Intelligent Design and Peer Review

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

[Nebullis]

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.

Judging from a world population of about 6 billion, it seems that the human species manages very well with the mutation.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the heads up to your post, js1138! In the reply, Tribune7 said:

If those claiming this stipulated the existence of a creator a whole lot of hostility and suspicion would go away.

I agree with that statement.

At the moment, because of the way we "do" science (scientific materialism) --- the theory of evolution is used as intellectual authentication by the politically active metaphysical naturalists (atheists) - to promote their agenda which includes such things as bizarre animal rights, infanticide, euthenasia, etc.

This gives the left wing a wrongful political advantage which could perhaps be cured by strong protests to the effect that science does not speak to metaphysics at all and thus no more authenticates atheism than theism.

Scientists do frequently issue such protests - but they are one-sided against theists using science for authentication. I do not recall any such protests against the atheists' misuse.

Back to your original statement, js1138:

Science doesn't pretend to argue about ultimate causes, but it does attempt to analyze currently effective causes. The research program that would support ID is indistinguishable from one that would support evolution. There would be no difference in the materials or methods of research. ID proponents might choose different topics on which to spend research dollars, but they would have to have the same goal.

I agree! As long as ID makes itself an adversary to the explanatory framework of evolution it will make little progress in science though it may have great success in the school boards and such.

Simply put, evolution theory is only a framework and thus any assertion of impossibility can be rationalized to the contrary post hoc within the framework.

IMHO, rather than taking an adversarial position to such a moving target, ID would be more effective supporting the research within conventional science which disputes either of the two primary pillars of evolution theory: random mutation and natural selection - or which looks for answers to the questions not addressed directly by the theory: What is Life?, What is Consciousness?, etc.

It is not difficult to find such research within conventional science: lower (or non) mutability of regulatory control genes, self-organizing complexity, symbolizations, autonomy, biological information content, physics of the mind, etc.

[Alamo-Girl]

You did great! It was very clear to me! Hugs!!!

[RadioAstronomer]

:-)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

I would never say that science has reached an unknowable. Whatever lies beyond the present day frontier is simply unknown.

I would rather science take that approach, but sadly there is a tendency to dead-end the search by appealing to the anthropic principle. For Lurkers, Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees

[js1138]

I don't know what to say about your post without simply repeating or paraphrasing it. There is only one kind of science, although politics plays a role in how the money gets spent and what the research priorities will be. I have challenged ID proponents on these threads to propose an alternate research program. What specifically would you study if you had the resourses.

In my opinion, although there is always waste, research money generally goes to projects that have some hope of generating new data. This data is not often exciting or earth shaking, but it accumulates. If ID proponents want a share of the money, they need to propose projects that will generate data. Scientists often don't know where the data will lead, so there is no point in mentioning agendas up front.

Now in regard to science using itself as a generator of moral values, this is tricky. Scientists may believe that their habitual commitment to rationality places them above mere laymen in the discussion of morality, but I think not. Science can and does comment on the consequenses of actions, but some scientists tend to overstate their ability to forecast the future, and they tend to conflate utility with morality.

This is not, strictly speaking, on topic, but Didn't Howard "Dixie" Dean just say that the Confederate banner was a racist symbol, but the democrats had a big tent? There really is something strange about some supposedly educated people, but I don't think the strangeness is caused by science.

[general_re]

Just to add to your excellent points, a couple more points. We have no other concrete examples of a design from which attributes of the designer cannot be inferred.

Indeed. And if we approach the problem from the other end, I would suggest that it's not at all clear that we can infer design without first knowing something about the putative designer. The only things that we really know are designed are those things that are the product of conscious human activity. In fact, we're intuitively familiar with human activities, such that very few people have any trouble at all sorting even unfamiliar objects into "natural" and "man-made" categories. But the reason we're able to do that is because we infer man-made status based on what we already know about other man-made objects and what we already know about the sorts of things humans do.

But we don't know what putative life-designers are like - certainly not in the same way that we know about human manufactures and human activities. In fact, we are told that we musn't speculate about such life-designers, because such speculation is inherently non-scientific. And I think people tend to fall into a sort of false analogy - because we can usually readily spot human-designed objects, the belief is that we can readily spot non-human designed objects. But that completely ignores the fact that we have information in the first case that we don't have in the second case, and it's that information that lets us do what we do in the first case. We aren't able to sort things into man-made versus natural objects because we have some inherent facility for doing so - sorting objects like that is a learned behavior, perfected by gathering information about things known to be designed, and about the sorts of things that designers are known to do.

And this is information that we don't have in the case of living things. We don't have any living things that are known to be non-human-designed, for comparative purposes, nor do we really know anything about the designer, such that we can spot the hallmarks of his/her/its/their handiwork. Which, to conclude and summarize, leads us to the base problem in spotting "intelligently designed" structures - in claiming that we can spot evidence of non-human design, we are behaving as though we have information that we do not, in fact, actually have, and thereby unconsciously misapplying a process that, in order to be useful, requires the information that we don't have.

[Markofhumanfeet]

Well that quote from Gamaliel is biblical and it concerns Christianity, nothing else. The practice of paganism and even Baal worship, Satanism, has never ceased, and indeed is spreading even today, yet that is not from God. One needs spiritual discernment in these matters.

As you said, there is only one Truth. Bible believers hold fast to the revealed word of God and choose to err, if they do err, which we hold that we cannot, on the side of the revealed word. To excoriate the fundamentalist believer and make him the subject of mockery when he will, indeed must, hold his Lord and Savior in reverance above all the thoughts and works of mankind, is the work of the Evildoer at the worst, and a deleterious and destructive intolerance at best.

[webstersII]

"It only reduces the viability if there is inadequate ascorbic acid in the diet. "

That was my point.

[Tribune7]

What is there to stipulate?

The existence of a creator. Science is not going to stipulate to any specific attributes of a creator.

Wasn't asking it to.

Nor any attributes that conflict with evidence, such as a 6000 year old earth or a recent global flood.

Wasn't asking for that either.

So what exactly are "they" supposed to accept, prior to demonstration?

You don't want to flat out say that God exists and those who say otherwise are cranks?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your excellent post!

In my opinion, although there is always waste, research money generally goes to projects that have some hope of generating new data. This data is not often exciting or earth shaking, but it accumulates. If ID proponents want a share of the money, they need to propose projects that will generate data. Scientists often don't know where the data will lead, so there is no point in mentioning agendas up front.

I agree! No doubt there are many applicants who hope the resulting data will support their worldview - but if it is not mentioned, it can make no difference.

There really is something strange about some supposedly educated people, but I don't think the strangeness is caused by science.

Indeed. And if I were to guess, I would say that the ratio of strangeness to the whole population is probably pretty close to other areas, such as philosophy, theology, political science, archeology, etc.

IMHO, the problem is that scientists who are strange are more persuasive because of the strength of their credentials and their ability to talk over many people's heads.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply and for sharing your views!

One needs spiritual discernment in these matters.

Very true, and I would extend your statement to include all matters.

[js1138]

You don't want to flat out say that God exists and those who say otherwise are cranks?

I am personally of the opinion that those who argue against the evidence for an old earth are wrong, and that those who argue against common descent are probably wrong and certainly against the prevailing evidence.

Getting down to the sticky business, I do believe there are religious cranks. In that category I would put people who think God condemns people to hell for incorrect beliefs, and those who think that curiosity and skepticism are sinful.

I do not pretend to know the full and exact nature of God, or how God might or might or might not act in the world. I think people who do claim to have this knowledge are foolish.

I am not trying to avoid your question. I just don't understand it. If You think it is essential to assert the existence of an entity, but not essential to assert attributes for the entity, I don't understand your point.

[whattajoke]

who was it last year who did that "Design Test?" I remember a picture was posted and then it was discussed whether it could be determined if it was designed or "random." snowflakes, basketballs, mt rushmore, etc.

That was a good thread.

[Doctor Stochastic]

IMHO, the problem is that scientists who are strange are more persuasive because of the strength of their credentials and their ability to talk over many people's heads.

Only when the press falls for "newsworthy" items rather than scientific. This is one of the points of peer review; one weeds out weirdness by requiring scientific publications to be more clearly written. (It's often hard enough to get the points across without heaping coals of weirdness and poor writing on top.)

[Shryke]

Hate to be an ass-kisser, but that was one of the best posts I've read concerning ID.

[Last Visible Dog]

What permeates these debates is the poverty of the creation/ID apologists. A poverty of evidence. A poverty of logic. But they make it up in stupid debating tricks. Funny that you didn't offer to do the turnaround trick on post #88.

The Orthodox Darwinists seem to be far more arrogant in their ignorance - but you are correct - the double edge sword of debate slogans always cuts both ways.

I don't pick sides in this debate - I just fight for open-mindedness (something in short supply in these types of debates).

[whattajoke]

Vade,

LVD comes from the school of thought that "evolution" has much further reaching implications than just biology. His stance has been debated, but it has also been well stated (by him).

When discussing matters with him, you either have to go with his flow, or, as he says, approach the debate with an open mind. I think I came to the conclusion before that (IMO) his mind is unnaturally and unrealistically open.

That's not a bust on you, LVD, just giving Vade a heads up as to where you're coming from, that's all.

And yes, I'll admit, my mind is not as "open" as yours... and I'll spare you the "brain falling out" cliche.

[Last Visible Dog]

The one thing you can't dress up is that an utterly unspecified designer who is probably God could have left things in any state whatever. Postulating such a designer tells you nothing at all about what you may or may not expect to find. ID has nothing to teach us about the way the world works. But then ID-ers aren't very curious about how the world works. They know all that stuff, so what needs studying? It was designed, then it was created.

The first half of this statement is right-on and the last bit is more bigoted nonsense "mine's bigger" debate tactics. When one side tries tell us what the other side "really" thinks by claiming they all "think alike" rest assured you are now swimming the falsely warm waters of bigotry.

You are better off explaining the strength of your position rather than pretending you can read the minds of the people that do not agree with you.

[js1138]

I happen to think the evolution paradigm is usefull across a broad spectrum of processes. For the moment I'll limit it to living processes -- learning, culture, invention, market economies. But I'd be curious what others think about this.

I think it's interesting that Noam Chomsky basically argued ID against evolution in the learning of language and pretty much won the field. For the moment.