Re: I recommend this analysis of Dembski's "No Free Lunch"


Lee Bowman wrote:
On 6 Jul 2006 15:09:06 -0700, "Alexander"
<alexanderhudson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Most ID advocates don't accept the Bible literally, to wit: the
Genesis account.

So the rest of the ID community is, in fact, still religious?

By that I didn't mean that to disavow the assertion of 'total
inerrancy' negates belief in most of what it says. The problems is
not knowing what to believe and what to doubt. I, and most ID'ists
disbelieve the Genesis account of creation, as consisting of an overly
simplistic and untenable description of how it was done. Perhaps it
wasn't intended as an accurate, testable description of the process
(well, duh), but more of a statement of the creator's intent and
accomplishment.

As far as who's religious, I haven't taken a poll, but can you have it
both ways? The Bible is either 100% word for word correct, or it's
not. If you look at the various versions that have been published,
there are differences in the contemporary English wording, but not in
its overall messages.

Most if not all conservative Christian denominations (fundamentalist)
hold to the belief that if you can find *any* inconsistencies in the
written Word (a statement in on place that seemingly contradicts a
statement in another place, timeline errors, lineage errors (Mat. 1:16
contradicts Luke 3:23), etc), than it is *not* the inerrant word of
God. They therehold tightly to the principle of inerrancy. Skeptics
have attempted to discredit the Bible by pointing out the
inconsistencies.

But hold it. That, in an of itself, does NOT establish the Bible as
false, or as having been written by men who where not, in fact,
inspired by God to pen those words, or that the canonized books were
not chosen by men who were inspired to canonize those books for
inclusion, and reject other poetic, prophetic, historical, cultural
and 'spoken word' type writings. Many of the books were passed on by
oral tradition (spoken) before being transcribed. That invites errors.
Others may have suffered via translational errors. There are words
that in one language may translate into more than one word in another
language, or that may have no counterpart in the target language.
Cultural differences, and the dearth of scientific knowledge in that
age may lead to conceptual errors.

So ... in a nutshell ... ID'ers are in fact motivated by religious
views then?


Regarding Bill Dembski's religious statements, they
reflect his personal faith, and have been proffered in past essays
that were more philosophically oriented than being analytical essays.
Though a committed Christian, I've read that he's not a YEC.

Neither is Behe, or a large number of ID supporters. This doesn't
alter the fact that the main proposition behind ID is not a
theologically acceptable 'alternative' to Evolution but actual
religious propositions sanitised in order to suit a particular (US)
political agenda.

It doesn't matter which way you cut it, people support ID because they
already have a preconceived idea of what they want to 'prove'.

I think that that's more true of Darwinism, since his writings were
essentially 'canonized' by science, embraced due to the convincing and
seemingly logical arguments put forth, and the existence of some
evidence to support it (the Galápagos Islands project). The 'holes'
in the theory were believed to be provable in time, and many careers
have been invested along those lines of scientific pursuit. So in
effect, science has had a preconceived belief structure centered
around Darwinism for over 150 years, and won't let go. I can
understand their penchant, but it's not being objective.

Er ... so why not the same objection to gravity? That had holes in it
from the time Newton developed his various notions. Einstein's theroy
has 'holes' in it as well. You seem to want an absolute set of natural
laws that defy our ability to actually know or understand only a small
part of the picture at any one time.

If evolutionary theory had been falsified at any point but adherents
continued to march on regardless then you would have a point about it
being canonized. Yet those elements that Darwin stated when Origins
was published have been verified over time. One of the most striking
over the Victorian era was Darwin's insistence on a very old earth, one
millions of years old and which he knew would have to exist in order
for Evolution to even have a shot at working. The arguments between
him and Kelvin are well known and this prediction of Darwin's turned
out to be entirely accurate thanks to the discovery of radioactive
elements.

Over the past 150 years the only thing that has changed is that
Darwin's core assumptions over evolution have been shown to be correct.
The introduction of genetics and the modern synthesis has only
emphatically reinforced the principle of common descent. This is
something that even ID cannot ignore (Behe says as such in Darwin's
Black Box). So the fundamental mechanisms of Evolutionary theory are
supported even within the ID community due to the depth and range of
evidentiary support. The only question remaining is one of origins.
This has been tied to such a strong history of theological speculation
it's inevitable that resistance to the dis-establishment of cherished
traditions within religion is difficult for the theistic to come to
terms with.

ID is built from the need to 'prove' God. An anachronistic and
misguided process considering that theological concerns are derived
from strength of faith, not scientific process. I think you're
intelligent enough to understand this, but don't want to see it.


Similar to the Baptists' fear that any errors in the Bible discredit
it in toto, today's scientific academic community clings to Darwin's
basic tenet for similar reasons. Why can't science at least be open
minded regarding the case for naturalistic macroevolution? If it's
true, and can be demonstrated empirically, hooray! But it hasn't, and
I feel that it won't.

Tell that to the fossil record. If you don't want to 'believe' in
'macro' evolution then fine. You will have to come up with an adequate
explanation as to why species 'suddenly' appear in the fossil record
that doesn't resort ot 'god did it' if you want ID to be taken
seriously.

You shouldn't take any of Dembski's religious statements as being
implied doctrine of the ID movement, any more that you'd take Richard
Dawkins' atheistic proclamations, and there are many, as being
integral to the ToE.

Well no. I wouldn't take Miller's propositions, as a Catholic, that
the TOE is religious in any way either ... because he doesn't make that
claim, TOE is entirely compatible with his faith and doesn't require
'evidence' of design to make it so. He can have an entirely suitable
world view that rests neatly with his theology and yet isn't rushing
headlong to join the ID crew.

It's not hard too hard to conflate evolution with present day
Catholicism, since it isn't pushing the 'young earth' belief too hard.
Therefore, evolution has time to work. The Chicago Sun Times reported
after the Dover trial that "many religious leaders" were content with
evolutionary theory. Some have taken that to mean Darwinism, as well.
Not so, and the Vatican has emphatically stated that.

It's lucky then that we have the modern synthesis which builds on
Darwinian notions of natural selection.


So I would NOT say that Darwinism is compatible with the Catholic
faith. Scientists like Miller walk a thin rope stretched between
their faith and Darwinism.

Eh? I think you are hopelessly confused over the nature of evolution
and what is actually supported by the evidence. There is no thin rope
and Miller unequivocally supports evolution. There would only be a
thin rope if you want to assert that faith does determine whether or
not you support ID or not. Hence the various sites and forums on ID
that questioned both Miller's and Jones' committment to Christianity
after the trial. What exactly does someone's leanings faith-wise have
to do with science? It's only an issue if you believe the faith comes
first, before the science itself.


No doubt, like many theist scientists,
he ahs been routinely brainwashed and is incapable of looking at the
facts - the alternative would be to consider that ID is, in fact,
nothing more than creationism with the Emperor's New Clothes while it's
more savvy proponents search desperately for new fig leafs to preserve
what modesty the movement has left.

Although lets consider your argument a little further in order to break
down just what ID'ers consider (yea yea - I know we're not 'supposed'
to consider 'who' the designer is ... if you can answer me why that is
... why it is that only demonstrating design is important to the
exclusion of any follow up questions, please let us know) the designer
is.

It's a separate issue.

Which is never discussed within ID

If I truly had a preconceived agenda like
creationism that I was pushing, I'd likely have a preconceived idea of
who the designer is (or was). But I don't. I start with observation.
I ponder and analyze. I look for mechanisms that would lead to a
beneficial mutation toward that end. I also look at functionality,
both from a personal, and from a custodial sense (as in "why would a
creator do it this way?") I look at complexity. Does it appear
overly-complex? Could it evolve in stages, each stage having some
other (co-opted) beneficial function, (since evolution can't look
ahead)? Could I have done a better job (given the time and the tools)?

Other indicators of design are data related (DNA/RNA genomes), and the
way a protein needs to come together. Darwin knew nothing of these
things, so it was much easier for him to form his conclusions then,
than it is to support them today. But the point I'm making here, is
that design is evident in many ways if you look carefully.

You know it when you see it? Can you provide an example of a
'designed' creature and eplain how you came to that conclusion?

How it
happened is a separate issue.

Yes. One that is not discussed by the ID community

Gene tweaking by an intelligent agency
is a workable possibility. We can do that today. But genetic
sequences are extremely complex, and arbitrary tweaks caused by random
mutations makes no sense. Dark skin/ light skin, yes (survival).
Bacterrium finding an enzyme that prevents cell wall destruction, yes
(survival). Producing new complex structure in incremental stages, no.

So we're ruling out aliens here? What's left exactly?


If we suspend disbelief for a moment there are 2 principle
possibilities behind ID:

There was a 'naturalistic' designer
There was a 'supernatural' designer

Subsets of either type of designer are legion and bounded only by
imagination (as there isn't any evidence of either) so lets consider
the non-theistic option ...

<snip> (you can read this blather in the original post)

Hey, not bad .... You could be a science fiction writer!

I take my cue from better writers of sci-fi in the ID community.

The likelihood of similar physical beings doing the creating,
especially over that kind of a time period, is unlikely. Being
physical, they would have a lot of shortcomings, one being travel
between galaxies (nearest star 4 light years away). Sure, they could
have stayed here and co-existed, but again, unlikely.

So ... what are we left with then?


So ... maybe it wasn't aliens then ... or at least they look too
fiddly, the Christians get upset at that one and you still can't say
evolution is somehow 'wrong' ... and who knows what sort of dodgy
things aliens get up to after all ... they were probably staggering
around primitive earth drinking heavily, having gay sex and getting
stoned saying 'dude, where's the mutagen man ... you haven't spilled it
in the primordial ooze again have you?' - so not the kind of moral
compass we need our kids learning about in New Improved (tm) Origins
Classes with added ID for that shiny science that glosses over
inconvenient facts.

Yawn ....

Go on then - no aliens leads you to conclude what type of intervention?


Well ok - lets consider other naturalistic alternatives .... umm ....
well. OK ... so there aren't any.

<snip>

What's left ... well various gods it seems. Even then what do you have
... well -'god did it' apparently. Hurrah. That sorts everything
then doesn't it. So ... how did god do it again ... well it still
looks like we evolved over a period of time via random mutation and
natural selection.

Let's look at motive. Do you own a pet. Ever been to a pet race?
I've never seen people having as much fun cheering their doggie on to
the finish line as I have at one of those. I swear, tears of joy (and
grief) were everywhere!

If you're a parent, ever dress your kid for Halloween, watch them in a
play, see them get married, attend their funeral?

Ever had a hobby of building models? How about architectural design?
Bridge design? A custom car or boat ...

A race of 'supernatural' (substance and constructs unknown to us at
this time) beings could easily have done this place as a 'project'.
How many stars are there out there? Even if only a few have habitable
planets, think of the challenge!

So motive (possibly), opportunity (the stars), and gained benefit? Is
it a perfect world? Is the designer perfect? No, since that term,
like infinity, allows for no improvement. Arguments for flawed
design, although usually silly (inverted retina nerve bundle), may
have some validity at times. But hey, it works!

Now about wars. Ever go to a Rooster Fight? How about a boxing match
where one guy is pummeled? They say that violence in movies is a sure
box office winner. To some extent, we all get off on violence. Hate
to say it, but the worst world scenarios imaginable (tsuami) may not
have been intended, but perhaps are tolerated. It's called polarity.
Good w/o bad? Pleasure w/o pain? I think not.

If there is a creator (with a likely crew), there is an obvious
synergy in a world where life below is overseen from above (actually,
another dimension). If we as humans, currently the highest lifeform,
have any similarities to the designer, then the observed world, and
the way it functions tends to make more sense. WE do similar things
that a conjectured designer might do. We create things; then get off
on 'em. We have children, and live through them (some parents).

I'll ask YOU a question. Why would this much order, synergy,
complexity, and beauty just happen? What would be the point, even if
Macro Ev is possible? Science looks for the simplest answer (yay for
Occam!), but look at purpose and outcome; not just at mechanistic
automatons that must have done the work mindlessly.

So your answer is 'yes ... god did it'?

So much for science.


As for complexity and perceived universal 'fit' I'm going to use this
quote as it says it better than I could:

". . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an
interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself
in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly
well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful
idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as,
gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically
hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because
this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so
the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this
may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

Dawkins eulogy to Douglas Adams


Bugger ... back to square 1.


2 points to this ramble:

One is that any pretense that ID is not about faith or the attempt to
rationalise the existence of some unknown absurdly powerful unknown and
unknowable divine being is patently absurd

The real reason that ID proponents want to avoid any discussion about
the 'who' of the designer is because they know it's bloody silly.

It may not be an expression of _which_ god is behind it all - but ID
has only ever been about claiming that there is at least _a_ god
pulling all our strings behind the scenes.

Actually three points.

1) There may be some faith involved, but it came NOT from one of the
churches of man, but from the 'world church', which I attend every
day.

2) It's not that at all. How can I describe in detail anything I
haven't seen? I've seen design.

3) I feel that we have autonomy. Free will (within bounds). It's
even possible that planet earth is a theme park for the gods, and that
we're them (or they're among us, as guests). I'm not positing that,
though. Just that there is design here, and that evolution is a
compensatory mechanism, designed in, that aids survival, AND
diversity. Both worthwhile ends. The evolutionary process is, in and
of itself, a 'designed in' process.

Fine - so if we have established that evolution exists and works then
the only question remaining is 'who' the designer is. It appears he
doesn't so much work in mysterious ways but in entirely scientifically
explicable fashion that, to all intents and purposes, looks exactly
like naturalistic methods. The idea of positing a designer raises more
questions than it actually answers. If you have no way of detecting,
understanding, measuring or quantifying the designer then you are back
to faith issues.


Don't skirt the real issues, that of order, design, synergy of
systems, and esthetic appearances, or gloss over the complexity
issues, or abiogenesis.

Other people have covered this. Aesthetic appearances is an especially
laughable example of ID (it's like saying - how come there are so many
delightful foodstuffs I can live off).

I know. Beauty is only "in the eyes of the believer". But is the
taste of a strawberry, or the peelability of a banana, a survival
result? Darwinists attribute everything in nature to survivability,
and posit that that results in beneficial mutations. Only in some
cases. Did the strawberry survive and mutate to its present state by a
'survival of the fittest' modality? Let's see now, how about we call
it 'survival of the fruitiest'. Or was it designed to complement
animal life? Evolution of fruit is a field of study I intend to
persue, and I feel that it may add weight to the ToID.

I think you'll find that the role of fruit and evolution is quite
explicable. See other posts for more studious responses to this claim.


I'll state what you probably already know. Some religionist feel that
the Bible is "the inerrant word of God" ...

<snip> (history and the Bible)

The ID movement is primarily scientifically oriented, NOT religiously
motivated.

Ahem ... see above. It's motivated by religious people who are
desperate to try and prove god exists and also (at certain levels) have
a political agenda. Any resemblance to actual science is purely
coincidental and should not be taken at face value.

Science has its limitations, but the human mind is capable of much
more. Science is a useful and necessary tool, but don't let
scientific dogma rule you mind.

I assume you're using the term 'dogma' in its colloquial sense as
opposed to scientific use of terms such as 'central dogma' which has
different connotations.

I don't let it rule my mind. I actually try and understand the science
- the reason I don't support ID is not because I rule out evolution
ever being falsified in an a-priori sense. It's because I can see ID
very clearly as a religiously motivated institution driven by DI that
have purely political ambitions. ID does not explain anything - it
does not even have the utility of being interesting theology.


Fundamentalists and YEC believers are a splinter group,
who may use the term ID in place of 'creation' to avoid legal
entanglements. Many ID proponents are religious, but embrace
differing concepts as to 'how' life came about, than the strawmen you
like to throw darts at.

So why then - in the fall out of Dover with the ID crew running around
like headless chickens blaming activist judges and wrong headed
Christian sympathisers - did Behe turn up to defend it, along with
Fuller and bleat incessantly about it being actual science. Why did
they not distance themselves, even during the trial and depositions,
that what the Dover board was doing wasn't their idea of what ID
actually is? Why were they included in the defence at all?

You've hit the nail on the head. You're right that they didn't
effectively work at differentiating the ID movement from the Dover
schoolboard's agenda, and that that helped to lose the case.

Well no. Seeing as the whole point of the introduction of ID at the
school was precisely was that it was held as not being religiously
motivated. It didn't matter which way it was dissected at the trial,
whoever the More Law Center put on the stand, religion came out as the
motivator behind the movement. Behe himself demonstrated why ID is
such a poor 'alternative' by simply dismissing the vast body of
literature in his own field. Not just dismissed but not even read or
studied by him. This isn't the attitude of a sincere scientist willing
to address uncomfortable facts, this is the attitude of an individual
driven by a personal ideology against all other evidence.


You made another good point. Behe softened on several key issues.
Ken Miller stepped over the line, and wasn't effectively challenged
for so doing. Instead, ace jurist but lame scientist John E. Jones
went with the popular position, and has been given acclaim for so
doing. His position that presenting an alternate theory of origins
would harm young minds goes counter to reality. What's harmful is
telling them what to believe, and adding "or else" as a caveat.

I agree - but the court case didn't do this. Neither has any previous
ruling. All the Dover case and all preceding cases involving the
various forms of creationism have done is prohibit the teaching of ID
as science in a science class. When you have a science that can be
supported by the evidence (as opposed to simply saying 'evolution isn't
good enough') come back and we can probably re run the trial.

Over here in the UK, and across most of Europe, there is no need for
ID. The reason being is that we have no separation of church and
state. The fact that we do not legislate for this division means that
creationists can at least be honest about their motivations in terms of
what they would like to teach in schools. ID loses it's capacity for
intervention as their is no constitutional laws to circumvent in this
respect. This is the only reason ID exists as a movement at all.

Thankfully, we now have the Internet, which is an arena of free
exchange for those that care to inquire. F*ck the classroom as the
sole stage for learning. Those days are gone (barring nuclear war).
At least for now, kids can go online and hear and discuss all sides of
an issue, and believe me; they will. Dover was a victory, but a brief
one.

Then I feel sorry for kids who are exposed to such poor science,
instead of being introduced to genuine science and real theology and
informed about the difference between the two. I also feel sorry for
kids who are used in this way as part of a political machination to
circumvent US laws over education, science and religion.


Also, would Judge Jones join in a debate today to defend the
conclusions and truisms he posited in his decision? Would his falling
back on a misconstrued 'establishment clause' gain him points? In a
free forum with proponents from both sides, I think not. He'd lose.

This is the cry every time something bad happens to ID - it's
misunderstood, it's misrepresented, it's not what everyone says it is.
So what is it aside from arguments from incredulity (Dembski ...
'complicated isn't it?'), ignorance (Fuller and Berlinski ... 'science
isn't what we'd like it to be ... why o why o why can't it be more like
it was in the 18th century ... they were much more open minded about
god back then'), or just bloody mindedness (Behe ... 'the entire
science community is wrong and I shan't read any more of their HORRID
papers ... shan't shan't shan't ... I'm going to hold my breath until
I'm SICK')?

I feel good about it. I see it as opening eyes, minds and hearts. I
also see new scientists coming up not fully embracing Darwinism, but
striving to better understand the human genome AND evolution, but
within its proper bounds.

Seeing as 'Darwinism' only forms the foundation for the modern
synthesis I would respectfully suggest you leave the Victorian science
alone and come and join us in the 21st century.


If there is a fixed mindset today that won't budge, it's the Darwinist
mindset, not ID.

Funny that this 'mindset' seems to be demonstrated time and again
within 1000's of journals all working within various fields of biology
around the world every year. Strange that the IAP had 60-odd
signatories from ALL the worlds major science acadamies and
institutions supporting the teaching of evolutionary theory. Yet a
tiny handful of religiously motivated individuals, mainly in the US
believe they have the answer despite producing no workable theory, no
evidence, no supporting programmes of investigation, no research, no
science at all. Yet they want this 'theory' to not only be taken
seriously, but to actually be TAUGHT as an alternative to evolutionary
theory. Hubris doesn't even cover the mind-staggeringly self absorbed
arrogance that this assertion is made under.

I give up - I admit it ... it's all a conspiracy ... it couldn't
possibly be that evolutionary theory just happens to be the best
explanation for the facts and there is currently no realistic
alternative ... it MUST be that its just a 'mindset' that prevents the
TRUTH (tm) from emerging.

Lee - please - if you have faith and believe in God (in whatever
incarnation) then I have no quarrel with that. I have no issue with
someone holding religious views, but try and understand that attempting
to 'prove' God through a pseudo-science such as ID is something that
demonstrates an incredible frailty when it comes to faith. It's
demonstrating a mind set in itself - that it's not enough to believe
anymore, it has to be 'proven' there is purpose and design to life.

You can believe that there is such purpose, design even, should you
wish to. Science says there is only the 'appearance' of design but
this should not impact on an individuals faith system. Yet this is
not, nor will it ever be, science. Don't lend your support to ID when
it is palpably a movement that entwines political ambitions, bad
science and even worse theology.

Dover showed how disingenuous the ID movement is when the gradual
evolution of 'Of Pandas and People' was clearly demonstrated in court.
This is about as empirical as it gets. The same book but all
references to creationism removed in favour of Intelligent Design when
each ruling during the 80's came out. What else do you need to
demonstrate that ID is not about honest science?


As I mentioned in an earlier post, take a few minutes (or hours) and
peruse Dembski's blog. The current discussions are interesting,
diverse, and give a better picture of the mindset of the ID crowd.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/


Been there and done that lots. Don't post there of course because
anything critical (even polite) gets deleted so only the ID
apparatchiks remain, clucking around in circles and preening each
other.

I don't agree with some of their censorship either. If you do post
there, be courteous, present arguments, and make no ad hominem
attacks. You should be fine. I'll look for your post.

So far ID has no science, no programme of experimentation, no theory,
no clue really when it comes down to it.

I'll go along with "so far". But hey, Disneyland used to be a dirt
field. (don't try to figure that one out ... )


At least the French forced Euro-Disney to serve wine.


Regards,
Lee Bowman


.

Relevant Pages
Loading