trash compactor guides everything and controls all thoughts.

Resistance is not only futile. It is non-linear. And if you run a current through it it gets hot. Just like the electric heater that keeps me warm in the winter.

Plus the only thing that tin foil hats do is make you look silly and provide extra profits to the evil aluminum corporations.

So really the way to figure out how the eye came into being is to study trash compactors.

I mean really. What Super Duper Intelligent Designer wants to put his hand in the garbage just to tweak some no account universe? It just doesn't make sense.

--==--

The mistake the ID (did anyone notice those are the last two letter of stupID?) people make is that because we (as of today) can't tell how the eye evolved, does not mean we won't figure it out at some later date.

If we can't come to any conclusion on this perhaps we could at least have some flame war fun.

No more stupID gods.

Because any god smart enough to figure out how to make ID work could figure out how to make evolution work. I mean that is so obvious.

I blame it all on stupID humans.

Posted by M. Simon at December 28, 2004 11:50 PM

Say that we lived in an alternative universe in which Intelligent Design was, in fact, a fact.

Are you seriously claiming that science would be unable to investigate the matter, identify strong hints of design in DNA, and even draw conclusions about the design rules, constraints, and methods of the "Designer".

Claiming that ID is not science is silly. It's as much science as n-rays or polywater or phlogiston. What it is is wrong science.

Posted by Michael Friedman at December 28, 2004 11:55 PM

Fantastic post, Rand. What's astonishing to me is how so many people, utterly devoid of evidence that god exists, cling to the notion that there is a god, and thus are forced to defend ridiculousness like ID.

Posted by Amy Alkon at December 29, 2004 01:47 AM

You guys are lots smarter than the kids I am use to playing with. What fun! First, ID is too new to be accepted. However, to say it is not science for the reasons above - one would also need to eliminate studies in dynamical systems, forensic science and other areas of study which deal with patterns and codes, etc. The real problem - what is eating away at many intellectuals in this world is the ominous crumbling sound coming from the paradigm. The all powerful god EVOLUTION is falling apart and the defenders of the faith cannot stand it.

Posted by Jowell Peden at December 29, 2004 02:00 AM

Posted by Jowell Peden at December 29, 2004 02:02 AM

1. Yes, evolution is testable. In addition to the several tests suggested already, Darwin also posed the idea that if we could find a species somewhere with an adaptation that solely benefits a different species, with no possible explanation for how it arrived in the first species, the theory would be absolutely confounded. Creationists, both the regular and ID stripe, have given up the search for such a disproof. Why?

2. Creationists (including ID advocates) have generally given up on science altogether. There is not a single research lab based on any creationist paradigm working anywhere on Earth. ID is not science most basically because there is no science behind it -- no lab work, no field work, no publications of new discoveries, no hypothesizing of what to look at next. Ergo, it does not belong in a science classroom.

3. Evolution is fine. Look at Wall Street. Those companies that use evolution to make new pharmaceuticals (Eli Lilly, for example), tend to do well. The finance guys, who care only about whether a thing works, invest in evolution. In stark contrast, there is not a single company traded publicly that relies on creationism in any form. Are we to believe the hard-hearted, Republican, church-going Wall Street types are also in league with the evolution conspiracy? Or is it more likely that creationism/ID is the Oakland of the business world: There is no "there" there (apologies to Alice Toklas).

Posted by Ed Darrell at December 29, 2004 02:28 AM

Ed,
It is only speculation. Was it punctuated equilibrium? Was it gradual? Was it saltation? Was it out and out creationism (like real fast)? Lets say, in the lab, we found six evolutionary ways to make people out of rocks. How would you know, without fossil verification, which way was the correct way life formed? Saltation is creationism - or at least that seems to be the consensus. How do you know people came from the one process you like best and not my saltation process? You don't. Right now it is all speculation. Even if you did it in the lab (which has not been done) how would you know the actual method was not (the real fast) creation stuff? Where do you put your faith? Where do you place your guess? So, if your process is based on faith why not ID in the classroom?

Posted by Jowell Peden at December 29, 2004 03:47 AM

Pixy Mixa,

I think you were too hard on ID and people who believe in it in your most recent post (which was disappointing because you're usually so reasonable).

For some people, ID is part of their religion--but that is not true of everyone. For some people, the gaps in evolutionary theory are just too much, so they suggest an intelligent agent to fill them. Such a God-of-the-Gaps or Spirit-of-the-Gaps has been common to many people throughout history.

Such a supposition doesn't make many testable hypotheses, besides the obvious, "Evolutionary theory will always have gaps." But there is a significant amount of science (usually done by the highly mathematical guys who specialize in "theory") that doesn't either. I think in particular of people like Leon Lederman who are trying to come up with "grand united theories," theories that integrate gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. There is lots of fascinating speculation, sperstrings and 11 dimenstions and such, but as of now, not really much of anything testable. I'm willing to call that science.

Posted by Roger Sweeny at December 29, 2004 06:31 AM

Pixy Mixa,

I think you also have to separate the argument from the person making it.

An unfair person with an agenda can make a perfectly valid argument. And a person trying hard to be fair can say something that just isn't true.

Posted by Roger Sweeny at December 29, 2004 06:37 AM

Pixy Misa,

First, "You couldn't be more wrong if you sat down with the Big Book of Blunders and copied and pasted the first seventeen chapters into these comments" brought a grin to my face. It was fresh (to my ears) and amusing.

But, am I permitted to ask which part of my argument you found unpersuasive?

I doubt it was my contention that Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, since you go on to say "Science has nothing to say about the existence of God."

Honestly, I must conclude that it was my contention that the push by IDers/Creationists to include their pseudo-science in classrooms is a result of what they perceive as an attempt by science to preclude the possibility of God.

Let me say that I do believe there are nuts on the religious side who would love nothing more than to see all American children begin their schoolday chanting "Praise Jesus!" and I feel this would be very bad.

Let me also say that I do believe there is a sustained attack on science from the religious side that is meant to force science to accept the possibility (or, by some, even the actuality) of God, and I feel this is bad.

But do you honestly mean to say that this is the one example in the history of mankind where all the mistakes are being made by one side of an argument? Are you truly saying there is no effort from self-styled scientific wise-men to refute the existence of God, or relegate it to a myth held by the foolish who fail to understand "true" science?

I mean to make no judgment of whether ID or creationism or evolution is valid. I mean to make no judgment as to whether or not God truly exists.

I mean only to point out that this is a two-sided struggle, with both sides trying to bring their own beliefs and prejudices into a scientific arena, and both sides should desist.

I am right there with you when you feel disgusted that people are pushing for science classes to be forced to allow for the possibility of God.

Will you not stand by my side when I am disgusted that people are pushing for science to make God an obsolete myth believed only by the foolish? Or by "gap-toothed sibling-marrying Bible thumpers?"

After all, in your own words, "Science has nothing to say about the existence of God." Will you not agree with me when you hear me asking that Science say nothing about the existence of God?

Posted by Matt Knowles at December 29, 2004 06:58 AM

Pixy Mixa says:
It doesn't matter what colour hat you put on it, ID is still not a scientific theory.

Note that Pixy Mixa makes no effort to refute my evidence to the contrary. In part this is an argument over WHAT SCIENCE IS. Logic calls this "equivocation": when one uses a word with two different meanings. Pixy Mixa is assuming that the only science is EMPIRICAL (experimental) science. I know that there are other kinds of science.

(quote) And it's religion, not just philosophy.

There are advocates of ID who are not religious. Why do critics of ID refuse to acknowledge plain facts (stated in my two posts): the argument from design is one of the basic arguments over the question of "god". I teach it every semester in college level philosophy. (I also teach religion, and I know the difference.)

(quote) Just starting from observations of the physical world is not enough; you have to then draw conclusions about the physical world, and you have to do this with sufficient clarity that further observations can decide whether or not you were correct. ID does not do this.

Yes ID DOES draw LOGICAL conclusions: it sees evidence of design, and asks, how does that apparent design get there? Can evolution, as currently understood explain it? I repeat this is basic induction: you move from data to general conclusions that are BROADER than the data. An inductive conclusion IS falsifiable--if you can develop an alternative conclusion that explains MORE of the data or explains it BETTER.

That is what ID tries to do. It accepts the evidence for evolution, but insists that current theories do not explain ALL the data.

(quote) The whole POINT of the Theory of Evolution is that IT ISN'T RANDOM!

Taking your assertion at face value: Good! ! Now WHY is it non-random? That is what ID asks. (Induction! Induction! Induction!)

(quote) ID takes the data available - albeit very selectively - and wanders off into metaphysics. That's not science.

Here again, the fallacy of equivocation. Even if I grant it is not empirical science, it is science, in the sense of knowledge--things we can KNOW.

Posted by at December 29, 2004 07:06 AM

Sorry, I failed to give my name at the recent posting.

The posting at December 29, 2004 07:06 AM belonged to me.
David

Posted by David Layman at December 29, 2004 07:15 AM

The anonymous poster at December 29 07:06 AM asks WHY is evolution non-random. I'm not sure I understand the question but I'll try to give an answer based on what I think it is.

Modern evolutionary theory says life evolves by a constantly recurring two-step process. Hereditary material gets mixed and changed: recombination, repetition, insertion, mutation, etc. This process seems pretty random but it may well have elements of non-randomness, e.g. some hereditary material is more likely to be "fixed" when it changes so the changes don't make it into the next generation.

This step is often called "variation."

Many of the individuals in a population will have different genetic material than other members of the population. Sometimes a genetic difference will make it more likely that some individuals survive and sucessfully leave offspring. That genetic material will become more common. This part of the process is not random. Some people sum it up with the slogan, "survival of the fittest."

Under the proper circumstances, a population may change enough that it is a new "species."

Such an occurence is rare, and usually limited to a small, isolated population.

Much more common is random changes of genetic frequency, "genetic drift."

I hope that was responsive.

Posted by Roger Sweeny at December 29, 2004 07:37 AM

I propose Semi- Intelligent Design.

The Designer only makes improvements on alternate Tuesdays.

Which completely explains such abominations as the duck billed platypus.

The evidence is irrefutable.

Posted by M. Simon at December 29, 2004 08:07 AM

Super string theory - ha.

I favor the Cosmic Shoe String Theory.

Shoe strings do not tie themselves. Even velco requires outside action.

Only men and women wear shoes.

Since shoe strings don't tie themselves god made the universe and men.

--==--

If you insist on filling the gaps with gods then as the gaps get filled gos get driven out of the gaps.

Making a religion dependant on the tortoises stacked on elephants is sure to disapoint as knowledge advances.

It makes science look smart and religion stupid.

This effort to make religion look stupid is the #1 effort of some types of religionists. To make a weak religion look powerful (for a time) they claim more for religion than can be defended. They chose positions that are dependant on current ignorance.

The fight is caused by stupID religions. Science has no dog in the fight over religion. The way religion avoids the problem is to have no beliefs that can be refuted by facts or be willing to adapt belief to current knowledge.

--==--

How about Quasi Intelligent Design?

That is we have a smart designer some weeks but when he is busy they bring in some idiot who hasn't studied the situation and hasn't a clue as to what comes next.

This completely explains what some people call randomness. It is not randomness. It is stupidity. The most common element of the universe.

Posted by M. Simon at December 29, 2004 08:30 AM

Clearly, no one who holds science in more esteem than religion would ever be caught dead ridiculing those who cherish their faith more. Perish the thought.

Posted by Matt Knowles at December 29, 2004 09:17 AM

Roger Sweeney:

Thanks for your helpful explanation of how evolution works in a non-random manner.

Actually, I was asking a different question. Indeed understanding the difference between these two questions may be a key to recognizing the core philosophical difference between those who support ID and those who reject it.

My question is this: given this nonrandom-ness (described by you), HOW IS IT that this non-randomness is present? Put another way: WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSE BE LIKE, if in fact (as you acknowledge) there are non-random structures in the evolution of the universe/life?

ID insists that the existence of (evidence for) these non-random structures cannot be explained on their own terms. Rather, they point towards...design, which points towards...an intelligent designer.

Posted by David Layman at December 29, 2004 09:47 AM

Just curious: If the problem with ID is that it is not disprovable, how is Evolutionary Theory disprovable? I am just sincerely curious. I am not a scientist.

Thanks

Posted by JosephR at December 29, 2004 10:22 AM

Its variations that are likely random, not selection. Individuals that win the struggle for survival by passing their genes to their offspring are said to have been selected by nature. This selection is not random. Only variations having survival value are selected.
Random variations plus the natural selection process are essential to evolution. That's not so difficult, is it?

Posted by tc99mman at December 29, 2004 11:00 AM

David Layman said:
"This needs to be said once and for all: ID is not the same as creationism. Creationism says that all species were uniquely and specifically created by a supreme being. ID says that in the process of the emergence of the universe and of life (HOWEVER it emerged), there is evidence for a non-random process, a process that points to design, which points to SOME SORT OF transcendent intelligence."

This seems to be the major point of misinterpretation by many people who presume to oppose evolution and support ID. ID, at least of the Behe variety (which is the most credible scientficially yet false incredibly short of actual science), does not say anything about the origin of life. In fact, neither does evolution. The only scientific evidence for ID over evolution is that there exists molecular structures that are irreducibly complex, that is you cannot remove even one of the "parts" or the object ceases to work. The flagellum was mentioned above. Each example put forth by IDers has been subsequently falsified.

So if ID were actually postulating an intelligent designer as the mechanism by which life came into existence then that would be an alternative to abiogenesis (living matter from non-living matter), not evolution. Scientists can only speculate on how life came into existence; an intelligent designer can fit quite nicely into that. But ID as an alternative to how SPECIES evolved? That's been pretty much debunked. The given of evolution is that life exists. Then it evolves. How it got there in the first place is up for grabs.

I'm not sure that non-scientist proponents of ID actually understand this.

Posted by Michael at December 29, 2004 12:17 PM

David Layman,

My question is this: given this nonrandom-ness (described by you), HOW IS IT that this non-randomness is present?

I'm not sure I understand the question. If in certain situations, some "genes" give their carriers a survival advantage, then in those situations, the genes will become more common. I'm not sure why that requires an explanation. At least any more than an explanation is required for why water is wet or why rivers don't flow uphill.

There are lots of very deep questions about the universe. Say, why is the gravitational constant the size it is? That's pretty important; if it were different, we probably wouldn't be here. And it may be evidence of a designer who wanted intelligent life to happen at some point. I don't know.

Posted by Roger Sweeny at December 29, 2004 12:52 PM

The common misconception about evolution is that it follows a certain, predetermined path somehow, whether by Nature's chaotic mandelbrot intentions, or by ID. Evolution is a symptom of DNA's constant 'grabbing' of extra molecules. Because of the vast number of molecules available, and the number of DNA molecules doing the grabbing, we basically end up with DNA following ALL possible patterns at the same time. Since not all patterns 'fit' in the available environment well enough to reproduce, only the ones that successfully reproduce continue to exist. Meanwhile, the 'proof' of this is in the 'junk' in the DNA molecule which mostly just sits there and gets 'free ride' reproduction until it fits its environment. Darwin was very specific in this, that evolution is a matter of species being 'fittest' for their environment, not the strongest, nor the 'perfect' form. As 'fittest' species deviate from their environment over generations, the feedback loop is closed with an ever-changing environment. Sometimes it gets out of whack, especially if the environment changes faster than specific DNA has been 'fitted' for. This is why the Global Warming issue is so important to species' diversity (including humans). Not necessarily for the end temperatures and climates that will result, but for the rate of change which we are causing. (yes, I said "WE are causing"...Get a grip on reality and read something besides American pablum papers. I suggest "New Scientist".)
Historically, religion has gone from providing 99.9% of the answers to everyday reality down to about a questionable .1%, and that only if you are a 'believer'. If we follow that trend, then we can expect science to either find God hiding in a quark somewhere, with a superstring Yo-Yo keeping him busy, or we can expect the idea of blind faith to simply be lost in a room of the Smithsonian, along with all of its 'civilizing' attributes.

Posted by auntiegrav at December 29, 2004 08:45 PM

Betsy Gorish says: If there's no coherent definition of design that would distinguish a designed creation from a selected one, why not just call advanced computers a product of coincidence between human activity and the discreet self-organization of silicon and certain metals? No one could prove you wrong, after all.

I design computers for a living, and I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that you don't. This is not to brag, but merely to state that I'm not impressed by your analogy. "Design" is a meaningful concept in the realm of human activity because we can observe results that are only explainable with reference to a designer. We know that ASICs don't spontaneously acquire logic, it has to be put inside them by an agent. And we know that chips don't jump out of the parts bin and solder themselves to circuit boards, and we know that software doesn't spontaneously write itself. We can trace each of the phases in the design and assembly of a computer to actual aspects of the very flawed human intelligence that carried them out, and we can also see how this flawed human intelligence evolved in nature. We can do all of this analysis without invoking a God, or a Giant Pink Bunny, or an irreducible complexity because these are all physical and material processes that form parts of an orderly world regulated by natural law.

It's incumbent on proponents of ID to give a coherent definition to the terms "design", "intelligence", and "irreducible complexity" because they're vital to the ID argument. It's not incumbent on me to do that for you.

and she says: There is plenty of irreducible complexity. Your body is full of systems that illustrate it (just for starters).

No, it isn't. Now name one or two examples and they will be promptly shown for what they are, products of gradualism.

Posted by Richard Bennett at December 29, 2004 10:33 PM

Matt Knowles says: Arguing in favor of ID or creationism on scientific grounds is ridiculous. The only thing more ridiculous is arguing against it on scientific grounds.

Excuse me, Matt, but it's the IDers who insisted on making the role of their god in the shaping of this universe a scientific question. They want their doctrine taught in science classes, not only in churches. Therefore, it's necessary to show that the ID doctrine is defective as a piece of science.

Part of the refutation of ID as a scientific theory is accomplished by showing its failures at the level of theory, and part of it is showing the inadequacies of ID proponents' representations of scientific fact.

I think the ID theory is essentially ridiculous, and I don't generally comment on it. But now that these people have taken aim at the science education our young people are getting in the public schools, the time has come to burn them at the stake. I'll use every weapon in the arsenal to accomplish that, happily.

Posted by Richard Bennett at December 30, 2004 02:54 AM

Richard, if you're concerned about the education of our young, your opposition to IDers may be legitimate, but it's misplaced. That small minority of Christians who support ID, or oppose evolutionary biology, have little or no influence over the education of our young.

Another group, however, does. They have Ph.D.'s, tenure, they are entrenched, and they are going nowhere. They dominate the humanities departments in our universities, they control the education of public school teachers, they write the curriculums, and they write and edit the textbooks. They are the creative anti-realists, known commonly as postmodernists.

They don't want to infiltrate the science curriculum, because they consider western science to be a superstition of false consciousness. They consider science an artifact of a dying and decadent civilization.

At least the IDers credit science with some legitmacy, even if they do bad science.

So, if you're concerned about the education of our young, take on the people who have real power and influence (and who are implacably hostile to science), not the IDers who are marginal players at best.

Posted by MD at December 30, 2004 11:16 AM

Two wrongs don't make a right, MD, and we often see an alliance between the anti-science freaks of the right with those of the left, as in the laws that Andrea Dworkin and Kate McKinnon enacted against porn with the full support and cooperation of the religious right.

When I lived in the Frisco Bay area, I was all over the feminist/Marxist/PoMo corruption of law and culture, which I fought at the state legislature as a lobbyist. Now I live in a semi-rural state where the greatest threat to learning and culture is indeed the religious right. Pick your poison, they both suck and they both want to destroy Western Civilization as we know it.

Posted by Richard Bennett at December 30, 2004 12:01 PM

David Layman -

HOW IS IT that this non-randomness is present? Put another way: WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSE BE LIKE, if in fact (as you acknowledge) there are non-random structures in the evolution of the universe/life?

Rather, there are non-random processes.

The non-random process is selection, and it's non-random because of biology, which is non-random because of chemistry, which is non-random because of physics. Which is non-random in the everyday sense. (It's non-deterministic at the quantum level, but with distinct distribution curves that make it look deterministic at larger scales.)

Which brings us to: Why are the Laws of Physics (and the physical constants) the way they are? If that's the question, then all the discussion of ID is completely irrelevant! The evidence of non-random processes in evolution is just evidence for the laws of physics.

The problem is, the IDers and Creationists alike choose to attack Evolution by presenting bogus claims about "irreducible complexity" and missing links and the like. They are invariably wrong, and have been shown to be wrong, and the same claims are still presented, time and time again. (See this thread for numerous examples.) Which makes people who actually know something about evolution irritable.

If you want to discuss why the laws of physics are the way they are, then you should be able to find some theoretical physicists and cosmologists to discuss this with. But it clearly has nothing to do with evolution.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 30, 2004 07:02 PM

David, again -

Note that Pixy Mixa makes no effort to refute my evidence to the contrary.

Can't refute what isn't there.

In part this is an argument over WHAT SCIENCE IS. Logic calls this "equivocation": when one uses a word with two different meanings.

I have pointed out repeatedly the requirements of a scientific theory, and shown that ID fulfils none of these. I'll see your "equivocation" and raise you "reading comprehension".

Pixy Mixa is assuming that the only science is EMPIRICAL (experimental) science. I know that there are other kinds of science.

Two points:

1. Empirical science is not necessarily experimental. Science based on observations is also empirical.

2. If it's not empirical, it's not science. (Mathematics, for example, is not science, but a separate field unto itself.)

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 30, 2004 07:11 PM

No, I could agree with that (though it's a matter of opintion, it's not obviously wrong).

Rather, it's the contention that the IDers are responding to an actual attempt by Science to do this (preclude the possibility of God), when no such attempt has ever been made.

The opinions of some individual scientists to the contrary, Science has nothing to say on the question of God (apart from the very statement that "Science has nothing to say on the question of God").

Now, religion is opinion; it's neither verifiable nor falsifiable, so the opinions scientists on the subject are just as justified as the opinions of priests and rabbis (though possibly less well informed on the niceties of theological argument).

But science is not opinion; it is verifiable (not provable, but verifiable) and falsifiable. The opinions of priests and rabbis and indeed anyone, including scientists, do not matter so long as they are just opinions. If you do not like evolution, well tough bickies to you, because all the evidence says you're wrong. On the other hand, if you have evidence to the contrary, or a theory that better fits the facts and makes different - and over time, more accurate - predictions, well then the opinions of those who preferred the old theory don't matter either.

I mean only to point out that this is a two-sided struggle, with both sides trying to bring their own beliefs and prejudices into a scientific arena, and both sides should desist.

And that's exactly my point. Science is Science. Presenting a scientific argument to a scientific question is always valid. It doesn't matter if it results in hurt feelings, what matters is if it is right.

Science is no respecter of cherished opinion. It doesn't set out to attack religious belief, but if a religion makes a statement about how some part of the real world works, and Science shows that it is wrong, then it is hardly the fault of Science. It's akin to arguing with the ground because it killed you even though you were convinced you could fly.

It's not a two-sided struggle at all - except in the perceptions of the IDers and Creationists. And tough luck to them, because they are wrong. They chose to stand on the railway track, and now they are quibbling about the timetable.

Will you not agree with me when you hear me asking that Science say nothing about the existence of God?

Nor has it ever. Scientists, on the other hand, are people, and have the same rights as you and me.

Posted by Pixy Misa at December 30, 2004 07:30 PM

"Statistical methods aren't the only test for evolutionary theory."

It doesn't matter if there are other tests, if the theory fail the statistical test, then either the test is wrong, or the theory is wrong. (psst, in case you didn't get it, that means the theory is FALSE)

Now, failing the statistical test does not give a clear indication of how far off the mark the theory is, but, assuming the test to be valid, then falsity has been established, per Rand's request.

However, one of the previous posters up a ways makes an interesting point via current cosmology: "even though we know the theory is wrong, we continue to use it, because of its utility"

We know that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, as in it certainly is not 100% correct. Yet, it is still used, still taught. So, what is the utility?

Seriously, what SCIENTIFIC utility does the Theory of Evolution provide in understanding how the world works NOW? Is there ANY difference in SCIENTIFIC utility between Evolution and ID? For instance, if one is attempting, via genetic modification, attempting to create a tree that will grow as fast as aspen, be as hardy as redwood, drought resistant as bristlecone pine, as beautifully figured as lacewood, as easily worked as cherry, and as massive as a sequoia, (i.e., a woodworker's dream tree, and cheap to boot), what you need to know is how trees work, NOT how they came to be. EV and ID both provide the same answer.

(An analogy: someone designing a car may find it interesting to know the history of tires, but the only relevant information to his task is "how will Tire X function with my design")

I look forward to some measure of SCIENTIFIC utility wherein EV is superior to ID. Given that I don't expect to hear any, I can only conclude that the SUPERIOR (perceived) utility of EV lies elsewhere.

Posted by BikerDad at December 30, 2004 08:37 PM

BikerDude, here's the difference in scientific utility between evolution and the ID/Giant Pink Bunny theory:

Evolution - some
GPB - none

A theory that says "things go along for a while and then - poof - there's a miracle" has no scientific utility. We don't know when, why, or how these miracles that have shaped the universe are going to happen, therefore we know nothing, we can predict nothing and we fundamentally understand nothing.

Evolutionary theory says we can damn well expect bacteria and viruses to mutate as we attack then with antibiotics and vaccines respectively. It says we can damn well expect trees that have drought and fungus resistance to survive conditions that decimate their neighbors and then become useful in genetic engineering. Etc.

Personally, I think the ID approach is too lazy and dependent, and that this form of thinking is not only an insult to science it's an insult to God.

And BTW, cherry is so oily that it burns much to easily when cut.

Posted by Richard Bennett at December 30, 2004 09:27 PM

Ricky, (you don't mind if I call you Ricky, do you?)

BikerDude, here's the difference in scientific utility between evolution and the ID/Giant Pink Bunny theory:
Evolution - some
GPB - none
A theory that says "things go along for a while and then - poof - there's a miracle" has no scientific utility.

You are correct, strawmen generally have no scientific utility. Of course, if you talk about actual Intelligent Design, rather than your post-harvest construction of rags and chaff, its another story.

We don't know when, why, or how these miracles that have shaped the universe are going to happen, therefore we know nothing, we can predict nothing and we fundamentally understand nothing.

What does "why" matter? Science has no concern for "why", only "how". Perhaps, if, as a defender of science and evolution, you would stop being so sloppy with your words (didn't another defender pillory a prior poster over "entropy"?), then you would realize the practical, real world difficulty you place yourself in. Science concerns itself only with the material world, with quantifiable processes, i.e., "how" X happens (or happened). "Why", in the sense that you use it, is "what is the prior how", which is entirely too easy for the rest of the world to confuse with "Why" in the ontological (hope I have that right, been awhile) sense.

So what, you don't need evolutionary theory to tell us that, experience tells us. Generations of farmers back through the mists of time know that. Observation of what happens NOW tells us. ID tells us the same thing. In short, a wash. Both theories are equally predictive.

Consider the information that evolution gives us about trees generally that we can use in genetic engineering compared to ID. Evolution tells us where to look in order to find the genes that will make the perfect tree.

Actually, gene mapping tells us where to look, as does common sense and experience. You don't need Evolutionary Theory to tell you that a drought resistant tree is the one growing in the desert... Neither of which excludes, nor endorses, ID. Again, a wash.

ID says we should pray for the perfect tree and then God will make one for us. Really, would you care to point out where it says that?
Your take is curious, because the early scientists (as well as a fair number today) would say that God showed us the way, and endowed us with creativity and intelligence, so lets figure out how to make one ourselves if we can. And, of course, an uncharitable cynic would say that EV amounts to "just hope we get lucky someday", because otherwise, you'll be engaging in intelligent design... ironic, isn't it? You're defending EV based on its utility in intelligent design. That's rich!

Personally, I think the ID approach is too lazy and dependent, and that this form of thinking is not only an insult to science it's an insult to God.

An insult to God? Could you explain that?

And BTW, cherry is so oily that it burns much to easily when cut.
Undoubtedly, that's why its been America's premier cabinetry wood for, oh, 3 centuries now. (Just don't tell the walnut guys, they think THEIR tree is #1) Burning cherry when worked with power tools is a concern, but trust me, sharp tools and accurate setup meet the challenge. (And dull tools, sloppy setup, and poor tool control compound it, DAMHIKT.)

Both EV and ID end up at the same point, with the same predictive capacity. From a scientific utility standpoint, they are equally useful. So again, I ask you, can you demonstrate any superior utility, superior mind you, of EV? Just to broaden the horizons, since the harvest appears to be rather spartan, the superior utility can be in any realm, it need not merely lie within science.

Posted by BikerDad at December 30, 2004 11:10 PM

About that second law:

Pro-ID Folks (Kip Watson?):

I don't think you understand "the law of entropy" (which most scientists call the second law of thermodynamics).

Anti-ID Folks (Pixy Misa, Hale Adams?):

I'm not convinced you understand it, either.

People are often confused about this business of entropy and the second law, especially the bit about the difference between isolated and closed and open systems and exactly how the second law works. Most scientists understand that the entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. Some are fuzzy on the closed vs isolated nomenclature. Some wrongly extrapolate from their professor's comments that the second law does not apply to open systems. (Usually what professors mean by this is "Don't ask me about open systems, I want you to grasp the statement about isolated systems!")

But in fact the general form of the second law, the form that applies to open systems with matter and energy flows, is the most revealing. In a nutshell, the total entropy of an open system can change in three ways: (1) entropy can be generated (but not destroyed) within the system, (2) entropy can be convected into or out of the system, at a rate equal to the mass flow rate times the specific entropy, and (3) entropy can be conducted into or out of the system, at a rate equal to the heat transfer rate divided by the absolute temperature. The statement of the second law for open systems is simply that the sum of these rates has to be non-negative. (This "stream" version of the second law is absolutely fundamental to the design of, e.g., gas turbines. Consult any undergraduate engineering thermodynamics textbook for a chapter-long explanation.)

Of course, the relevance to the situation of evolution and life on Earth is that while the sun supplies a huge number of relatively high-energy photons, the Earth radiates vastly larger numbers of lower-energy photons, more or less in energy equilibrium. In the net, a huge amount of entropy is _convected_out_of_ the open Earth system. (The details of this calculation are not hard; if you can't do it, ask a first-year physics grad student.) At the organism level, we consume low-entropy food while excreting and giving off heat. Again, we're generating entropy all the time.

There is no mystery here, and there is no salvation for creationists here, either.

Which brings up another canard: "Complexity" (aka "the argument for design from information"). Creationists like to argue that systems cannot spontaneously grow more complex with time. Despite numerous counterexamples, this misconception is still repeated and always pops up in discussions like this one. Obviously, from the discussion above, the total entropy of an open system can always decrease if entropy is conducted or convected out of the system. And here's the kicker: any hypothetical thermodynamic variable that never decreases with time for an isolated system has to be proportional (well, okay, affinely related) to the thermodynamic entropy. So "decomplexity" (the negative of complexity?), set forth axiomatically by creationists as something that never spontaneously decreases, is either (A) mathematically equivalent to entropy, or (ii) something that actually _can_ decrease spontaneously. But this erroneous meme will not die here, either, in all probability.

More later,
BBB

Posted by bbbeard at December 31, 2004 02:18 AM

OK, BikerDude, let's simplify things just a tad as I see you've been impaled on some of my details. Evolutionary theory says that we have random mutation, natural selection, and speciation in an orderly, step-by-step fashion governed by a completely regular set of natural laws.

Intelligent design says there may be some of that fancy evolutionary stuff but it's just window dressing because the real motive force behind all forms of life is a supernatural power that just up and pops a miracle every now and then, such as a bacterial flagellum, an eyeball, or I don't know, maybe a televangelist or something. These miracles are called "irreducible complexities" because the term "miracle" has been banished from science education by the courts.

We know nothing about when and how (we can forget about why, since it's not a scientific concern as you correctly point out) so intelligent design has no utility at all for predicting events in the natural world. While evolution might predict certain forms of adaptation are going to occur, ID says any form of adaptation can occur in any place at any time - it's all up to the supernatural designer, who may be God, an alien intelligence, or a Giant Pink Bunny. So ID has no value as a scientific notion: it explains nothing and it predicts nothing.

You're all upset that evolution explains things within our experience, such as mutation, adaptation, and hybridization. You shouldn't be, as the construction of theory around human experience is the very essence of science. Science differs from "common sense" only insofar as it enables us to test its predictions, assumptions, and bases and to extend our experience by inference.

Most scientific theory originates as common sense, but not all common sense is sound scientific theory. It used to be common sense, for example, to believe that black people were sub-human, but science has shown that not to be the case, which has caused common sense to evolve and advance.

ID is an insult to God as much as it's an insult to science because God gave us science the better to understand the world we live in. God didn't give humans a rational mind because he wanted us to live forever shrouded in ignorance and superstition. We are never closer to the Almighty than when we cast the light of reason upon his creation and understand the perfection of his laws.

Miracles are mere parlor tricks that have no place in science and none in religion, really, as no self-respecting divinity would resort to such self-indulgence to show the brilliance of his creation to itself. God, in other words, is not a moron.

And I daresay pine is more plentiful in American joinery than cherry, although I'm all for the exotics myself.

Posted by Richard Bennett at December 31, 2004 03:23 AM

BikerDad,

Can I think of an example of where evolutionary theory would make a superior prediction, and a more useful one, than intelligent design theory?

Well, I'm not sure what version of ID you mean but I would suggest this: Evolutionary theory would suggest that just about any antibiotic will eventually lose its effectiveness because bacteria will evolve resistence to it. Intelligent design might say that there is not enough variation and not enough ways of generating variation to make this possible.

People who believe in ID sometimes say that they believe in "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution." It is possible, they say, to take a wolf and eventually turn its descendents into St. Bernards and chihuahuas. But it is not possible to take some small 4-legged creature and turn its descendents into dogs and cats.

But that's not part of what some people mean by ID. All they mean is that going from non-life to life seems extraordinarily difficult and there's no good scientific theory how it happened, so assuming an intelligent designer is as good a suppostion as any. An IDer could believe this happened 3 billion years ago and that materialistic evolution has taken it from there. That in fact, materialistic evolution is all that has happened for the last 3 billion years.

What do you think?

Posted by at December 31, 2004 09:58 AM

Oops, forgot to fill in the name and email fields above. Sorry.

Posted by Roger Sweeny at December 31, 2004 09:59 AM

This has gotten far too big for me to follow, so I'm going to take off. Have fun.

Posted by Greg D at December 31, 2004 02:48 PM

Okay, minor correction:

I said,

"...the total entropy of an open system can change in three ways: (1) entropy can be generated (but not destroyed) within the system, (2) entropy can be convected into or out of the system, at a rate equal to the mass flow rate times the specific entropy, and (3) entropy can be conducted into or out of the system, at a rate equal to the heat transfer rate divided by the absolute temperature. The statement of the second law for open systems is simply that the sum of these rates has to be non-negative."

Actually, if we include the entropy generated within the system, the rates sum to zero. If we add up just (2) and (3) we get something that is non-negative.

Sorry for the slip of the pen....
BBB

Posted by bbbeard at December 31, 2004 04:06 PM

BikerDad,

I've been thinking more about your question of what different predictions evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory would make. Again, it would depend on what version of ID you are talking about, but let's say it's the one that says, "in the recent past (say six or seven thousand years ago), an intelligent designer created life pretty much as we know it today. That way we don't have to worry about how you could get complex structures like the eye. The intelligent designer designed it."

What would that ID theory predict? I'm pretty sure it would say that light would come into the eye and strike light sensors located on the inside of the retina. Nerve cells located behind them (on the outside closer to the brain) would then send information to the brain. It would certainly not predict that the nerve cells would be on the inside of the retina and that light would have to pass through them to be registered. That would certainly be an inelegant design. And it would require that at some point the nerve cells tunnel through the retina to get to the brain.

But that's exactly the way the human eye is (the tunnelling even creates a small blind spot).

Evolutionary theory would not specifically predict this but it would not be surprised by it either. Since it describes a hit or miss process with substantial elements of randomness, it expects a lot of inelegance, a lot of remnants of history. According to evolutionary theory, each generation starts with what history has left it. It can't begin anew.

Two-legged creatures and four-legged creatures have considerably different loads and stresses. "Rrecent" intelligent design theory would predict that the designer would design them significantly differently. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, would say that if the two-legged creature recently evolved from a four-legged creature, it would be stuck with the four-legged creature's basic body plan. It would be a four-legged creature with modifications.

The human body plan is basically the same as four-legged animals (at the very least, it does not have the significant differences that would be required by efficient design theory). One reason for the many back problems people have.

Intelligent design and evolutionary theory both predict that living creatures will share a lot of similarities. But recent ID theory predicts that the designer would only do this where it "makes sense," where it makes for a good design. Evolutionary theory says there have to be similarities because all life is related by descent. So a lot of similarities will be things that are inelegant and inefficient, that living things are stuck with because of history.

It's a little like the difference between Windows ME and Linux.

Posted by Roger Sweeny at January 1, 2005 09:15 AM

The true debate on this subject is not one between evolution and ID. Evolution is a science, and as such makes testable predictions. Evolution has not been falsified. ID, if anything, it not a science per se. Rather it is an attempt at a falsification of SOME of the particular claims of evolutionary biologists. IOW, the real debate here is between *naturalism* and ID. And the fact is that naturalism is not science, makes no testable predictions, and cannot be falsified. Yet many proponents of evolution also push the idea that naturalism is true as part of the theory of evolution. But this is faulty reasoning.

Evolution, in a nutshell, tells us only that mutation leads to diversity and that some portion of a diverse population will pass on their DNA to the next generation through a higher reproductive potential (of the 'fittest'). Over long periods of time, sufficient differences can emerge among individuals with common origins...different enough that we would classify them as different species. So, speciation can arise from non-intelligent procedures. Evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis, nor has it even scratched the surface for suggesting the specific sequence of chemical operations necessary to form every apparatus in a living thing.

ID raises an important question about all this, one that should not be casually dismissed by the misinformed observer. Is it possible that every part of every living thing (including abiogenesis) can happen strictly by accidents of nature? There are several possible answers, NONE of which are testable right now:

1. Many atheists will say 'yes' its possible. And they will often resort to tautological reasoning: "we know its possible because we are here".

2.IDists will say 'no'. But they have no clear evidence for that assertion. To be fair, however, its worth noting that science does not know how (say) abiogenesis could have happened. Moreover, science admits that even it were possible, it is stupendously unlikely.

3. You could remain neutral, and claim that for now the question cannot be satisfactorily answered. THIS IS THE MOST VALID POV scientifically speaking.

As a physics educator, I am often disturbed at some of the claims and assumptions forwarded by (usually) evolutionary biologists on the basis of almost no data at all. Naturalism is precisely that: an assumption.

Suppose a volcano exploded and the rocks landed to spell out 'do unto others as you would have others would do unto you'. Of course, this is NOT IMPOSSIBLE according to the laws of nature. It is, on the other hand, fantastically unlikely. It would be reasonable to suggest that some hidden, english speaking intelligence might have played a role in this event, even though we did not observe this directly. And if there are too many variables to track, it could be that we might never have the answer. But it would be short sighted and unsupportable to suggest that we all accept that 'it happened by accident' merely because (a) it is not impossible and (b) we don't have a better explanation. And yet that is precisely what many atheists would like us to do with naturalism. Of course, compared to abiogenesis and the tremendous rise in the complexity of biological systems since, such an exploding volcano is child's play.

Moreover, from a strict philosophical standpoint naturalism is fraught with pitfalls. It casts a disturbing shadow of doubt on human reasoning what we understand as the rules of logic. If naturalism is true, then human reason and perception itself was produced only by accident, not because it was true or valid...but because of the weather. As such, it cannot be trusted to show anything else to be true.

If people want to believe that life happens by accident then they can feel free. But lets not imagine its any less valid to believe that it does not happen by accident. Science has nothing to say about it for now...and its entirely possible that we might never be able to settle the question adequately. So the most supportable position is to be agnostic on this question. Lets not pretend that naturalism enjoys any more scientific support than ID.

Cheers,

Mike Flynn

Posted by Mike Flynn at January 24, 2005 11:42 AM

The word 'science' is a red herring in and of itself.

Posted by Dave Johnston at January 29, 2005 06:19 PM

Scientific theory merely explains the facts of nature and its inner workings. Whether anyone thinks it is a giant coincidence of the hand of god, is up to that particular person.

Science and the interpretation of its origins are 2 separate issues. School can teach evolutionism and the parents can explain it as they see fit for their kids. What is so difficult?

Posted by Fengpost at January 31, 2005 10:38 PM

How is evolution disprovable?
You see, true unique ocurrences can not be disproved they are either observed or validly deduced from what can be observed.
But if Simburg characterization of the limits of scientific theory is correct, (and I believe it is) then it follows that concerning the question of origins (a unique non-repeatable ocurrence) ID is as unscientific as evolution in that if true neither of them is disprovable.

Posted by Erasmo Rodriguez at August 10, 2005 03:37 AM

Post a comment