Barry Arrington was astonished to find that Larry Moran agreed with him that it would be possible for some future biologist to detect design in a Venter-designed genome.
He was further astonished to find that REC, a commenter at UD, agreed with Larry Moran.
Barry expresses his epiphany in a UD post REC Becomes a Design Proponent.
Has Barry finally realised that those of us who oppose the ideas of Intelligent Design proponents do not dispute that it is possible, in principle, to make a reasonable inference of design? That rather our opposition is based on the evidence and argument advanced, not on some principled (or unprincipled!) objection to the entire project?
Sadly, it seems not. Because Barry then gives some examples of his continued lack of appreciation of this point. Here they are:
For example, consider this typical objection: “All scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism, and you violate the principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology.”
If that objection is valid (it is not, but set that aside for now), it is just as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s design inferences as it is against any other design inference.
Yes, indeed, Barry. It is not a valid objection, and if it were, it would be as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s as against ID. There is nothing wrong with making a design inference in principle. We do it all the time, as IDists like to point out. And there’s nothing wrong with making it in biology, at least in principle. There is certainly nothing that violates the “principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology”. I wonder where Barry found that quotation?
The point sailed right over REC’s head. He responded that the objections were not valid as to his design inference, because his design inference (opposed to ID’s design inferences) was “valid and well evidenced.”
I doubt it sailed over REC’s head. I expect it was the very point he was making – that there is no reason in principle why one cannot make a valid design inference in biology, but whether the inference is valid or not would depend on the specifics of the evidence and argument.
But that is exactly what ID proponents have been saying for decades REC! We have been saying all along that the various “typical objections” are invalid if the evidence leads to a design inference.
REC, the only difference between you and us is that you are persuaded by the evidence in a particular case and not in our case. But you are missing the point. If what is important is the EVIDENCE, then th “typical objections” lose all force all the time.
Barry, consider the possibility that you have been misreading the “typical objections” the entire time. That the yards of text that are spilled daily at UD railing against Lewontin and us benighted “materialists” are entirely irrelevant. The objection to ID by people like me (and Moran, and REC, and any other ID opponent I’ve come across, including Richard Dawkins in fact) is not that it is impossible that terrestrial life was designed by an intelligent agent, nor that it would be necessarily impossible to discover that it was, nor even, I suggest, impossible to infer a designer even if we had no clue as to who the designer might be (although that might make it trickier). The objection is that the arguments advanced by ID proponents are fallacious. They don’t work. Some are circular, some are based on bad math, and some are based on a misunderstanding of biochemistry and biology. They are not bad because they are design inferences, they are bad because they are bad design inferences.
In other words, the objection “all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism” is invalid in principle, not in application, if it is even possible to make a valid design inference based on the EVIDENCE.
And here is where Barry steps on the rake again. Of course all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism. It’s the only methodology we have in science – it is another way of saying that scientific claims must be falsifiable. That doesn’t mean we can’t infer design. Design is a perfectly natural phenomenon. If Barry means that we can only infer natural, not supernatural, design, he is absolutely correct, but that is simply because a supernatural design hypothesis is unfalsifiable. The reason Lewontin was correct is not that science is terrified of letting the supernatural in the door of science lest we have to face our worst nightmares, but that if you accept the supernatural as a valid hypothesis, you throw falsifiability out of the window.
You agree with us that it is the EVIDENCE that is important, and objections thrown up for the purpose of ruling that evidence out of court before it is even considered are invalid.
Yes, it is the EVIDENCE that is important, But on the other side of the EVIDENCE coin are the predictions we derive from the theory that we are testing against that EVIDENCE. If there are no predictions – and a theory that can predict anything predicts nothing – then we have no way of evaluating whether our EVIDENCE supports our theory. In fact, the word EVIDENCE only makes sense in relation to a theory. I’m no lawyer (heh) but doesn’t there have to be a charge before there is a trial?
Of course, by the same token, nobody can claim that ID is false – it may well be true that life was designed by a supernatural designer, whether at the origin-of-life stage as some claim, or at key stages, such as the Cambrian “Explosion” (scare quotes deliberate), as others claim; or for certain features too hard to leave to evolution such as the E.coli flagellae that enhance their ability to maim and kill our children. Or even to design a universe so fine-tuned that it contains the laws and materials necessary for life to emerge without further interference. Science cannot falsify any of that – nor, for that matter the theory that it was all created ex nihilo Last Thursday.
That’s why nothing in evolutionary biology is a threat to belief in God or gods, and why the paranoia surrounding “methodological naturalism” is so completely misplaced.
What is a threat to us all, though, I suggest, is bad science masquerading as science, and that is my objection to ID. Not the “broader” project itself as stated in the UD FAQ:
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
but its fallacious (in my view) conclusion that:
…that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
Fallacious not because I assume that the “intelligent cause” is supernatural, but because the math and biochemistry simply do not support that inference. Even if it’s true.
Alan Fox,
But you have already agreed that design can be observed right? So that is all we need isn’t it?
You are going to have to unpack that for me a little. I don’t understand
I am a Christian so I believe the Bible of course.
However there were Christians before there was a written Bible and lots of Christians can’t read
The written text is not a prerequisite for faith. Its a gift from the faithful one
peace
Alan Fox,
Oh I see, you just mean Dembski has other work interests now.
It certainly doesn’t mean he thinks any less of ID theory, as I thought was being suggested.
If you mean can we observe the process of design, yes. The “natural selection” element of evolutionary processes can be referred to as environmental design. Of course it isn’t an intelligent or guided process (though I don’t worry that some theists consider it guided – that is untestable)
Alan Fox,
Are you saying we can not tell if something is designed if we don’t see the process happening?
And can we see natural selection? How do we see that?
phoodoo,
I interpreted the text as suggesting he will no longer be working on ID projects or defending future criticism of his work, and would just let his record stand for itself. Fair enough but for ID to go anywhere as science, somebody has to start to think of ID mechanisms and put it into a hypothesis. Mike Behe accepts common descent and Dembski has retired from the fray. I wonder who is left.
fifthmonarchyman,
I guess Christianity must predate the New Testament as who else would have produced the texts? And Christians who can’t read take stuff on trust from those who can.
fifthmonarchyman,
“Assertion is not argument”
Since all you have is assertion, you have no argument.
fifthmonarchyman,
Omagain didn’t say that Thor exists, and you quote mined his comment.
He said: “Your claim has no more weight than if I were to reference Thor. There is as much evidence for Thor’s existence as your deity’s. I.E. none at all.” (my emphasis)
Shame on you.
fifthmonarchyman,
Your assertions are not an argument.
You quoted
That you can say that knowing that the rest of my comment was:
demonstrates all I need to know about your ethics, and by extension your deity’s ethics.
Moved comment to guano as suggesting fellow commenters are insane is against the rules.
Alan Fox,
Even though it’s true.
fifthmonarchyman,
How exactly do you know this? Please be specific.
fifthmonarchyman,
How exactly do you know this? Please be specific, and remember that assertion is not an argument.
fifthmonarchyman,
How exactly do you know this? Please be specific, and remember that assertion is not an argument.
No. Historical events can be examined archeologically.
And can we see natural selection?How do we see that?
The Grants work with finches. Lenski’s LTEE.
Reality,
Even so!
Alan Fox,
“I wonder who is left.”
Behe is still pushing ID, Dembski is still pushing ID with his books, his promotion of his ID writings on his new blog, by still being a “senior fellow” at the DI, by not withdrawing all of his ID claims on the internet, etc., and there are plenty of other IDiots who will continue to rely on and promote Behe’s, Dembski’s, and other “ID leaders” assertions for years and years to come.
ETA: Of course other IDiots will also promote their own ID (i.e. religious, erroneous, quote mined, refuted, pseudo-scientific) assertions (e.g. fishing reel FIASCO, semiotic something or other, I won a Planet Source Code award, the new intelligent design is 1.5 or more or 3 or more or something, frequency = wavelength, there is no such thing as evolutionary theory, “Darwinists” predicted junk DNA, Hitler and Darwin were drinking and murdering buddies, only “activist” judges disagree with us, is – ought something or other, God-did-it, etc.) for years and years to come.
Alan Fox,
So being nice is what matters here and truth be damned. Got it.
Reality,
If you’re interested in changing the rules, you are welcome to argue the case in the moderation issues thread.
The ethos of TSZ is, act as if you believe other people are basically sane, reasonable human beings with whom disagreements can be resolved through respectful dialogue. It’s a very liberal, very democratic ideal.
In practice, you may find that other people here are not sane or rational — or at least not by your standards. In those cases, the best course of action is to simply ignore them. One’s time and energy are limited resources, trolls are not to be fed, etc.
Alan Fox,
Any argument that I could make there has already been made by others, and nothing has changed.
212 years and counting.
Alan Fox,
I am still not seeing how you are tying this into the question. You said an ID theory need to be testable. I asked you if being testable means being falsifiable. I don’t get your answer to that.
Is natural selection testable (is it falsifiable)? Whats the test-something lives? How to falsify that?
It needs to suggest research.
Falsification research is not the only kind of research. Doug Axe does falsification research. He makes up imaginary evolution scenarios and falsifies them.
I guess it puts food on the table for him.
Reality,
And the pseudobabble should be debunked here, by addressing it directly. If you want to silence viewpoints rather than criticise them, you need a different venue:
petrushka,
Well, I am asking Alan, because he is the one who said it.
But feel free to answer, how to falsify the concept of natural selection?
Kantian Naturalist,
In my opinion, all of the IDiots who comment here or anywhere else are trolls, and that’s about the nicest thing I can say about them.
“The ethos of TSZ is, act as if you believe other people are basically sane, reasonable human beings with whom disagreements can be resolved through respectful dialogue.”
I have a few questions for you: What is respectful about the IDiots’ dialogue and agenda? When have any IDiots shown that they are “are basically sane, reasonable human beings”? Why should anyone be respectful to theocratic blank, blank, blanks (I’m being nice)? Name the IDiots who have accepted evolutionary theory and the other things they rail against and who have denounced the ID (wedge) agenda because they were convinced by “respectful dialogue”.
Just came upon this thread. It has 828+ comments. What are the chances of posting something not already covered (when compared to the universal probability boundary).
Same way you would falsify the prediction that the sun will come up tomorrow.
Is there some specific aspect of natural selection that you disagree with?
You could join Larry Moran in thinking selection is a minority mode of evolution.
Capable of being falsifed would be good. Do not ask me how that would be possible. I have no idea. You need an ID theorist for that.
Lenski and his LTEE is a continuing and living example of evolution in action: There are many ways in which the ToE could be falsified, the classic example is out~of~sequence fossils.
Huh? How can you falsify a concept?
Alan Fox,
I asked you a simple question Alan. HOW do you falsify the concept of natural selection? Can you answer that?
Zachriel,
Hi Zachriel,
There’s the new thread, Barry’s Response. Hope you stay awhile anyways.
OMagain,
I am not the one who said natural selection was testable, Alan was. Maybe you need to ask him.
Perhaps you are asking how one could tie the observed change in allele frequency over time say in Lenski’s bacteria or Grants’ finches to the process of selection.
Heh. Thanks. It was sort of an obtuse joke. Did anyone mention the universal probability bound? Thought about bringing up Hitler, but that must have already been taken.
We’re responding directly to Barry Arrington.
keiths:
fifth:
Well, I’ll be — a Christian who doesn’t know the meaning of the word “worship”.
fifth,
Please find a competent Christian to take your place in these debates. God has other work — probably janitorial — in mind for you.
Alan Fox,
Alan, I am asking How do you falsify the idea of natural selection?
Have I not said that clearly yet?
You could show that reproductive success does not depend on differential traits. Or you could show that differential traits are not inherited.
ETA: (Both of these cases are sometimes observed.)
phoodoo, If it could be shown that allele frequency didn’t change over time in populations when under selective pressure, perhaps that would call the process into question.
Zachriel,
Wait, the concept of natural selection says that reproductive success depends of differential traits. So your answer to falsifying that idea is to show that reproductive success does not depend on differential traits.
Huh?
Alan Fox,
I didn’t say anything about silencing viewpoints. If it were up to me, about the only rule here would be no threats allowed. If anyone is silencing viewpoints here it’s the moderators, by arbitrarily moving comments to Guano or deleting them. Based on the stated rules here I can understand why some comments are moved or deleted but some are moved or deleted for no good reason and many that obviously break the rules are left in place.
It’s fine for Elizabeth to state whatever rules she likes but the rules should be very clear and the enforcement of the rules should be consistent.
Speaking of rules: “ETA4: *Violation of rule in purple will result in immediate and permanent ban (14.05.2012)”
This rule is the only one in purple: “Don’t post porn, or links to porn, or any material liable to risk the integrity of another poster’s computer*.”
Yet Joe “tunie” G, aka Frankie, is still allowed to comment here, after a “permanent ban”.
Check to see if life is limited by known processes of DNA transfer, or if life’s distribution of forms is a matter of matching any sort of solutions to the needs, like design produces.
Guess what? Life is extremely derivative, mostly vertically in the case of vertebrates, as entailed by evolutionary processes. We don’t have cephalopod-type eyes in vertebrates, nor vertebrate-type eyes in cephalopods, matched to some sort of environmental needs or some such thing, it’s all just a matter of reproductive lines. In birds, testes develop internally and stay there, operating well at high body temperatures, while in mammals with higher body temperatures the testes develop in their ancestral positions, then descend, or in the case of many marine mammals, end up being specially cooled while remaining in the body cavity. A thinking designer would use the bird solution for mammals, but our lineage is just stuck with the old mammalian “solution,” which leads to weakened abdominal walls in males (hernias) and developmental glitches.
The falsification test has been made. ID failed, evolution by reproduction and variation plus natural selection passed. That’s science.
Glen Davidson
Reality,
I’m happy to discuss moderation issues in the moderation issues thread.
That makes no sense Alan. First what is the definition of selective pressure?
Secondly all you are saying is that alleles change-so that proves the concept. If alleles then natural selection has been verified. But that is simply a test of alleles changing.
We already know alleles change-that is not informing anything. Its like saying, if organisms exist, then ID must be true. If they didn’t exist then that would call into question the idea of ID.
Obviously. That’s what it means to be falsifiable.
In many cases, reproductive success does not depend on differential traits, which are then referred to as selectively neutral traits. In other cases, though, we can show that reproductive success does depend on differential traits, and further, that these traits are heritable.
GlenDavidson,
Glen, How does that test work again? If testes are all on the inside, then ID is true? WTF?
You have (not so) inadvertently made the test be that if I can think of a design I would prefer, even if the current design seems to working just fine for its purpose, then that shows something about NS?
Come on Glen, you have to do better than that. What is the test? Say it clearly.
Zachriel,
How do you shown when reproductive success depends on differential traits and when it doesn’t?