Intelligent Design and Peer Review

Discovery Institute ^ | November 1, 2003 | William A. Dembski

[RightWingNilla]

The Vitamin C example simply begs ID proponents to answer the following:

Why would an intelligent designer not only put broken genes in the design, but put the same exact broken gene in closely related species?

[PatrickHenry]

I think you're setting up a straw man here. The "basic premise" of ID is not that "biological structure X could not possibly have evolved by any natural means."

Well then, maybe I don't understand it. But to me, unless ID can demonstrate the designer himself, they simply have no case -- unless they can show that: "biological structure X could not possibly have evolved by any natural means." If they can't do that (it's my understanding that they haven't done it yet), all they have is some interesting biological topics for investigation. A list of grad-school research projects, perhaps, but that's all.

Are you saying that intelligence, sensitive response, self-organizing behavior are "unnatural" in biology?

No.

Intelligence may be "supernatural" in one particular sense; however, that's the one and only sense of the word -- the metaphysical sense -- that science cannot get at. It must stick to the empirical; and it has plenty of observable "small-i" instances of biological intelligence to keep it busy.

I agree. Somewhat. This is probably a bad usage of "supernatural." Immaterial maybe.

[RightWingNilla]

All we can do is follow the empirical trail and see where it leads.

The empirical evidence from the human genome sequence, for example, strongly implies a lack of design. Most things seem randomly jumbled together at the molecular level.

[VadeRetro]

He's got those awesome placemarkers. You have a lot of catching up to do Vade.

I've used the all-time killer signature graphic maybe twice in my FR career. One thread got deleted and the other is in the Smokey Backroom.

[PatrickHenry]

PatrickHenry remains aloof ...

[Doctor Stochastic]

Do you think you will ever get that promotion from loof to lert?

[betty boop]

Most things seem randomly jumbled together at the molecular level.

Seem would seem to be the operative word, RightWingNilla.

Question: When we say that something is "random," what does that mean? Does it mean that that's what things really are as they are in themselves? Or could it mean that something is going on that we don't understand? And if we did understand it, we'd have a theory, maybe even a law?

[betty boop]

Well then, maybe I don't understand it. But to me, unless ID can demonstrate the designer himself, they simply have no case

You don't need to produce a designer, PH, to make the empirical observation that nature displays characteristics of design. It is science's job to investigate such matters -- empirical ones, that is. Metaphysics has no place in science.

[Markofhumanfeet]

. I'm sorry, but you did not come into this world speaking a language or believing a religion. Everything you know, etc.

Actually, I did.

[CobaltBlue]

Scientists investigate all kinds of things. For example, yesterday I mentioned similarities between DNA and fractals - both are proportioned according to PHI, the Golden Proportion, the Fibonacci sequence.

Coincidence or message?

How would we know?

[spunkets]

"When we say that something is "random," what does that mean?"

Random refers to the outcomes of a process, or interaction. It's the variables that can have the property of following a random probability distribution. If the process involves interaction with more, or less many different entities of varying effect, such as reactivity, the encounter can be random, but the actual effect of the encounter depends on the properties of what is encountered.

[RightWingNilla]

When we say that something is "random," what does that mean?

Random as in we can identify taletale signs within the human genome of events that occurred in our evolutionary history that correspond exactly to what we know about how mutations occur without any human intervention. Duplications, fusions, deletions etc.

The data does not (so far) in any way suggest intelligence was used in the "design" of the human genome.

The only way the ID "hypothesis" works is to massage the definition of these words to the point where they have no meaning.

[js1138]

You don't need to produce a designer, PH, to make the empirical observation that nature displays characteristics of design. It is science's job to investigate such matters -- empirical ones, that is.

It's the job of science to resist hypothesizing unnecessary entities. Simply having no current explanation for a phenomenon is not a reason for assuming a designer. No brick walls are in sight.

[webstersII]

"Sometimes a mutation is just a mutation. "

Yes, but in this case there is a reason for this particular mutation not to be favored. Obviously the specimens with proper ascorbic acid synthesis will be hardier than those without.

There would have to be a co-factor involved, such as an abundance of reachable fruit with a high vit. C content which was increasingly available to the population over time. Otherwise the population with the ability to synthsize ascorbic acid would most likely survive better, produce hardier offspring, etc.

[webstersII]

"Beneficial is a subjective term. Does this mutation cause the human species to breed less? This mutation is
a loss of function but doesn't impact the fecundity of human species, which is the only thing that natural
selection cares about. "

I disagree with your point here. This mutation would cause the human species to breed less and survival would be severely impacted unless there was an ample supply of vit. C in their diet.

[metacognative]

You must be a True Believer, Global Warming is highly disputed. See "Skeptical Env'ist"

[betty boop]

...we are left to wonder what to make of an ostensibly "scientific" theory that a priori asserts the existence of a designer simply by use of the term "design".

There is no a priori assertion here. ID does not make claims about the designer. You are making a logical assumption: that where there is design, there has to be a designer.

Reminds me of the story of the little kid on Christmas morning, who (seeing a pile of horse manure under the Christmas tree) says, "Gee! There's got to be a pony around here someplace!" Of course, it is possible the horse manure was a cynical "Christmas present" from a malicious person....

You seem to want to force an argument about semantics. But at the end of the day, the assumption of a designer is not one that science, per se, needs to accept or dwell on to do its job. Science can study design perfectly well without studying the putative designer.

Would you feel better if we didn't call it design, but something else? Like maybe, "natural symmetry," "natural geometry," or "universal patterning?"

None of these is particularly good, however; for none captures the idea of purposiveness in nature. Biological organisms act as if they're purposeful. Maybe you could come up with a better term than "design" -- something a lot more "neutral."

I wasn't imputing motives to you in the absence of any evidence. What evidence I had before me, you put there. I had to try to make some sense of it. Because I didn't consider the evidence dispositive, I said "perhaps" -- as in "perhaps the observation applies in your case, perhaps it doesn't."

You wrote: "Is it not the case, then, that a theory that makes assertions about the nature of the designer - e.g., whether or not a designer has the attribute of existence - is, by its very nature, non-scientific?"

Sure. But the designer is not the issue for science. So questions of existence or non-existence of a putative, extra-cosmic designer are irrelevant. It is you, not I, who wants to drag the Designer in here. I myself would be quite content just to stick to the empirical.

As Alamo-Girl has already pointed out, there's nothing in ID that says "designer" refers to only one specific creative intelligence.

I think any putative scientific theory is non-scientific if it is predicated exclusively on a metaphysical notion. May I point out that such things as materialism, random walk, determinism, natural selection are examples of metaphysical notions?

[whattajoke]

When one approaches apparent randomness with the intent to show design, one can come up with all sorts of "explanations."

Think The Bible Code. Think Nostradamus. Think James Van Pragh. Think James Edward. Think Revelation. Think ID.

All of these things glean their "hits" (in a vast sea of misses) by manipulating data to fit their pre-ordained notions. It's been shown that we can all manipulate the so-called Bible Code to "prophesize" (in reverse, ironically) whatever we wish for our own lives. how many lines of Nostradamus and Revelation have been said to say different things, in different decades? The "speak to the dead" crew do the same thing; throw out "random" guesses, if something sticks, go with it. (though they, of course, skew their guesses to be at least educated).

Nature is no different. It is what it is, nothing more and ID tries to subvert it's apparent patterns to see what it wants to see: Intelligent Design. They can even make a decent case for it, if they know what they're doing, but in the end it has so far failed quite badly.

I guess, in the end, fallible humans are fallible, and no one will disagree with that.

[VadeRetro]

You'll be number two before I'm through, Loof-boy!

[Heartlander]

Again, you still fail to realize that now the State Board of Education in Ohio agreed to allow local districts to bring critical analysis of Darwin's ideas into classrooms. The State Board of Education in Ohio does not think that Vade is the source of knowledge and judgment. You know what, I agree with them!

I personally don't think President Bush is all that uneducated or stupid. He mangles his diction once in a while, but he's a bright guy with an Ivy League education who probably knows BS when he sees it. Not that it matters with regard to what's BS and what isn't. Whether or not he knows it when he sees it, I do.

Look, you miss the point. You throw around this creationist label with venom at those who see problems with neo-darwinism. Now, if I (or anyone) posted:

"On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth."

1. I would be asked, “Which God?”
(Which, ironically, is allowed to be asked in regard to this type of statement but on the other hand when ID is mentioned it is claimed to imply only one God?)

B. I would be told, “God does not belong in science.”

III. I would be called, “Creationist.” (and all that it implies)

So let me get this straight… Is this statement now OK when addressing education?

I agree with the statement. Does this somehow make ‘me’ “uneducated or stupid”?