At last?
Back in 2007, I predicted that the idea of “Intelligent Design” would soon fade into obscurity. I wrote:
My initial assessment of ID in my earliest encounter with an ID proponent* was that ID would be forgotten within five years, and that now looks to me an over-generous estimate.
*August, 2005
I was wrong. Whilst the interest in “Intelligent Design” (ID) as a fruitful line of scientific enquiry has declined from the heady days of 2005 (or perhaps was never really there) there remain diehard enthusiasts who maintain the claim that ID has merit and is simply being held back by the dark forces of scientism. William Dembski; the “high priest” of ID has largely withdrawn from the fray but his ideas have been promoted and developed by Robert Marks and Winston Ewert. In 2017 (with Dembski as a co-author) they published Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics, which was heralded as a new development in the ID blogosphere. However, the claim that this represents progress has been met with scepticism.
But the issue of whether ID was ever really scientific has remained as the major complaint of those who dismiss it. Even ID proponents have admitted this to be a problem. Paul Nelson, a prominent (among ID proponents) advocate of ID famously declared in 2004:
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’ – but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.
Whilst some ID proponents – Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe are perhaps most prominent among them – have tried to develop ID as science, the general scientific community and the wider world have remained unimpressed.
Then a new young vigorous player appears on the field. Step forward, Eric Holloway! Dr Holloway has produced a number of articles published at Mind Matters – a blog sponsored by the Discovery Institute (the paymasters of ID) on artificial and “natural” intelligence. He has also been quite active here and elsewhere defending ID and I have had to admire his persistence in arguing his case for ID, especially as the whole concept is, in my view, indefensible.
But! Do I see cracks appearing? I happened to glance at the blog site formerly run by William Dembski, Uncommon Descent, and noticed an exchange of comments on a thread entitled Once More from the Top on “Mechanism” The post author is Barry Arrington, current owner of UD and a lawyer by trade, usually too busy to produce a thoughtful or incisive piece (and this is no different). However, the comments get interesting when Dr Holloway joins in at comment 48. He writes:
If we can never be sure we account for all chance hypotheses, then how can we be sure we do not err when making the design inference? And even if absolute certainty is not our goal, but only probability, how can we be confident in the probability we derive?
Eric continues with a few more remarks that seem to raise concern among the remaining regulars. ( ” Geeze you are one confused little pup EricMH.” “Has a troll taken over Eric’s account?) and later comments:
But since then, ID has lost its way and become enamored of creationism vs evolution, apologetics and the culture wars, and lost the actual scientific aspect it originally had. So, ID has failed to follow through, and is riding on the cultural momentum of the original claims without making progress.
Dr Holloway continues to deliver home truths:
I would most like to be wrong, and believe that I am, but the ID movement, with one or two notable exceptions, has not generated much positive science. It seems to have turned into an anti-Darwin and culture war/apologetics movement. If that’s what the Discovery Institute wants to be, that is fine, but they should not promote themselves as providing a new scientific paradigm.
I invite those still following the fortunes of ID to read on, though I recommend scrolling past comments by ET and BA77. Has Dr Holloway had a road-to-Damascus moment? Is the jig finally up for ID? I report – you decide!
ETA link
Most of you are quite ignorant regarding ID theory, and yet blather on quite lengthily without trying to get your understanding straight.
BruceS is the one notable exception.
What data would “design based models ” not fit?
“The Designer did it this way JUST BECAUSE” isn’t anywhere close to science.
Alan Fox,
Absolutely. A sea lion is capable of playing with trolls. 🙂
There is no such thing as ID theory. There isn’t even an ID testable hypothesis.
ID as presented now is just religiously based philosophical speculation.
A dishonest know-nothing ID-Creationist is capable of making a fool of himself every day. 🙂
Thanks for proving my point 🙂
Thanks for proving mine. 🙂
I would say my reason for interest in ID is twofold.
First, it is as BruceS pointed out that after years of research, I have found the mathematics to be solid.
Second, and this is probably the even bigger motivation, are groups such as TSZ, PS, and Biologos that have such uniformly horrible arguments against ID. And it isn’t even as if these are the only arguments. I can personally think of some decent arguments against ID. But, the only ones I see paraded at these sites are mind numbingly bad. I am always intrigued by ideas that people are so incapable of effectively arguing against.
And the way forward is to develop a better model. But first you need an explanation that can be modeled. Then that model should have a mechanism that can be tested. I’m not standing in your way. Go for it!
*high five*
EricMH,
When the main objective is to defeat an argument despite the facts this is what happens. Some of them don’t understand it others just misrepresent it.
LOL! As always Bill projects the flaws in ID-Creationism bright enough to be seen from low Earth orbit. 😀
Umm, just the opposite is true. Ewert predicts that ID will result in violations of a nested hierarchy, such as his claim that a certain gene is shared by just zebra fish and zebra finches. Ewert’s work states that a nested hierarchy shouldn’t exist if ID is true.
Yet another example of someone tilting at ideological windmills.
This is why so many people in science just shake their heads at ID efforts. The ID crew came up with a mathematical model they claim shows natural unguided evolution is impossible but can’t even begin to fit their simplistic model to the physical realities of biology. It’s another mathematical “proof” bumblebees can’t fly while all the time the bumblebees keep buzzing flower to flower. 🙂
Have you looked at SIFTER?
“We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5′-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER’s prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.”
Englhardt et al. (2005)
It wasn’t that difficult to find an algorithm based on phylogenetics and common descent that outperforms BLAST.
This is the easiest objection to answer. Methodological naturalism is based on the premise that everything is a stochastic process. So, all we have to do is assume this is not necessarily the case, and is only a hypothesis to be tested. Being a non-stochastic process is a very testable property. Voila!
So, by actually being scientific about our assumptions, instead of ideological fundamentalists, we open the door to ID. Which is exactly what Kolmogorov originally proposed:
“Not every event has a definite probability. The assumption that a definite probability in fact exists for a given event under given conditions is a hypothesis that must be verified or justified in each individual case.”
Alan Fox,
Are you claiming that minds cannot generate functional information?
Your theory claims an untested mechanism can generate enough FI for complex adaptions.
Minds are a tested mechanism that solves this problem. We are testing them as we write. We will continue to test them in biology as we make artificial proteins.
Nope. We are claiming minds alone have no physical mechanism to make that functional information into a manufactured physical object.
Perhaps, but it is important to look at all the assumptions that go into the claims about SIFTER. E.g. if functionality is used to build the phylogenetic trees that SIFTER is using to make its predictions of function, then it is pretty unsurprising that SIFTER works so well. It is essentially an identity function.
If those undergrads are taking a course by Paul Nelson, they can’t be very smart kids to begin with
Why, yes! Yes, I am. Are we going for a few rounds of burden tennis?
Adapa,
Do you agree that a mind is a partial solution?
Your grasp of basic logic is as bad as your understanding of biology. Showing a non-stochastic process can produce a certain result is not evidence the empirically observed result couldn’t be from a stochastic process.
Demonstrating a garden hose can make the street wet isn’t evidence a natural rain storm didn’t soak the street.
Can anyone answer? I don’t. And the reason I don’t is your statement makes no sense.
I agree that it could be. There’s just no evidence that it actually is and lots of evidence it isn’t in the case of biology.
Since they are using unannotated genes, this wouldn’t be the case. I also highly doubt that phylogenies are based on deaminases.
Alan Fox,
Interesting claim. How would you support this claim or is assertion your only weapon here?
The first step is for you, Bill, to tell me what you mean by a mind. Away you go!
Humans can make ice. That doesn’t mean every piece of ice you see was created by humans. I don’t see why you find such importance in this rather underwhelming argument.
A theory is a theoretical framework that tries and explains a bunch of related phenomena, and helps find other phenomena that might fall into the explanatory framework. Evolutionary theory is thus, not just about mechanisms, but also about patterns in the data and in the relationships between life forms and their components. Here the kicker: it doesn’t’t have to be complete in order to work. Theories also provide a framework for further research and helps identify gaps and research needs.
Take for example T_aquaticus list of mutation patterns that work with evolutionary theory and were just dismissed-without-explanation by Nelson because he’s overall “skeptic” of evolution. Evolutionary theory explains why we see those mutation patterns, like abundance of transitions over transversions, which comply with biochemical considerations about which mutations are more likely to occur by themselves.
As per your particular problem. Current evolutionary theory explains how simpler adaptations occur, and it’s easy to understand that complex adaptations can result from the accumulation of less-complex ones. The inference is strengthened by the patterns of mutations in the molecules behind such adaptations, and in how they tend to arrange, when considering simpler versions of a complex adaptation. They also happen to be noisy (something that Nelson mistakes for problems with the theory), and they fit imperfectly, which is to be expected from adaptations occurring with a background of “unplanned” mutations that could not care less about looking perfect, as if they were actually “planned” or “designed” to tell a perfect story, rather than being leftover evidence of evolutionary phenomena.
I think it’s more likely that you have fallen short of understanding Joe’s answers to such “examples.” You have also fallen short of understanding that evolution doesn’t fail because you, and gpuccio, don’t understand the problem of post-facto probability fallacies.
It simply cannot predict that, since a mind is an example of a complex biological adaptation in the first place (cart-before-the-horse: “an instance of biological complexity is the mechanism behind the origin of biological complexity”).
Also, a mind cannot do its job without the rest of the complex organism (“a complex adaptation that needs many other complex adaptations in order to function and produce anything is the mechanism behind the origin of complex adaptations”). A mind and the rest of the complex organism cannot do anything without the energy inputs / outputs / physical and chemical phenomena. There’s a lot to be covered before you can even start suggesting that life is the product of “a mind.” Yet, you accept it unconditionally. Your “mechanism” has thus a profound philosophical problem, which makes it hard to consider as a potential explanation for life’s complex adaptations. Yet you claim that evolution lacks a mechanism? That’s quite rich.
The only way “out” for the “mind” proposal, is religious beliefs in magical minds. That takes the “debate” into those territories ID-creationists fear, and evidences that the ID movement is founded on religion, thus provoking the suspicion that it’s founded on mere fantasy. Oh, but I “misunderstand,” of course. I’m erecting a straw-man because I failed to “understand” that ID doesn’t deal with the origin of “the mind” (or should I write “the Mind”?). Why not? Because it doesn’t you evil materialist! But we know why it doesn’t, don’t we? Because it’s not a scientific movement, but a religious one, and talking about those minds leads to this obvious fact.
ETA: Some editorial improvements, I hope.
Adapa,
I assume you agree that mind is capable of the non physical or arrangement part of the job.
What we have evidence for in biology is minds plus other human parts creating biologically active molecules.
Sealioning.
And you have the cheek to accuse me of asserting! I’m shocked, Bill! Shocked, I say!
So? Humans now know enough to create biological molecules. Are you now claiming humans created and manufactured all biological life?
Where did that occur? Please provide a link.
They don’t make ice with their minds, though. Next, you’ll be telling me humans make beer! What about the poor S. cerevisiae?
Arrangements are physical Bill.
This is the evolutionary fallacy if I were to label this misunderstanding. Simple adaptions do not require innovation. Complex adaptions require innovation and all evolutionary models fail here.
Do you understand that Gpuccio is comparing protein sequences of the same protein in different animals.
This what evolutionary theory predicts. Yet minds can create biological molecules. How do you explain this?
A mind is a mechanism we can observe making functional information. There is ID ideology and ID as an argument. There is evolution as an ideology and evolution as an argument. This was my point to Gregory. ID is a very important negative control to evolutionary theory to keep it out of the ideology realm. By making the claim that complex adaptions are demonstrated by simple adaptions you are being sucked into ideology. We have shown evolutionary simple adaption by experiment….thats it.
That makes no sense except in the light of evolution! 🙂
Nonsense.
Valuable for what purpose? It’s all braindead apologetics. It has no meaningful scientific content that helps anyone do any useful research. It helps nothing with establishing how something works, it helps nothing with determining how something came to be, or why it has the attributes it has. It’s valuable for exactly nothing other than literalist theistic apologetics. Which is valuable for nothing at all. It’s a sham of no real-world value. A tool for nothing more than evangelization.
This has nothing to do with intelligent design. It also says nothing about whether anything was designed or evolved.
This doesn’t even make sense. Nothing you said above has anything to do with “random change” or a “negative control for evolutionary theory”.
As usual you’re speaking incoherent nonsense. You’re just tossing out a senseless hodge-podge of science-sounding terms and ideas in a list-form and then attaching some completely disconnected attempt at a conclusion to it.
You’re behaving a bit like Sal Cordova. It seems you have a sort of template for posting you follow that goes sort of like this:
ID is [something positive] because of [the names of important people] are doing
[list of science-sounding stuff]. Therefore [conclusion] about [evolution/materialism].
Same dumb fucking shit every time. “Behe/Gpuccio/Durston/Ewert” bla bla bla “FI/500bits/IC/Dependency Graph” bla bla bla “prp8/apoptosis in embryo development” bla bla bla “separate origin event”.
In Sal’s case his template is usually:
Me, Salvador Cordova, has [communicated with/attended] [distinguished person/event at prestigious locality] which is funded by [all this important money], and they publish in [prestigious/distinguished journal] where [they/we] worked on the problem of [science-sounding jargon]. Then [list of technical looking diagrams and figures]. Therefore [evolution/materialism/atheism] is false, and [Creationism] is true. [Praise magic man].
You people are jokes, honestly. I couldn’t muster a microsecond’s respect for you if I was forced to at gunpoint.
Adapa,
I am claiming that we can use humans as a test case that a mind can produce the effect we are observing.
The sun was used as a test case that mass can curve space time. The sun does not represent all forms of mass yet it was a viable way to test the claim and the model.
Nope. That’s not a premise of methodological naturalism. It’s not even part of naturalism as a philosophy. If you’re working on such “foundation” to “prove” “intelligent design,” then the task would be too easy and you’ve been making your life harder than needed: Just show the equations of any physical phenomena, like Newton’s law of gravitation. The equation is a deterministic model of gravitation, not stochastic by definition. Done!
Eric, you need to seriously revise your understanding (misunderstanding) of what naturalism, physicalism, etc really mean and entail before making these outrageous claims. You need to work on distinguishing methodological naturalism from those philosophies too. Methodological naturalism is a proposed framework to define what scientific investigation is about (whether a correct or incorrect framework is another story), and it’s not founded on the ridiculous premise that everything is a stochastic process.
Rumraket,
Its the right way to think about science in my opinion. What we are observing is very unlikely a random accident. It has all the evidence of a planned event. If you think about purpose and strategy when you look at biology I think it is useful. Evolutionary theory is very problematic for biology in by opinion when it is stretched beyond what has been tested.
Sure ID is used to convince people of Gods reality. Just as evolutionary theory is used to convince people of atheism as Dawkins and Coyne do. Can we get passed this?
T_aquaticus,
Are you sure you directed your reply to the right person? What are these ideas I have supposedly put forward?
Come on, Bill! I’m really interested to see what you mean when you use the word “mind”. How do you define “mind”? What is it, in your view?
You’re mistaking your failure to understand how we, people, define “innovation,” with whether simpler adaptations are examples of innovations. I see loads of simple adaptations that I’d call innovations. So who wins? Your thresholds or mine? Why?
My rant above’s summary is: “because you say so?” and it applies here too. You put your personal threshold for considering something an innovation where you like it and conclude that simpler-to-complex fails. But that shows that you mistake your personal feelings for evidence. They’re not Bill. Evolutionary models don’t fail at producing complex adaptations from simpler ones, you just lack the background and the will to try and understand how.
A safe is not a protein Bill. Sure, gpuccio is also comparing homologous proteins across animals, and his “method” implies that a huge amount of “sequence exploration” happens (though he fails to realize of this), thus contradicting his position that such thing doesn’t happen. His comparisons are faulty in several respects, but I stopped explaining this to gpuccio because the guy doesn’t understand enough to even notice that he’s contradicting himself at the foundation of these “analyses,” because he fails to understand information theory, and because he’s, overall, too obtuse and arrogant to consider explanation that contradict this edifice. He worked very hard, which explains why he doesn’t want to consider being wrong, but his arrogance is too much to bear from such a poorly prepared “amateur.”
What’s there to explain? Intelligence is a complex adaptation that allows for such tasks. It’s a complex adaptation, requiring the rest of the complex adaptations that accompany it, to work. Therefore, though it can modify life forms today, that doesn’t mean that it can be behind its own origin. Don’t you see the problem yet?
Nope. We see it, with it’s accompanying complex adaptations, tools, etc, transforming energy while producing patterns that we call “functional information.” We know that los of other natural phenomena also channel energy flows and result in patterns that we could call functional information. Those do not require a complex adaptation to work, and thus the origin of complex adaptations should be there. There’s no philosophical problems with this proposal. See how easy that was?
No it isn’t. Negative controls are those that propose that what we see is random (or indistinguishable from random). To keep evolutionary theory out of the ideology realm all we need is to examine its foundations, and keep putting it to the test, keep asking scientific questions to it, founded in strong philosophical foundations. ID is failed philosophy and very poor science. Nothing else.
No, I am not. For one, that’s not what I said, I said that complex ones result from the accumulation of simpler ones, and that’s a reasonable inference. I also explained that we put those proposals to the test by examining further data.
It’s you who is sucked into ideology and fail to understand it. Why would you give a pass to the profound philosophical failures of ID, unless you’re ideologically committed to ID?
Because you say so? We have also evidence the evolution of complex ones based on finding and examining versions of such adaptations at different levels of complexity. The mere existence of such versions make the case already.
ETA: clarifications, editorial, etc.
Using this kind of ‘logic’ I can confidently assert that the Designer has eyes and ears.
That’s an undeserved criticism. There are plenty of smart kids in Christian communities. We shouldn’t blame kids for being brought up in a culture that has pushed them away from quality science education. When I look (way) back at my undergrad years I laugh out how limited my knowledge was at the time. Going back to Paul Nelson’s comments, we were asked to construct a dichotomous key for a group of species and I was horrible at it. I had the same “ladder instead of tree” misunderstandings of biology that I see in may ID/creationist proponents.
We shouldn’t criticize people for being ignorant, but instead encourage them to cure it.