I was going to comment on the post from Tom Bethell here, but Derb handles the situation well, and I'm busy as hell, what with NASA releasing their final CFI for CEV today (I'm working with one of the major subcontractors for one of the bidders on the proposal), which I have to read, pronto. Not being a conservative, I don't really have a dog in that particular fight, but I do find it amazing that so many people who call themselves conservatives are so profoundly anti-science, even if they don't realize it. It's certainly not a classical liberal (which is probably the best description of me) position.

But actually, I guess I do have a few more thoughts, or expansions on Derb's thoughts, regarding the flawed logic in the argument of the blind watchmaker.

William Paley's flawed argument has been refuted over and over again, and yet Tom Bethell repeats it. Here it is:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there.

There are significant differences between watches and living creatures, that render this argument specious. If one examined a living creature, one would first discover that it is, in fact, living, and not a mechanical artifact that would wind down after time and cease to work, unless one wound it again, at which point it would be resurrected. The living creature reproduces, and its offspring, while resembling it, are not exact replicas. The watch would not reproduce, no matter in how much proximity one brought it to other watches, of whatever watch gender (if such a thing even existed and could be determined by examination). In other words, unlike the living organism, there are no obvious mechanisms by which a watch could possibly have descendants that were different from, and perhaps improved over, itself.

And there is a ready explanation for the watch that requires no invocation of supernatural powers--simply put, watchmakers exist. They are real, material beings, whose existence no serious rational person doubts, for whom the evidence of existence is in fact indisputable from a scientifically objective viewpoint, from whom one can procure watchmaking and watch repairing services.

Life in general, on the other hand, appeared long before man. Even biblical literalists admit to this--man (and woman) weren't created until the sixth day, after all the other beasts, over which they would have dominion.

The same argument applies to Tom Bethell's archeological artifact. The most natural explanation for an archeological artifact is that it was created by a human, because that is, as Derb points out, one of the fundamental precepts of archeology.

But that doesn't satisfy when explaining life, because in order to postulate life as designed, one must postulate a designer. In the case of the watch, it's easy--people done it, and there are plenty of people around to blame it on, and no one disputes the existence of people. Their existence is scientifically, indisputably provable.

But who is the designer for those things that came before people? If Behe et al want to pretend they're talking about space aliens, to avoid the issue of bringing religion into the classroom, then they have to also confess that they're only delaying the problem, because who then designed the space aliens?

It's not possible, ultimately, to talk about "intelligent design" without talking about a god of some kind, and once one does that, one leaves the realm of science which, like it or not, is the realm of materialism. Humans, being a form of life, are material beings themselves, capable of designing things, so artifacts requiring designers that were designed after humans came along are readily explained. The mystery is how life came to its diversity in the absence of humans, since humans came to the show pretty late. And once we resort to designers, we end our scientific inquiries, and simply yield to the same ignorance we had before the enlightenment.

The IDers (and creationists) may be right, but they're not being scientific. My predilection remains with the people who have given us the knowledge and technology that allow me to live a long, comfortable and healthy life, relative to the nasty, brutish and short one that prevailed prior to the scientific method.

I hope this doesn't spook you, Rand, but on this subject I agree with you 100%

= = =

Now, I am a theist (although some fundies would dispute that assertion) but I do not believe God interferes with physics or biology in real time.

What God (if any) may have done pre-Big Bang concerning stuff like cosmological constants falls outside Science and therefore can only be honestly discussed (IMHO) by saying "The heck if I know"

...on this subject I agree with you 100%

Sorry, Bill, you're not going to get me to change my mind that easily. ;-)

I think you may have had a slip of the keyboard here:

"In other words, unlike the living organism, there are no obvious mechanisms by which a watch could possibly have ancestors that were different, and perhaps improved, over itself."

It makes more sense to replace ancestors with descendants, doesn't it?

I guess I fall in the wierd category then. I'm a conservative, but when it comes to religion I'm much more liberal. I have to go with Bill...God sets off the Big Bang and sits back with a bowl of popcorn and a Coke....cosmic sized of course.

I think we can have an interesting discussion about being a race designed by space aliens (or a local and intelligent, evolved or designed race) without resorting to non-science. The first watchmakers either had to be created by non-science or evolve from non-watchmakers, but that does not have much relevance to our creation or evolution, only our philosophy.

If you start with the hypothesis that our biome is some kind of robotic colonization experiment, you don't find too many contradictions. Digital, solar, electronic links that work under severe interference conditions, survival in many temperatures and atmospheric conditions, ability to eat lots of stuff are all things that a designer would find useful. The main item we appear to have need of the owner's manual for is to use the sterile washer fluid to wash up after going to the bathroom.

On the other hand, you don't find too many testable implications of ID except perhaps a serial number (or literary divine wisdom if you prefer) in our DNA.

If time travel to the past is possible, then our descendants could be our designers. We may not be far from having the language and the writing equipment to scribe the language of biological creation. Again, not much in the way of testable implications.

How many times in the past have we mastered this art, become Eloi, and forgotten it?

Maybe this is setting myself up for ridicule but I'd really like to know...

1. Wasn't an ID paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal last year (I'm thinking Washington state)? There was some controversy, but was it politically motivated? What specifically did the paper address?

2. What about Dembski's assertion that ID can be somehow tested using Information Theory? I'm aware he's made some arguments but hasn't actually *done* it. Is there a realistic chance he's on to something? He apparently thinks randomness can be shown as statisically impossible in a given time frame (the Pre-Cambrian Explosion specifically).

Philosophically, ID makes sense to me but I'm under no illusion that it's a legitimate theory yet. My formal scientific training is limited to whatever I could get as a lowly Liberal Arts major. So be kind, I'm self-educating here...

The oddly amusing aspect of the argument is nothing is considered a science unless it can be defined, proved/disproved, and repeated. Is that right?

So, up until Newton got hit on the head by the apple...gravity was magic, until Newton defined it, proved it, and repeated it. So, the ID'ers (pun intended) 'philosophy' will remain so until someone can adequately define it, prove/disprove it, and repeat...and then, like magic, it'll be a science.

Just a tongue in cheek thought. ;-)

Intelligent Design by space aliens would merely push back the level of analysis. Didn't Star Trek Next Generation end with a story about an old race that seeded the Galaxy with humanoid, DNA based species?

That's how Spock could be half-human and half Vulcan.

Anyway, even if that scenario is proven true, it doesn't change the underlying question - - where did that ancient species come from.

= = =

Panspermia or an ancient race of DNA-based Johnny Appleseeds would kinda demolish the fundie world view, now wouldn't it?

The oddly amusing aspect of the argument is nothing is considered a science unless it can be defined, proved/disproved, and repeated. Is that right?

Well, almost right. No scientific theory can ever be proved--it can only be disproved.

So, up until Newton got hit on the head by the apple...gravity was magic, until Newton defined it, proved it, and repeated it.

That's right. Newton literally invented gravity (which is, in the parlance of those opposed to evolution, "only a theory").

Larry Niven's novel Protector is one of my favorites and is premised on an alien origin for humanity.

Panspermia or an ancient race of DNA-based Johnny Appleseeds would kinda demolish the fundie world view, now wouldn't it?

There's two views of this at the moment. On the one side you've people like Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen who hold the view that even if you seed life, what evolution does with it is entirely random and therefore will not naturally lead to symetrical bipedal creatures.

On the other side is Simon Conway Morris and a bunch of other biologists who maintain that there are certain things which _work_ and that if you ran evolution anywhere you'd end up with things looking recognisable because that works.

I have to admit that I don't find the later argument all that convincing myself as it smacks of anthropomorphism and I don't like that. But other could be true. If you do an Amazon search on them you'll find recent books by them.

Jack does great talks at SF Conventions on designing aliens and has done design work for Niven and Pournelle.

Forgive me Rand, but I think you're attacking a straw man "...significant differences between watches and living creatures"

The author is trying to make a point by analogy. All analogies are flawed or they wouldn't be analogies, they'd be the thing itself.

In this case all the author is saying is that their is some quality that a watch possesses that indicates it had a designer. The analogy the author is trying to make is that life, by the author's discernment, also seems to have this same quality. This is not a scientific statement, but simply a method of persuasion that is less effective on some than on others (basically it reinforces a belief that may already be held.)

The focus is on that perhaps ill defined quality. While the conclusion may be god or not god, the argument itself has nothing to do with god. If information theory can shine a light on the question it certainly would be within the realm of science. Sorry for being a bit pedantic.

Forgive me Rand, but I think you're attacking a straw man "...significant differences between watches and living creatures"

It's not a straw man at all. The creationist, or ID argument (and really, it's the only argument they seem to have, at least without resorting to scripture) is that if one thing that looks like it has a designer has a designer, then it's reasonable to think that some other thing that appears to have a designer must have one, too. But the only thing that the two have in common is the appearance of having a designer, and the differences (which are what allow one to exist without a designer) are much more significant.

What about Dembski's assertion that ID can be somehow tested using Information Theory? I'm aware he's made some arguments but hasn't actually *done* it. Is there a realistic chance he's on to something? He apparently thinks randomness can be shown as statisically impossible in a given time frame (the Pre-Cambrian Explosion specifically).

The argument sounds kooky to me. The results of evolution by natural selection aren't random, after all -- they are the results of a kind of randomized local search channeled by at least partially deterministic (if unknown) details of the fitness landscape.

"the appearance of having a designer" might be as good a way to describe this quality as any.

For some things like watches this appearance is so solid that anyone denying it would seem an idiot. However, for other things (of which life is only one) the argument for a designer is more subtle so that people can choose to ignore some facts.

What facts? Well, hundreds of physical constants that are so finely tuned (beyond billionths) to allow life to exist at all that any scientist contemplating them that still wants to deny the existence of a creator had to come up with the multiverse. An idea which may make for great science fiction but is so absurd that it can't be talked about with a straight face in most any crowd.

Yeah, Quantum physics really ends the debate for me. That and some of those scriptures you mentioned that discuss this very issue (the 1st chapter of Romans comes to mind but there are many other places too.)

I still haven't purchased any ID books. I have taken a look at some URLS. It's easy to point to people that don't understand science and say they represent ID thinking, but I don't believe that's a fair assessment.

What facts? Well, hundreds of physical constants that are so finely tuned (beyond billionths) to allow life to exist at all that any scientist contemplating them that still wants to deny the existence of a creator had to come up with the multiverse.

That's a completely different subject than ID, Ken, and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Scientists don't ignore those facts, and have little to say about the design of the universe itself, or at least if they do, it has nothing to do with Darwin's theory.

IDers claim that life forms themselves were designed, not that the conditions of the universe were such that they were able to evolve.

I really find disingenuous strawmen like this quite irritating.

"it's reasonable to think that some other thing that appears to have a designer must have one, too." The problem is that the analogy is not the argument.

The argument is that 'the asserted mechanisms of evolution theory are incapable of producing the observed results.'

This is a falsifiable statement, ergo scientific.

The method of falsification may or may not involve information theory. It will certainly involve statistical analysis which leaves most of us at the mercy of proof by authority which is the weakest proof of all.

Actually, I think ID'ers paint themselves into a corner in that they narrow the argument too much by asserting there must be a designer. I personally think that showing that the theory is flawed is enough and people can then draw there own conclusions.

Rand, I don't mean to irritate you. It was a different argument I made which in my mind is much more profound than the one the ID'ers make.

It is scientist who have now backed themselves into the corner with 'Multiverse or Creator' dilemma because they've framed the argument in such a way that there is no third alternative. So now they generally just ignore the question (or use ridicule which often works for unprincipled mobs.)

I appreciate that you have a higher standard.