The ID debate (IV)

(Following on from The ID debate I, II and III, here is my latest contribution.)

as a scientific theory all ID claims is that:
a) we have one or more reliable criteria for making positive inferences to intelligent design
b) one or more features of the world pass those criteria [snip]
Since this forms a logically valid syllogism, I would simply ask whether you are denying the truth of the premise that we have reliable design detection criteria, or the truth of the premise that something in nature signals design according to reliable design detection criteria, or both?

This is, I think, the crux of your reply. And the basic point that needs to be made is that we do not, in fact have a design detector. That is, claim (a) is false.

ID proponents like Behe posit two main reasons for supposing something to be designed.
(1) Incredulity – “this is so complicated that I cannot imagine how it can have evolved”. This is very weak argument and hardly needs attacking.
(2) “Irreducible complexity”. This suggests that a mechanism that shows a non-reducible set of components must necessarily always have contained those components. This is, from a scientific point of view, a ludicrous argument. It totally ignores several absolutely basic points of evolutionary and developmental biology.

For example, it fails to consider the possibility that optional components become essential with time. A simple system may acquire an extra component that enhances its function but is not essential. Over time, however, there will be pressure for this component always to be present (because it is an improvement) and, eventually, for it to become so tightly integrated that it is essential. We now have a new, irredicibly complex, system that nonetheless developed from a simpler one.

In essence, irreducible complexity by itself tells us absolutely nothing about the history of a system – and hence nothing about whether it was designed. It’s a nice phrase but is scientifically meaningless in this context.

If there is a better design detector than these, I would be interested to hear about it.

However, a distribution of leaves that formed a portrait of the Queen or a poem by Blake would signal intelligent design.

The flaw in this argument is that evolution is not a random process, akin to the wind blowing leaves. Mutation is random, but selection is not – selection provides a very strong force towards order, and indeed to particular forms of order.

That is, evidence of design does not demonstrate Design. Even Behe et al. concede that evolution has designed a great many things. They just reserve a few things for their Designer.

From a theological view point, this means that one could say that everything is designed, or not.

Indeed. Either position is defensible without falling into a dualist error, but ID as generally posited does fall into precisely that error because it requires different kinds or modes (if you prefer) of design. The two modes are qualitatively different, because the one (evolution) depends purely on natural law and the other (Design) depends on direct divine intervention. This qualitative difference is sufficient to trigger the criticism I made about dualism.

This does of course leave me with detectable examples of intelligent design to explain. Now, a naturalist might accept examples of design like irreducibly complex molecular machines and chalk them up to intelligent design by aliens.

As I’ve said, though, a knowledgeable person would not chalk them up to design at all. I’ve not yet seen such an example that stood up to more than a few minutes of thought. Not that we can in such a way prove that they aren’t designed (as you said, that’s impossible and unnecessary). What we can do is demonstrate rather simply that they aren’t “irreducibly complex” and that there do exist plausible, adaptive pathways via which they could have evolved. This is all that is required to demolish the hypothesis of necessary design.

pax et bonum

Article posted at 9:17pm on 19 April 2006
Category: Faith, Musing, Science

Your point on irreducibly complex; do you have any examples of an organic system which “developed” “positive” mutations which enhanced that particular organisms development and existence thus safe-guarding natural selection as an viable mechanism? In other words it seems you posit this idea, “on positive mutations”, but fail to provide an actual example.

In Christ,

Bobby Grow

bobby grow () (URL)
5:51pm on 30 April 2006

The literature of biology is stuffed with examples of positive adaptations. We’ve witnessed the appearance of new mutations in many organisms – antibotic resistance in bacteria, drug resistance in malaria and HIV. We could look to the increases in height of certain plant species or the increase in drought tolerance of others. Or we can look to the changes in various animal species under pressure of hunting (usually related to smaller size or reduced posession of “valued” traits such as horns) or other environmental pressures.

The thing is that adaptations to the environment have been listed a great many times, and the ID proponents seem to accept this without argument. The point at which ID parts company with conventional evolutionary science is not in whether evolution happens but in whether or not Design also happens.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
6:19pm on 30 April 2006

I would agree too, that evolution happens, at the “micro” level, which your illustrations show w/o a doubt – but there are no examples, thus far, that illustrate evolution happening at the “macro” level (as far as I’m aware of); at least apart from a theory-laden interpretation of such “evidence”.

I’m still trying to understand your contention, John – please forgive my “slowness” – it seems to be related to “causation” and whether or not God is the “primary immediate” cause of all apparent “natural” phenomena; or if latent within His primary and material causation – there is a secondary “effecient” causation implicit within the “natural order” itself – which makes “divine-design” detection an implausibility given “HIS HANDS OFF” approach relative to His creation.

Am I getting warmer :-)

; or am I way off?

In Christ,
Bobby G.

bobby grow (URL)
10:59pm on 30 April 2006

Way off, I’m afraid, Bobby. The discussion here is about Intelligent Design, not Creationism. ID accepts evolution as happening at all levels, including speciation. ID merely posits that there are certain structures that could not have evolved and are instead evidence of design.

The point here isn’t about whether God is behind evolution. The question is whether or not there is an aditional layer of Design on top of it.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
09:31am on 01 May 2006

I’m not sure how my question implied “creationism”, but okay! So what “mechanism” since ID rejects “natural selection” as viable; do ID’rs offer in the stead of natural selection to allow evolution at all levels to be a positive scientific theory? Or maybe this is where your critique comes in—maybe you’re saying they don’t offer a “real” alternative.

Why do you want to assume a “naturalist” perspective—given your Christianity?

bobby grow (URL)
4:59pm on 01 May 2006

You seem to be claiming that evolution cannot explain speciation (“macro-evolution”). That usually means that someone is arguing for special creation. If I was wrong in assuming that then I’m sorry – could you explain more clearly?

Also, I think we’ve got a problem in defining “Intelligent Design”, because the usual articles and books about it explicitly accept natural selection as describing the vast majority of biological features (see the conversation I’m having with Jeremy here at the moment, in which he’s taking precisely the opposite position to the one you seem to, in order to support ID!). Design is only asserted against a relatively small set of features that, it is suggested, could not have evolved in a reasonable time (or at all). So, without knowing what you’re actually asking, I can’t really answer usefully.

I want to assume a “naturalist” perspective because I believe that God created the Universe and called it good. Therefore, I believe that it does not lie. So, when we see things that appear a certain way, I believe that they actually are that way. Hence, physics, chemistry and biology – cosmology, stellar physics, planetary orbits, quantum physics, organic chemistry, transition-metal chemistry, fullerenes, developmental biology, symbiosis, ecosystems and evolution.

To believe anything else requires a belief either that Creation is deceptive or that scientists are involved in a coherent attempt to deceive everyone else.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
7:57pm on 01 May 2006